Gay marriage

[Napoleon Ier]

Did we? How?

[Neoteny]

Did we? How?

I think by making fun of your age and chuckling knowingly amongst ourselves.

[Frigidus]

Did we? How?

I think by making fun of your age and chuckling knowingly amongst ourselves.

We talked about it a bit in the Heavy Dancers, although now that Guis is gone we find ourselves rather aimless.

[Neoteny]

Did we? How?

I think by making fun of your age and chuckling knowingly amongst ourselves.

We talked about it a bit in the Heavy Dancers, although now that Guis is gone we find ourselves rather aimless.

Less chuckling. More rioting.

[MeDeFe]

I think by making fun of your age and chuckling knowingly amongst ourselves.

We talked about it a bit in the Heavy Dancers, although now that Guis is gone we find ourselves rather aimless.

Less chuckling. More rioting.

Don't forget the burning of junk in old oil barrels.

[Napoleon Ier]

Yeah, no but seriously, your nervous laughter apart, have we? Or...did the gay marriage lobby just get it's ass proverbially whooped?

[detlef]

Yeah, no but seriously, your nervous laughter apart, have we? Or...did the gay marriage lobby just get it's ass proverbially whooped?

You're joking right? OK, you guys talk about how gay marriage is "bad for society". Well, let's talk about "bad for society". Inbreeding is "bad for society". It's screws with the genetic pool.

So, now we've gone down how many slippery slopes? From gays we've gone to inbreeding, drug sales, fighting in the streets, what else?

You do realize extrapolating things to silly levels is pretty much a last gasp for anyone with a sorry argument.

Oh, and to turn this thing around. Can we assume from the fact that you've failed to address the issue that you are a scared little man that, unlike a good republican, is not prepared to just take care of his own business and needs protection from big daddy Dubya? Can we assume that you are, in fact, so insecure in your own marriage that you feel threatened or cheapened by the existence of other marriages that you don't approve of?

[Napoleon Ier]

Yeah, no but seriously, your nervous laughter apart, have we? Or...did the gay marriage lobby just get it's ass proverbially whooped?

You're joking right? OK, you guys talk about how gay marriage is "bad for society". Well, let's talk about "bad for society". Inbreeding is "bad for society". It's screws with the genetic pool.

So, now we've gone down how many slippery slopes? From gays we've gone to inbreeding, drug sales, fighting in the streets, what else?

You do realize extrapolating things to silly levels is pretty much a last gasp for anyone with a sorry argument.

Oh, and to turn this thing around. Can we assume from the fact that you've failed to address the issue that you are a scared little man that, unlike a good republican, is not prepared to just take care of his own business and needs protection from big daddy Dubya? Can we assume that you are, in fact, so insecure in your own marriage that you feel threatened or cheapened by the existence of other marriages that you don't approve of?

I'm not married and not American. I also think "Dubya" is a retard. And no, making an analogy for the benefit of cretins incapable of grasping the original splendour of my a priori isn't a last gasp of anything. Inbreeding screws with the gene pool does it? Then how about same-sex family incestuous marriage? Put that in your bed-wetting latte leftist's hashish pipe and take a trip on it, eh? Eh? Eh?

[detlef]

Yeah, no but seriously, your nervous laughter apart, have we? Or...did the gay marriage lobby just get it's ass proverbially whooped?

You're joking right? OK, you guys talk about how gay marriage is "bad for society". Well, let's talk about "bad for society". Inbreeding is "bad for society". It's screws with the genetic pool.

So, now we've gone down how many slippery slopes? From gays we've gone to inbreeding, drug sales, fighting in the streets, what else?

You do realize extrapolating things to silly levels is pretty much a last gasp for anyone with a sorry argument.

Oh, and to turn this thing around. Can we assume from the fact that you've failed to address the issue that you are a scared little man that, unlike a good republican, is not prepared to just take care of his own business and needs protection from big daddy Dubya? Can we assume that you are, in fact, so insecure in your own marriage that you feel threatened or cheapened by the existence of other marriages that you don't approve of?

