Political Crossfire Forums

SavannahMan · Joined: 09 Jun 2004 Posts: 1307

EugenicHegemony wrote: Yes, I see no reason why anyone thinks they can tell another how they can live their lives and who they can marry. It's absurd, to think anyone has such say.

The Polygamist mantra.

(as well as the exact wording of a guy on Springer who wanted to marry his sister)

mport1 · Joined: 13 Sep 2004 Posts: 1123

SavannahMan wrote: EugenicHegemony wrote: Yes, I see no reason why anyone thinks they can tell another how they can live their lives and who they can marry. It's absurd, to think anyone has such say.

The Polygamist mantra.

(as well as the exact wording of a guy on Springer who wanted to marry his sister)

Why should polygamy be illegal?

mport1 · Joined: 13 Sep 2004 Posts: 1123

SavannahMan wrote: Shim Eun-Ha wrote: Whatever brings pleasure is plenty natural.

The NAMBLA mantra.

Children are not old enough to be able to make rational and reasoned decisions for themselves. That is why what NAMBLA suggest should remain illegal.

feederband · Joined: 26 Jan 2006 Posts: 4062 Location: Florida

Gays should not be able to be married. They can be together as far as I'm concerned....Call it something else just not marriage... :wink:

F'losrix · Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 2:58 pm Post subject:

feederband wrote: Gays should not be able to be married. They can be together as far as I'm concerned....Call it something else just not marriage... :wink:
Have you even read he rest of the thread? Spouting a mere opinion without providing supporting arguments can be construed as trolling, especially since we've already addressed the basics of such an argument multiple times over.

Jaxian · Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 3:07 pm Post subject:

feederband wrote: Gays should not be able to be married. They can be together as far as I'm concerned....Call it something else just not marriage... :wink:

Straights should not be able to be married. They can call be together as far as I'm concerned. Call it something else, just not marriage.

It is easy for one to state his opinions, but if there is no reason to agree with those opinions, then why should we? If you believe that gays should not be able to be married, then don't just state your belief: explain why you believe it.

Why do you believe that your disapproval of homosexuality justifies giving same-sex relationships lesser recognition under the law?

snakeartemis · Joined: 13 Feb 2006 Posts: 8

I am beginning to find that when many of our left wing friends start losing an argument or when they can not logically argue with the statement, they resort to disecting the piece and spewing accusations on the writer for being 'close minded', 'a redneck', or as 'boorish.' I just wanted to point out that out because it is quite funny if you think about it.

Anyways, marriage is between a man and a woman and the purpose of marriage or 'civil union' is to procreate. If any of you can show me how to make a man impregnate another man, I will immediately retract any and all of my statements regarding the moral and social incorrectness of homosexuality. But since none of you can show me that, because it is biologically impossible, my case stands.

I also wish to point out that the reason that married couples get governmental benefits is because they have the possibility of supporting children that come from the couples' loins, not adoption. I know that some people adopt, but the biological possibility for conception is still there.

Gryff1nd0r · Joined: 12 Nov 2004 Posts: 2430 Location: Cambridge, MA

snakeartemis wrote:
Anyways, marriage is between a man and a woman and the purpose of marriage or 'civil union' is to procreate. If any of you can show me how to make a man impregnate another man, I will immediately retract any and all of my statements regarding the moral and social incorrectness of homosexuality. But since none of you can show me that, because it is biologically impossible, my case stands.

I also wish to point out that the reason that married couples get governmental benefits is because they have the possibility of supporting children that come from the couples' loins, not adoption. I know that some people adopt, but the biological possibility for conception is still there.

Nice, except that you forgot about infertile or older couples. Should they not be allowed to marry? The biological possibility of conception is not there!

Is it not beneficial to extend rights to a gay couple with the expectation that they may adopt a child who would otherwise be homeless? That is extremely beneficial to the child and to society.

mport1 wrote: Why should polygamy be illegal?

I don't think that it should be illegal to live under such an arrangement, but you can't seriously expect the government to provide benefits to polygamous groups like they do for marriage. The same economic and civil implications of a married couple with a family do not apply. That law would be seriously abused.

Gryff1nd0r · Joined: 12 Nov 2004 Posts: 2430 Location: Cambridge, MA

snakeartemis wrote:
Anyways, marriage is between a man and a woman and the purpose of marriage or 'civil union' is to procreate. If any of you can show me how to make a man impregnate another man, I will immediately retract any and all of my statements regarding the moral and social incorrectness of homosexuality. But since none of you can show me that, because it is biologically impossible, my case stands.

I also wish to point out that the reason that married couples get governmental benefits is because they have the possibility of supporting children that come from the couples' loins, not adoption. I know that some people adopt, but the biological possibility for conception is still there.

Nice, except that you forgot about infertile or older couples. Should they not be allowed to marry? The biological possibility of conception is not there!

Is it not beneficial to extend rights to a gay couple with the expectation that they may adopt a child who would otherwise be homeless? That is extremely beneficial to the child and to society.

mport1 wrote: Why should polygamy be illegal?

