In response to:

Marriage Equality to Triumph in 4 States

HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Nov 07, 2012 11:12 AM
I have a question for all those who have expressed opposition to gay marriage. Are you open to the possibility that you could be wrong on this issue? The same question applies to those who were in favor of it. Is anyone here willing to concede that their position on gay marriage was wrong? If no one is willing to admit or even consider this possibility, then how is their position reasonable?
realitycheck2012 Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 5:18 PM
Homosexual marriage degrades a time-honored institution.
Homosexual marriage is an empty pretense that lacks the fundamental sexual complementariness of male and female. And like all counterfeits, it cheapens and degrades the real thing. The destructive effects may not be immediately apparent, but the cumulative damage is inescapable. The eminent Harvard sociologist, Pitirim Sorokin, analyzed cultures spanning several thousand years on several continents, and found that virtually no society has ceased to regulate sexuality within marriage as traditionally defined, and survived.
Jay Wye Wrote: Nov 07, 2012 8:03 PM
1000's of years of human existence has proven homosexuality to be unhealthy and destructive.
Enabling or accommodating it is not a good idea.
HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 8:32 AM
Could you please provide some research to support this conclusion? If homosexuality is so damaging, then why has it survived in every culture at every time period? Also, if homosexuality is destructive, is it more destructive than the effects of alcohol and tobacco? Please provide some evidence to back up your claim.
abe822 Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 2:32 PM
Considering the per capita use of alcohol, tobacco and illegal drugs among the gay community, only a fool would ignore the facts and replace it with a piece of political correct garbage.
way2smart4u Wrote: Nov 07, 2012 11:37 AM
Sorry, your logic here is flaky. If it's raining and I say it's raining, and you say it's not, and neither of us is willing to reconsider our respective position, does that mean mine is not reasonable? With respect to gay "marriage", does not nature itself argue against? If you need help with the answer, any sharp 4th grader can help you.
abe822 Wrote: Nov 07, 2012 11:53 AM
Sharp 4th graders know 2 men don't make a baby via natural processes. Unless they're indoctrinated with the message that what is proven unnatural is natural.
HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Nov 07, 2012 12:32 PM
Yes, it is unreasonable if you're not open to even the possibility that you could be wrong. It may not be probable, but it could be possible. If you aren't open to that possibility, then that means no evidence to the contrary will change your mind. And that by definition is an unreasonable viewpoint. As for nature, I don't recall marriage being "nature." Historically and culturally speaking, it is a social construct. Nature doesn't have anything to do with it.
HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Nov 07, 2012 12:34 PM
Reproduction is not required for marriage. It is not a listed requirement in any marriage law or regulation. This country does not bar infertile couples from getting married so this is not valid a reason for opposing gay marriage.
abe822 Wrote: Nov 07, 2012 12:52 PM
The preventable diseases, the proven shortened lifespan, the drug and alcohol abuse, propensity for mental illness amongst gays is easy to ignore when you think that nature has nothing to do with showing the negative consequences of such behavior.
HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Nov 07, 2012 1:19 PM
Correlation does not equal causation. Does homosexuality cause these conditions or does the treatment of homosexuals cause it? This is a question that hasn't been answered. Also, are these conditions more serious than other legal, non-controversial conditions like alcoholism or smoking? Do you have any hard data to compare the death rates between them?
Jay Wye Wrote: Nov 07, 2012 8:06 PM
being "in love" is not a requisite either. many marriages are arranged.
there are all man-woman,though,the SOLE definition of marriage.

Homo "marriage" is a pretense,most homo "marriages" are OPEN,and thus not true unions. it's a pathetic attempt by homos to appear normal,and to gain access to young children.
Jay Wye Wrote: Nov 07, 2012 8:07 PM
you can deny it all you want,but medically,homosexuality IS an unhealthy,destructive behavior,as commonly practiced.
there's good medical reason why homos are prohibited from donating blood or organs.
the CDC says that over 50% of new HIV cases in the US are in a group that is less than 2% of the population; male homos. Then there are all the OTHER diseases homos contract at far higher rates than normals.
way2smart4u Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 8:09 AM
There you go Herald, being unreasonable, obtuse. Nature doesn't have anything to do with it? Try living your whole life underwater just like the fish. Oh you don't have GILLS? Well never mind, nature has nothing to do with it. . Just use a STRAP-ON. You have your rights.
way2smart4u Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 8:22 AM
Herald, I'm not really trying to be unkind; but why doesn't it seem clear to you that "nature" has not provided for same-sex "marriage"? Really, it's not that difficult. One can "go unnatural", but there is a price to pay. You can boast against gravity, but think twice. It may cost you dearly. Just a word to the wise. Nature does not suffer fools.
HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 10:57 AM
How am I being unreasonable? I merely question what you deem "natural." Marriage is not a term used in biology or ecology or even animal behavior. It is a strictly human construct and one that is largely defined by laws and culture, which are not natural in the same sense as other social interactions. And what about nature is opposed to same sex marriage? Calling it 'unnatural' without any due logic does not effectively prove your point.
David3036 Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 3:19 PM
If gays represented less than 2 percent of the population, it would mean that straight people outnumber gays at Gay Pride parades. Even the CDC, which says that 1.4 percent "self-identify" as gay, uses an estimate of 4 percent for what it calls MSM -- men who have sex with men.