I'm not married and not American. I also think "Dubya" is a retard. And no, making an analogy for the benefit of cretins incapable of grasping the original splendour of my a priori isn't a last gasp of anything. Inbreeding screws with the gene pool does it? Then how about same-sex family incestuous marriage? Put that in your bed-wetting latte leftist's hashish pipe and take a trip on it, eh? Eh? Eh?

There are many arguments left undecided in this thread but let's make one thing very clear. Same sex marriage has absolutely no effect on the gene pool. Of this I can assure you.

[Napoleon Ier]

That's not what I'm saying, ignoramus.

[got tonkaed]

That's not what I'm saying, ignoramus.

I just find it amusing that for some reason you believe that by granting the right to allowing this particular group of people to marry because of the consent nature of their relationship, that as a society we would be like...oh well i guess we must let any issue of consent fly. The fact that it clearly would not be like that, suggests the weakness of the argument and the rather childish efforts by those who attempt to steer the debate in that direction, to avoid aspects of the debate they have no answer for.

[Dapper Tom]

Inbreeding screws with the gene pool does it? Then how about same-sex family incestuous marriage?

This question was answered a few pages back... the keyword your searching for is discrimination.

It wouldn't a 'harm' argument that prohibited legislation permitting such an arangement, it'd be a 'discrimination' argument. It'd be drawing an arbitrary line to say that you could marry a sibling of the same sex, but not the opposite sex... regardless of how few people might want to cross it.

Yes yes I hear you howling already, "It's not arbitrary because there's no harm etc"... well by the same argument you've just argued for permiting incestuous non-child-bearing marriages. Sometimes where 'harm' arguments are involved you do have to throw a bit of the baby out with the bathwater.

Anyway, that whole question is a bit of a sideshow and a smokescreen. You still haven't pinned down why it is that homosexual marriage causes any 'harm', all we've been given is vague Devlinite 'erosion of the fabric of society' type arguments, which tend to ring a bit false (what with essentially arguing for freezing society in its current state forever, no matter what, because we can't possibly be wrong now and everything is perfect).

Seriously, can anybody give us any actual concrete reasons for not letting homosexuals marry that don't just boil down to "Gays make me feel a bit weird, and I don't really like them"?

[detlef]

That's not what I'm saying, ignoramus.

You have to admit, that gate was swinging just a little wide open not to drive right through.

[detlef]

Seriously, can anybody give us any actual concrete reasons for not letting homosexuals marry that don't just boil down to "Gays make me feel a bit weird, and I don't really like them"?

And further how does not allowing them to marry help mitigate the fact that they make you feel weird. It doesn't make them go away. It doesn't affect your narrow stereotype of half naked guys in chaps dancing in the streets.

[bradleybadly]

The point you're missing (deliberately or otherwise) is that nobody here is arguing for all consensual activity to be legalised.

No, just the activities that YOU desire to be changed. If you are going to change the law for one group of people based on consent then you are a bigot to not do it for other groups. This is the type of language that your side uses against others so it's fair to use it against you.

Your 'public fighting', 'blood drinking', and 'drug dealing' examples are all things that could be harmful to the individuals involved or to society at large, and as such are undesirable to permit. The former for example would cause a great deal of public disorder, fear to bystanders, and potentially property damage to objects in the vincinity of the activity; furthermore the injuries inevitably sustained during such conduct would be a burden on other members of society who would have to shoulder the cost (through tax or insurance premiums, depending on the jurisdiction) for treating the injured.

Bullshit! If 2 people want to beat the crap out of each other with their fists, who are you to judge them and tell them they can't do it? They're not hurting you. Public disorder is only a byproduct of bigotry towards people who wish to fight each other consensually. The bystanders' fear is really only hatred and prejudice against those people who find happiness is hitting each other. You just wish to deny them of this basic right by trying to put a price tag on this activity with insurance premiums and treatment. If people would just wear ribbons and go on Fight Club walks and raise more money eventually awareness would be raised to a level where not even your bigotry would deny them of this basic civil right. Besides, people who want to consensually fight each other were born that way.

[Nataki Yiro]

I'm still here... and I still agree with Nap and Brad...

[Iliad]

I'm still here... and I still agree with Nap and Brad...

How about you then answer these three questions:

Why can't gays marry? How will it hurt you? How will it change anything for you?

[Neoteny]

I'm still here... and I still agree with Nap and Brad...

How about you then answer these two questions:

Why can't gays marry? How will it hurt you? How will it change anything for you?

Your hearts in the right place Illy, but your counting leaves much to be desired.

[Neoteny]

I'm still here... and I still agree with Nap and Brad...

Now that's a crew. Where's Jenos?

[Iliad]

I'm still here... and I still agree with Nap and Brad...

How about you then answer these two questions:

Why can't gays marry? How will it hurt you? How will it change anything for you?

Your hearts in the right place Illy, but your counting leaves much to be desired.

I had a second question but then realised it was a continuation of the first querstion

[bbqpenguin]

gay marriage detrimental to society? really? how could love possibly be corrosive to any culture?

[Dancing Mustard]

f*ck this, I'm back from my ban, I've been watching you argue with Tom for afar... and you're starting to annoy me.

The point you're missing (deliberately or otherwise) is that nobody here is arguing for all consensual activity to be legalised.

No, just the activities that YOU desire to be changed. If you are going to change the law for one group of people based on consent then you are a bigot to not do it for other groups. This is the type of language that your side uses against others so it's fair to use it against you.

The point, Bradleybadly
Bradleybadly, the point.

Sorry for doing introductions there, but it doesn't look like you two have actually met.

Who cares whether we're arguing for one or all consensual actitvities being legalised? It's completely beside the point. If you want to legalise fistfighting, then set up a thread and lets debate it. You'll be wrong there too... but you're well within your rights. We're not bigots simply for not trying to right all of the wrongs of the world at the same time.

The point (which you seem determined to miss) is that we're not arguing for a general legalisation of anything consensual, we're just arguing for legalisation of one particular harmless consensual activity.
Yes, perhaps there are other activities that ought to be legalised. Perhaps they too are harmless. But it's not really relevant to the topic at hand, as they will inevitably come with their own raft of arguments and counter-arguments. So for the time being, we have to be pragmatic, and stick to correcting one problem at once.

In short: If anybody here was arguing for a general legislative policy of legalising all consensual activity, then you'd have a vague point... but they're not, so you don't.
Gay Marriage and Fistfighting are two very different things, and have two very different sets of arguments surrounding them; that's why it's not bigoted to argue for legalising one and not the other.

Your 'public fighting', 'blood drinking', and 'drug dealing' examples are all things that could be harmful to the individuals involved or to society at large, and as such are undesirable to permit. The former for example would cause a great deal of public disorder, fear to bystanders, and potentially property damage to objects in the vincinity of the activity; furthermore the injuries inevitably sustained during such conduct would be a burden on other members of society who would have to shoulder the cost (through tax or insurance premiums, depending on the jurisdiction) for treating the injured.

Bullshit! If 2 people want to beat the crap out of each other with their fists, who are you to judge them and tell them they can't do it? A sane human who isn't clutching at outlandish straws to prop up a failing argument... that's who They're not hurting you. Public disorder is only a byproduct of bigotry towards people who wish to fight each other consensually. The bystanders' fear is really only hatred and prejudice against those people who find happiness is hitting each other. Yeah... that and the genuine fear of having their private property damaged by brawling parties, and genuine fear of being caught up in the brawl themselves, or accidentally caught by the blows/missiles of fighting parties. Also, we already let people do consensual fighting in safe spaces where all of the genuine societal harm is contained, it's called boxing. That alone denys your argument most of its force You just wish to deny them of this basic right by trying to put a price tag on this activity with insurance premiums and treatment. Erm... I'm talking about taxes used treating this people by National Health Services, and increased Health Insurance Premiums you have pay for treating the cost of consensualy injured people. If people would just wear ribbons and go on Fight Club walks and raise more money eventually awareness would be raised to a level where not even your bigotry would deny them of this basic civil right. Sure, if they could come up with some logical arguments for why their activity was socially harmless... then maybe. But I'm guessing they can't. Besides, people who want to consensually fight each other were born that way. Maybe, maybe not. But it doesn't really matter, because predisposed or not, people can't just be allowed to run around causing damage to bystanders, private property, and the economy simply because they feel like it

