Why homosexuality should be banned

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
CaptBillyTheKid said:
Because the law is obstructive towards other peoples choices that affect no one but consenting adults. I have long said that government should sanction no marriage and let that remain with the church.
Click to expand...

no, because that's what society has considered "marriage" to be for hundreds of generations.....why does the left demand that society change it's understanding of "marriage" simply to accommodate someone's choices?......if it had no effect on anyone else, we wouldn't have to change the law to accomplish it......the reason gays want it changed is BECAUSE it has an effect on everyone, requiring them to treat that relationship as the equivalent of "marriage"......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
why should it.....if I choose to consider "breakfast" to be a meal eaten in the afternoon, can I persuade society to change the meaning of "breakfast"?.......

if I decide that "school" should mean deer hunting, may I require society to permit me to take my children deer hunting every day instead of sending them to school?......
Click to expand...

If your definition of "breakfast" ever excluded a group of our society from receiving benefits that you received for eating breakfast, then the definition should change.
 
Southern Man said:
Digging a little deeper, we see the truth.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/netherlandsstatement.cfm



So let's see what happens in Massachusetts, unless, of course, you want to experiment in Alabama as well.
Click to expand...

How long do you suggest we wait? 1 year? 5 years? 150 years?
I will go along with waiting, provided you suspend benefits bestowed by the state on straight married couples until the determination is made.




There is one flaw in the Dutch study. I have not heard anyone in the US working to separate parenting from marriage. And since roughly 50% of marriages end in divorce before gay marriages, the worst that gay marriage could do was equal the damages done by straights.

The Dutch study provides no real evidence other than the fact that two trends happened in the same 20 year time period. To quote your logical fallacies, "It is always fallacious to suppose that there is a causative link between two things simply because they coexist".
 
PostmodernProphet said:
and that is "subjectivity"....if they choose to acknowledge either that you can eat breakfast type food whenever you want (have sex with whoever you want) or that you call your meal "breakfast" (consider your relationship with someone of the same sex to be a life long commitment), that is your and their choice.....but to pass a law that meals eaten at anytime of the day will be considered "breakfast" takes it out of the subjective realm and imposes it upon everyone else who has not made that choice (requiring all of society to consider that choice to be "marriage")......
Click to expand...

The point is not whether or not you call something by one name or another. The point is that our governments give benefits to people who are married. And by excluding a portion of society, you are treating them a manner that is not equal.

If you would like to remove the benefits from straight marriages, I think you would see the gay marriage issue go away.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
no, because that's what society has considered "marriage" to be for hundreds of generations.....why does the left demand that society change it's understanding of "marriage" simply to accommodate someone's choices?......if it had no effect on anyone else, we wouldn't have to change the law to accomplish it......the reason gays want it changed is BECAUSE it has an effect on everyone, requiring them to treat that relationship as the equivalent of "marriage"......
Click to expand...

For the same reason we struck down slavery laws that existed for hundreds of generations. For the same reason we no longer allow people to discriminate against gays in other ways.


Because it is wrong to continue to do so. You want your definition to remain, while doing so excludes millions of people. YOu claim allowing the change will effect you, and yet show no reason that it would effect your marriage.
 
Southern Man said:
No reason to get hissy. You still haven't given me examples of my speech where you can substitute "gay" for "black" as you claim.

And again, marriage is a privilege for those who have made certain choices. Your attempts to equate this with violation of rights due to racism are completely baseless.
Click to expand...

Fisrt; since when is responding to you, mean that I'm getting "hissy"??
Second; take anyone of your comments and substitue your insertion of gay and instead, use the term Black and it should help you clarifry.
Third; there is nothing in our Constitutional rights that say the "chioce" must be someone of the opposite sex, when it comes to marriage. Therefore it is a violation of rights.
 
WinterBorn said:
The entire premise that allowing two people (of the same or different gender) to marry will effect your marriage or my marriage is ridiculous.

This is as bad as the liberals allowing people to shirk responsibility for their own action. You and your wife are responsible for your marriage. No one else. Allowing gays to marry will not change that one bit.
Click to expand...

He is now suggesting that you insist they marry; ie: be forced to.
 
Southern Man said:
Unlike liberals, only concerned for themselves, I am concerned with society as a whole. Gay marriage denigrates traditional marriage, which denigrates children.

Don't you care about your State's children?
Click to expand...

Similar argument was used to try and stop inter-racial marriage.

" Inter-racial marrige denegrates traditional marriage, which denigrates children."
 