But even though it's impossible to find the "real" number because of all the closet cases, it doesn't really matter. We have a much better handle on the percent of Jews in American, about 1.7 percent, but we protect their rights precisely BECAUSE of their minority status.

Furthermore, in biology, anything that occurs in mroe than 1 percent of a species is considered "normal."
abe822 Wrote: Nov 07, 2012 11:25 AM
Having lived in the gay community for over 20 years I can say that 'gay marriage' IS WRONG. Always has been and always will be. 'gay marriage' is pretty much stating that a special interest that represents less than 4% of the total population can redefine the legal definition of marriage so gay activists can continue attacking religious people and entities. The proof is in the amount of useless lawsuits that seek to force religious people, mostly Christians, that the government can tell you what to believe in the name of political correctness subverting religious freedom for a government mandate of 'tolerance'. Gays just want to attack Christians for having Biblical morals. To bad they are afraid to do the same Muslims because of fear.
HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Nov 07, 2012 12:31 PM
i'm not familiar with the lawsuits you mentioned so I'll have to do some research. But I don't see how that constitutes proof or logic that gay marriage is wrong. None of these initiatives tell people what they should or shouldn't believe. It just changes the legal regulations surrounding marriage. And just claiming that gays want ot attack Christians is an appeal to conspiracy and that is not a reasonable logic because we're incapable of reading the minds of every gay people or anyone for that matter.
abe822 Wrote: Nov 07, 2012 12:42 PM
It's not to hard to find evidence of small businesses being compelled by the government to go against their morals. Gays who want to marry purposely choose churches and venue's whose owners support traditional marriage and the government gives them the choice of serve against your personal moral conviction or you must cease operations to the public. Why don't gays have their ceremonies in gay bars/businesses? Why must gays book churches/venues that support traditional values? it's illogical to think gays aren't trying to have 'evil Christians' pay for their beliefs given the lawsuits filed. No Muslim businesses have been targeted in the same way by gays. You're blind if you think it's not calculated and deliberate.
David3036 Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 6:00 AM
There are no such cases based on gay marriage laws, and none that involve churches being "forced" to conduct marriages -- nor are military chaplains forced to do so. Even though you haven't cited specific cases, I can tell you that they are all based on anti-discrimination laws that exist in almost every state -- not on gay-marriage laws.

The fundamental principle is this: If you are in business to serve the public, you had better be willing to serve ALL of the public. The courts have confirmed this ever since the lunch-counter sit-ins of the 1950s.

And gays DO overwhelmingly have their marriage and commitment ceremonies in places where they are welcome, including gay-friendly churches..
David3036 Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 6:48 AM
The enforcement of the anti-discrimination laws hinges on whether an organization is "private," such as a church, or a "public accommodation." You can compare these cases to the controversy over the Boy Scouts' discriminatory practices. The courts ruled that the Boy Scouts of America is a private organization, so it can discriminate all it wants -- and it does, against gays and atheists. (If the court cases had been about racial discrimination, I can almost guarantee they would have ruled that it was a public accommodation.

At any rate, that's the difference. A business, a hotel, an apartment complex all earn their living from the public and are public accommodations. In most places they are not allowed to discriminate.

With almost all polls closed, it looks like same-sex marriage bills in Maryland, Maine and Washington have all passed to allow same-sex marriage. In most of these states this was an easy win. In Minnesota, the vote was a vote to ban same-sex marriage. It looks like most likely the ban will not pass, but it is still very close.

This is a huge victory for marriage-equality groups and many people have taken to twitter to show their support. After Politico announce the win in Maryland, many celebrities and marriage equality supporters showed their approval.

Traditional marriage supporters...