 |
|
gamenaught
|
|
Their own poll just proved how stupid they are. Typical.
I'm sure they wouldn't have abandoned the project if the numbers were in their favor - even with overwhelming evidence that large numbers of non-members participated. Dishonest. Stupid and dishonest. The irony!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
I support equal rights for all people. I support civil unions with rights equal to those found in marriage. Of course. Any nitwit can see that these things are just.
I do not support allowing gays to marry. If gays don't like my opinion on that they can kiss my arse.
I resent the importance this issue plays in national politics. People are out of work. That is a far more pressing problem.
The Federal government needs to get out of the social issue business. It should be a state or local issue.
And I think it's pretty lousy that conservatives fought to keep the Federal government at bay on racial issues but now want a constitutional amendment on marriage.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
With all the talk about the "sanctity of marriage" and the US Congresswith it's melodramatic and unconstitutional "Defense of Marriage Act" there seems to be an argument that letting those evil sodomites engage in a civil marriage procedute undermines the "sanctity" of good-ol' heterosexual marriage.
Brittney Spears, heterosexual swingers, cheaters, abusers, and general flakes who get divorced half a dozen times apparently can't undermine the institution of marriage, but let a few fairies and fudgepackers have a go at it, and suddenly all the good, God-fearing heterosexual couples who are married have their marriage vows just crumble into insignificance. Atheists at Las Vegas drivethrus? No problem. Gays?  Oh dear, all our marriage vows will forever be meaningless.
If that's not your argument, then tell me one good reason why the state has a compelling interest in which legally competent, consenting adults enter into civil marriage with each other? |
One of the few things you and I agree on. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jimmytrick
I support equal rights for all people. .
I do not support allowing gays to marry.
a) If gays don't like my opinion on that they can kiss my arse.
b) I resent the importance this issue plays in national politics.
|
Yes, slight contradiction there, you might have noticed.
Oh, and part a)- no, not even for money, dearie.
Part b)- you can blame shock jocks, and opportunist Republican politicians with axes to grind and a grindstone made up of the people who watch all that televangelic crapola the U.S. produces.
Yes, touch the t.v. screen, send me U.S. $ 40 and someone somewhere in the United States will be cured of something!
Unfortunately this malady will not be the urge to vote Republican, wear polyester, or have bad hair.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Ohio must be run by worse than nitwits then, as this law has nullified any ability for the state to provide such civil unions. |
I knew Ohio was more conservative than home (hell, you'd be hardpressed to find a city in the US more liberal than Ann Arbor, save Boston & San Fran), but this is quite scary, especially considering I might be moving there in a few months.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:33
|
|
Sky, you know that, but not everybody assumes that.
quote:
Your argument in this regard is societal more than religious: you are talking about the lives of people rather than about your beliefs.
|
Spiffor:
Thank you for your patience. I promised I would reply to this before I have to go tonight.
To answer this question requires two points. First of all, what societal benefits come from marriage as one man and one woman? Secondly, would these benefits be adversely affected by allowing gay people to marry?
Societal benefits are twofold. Marriage helps children and the relationship between the man and the woman.
I'll start with the relationship one. Women have more security in a marriage, than in a common law relationship. Part of this has to do with the beneftis, if the two are treated differently, but more of it has to do with the public commitment.
For the man, the benefits of marriage should be obvious. Single men, on average, do much woerse than married men, though the difference is much more for the men than for the woman.
If together, one man and one woman are much more productive than when they are seperated, society should have a vested interest in protecting marriage.
All of this neglects the second part of the argument. A recent study came out and showed that the majority of the earnings difference between men and women comes from childrearing. This, some would argue supports women who choose not to have children, but a better arugment would state that soceity ought to compensate women for childrearing. The difference is about 25% over the course of the career for the woman who has children than the woman who does not. Why is this an arguemtn for marriage?
If a woman is by herself, she will lose 25% of her income. If a woman has a husband, she will lose only 12.5% as the drop gets distributed between the husband and the wife. This difference also neglects the previous eample of the productivity increase of both the woman and the man in marriage. So, if you and to have kids, from the erspecitve of the woman, it makes much more sense to have them in a marriage than not.
In the case of the children, children do much better with a mom and a dad because of the difference in roles. Homosexuality assumes that there are no intrinsic differences between men and women, but this is false. In general Women, are usually much better with kids than men, though of course there will be exceptions to every rule.
Finally, more children grow up in marriages than are born in them. Why is this? Some women who have children prefer to give them a better home with another family, or a family will take on another child. It is much easier for a familiy of 2 or 3 kids to take one more child, than it is for a single mom to take on one.
Gotta go. Second part will come later. Why will gay marriage impact the benefits society derives from marriage?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
In the case of the children, children do much better with a mom and a dad because of the difference in roles. Homosexuality assumes that there are no intrinsic differences between men and women, but this is false. In general Women, are usually much better with kids than men, though of course there will be exceptions to every rule.
|
This is so loaded with your propaganda it's frankly insulting to all those well-adjusted children who've grown up with two mothers, two fathers, or one mother or one father.
'Homosexuality assumes that there are no intrinsic differences between men and women, but this is false. '
So you've become an expert on homosexuality now, have you? We've already seen how you have compared it with incest, mental illness and physical addiction.
Homosexuality in and of itself, 'assumes' nothing. It's simply another form of sexuality. One doesn't even have to be sexually active to be homosexual- I knew I was gay before I had sex with another man. I think I'm well aware of the intrinsic differences between men and women- but I'm even more aware of societally, culturally and religiously imposed differences.
As for blandishments about women's roles- hmm, yes where have I had that mashed potato schmaltz before- possibly in 'kinder, kuche, kirche'?
Ah yes, that has a familiar ring to it.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-01-2004 23:24
|