Socnorb11 wrote:
I don't have a "strong" position, but I see the issue with it.
Quit being a coward. It's not that hard to say where you stand.
I'm not racist because I have a black friend, you guys.
Are you so close-minded that you can't accept that people can have a viewpoint without being judgmental of people who don't have the same viewpoint?
The answer to this, on issues like this, is an overwhelming "yes," Soc. People aren't, and shouldn't be, tolerant of other forms of prejudice and this is no different.
I completely agree, Schlich. I don't consider it to be "prejudiced" just because we have different societal definitions of marriage..... based on the historical intent of marriage. In my mind, gay marriage is more of a political issue than a moral issue. Do we want to reward people simply because they love each other and are wiling to sign a contractual agreement.............. or has there been a deeper intent (historically) for the union that's beneficial to society? I don't really care, because I don't see where it impacts me in the least. However, I do see why the question is there. Why do we reward married people?
We reward married people because they can make new, future taxpayers for our civilization.
Gay people can also adopt kids, and a lot of them do, and that is a big reason why a lot of them want to get married. And frankly I'm totally fine with kids being raised by gay parents. They should get all the benefits of straight parents. Adoption of any kind usually saves a kid from a really bad situation and is also an alternative to abortion for some women. Kids raised by gay parents turn out fine. It turns out the most important thing is the loving relationship between the kids and parents. I don't even think the impact of the parents' gender on the kids can be measured, if there is any impact there to measure.
cardsfansince82 wrote:Soc, do you think people choose to be gay?
I actually don't.
Then why would you ever support anything that denies them the same rights as you? That's no different than supporting different rules for black people, or autistic people, or people who were born more athletic than you, etc etc.
cardsfansince82 wrote:Soc, do you think people choose to be gay?
I actually don't.
Then why would you ever support anything that denies them the same rights as you? That's no different than supporting different rules for black people, or autistic people, or people who were born more athletic than you, etc etc.
"Equal rights" aren't an issue here. I am straight, and I don't have a right to marry someone of the same sex, either. Dan Savage is gay, and he has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex that I have (in fact, he did just that).
Socnorb11 wrote:
I don't have a "strong" position, but I see the issue with it.
Quit being a coward. It's not that hard to say where you stand.
I'm not racist because I have a black friend, you guys.
Are you so close-minded that you can't accept that people can have a viewpoint without being judgmental of people who don't have the same viewpoint?
The answer to this, on issues like this, is an overwhelming "yes," Soc. People aren't, and shouldn't be, tolerant of other forms of prejudice and this is no different.
I completely agree, Schlich. I don't consider it to be "prejudiced" just because we have different societal definitions of marriage..... based on the historical intent of marriage. In my mind, gay marriage is more of a political issue than a moral issue. Do we want to reward people simply because they love each other and are wiling to sign a contractual agreement.............. or has there been a deeper intent (historically) for the union that's beneficial to society? I don't really care, because I don't see where it impacts me in the least. However, I do see why the question is there. Why do we reward married people?
We reward married people because they can make new, future taxpayers for our civilization.
Gay people can also adopt kids, and a lot of them do, and that is a big reason why a lot of them want to get married. And frankly I'm totally fine with kids being raised by gay parents. They should get all the benefits of straight parents. Adoption of any kind usually saves a kid from a really bad situation and is also an alternative to abortion for some women. Kids raised by gay parents turn out fine. It turns out the most important thing is the loving relationship between the kids and parents. I don't even think the impact of the parents' gender on the kids can be measured, if there is any impact there to measure.
Gay people should be able to adopt kids, whether they are married or not.
Again, single people should be able to adopt kids, also.
That's not really the point. The point is that studies have shown that the optimal household structure (both a father and a mother) comes through heterosexual marriage. That's not to say that it CAN'T work any other way, but society encourages what is optimal......... or at least they should.
Let's reverse it. If there is no benefit to marriage (such as reproduction), why would government have ever gotten involved to begin with?
cardsfansince82 wrote:Soc, do you think people choose to be gay?
I actually don't.
Then why would you ever support anything that denies them the same rights as you? That's no different than supporting different rules for black people, or autistic people, or people who were born more athletic than you, etc etc.
"Equal rights" aren't an issue here. I am straight, and I don't have a right to marry someone of the same sex, either. Dan Savage is gay, and he has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex that I have (in fact, he did just that).
thats a terrible argument.
Last edited by Jocephus on July 29 14, 3:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Socnorb11 wrote:
Let's reverse it. If there is no benefit to marriage (such as reproduction), why would government have ever gotten involved to begin with?
I mean, that's where I stand, abolish marriage, but we don't live in that society right now.
Socnorb11 wrote:
Let's reverse it. If there is no benefit to marriage (such as reproduction), why would government have ever gotten involved to begin with?
I mean, that's where I stand, abolish marriage, but we don't live in that society right now.
Actually, I could be more on board with that than you probably think. I'm not TOTALLY there, because ultimately I do understand why heterosexual marriage has been deemed necessary by society. Again society cannot exist without some sort of man/woman connection. Marriage simply encourages that, I think. However, I totally get where you're coming from.
cardsfansince82 wrote:Soc, do you think people choose to be gay?
I actually don't.
Then why would you ever support anything that denies them the same rights as you? That's no different than supporting different rules for black people, or autistic people, or people who were born more athletic than you, etc etc.
"Equal rights" aren't an issue here. I am straight, and I don't have a right to marry someone of the same sex, either. Dan Savage is gay, and he has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex that I have (in fact, he did just that).
thats a terrible argument.
What do you mean? They don't have the same rights that I have?