Sorry Brad... valiant try there. But what Tom's saying makes complete sense, and no amount of semantic tricks or rhetorical wriggling is going to change that fact. Nor is arguing for clearly bizzare propositions (or accusing people doing the same) going to bolster your credibility in this discussion.

Now come on, let's try to discuss this like adults, instead of resorting to the usual 'Liberals are evil and all they do is call me names, which is only allowed when I'm doing it to others' howling eh?

[PLAYER57832]

The more I read of your various postings, the more convinced I am that you lot are really a bunch of liberals doing your best to show how false the far right truly is ....

[Backglass]

The more I read of your various postings, the more convinced I am that you lot are really a bunch of liberals doing your best to show how false the far right truly is ....

LOL. No need to prove anything. The right has done a fine job on it's own. Just look around at the fine state of the nation. How proud they must be!

I still find it sad that in 2008 this is even an issue. I could care less what people do in their own home or who they marry. Two gay people getting married has no bearing whatsoever on my marriage or life. The whole "detrimental to society" angle is downright silly. Why are so many people terrified of gays?

[tzor]

The question has been raised on whether gay marriage is “harmful to society.” I think it is time for this generally religious and generally conservative male to stand up and ask, “Are you nuts?” But seriously there are many things that are harmful to society; if gay marriage is harmful it’s got to be on the bottom of the list.

As a Roman Catholic I have a very strong opinion on marriage as a sacrament. I also put a lot of importance in the teaching of the Church and the Sacred Scriptures in the Bible. Marriage in the New Testament is considered a very sacred institution. Yet if you look at the writings, including the statements of Jesus you will see their biggest complaint is the question of divorce and remarriage. Yet strangely those Christians who think that the Book of Genesis is an exact literal science manual somehow seem to completely miss all the prohibitions on the subject of divorce.

I think there is no question that divorce is “harmful to society.” The only people who win in a divorce are the lawyers. It is exceptionally hard on the children who are forced to choose sides between two people they love simply because of a process that puts two people who formerly declared that they would be together until death into a fight for who gets what.

Marriage is the union of two people, often resulting in the addition of children. (Note that these children could also be adopted.) For this to work there has to be some effort dedicated towards maintaining this union. Frequently however, both couples tend to have full time employment, as well as other activities allowing no time for each other or for their children. The raising of children is in and of itself if not a full time job, at least a part time one. The maintaining of a relationship is also a part time job. Both are often flat out ignored and as a result children suffer, marriages suffer, and society suffers.

Most single parents realize that it takes at least 1.5 people to raise children and that they have to work 50% harder at everything in order to do the job properly. Such people should be getting medals for going above and beyond the call of duty and society should be working overtime making sure that they are helped as much as possible; not the couple who are working overtime simply because they wanted to start off in a house the same size that their parents ended with after some two decades of hard work and saving (or as was so often the case before the mortgage crisis twice as large).

These are the threats to society. Two people who might be of the same gender who want to share a life together (and once again I don’t see what sex has to do in this matter in any manner whatsoever; homosexuals and heterosexuals still have sex outside of marriage and some people live together without sex) do not in and of themselves cause a threat to society. To the Hypocrites who thump the Bible against same gender but ignore the verses on divorce those people whom you complain about will probably be entering the Kingdom of God long before you. (Along with those prostitutes and tax collectors.)