GatewayRedbirds.com

Jocephus wrote:

Socnorb11 wrote:

Jocephus wrote:i think the difference is "the right to marry" and have all the legal protections that married people do. im sure there are several gay men and women who have no interest in marriage. just like i, as a heterosexual, do not care for the idea either. but im not opposed to people who do, be they gay or straight.

Sure, but there are legitimate reasons why people oppose gay marriage, that have nothing to do with being "anti-gay".

lets hear 'em.

I'd prefer not to get into a huge "gay marriage" debate here, because I don't have a strong position either way. You probably already know the jist of the argument, which is procreation. Simply put - can a socieity survive and thrive without gay unity/marriage? I think the answer is "yes". Can a society survive and thrive without heterosexual unity/marriage? The answer is obviously "no" (because of the procreation issue). That's why "marriage" has always been understood to be man/woman, and that's why society has always encouraged (and rewarded) heterosexual marriage.

That has nothing to do with "hating gays" or not wanting them to be happy.

7.046 billion (2012)
Earth, Population

its another lame excuse

and here, bookmark this to check if we are indeed running out of procreating folks

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

I'm pretty sure marriage isn't a requirement for procreation to occur.

Socnorb11 wrote:That has nothing to do with "hating gays" or not wanting them to be happy.

How would you describe the view that mixed race marriages should be prohibited because society can thrive without them?

cardsfansince82 wrote:I'm pretty sure marriage isn't a requirement for procreation to occur.

Marriage isn't, but a male/female unity of some sort is........... and society has proven over and over again that although heterosexual marriage isn't perfect, it's by far the most effective means of successful procreation. Society has always believed this, and studies have shown that it's true. That's why society encourages it and rewards it.

The point is that was initially the purpose of marriage....... as a means of maintaining and encouraging societal procreation. You can't just redefine "marriage" to mean what you want it to mean.

Arthur Dent wrote:

Socnorb11 wrote:That has nothing to do with "hating gays" or not wanting them to be happy.

How would you describe the view that mixed race marriages should be prohibited because society can thrive without them?

I wouldn't acknowledge race......... that's how I would view it.

Man/woman. That's all that's needed for procreation.

yes you can. words get re-defined and/or have multiple meanings all the time.

Michael Scott: Did you know that gay used to mean happy? When I was growing up it meant lame. And now it means a man, who makes love... to other men.

Socnorb11 wrote:

Arthur Dent wrote:

Socnorb11 wrote:That has nothing to do with "hating gays" or not wanting them to be happy.

How would you describe the view that mixed race marriages should be prohibited because society can thrive without them?

I wouldn't acknowledge race......... that's how I would view it.

Man/woman. That's all that's needed for procreation.

But if someone tried to argue that such marriages should be prohibited, I imagine that you'd consider that person to be a racist.

Arthur Dent wrote:

Socnorb11 wrote:

Arthur Dent wrote:

Socnorb11 wrote:That has nothing to do with "hating gays" or not wanting them to be happy.

How would you describe the view that mixed race marriages should be prohibited because society can thrive without them?

I wouldn't acknowledge race......... that's how I would view it.

Man/woman. That's all that's needed for procreation.

But if someone tried to argue that such marriages should be prohibited, I imagine that you'd consider that person to be a racist.

I would. As I said, race has nothing to do with this issue, in my opinion.

Socnorb11 wrote:

cardsfansince82 wrote:I'm pretty sure marriage isn't a requirement for procreation to occur.

Marriage isn't, but a male/female unity of some sort is........... and society has proven over and over again that although heterosexual marriage isn't perfect, it's by far the most effective means of successful procreation. Society has always believed this, and studies have shown that it's true. That's why society encourages it and rewards it.

The point is that was initially the purpose of marriage....... as a means of maintaining and encouraging societal procreation. You can't just redefine "marriage" to mean what you want it to mean.

So I guess you were lying earlier when you said you "don't have a strong position either way" on gay marriage. And also please don't confuse your religious beliefs are representative of society as a whole.

Marriage until fairly recently had as a primary purpose establishing the woman as a piece of property who didn't have to consent to sex. Good thing that got redefined.