I don't think that it should be illegal to live under such an arrangement, but you can't seriously expect the government to provide benefits to polygamous groups like they do for marriage. The same economic and civil implications of a married couple with a family do not apply. That law would be seriously abused.

Gryff1nd0r · Joined: 12 Nov 2004 Posts: 2430 Location: Cambridge, MA

snakeartemis wrote:
Anyways, marriage is between a man and a woman and the purpose of marriage or 'civil union' is to procreate. If any of you can show me how to make a man impregnate another man, I will immediately retract any and all of my statements regarding the moral and social incorrectness of homosexuality. But since none of you can show me that, because it is biologically impossible, my case stands.

I also wish to point out that the reason that married couples get governmental benefits is because they have the possibility of supporting children that come from the couples' loins, not adoption. I know that some people adopt, but the biological possibility for conception is still there.

Nice, except that you forgot about infertile or older couples. Should they not be allowed to marry? The biological possibility of conception is not there!

Is it not beneficial to extend rights to a gay couple with the expectation that they may adopt a child who would otherwise be homeless? That is extremely beneficial to the child and to society.

mport1 wrote: Why should polygamy be illegal?

I don't think that it should be illegal to live under such an arrangement, but you can't seriously expect the government to provide benefits to polygamous groups like they do for marriage. The same economic and civil implications of a married couple with a family do not apply. That law would be seriously abused.

Gryff1nd0r · Joined: 12 Nov 2004 Posts: 2430 Location: Cambridge, MA

snakeartemis wrote:
Anyways, marriage is between a man and a woman and the purpose of marriage or 'civil union' is to procreate. If any of you can show me how to make a man impregnate another man, I will immediately retract any and all of my statements regarding the moral and social incorrectness of homosexuality. But since none of you can show me that, because it is biologically impossible, my case stands.

I also wish to point out that the reason that married couples get governmental benefits is because they have the possibility of supporting children that come from the couples' loins, not adoption. I know that some people adopt, but the biological possibility for conception is still there.

Nice, except that you forgot about infertile or older couples. Should they not be allowed to marry? The biological possibility of conception is not there!

Is it not beneficial to extend rights to a gay couple with the expectation that they may adopt a child who would otherwise be homeless? That is extremely beneficial to the child and to society.

mport1 wrote: Why should polygamy be illegal?

I don't think that it should be illegal to live under such an arrangement, but you can't seriously expect the government to provide benefits to polygamous groups like they do for marriage. The same economic and civil implications of a married couple with a family do not apply. That law would be seriously abused.

Gryff1nd0r · Joined: 12 Nov 2004 Posts: 2430 Location: Cambridge, MA

snakeartemis wrote:
Anyways, marriage is between a man and a woman and the purpose of marriage or 'civil union' is to procreate. If any of you can show me how to make a man impregnate another man, I will immediately retract any and all of my statements regarding the moral and social incorrectness of homosexuality. But since none of you can show me that, because it is biologically impossible, my case stands.

I also wish to point out that the reason that married couples get governmental benefits is because they have the possibility of supporting children that come from the couples' loins, not adoption. I know that some people adopt, but the biological possibility for conception is still there.

Nice, except that you forgot about infertile or older couples. Should they not be allowed to marry? The biological possibility of conception is not there!

Is it not beneficial to extend rights to a gay couple with the expectation that they may adopt a child who would otherwise be homeless? That is extremely beneficial to the child and to society.

mport1 wrote: Why should polygamy be illegal?

I don't think that it should be illegal to live under such an arrangement, but you can't seriously expect the government to provide benefits to polygamous groups like they do for marriage. The same economic and civil implications of a married couple with a family do not apply. That law would be seriously abused.

Gryff1nd0r · Joined: 12 Nov 2004 Posts: 2430 Location: Cambridge, MA

Holy s**t, that's the first time THAT'S ever happened. Sorry.

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 9042

snakeartemis wrote: I am beginning to find that when many of our left wing friends start losing an argument or when they can not logically argue with the statement, they resort to disecting the piece and spewing accusations on the writer for being 'close minded', 'a redneck', or as 'boorish.' I just wanted to point out that out because it is quite funny if you think about it.

Anyways, marriage is between a man and a woman and the purpose of marriage or 'civil union' is to procreate. If any of you can show me how to make a man impregnate another man, I will immediately retract any and all of my statements regarding the moral and social incorrectness of homosexuality. But since none of you can show me that, because it is biologically impossible, my case stands.

I also wish to point out that the reason that married couples get governmental benefits is because they have the possibility of supporting children that come from the couples' loins, not adoption. I know that some people adopt, but the biological possibility for conception is still there.

Okay, if you can show me how the legal recognition of marriage is just about procreation, I will retract my stance.

Oh, wait, you can't.

F'losrix · Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 9:58 pm Post subject:

snakeartemis wrote: Anyways, marriage is between a man and a woman and the purpose of marriage or 'civil union' is to procreate.
Prove it. Wedding ceremonies only mention children as a possibility in passing. If procreation is the primary purpose of marriage, it's reasonable that we should expect to hear them emphasized a great deal more, not barely mentioned at all (which is the reality).

