DOMA & Prop 8 Topic

bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 4/3/2013 12:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 12:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 4/3/2013 11:58:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 11:50:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 4/3/2013 5:57:00 AM (view original):
I did not give "inability to raise children as well" as a reason not to allow gay marriage.  Somebody else mentioned gays adopting children and I responded, as a tangental discussion.
So we agree that children have nothing to do with the gay marriage argument.
Sure.
Cool.

And your argument is that allowing gays to marry is a change to marriage?
Yes.
OK. I guess my response to that is, so what? Marriage has changed many times before.

It used to be a property arrangement. It was also a way for families to consolidate power. Marriages used to be arranged (and still are in some parts of the world). Wives used to be considered the property of their husbands. Adultery used to be a crime. Divorces not allowed (and then only allowed in certain circumstances). Marriages in the US used to be restricted to people of the same race and interracial marriage wasn't completely legal until 1967. And in many states gays are marrying now. The sky hasn't fallen. Marriage hasn't been ruined for anyone else.
4/3/2013 12:54 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/3/2013 11:53:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 11:17:00 AM (view original):
So I can't tell a gay man to "find a woman partner"?

I know you understand what I'm saying.    This person, forbidden to marry the person they believe to be their "soul mate", is being told "Nah, find someone else."

THAT'S EXACTLY what homosexuals were told forever.
I know you understand what I'm saying.  It's one person they are insisting on choosing.  Gay men and women have millions.

And you understand what I'm saying.  

But, pretending you don't, you're restricting a marriage that will produce so mangled offspring simply because it doesn't "feel right".     And, to make matters worse, you're saying "Oh, just pick someone else.  C'mon!"

Horrible.

4/3/2013 1:06 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18995 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 152 32 129
Prospect
Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 12:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 4/3/2013 12:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 12:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 4/3/2013 11:58:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 11:50:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 4/3/2013 5:57:00 AM (view original):
I did not give "inability to raise children as well" as a reason not to allow gay marriage.  Somebody else mentioned gays adopting children and I responded, as a tangental discussion.
So we agree that children have nothing to do with the gay marriage argument.
Sure.
Cool.

And your argument is that allowing gays to marry is a change to marriage?
Yes.
OK. I guess my response to that is, so what? Marriage has changed many times before.

It used to be a property arrangement. It was also a way for families to consolidate power. Marriages used to be arranged (and still are in some parts of the world). Wives used to be considered the property of their husbands. Adultery used to be a crime. Divorces not allowed (and then only allowed in certain circumstances). Marriages in the US used to be restricted to people of the same race and interracial marriage wasn't completely legal until 1967. And in many states gays are marrying now. The sky hasn't fallen. Marriage hasn't been ruined for anyone else.
Marriage has always been between males and females.  That's been a constant aspect of marriage, and universal in all cultures since the beginning of human civilization.

Do you deny that?
4/3/2013 1:10 PM
burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 1:06:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/3/2013 11:53:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 11:17:00 AM (view original):
So I can't tell a gay man to "find a woman partner"?

I know you understand what I'm saying.    This person, forbidden to marry the person they believe to be their "soul mate", is being told "Nah, find someone else."

THAT'S EXACTLY what homosexuals were told forever.
I know you understand what I'm saying.  It's one person they are insisting on choosing.  Gay men and women have millions.

And you understand what I'm saying.  

But, pretending you don't, you're restricting a marriage that will produce so mangled offspring simply because it doesn't "feel right".     And, to make matters worse, you're saying "Oh, just pick someone else.  C'mon!"

Horrible.

Fine.  You're right, to a point.  So I'll allow the 100 or so people who managed to fall in love with their siblings to get married if it also means the millions of gay men and women can get married too.  Fair?
4/3/2013 1:14 PM
burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
tec,

Transportation has been either walking or using an animal since the beginning of time.  For millions of years (or 10,000 years).  Now we use machines.  All of a sudden! It's scary. Ban them?!?
4/3/2013 1:15 PM
bistiza
Posts: 3022 (0)
Hall of Famer
40 50 11 185 15
Prospect
What about the people who argue homosexuality itself (which would include gay marriage) is wrong because it isn't natural? Technically they have a point because if it were natural, two men or two women would be able to produce offspring.

Another interesting question is this: If evolution is true (jury's still out on that one, but that's another topic) then according to that theory homosexuality should have gone the way of the dodo a long time ago, as homosexuals cannot reproduce naturally and therefore cannot pass on their genetic material to another generation, so why are there still homosexuals at all?

Yeah, these are devil's advocates questions - MikeT23 is doing it, so I thought I'd get in on it.

4/3/2013 1:17 PM
burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
I would agree it isn't "natural" the way you're describing it.  

Homosexuality obviously isn't hereditary. 

In response to your previous response - "You can hire anyone who is the same sex as you.  That's equality." - does that make sense?
4/3/2013 1:21 PM
bistiza
Posts: 3022 (0)
Hall of Famer
40 50 11 185 15
Prospect
So if you agree homosexuality isn't natural, then you'd also have to agree an argument that gay marriage should not be legalized based on the idea that it isn't natural has logical merit.

I fail to see how hiring someone is analogous to marriage.

4/3/2013 1:24 PM
burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
For those who say it isn't "natural"...what does that matter?  Birth control isn't natural.  Ban it?
4/3/2013 1:24 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/3/2013 1:14:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 1:06:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/3/2013 11:53:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 11:17:00 AM (view original):
So I can't tell a gay man to "find a woman partner"?

I know you understand what I'm saying.    This person, forbidden to marry the person they believe to be their "soul mate", is being told "Nah, find someone else."

THAT'S EXACTLY what homosexuals were told forever.
I know you understand what I'm saying.  It's one person they are insisting on choosing.  Gay men and women have millions.

And you understand what I'm saying.  

But, pretending you don't, you're restricting a marriage that will produce so mangled offspring simply because it doesn't "feel right".     And, to make matters worse, you're saying "Oh, just pick someone else.  C'mon!"

Horrible.

Fine.  You're right, to a point.  So I'll allow the 100 or so people who managed to fall in love with their siblings to get married if it also means the millions of gay men and women can get married too.  Fair?
Cool.  We've covered incestual marriage.   How about polygamy?    Do you believe it's possible for a man to love a woman and a man equally?
4/3/2013 1:25 PM
burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
Hiring someone is not analogous to marriage.  But we're talking about equality, and that's a statement, based on your logic, that shows equality.
4/3/2013 1:25 PM
burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 1:25:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/3/2013 1:14:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 1:06:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/3/2013 11:53:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 11:17:00 AM (view original):
So I can't tell a gay man to "find a woman partner"?

I know you understand what I'm saying.    This person, forbidden to marry the person they believe to be their "soul mate", is being told "Nah, find someone else."

THAT'S EXACTLY what homosexuals were told forever.
I know you understand what I'm saying.  It's one person they are insisting on choosing.  Gay men and women have millions.

And you understand what I'm saying.  

But, pretending you don't, you're restricting a marriage that will produce so mangled offspring simply because it doesn't "feel right".     And, to make matters worse, you're saying "Oh, just pick someone else.  C'mon!"

Horrible.

Fine.  You're right, to a point.  So I'll allow the 100 or so people who managed to fall in love with their siblings to get married if it also means the millions of gay men and women can get married too.  Fair?
Cool.  We've covered incestual marriage.   How about polygamy?    Do you believe it's possible for a man to love a woman and a man equally?
So you're cool with gay marriage now? Since we allowed sibling marriage, yes?
4/3/2013 1:27 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
You obviously haven't read the entire thread.

I could care less if gays marry.  But I think it opens doors and I think we should determine if those doors should be open.  

I'm a "Let's operate now" rather than "Let's put a band-aid on it today and see how it is tomorrow" kind of guy.


I know that's not how things work in America courts but I think we'd be better off if it did.
4/3/2013 1:31 PM
burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
To answer your question, I don't really know enough about polygamy to make an argument for or against it.  Does the "first wive" know that it's a polygamous marriage?  I really don't know much about how they work.  
4/3/2013 1:32 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
FWIW, I'm not OK with sibling marriage.   I won't be.  Under any circumstance.   I was just arguing against your point of "They have other options!"

Let's assume all wives/husbands would have to consent to bringing another party into their marriage.     OK by you?
4/3/2013 1:36 PM
◂ Prev 1...26|27|28|29|30...358 Next ▸
DOMA & Prop 8 Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.