PostmodernProphet said:
why should it.....if I choose to consider "breakfast" to be a meal eaten in the afternoon, can I persuade society to change the meaning of "breakfast"?.......

if I decide that "school" should mean deer hunting, may I require society to permit me to take my children deer hunting every day instead of sending them to school?......
Click to expand...

If you decide that Black's are only 1/8 human, can you persuade society to agree with you??
 
PostmodernProphet said:
and that is "subjectivity"....if they choose to acknowledge either that you can eat breakfast type food whenever you want (have sex with whoever you want) or that you call your meal "breakfast" (consider your relationship with someone of the same sex to be a life long commitment), that is your and their choice.....but to pass a law that meals eaten at anytime of the day will be considered "breakfast" takes it out of the subjective realm and imposes it upon everyone else who has not made that choice (requiring all of society to consider that choice to be "marriage")......
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that be akin to saying that only food normally served at Breakfast time, can be served at that time; because that's what "most" people do??
 
PostmodernProphet said:
no, because that's what society has considered "marriage" to be for hundreds of generations.....why does the left demand that society change it's understanding of "marriage" simply to accommodate someone's choices?......if it had no effect on anyone else, we wouldn't have to change the law to accomplish it......the reason gays want it changed is BECAUSE it has an effect on everyone, requiring them to treat that relationship as the equivalent of "marriage"......
Click to expand...

And for hundreds of years before that, marriage didn't mean monogomy. Should we return to that; because the idea was around longer??
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Fisrt; since when is responding to you, mean that I'm getting "hissy"??
Second; take anyone of your comments and substitue your insertion of gay and instead, use the term Black and it should help you clarifry.
Third; there is nothing in our Constitutional rights that say the "chioce" must be someone of the opposite sex, when it comes to marriage. Therefore it is a violation of rights.
Click to expand...

SM, defines a hissy based on the number of words you use.

He must think Dixie is in a perpetual hissy fit.
 
WinterBorn said:
If your definition of "breakfast" ever excluded a group of our society from receiving benefits that you received for eating breakfast, then the definition should change.
Click to expand...

they aren't "excluded" from those benefits....they were never entitled to them in the first place.....they are incapable of qualifying for them.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
they aren't "excluded" from those benefits....they were never entitled to them in the first place.....they are incapable of qualifying for them.....
Click to expand...

Which is why people on both sides of the political fence are calling for the change. It is blatantly biased and unfair. Its fine for you to hold biased opinions, but for the gov't to do so is not fine. And it will change.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
they aren't "excluded" from those benefits....they were never entitled to them in the first place.....they are incapable of qualifying for them.....
Click to expand...

Oddly, they are quite capable of qualifying for them. They can lie about who they love and they can get married. Why is it that lying about it would be preferable to the people who claim gay marriage would destroy traditional marriage?
 
WinterBorn said:
For the same reason we struck down slavery laws that existed for hundreds of generations. For the same reason we no longer allow people to discriminate against gays in other ways.


Because it is wrong to continue to do so. You want your definition to remain, while doing so excludes millions of people. YOu claim allowing the change will effect you, and yet show no reason that it would effect your marriage.
Click to expand...

by what right do you dictate to the rest of us that the choice of two men to engage in a relationship requires the rest of society to acknowledge it as normal?......if they choose to do something in the privacy of their own home, it's their private choice.....carrying that into the courthouse and demanding the rest of the world change because of it is not......
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Wouldn't that be akin to saying that only food normally served at Breakfast time, can be served at that time; because that's what "most" people do??
Click to expand...

nope....because you would also be insisting that it's "breakfast" at 3:00 pm even if you ate a hamburger.....

you miss the point.....you can eat whatever you want whenever you want it....you can even call it whatever you want.....just don't expect the rest of the world to change because you choose to do so.....you want "most people" to do what you've decided you want them to do.....they weren't forcing you to eat eggs in the morning, you were free to do it whenever you wanted.....we should be free to laugh at you if you say "I ate eggs this morning" when you ate them at 3pm......you want us to nod our heads and say "yes, you ate them this morning" even though you didn't.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
by what right do you dictate to the rest of us that the choice of two men to engage in a relationship requires the rest of society to acknowledge it as normal?......if they choose to do something in the privacy of their own home, it's their private choice.....carrying that into the courthouse and demanding the rest of the world change because of it is not......
Click to expand...

You don't have to acknowledge anything. In fact, I am betting 99% of the gay men could care less. You acknowledging it doesn't have anything to do with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top