A marriage license isn't a license to procreate. We don't need marriage at all for that.

If you mean it's for the raising of a family, marriage isn't required for that either. Nor does one have to procreate to raise a family - there are plenty of kids that need adoptive homes.

Quote: If any of you can show me how to make a man impregnate another man, I will immediately retract any and all of my statements regarding the moral and social incorrectness of homosexuality.
How does the ability to impregnate someone equate to being moral and the inability to do so, immorality?

Quote: But since none of you can show me that, because it is biologically impossible, my case stands.
You don't have a case. More like a wet paper bag with a big hole in the bottom.

Quote: I also wish to point out that the reason that married couples get governmental benefits is because they have the possibility of supporting children that come from the couples' loins, not adoption.
I frankly don't see how it would be anymore important for us to support the couples who are having the children than the couples who are raising them. If anything, I'd say the latter is far more important, and since children aren't always raised by their biological parents, I'd have to say your argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny. If that is the rationale behind it, it's a poor one.

Quote: I know that some people adopt, but the biological possibility for conception is still there.
Not if your completely infertile, as in don't have the organs necessary to accomplish it. Should we let heterosexual couples get married if the woman has had a hysterectomy? After all, she has no biological possibility for conception.

The reason we support marriage with legal benefits isn't just because of children. We do it because people are generally better off when they form family units for the purpose of taking care of each other and that helps to stabilize society.

EugenicHegemony · Joined: 28 Jul 2005 Posts: 4658

This is a perfect example of why morals are subjective and must never be aggressed on another's...

LDA · Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 508 Location: Raleigh, NC

feederband wrote: Gays should not be able to be married. They can be together as far as I'm concerned....Call it something else just not marriage... :wink:

This time of thinking doesn't go over so well with most gays. When you bring up the fact that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, they will probably note that you are absolutely insane. It isn't enough to have something that is exactly like marriage; the definition of the word must be changed. There's a good reason for this. If the definition of marriage can be changed to include same-sex relationships, then they've accomplished a few things. First, they've defeated the English language. Secondly, they have essentially "stolen" the word, and as a result of that, can rub it in the face of everyone who objects to the practice of homosexuality.

F'losrix · Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:52 am Post subject:

LDA wrote: feederband wrote: Gays should not be able to be married. They can be together as far as I'm concerned....Call it something else just not marriage... :wink:

This time of thinking doesn't go over so well with most gays. When you bring up the fact that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, they will probably note that you are absolutely insane.
Insane? No. Biased as to one's thoughts about marriage? Yes.

Quote: It isn't enough to have something that is exactly like marriage
There isn't anything exactly like marriage. And if two things are exactly alike, why do you need a separate word for them anyway?

Quote: the definition of the word must be changed.
The anti-gay marriage crowd are fond of pretending that there is a singular, static definition of marriage. A simple web search though, clearly illustrates that there is more than one accepted definition of the word, and many different ideas about just what a marriage is.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+marriage

As to the idea that marriage has always been the same, it is easily demonstrable that marriage is (and likely always has been) treated differently within various cultures throughout history. Heterosexuality may historically be a common thread, but it's hardly the end all, be all of its definition.

Quote: There's a good reason for this. If the definition of marriage can be changed to include same-sex relationships, then they've accomplished a few things. First, they've defeated the English language.
Gay people are on a mission to defeat the English language? I must not have gotten the memo about that one - it wasn't listed on my copy of our 'agenda' [end sarcasm]

Quote: Secondly, they have essentially "stolen" the word
BS. Apart from the completely separate issue of trademarked words and phrases, no one 'owns' language or the words that comprise it. Since ownership doesn't apply, neither does theft. Heterosexuals, churches, etc. don't own the own the word 'marriage' any more than gay couples own the phrase 'civil union'.

Quote: and as a result of that, can rub it in the face of everyone who objects to the practice of homosexuality.
So your argument is that gay couples want legal recognition of their marriages in order to corrupt the English language and hold that recognition up to the faces of their opponents in a taunting celebration of their 'victory'.

If you're incapable of recognizing how utterly ridiculous that sounds or how completely devoid of logical reasoning the idea is, then perhaps you're right - maybe you really are insane.

Kt · Joined: 23 Jan 2006 Posts: 3806

thegriffinator13 wrote: Holy s**t, that's the first time THAT'S ever happened. Sorry.
WHoa, five posts in a row :))

StrangerWitCandy · Joined: 02 Feb 2005 Posts: 5453 Location: Fairfax, VA

LDA wrote: It isn't enough to have something that is exactly like marriage; the definition of the word must be changed. There's a good reason for this. If the definition of marriage can be changed to include same-sex relationships, then they've accomplished a few things. First, they've defeated the English language. Secondly, they have essentially "stolen" the word, and as a result of that, can rub it in the face of everyone who objects to the practice of homosexuality.

Yes and we've nearly succeeded! watch out, Spanish, YOU'RE NEXT!! MUAHAHAHA! :twisted: