Why homosexuality should be banned

[DamnYankee]

Our society has already normalized gay relationships. They are out of the closet and living comfortably (except for the occasional redneck who decide to try and kick their ass and get his own kicked instead).

No one can ever tell me exactly how it will be detrimental to our society, except for some vague references to tradition and morality.

The immoral straight marriages are ignored though.

If they are normalized now, then why change?

 

[WinterBorn]

How do you know it will have no effect? I suggest that you study this in great depth before forcing such a dramatic change on an important institution. You've waited 6000 years, why can't you wait a few more decades?

Why should we wait? There have been studies to show it is not detrimental to children to be raised by gay parents. No one is suggesting that gay relationships be banned or even hidden.

The gay couples are already together. The difference is a ceremony and the benefits from the gov't. That cannot effect the rest of society.

You are not wanting to delay it for a few decades to do studies. You want it delayed to avoid it altogether.

 

[Damocles]

No reason to get all hissy, as I predicted many here would.

Hissy?

Weak as overcooked spaghetti.

I'm simply pointing out that nobody suggested making homosexual marriage the basis of society, that it is obvious hyperbole, that it makes it easy to mock you, and that you probably shouldn't do that unless you want the debate to be lowered to such a level.

When people argued to allow inter-racial marriages, nobody suggested that they should be the basis of our society, nobody is suggesting allowing the few who'd want to to marry same sex partners would then be the required basis of society.

 

[WinterBorn]

If they are normalized now, then why change?

You really aren't paying attention, are you?

Gay marriage is about having the same benefits bestowed on straight couples who marry. Being normalized doesn't gain them those benefits.

 

[DamnYankee]

Hissy?

Weak as overcooked spaghetti.

I'm simply pointing out that nobody suggested making it the basis of society, that it is hyperbole, that it makes it easy to mock you, and that you probably shouldn't do that.

When people argued to allow inter-racial marriages, nobody suggested that they should be the basis of our society, nobody is suggesting allowing the few who'd want to to marry would then be the required basis of society.

Except that people have been marrying across racial lines for millennia, strengthening the gene pool and hence society as a whole. No one can argue that queer marriage will do that.

Hissy is making a caricature of my argument as you attempted.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

And now you finally admit that your argument was baseless; because the marriage liscense won't say that it's a gay marriage either. It will just be a marriage.

except they can't get a marriage license without changing the law to accommodate their choice.....

 

[Damocles]

Except that people have been marrying across racial lines for millennia, strengthening the gene pool and hence society as a whole. No one can argue that queer marriage will do that.

Hissy is making a caricature of my argument as you attempted.

Nobody has tried to argue that it would do that, now you are setting up strawmen to tackle because you haven't been able to tackle the actual argument.

And I quoted it, you directly stated that" making it the basis of society" would be bad, I am not making a caricature I am simply directly speaking to what you actually stated.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Unless you are a full bloodied Cherokee, you can't just decide to be one.
Now, if you from the area that Bahamian Blacks come from and you are part Black; well then, you might have a chance.

/facepalm....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

But they will, so laugh now and cry later.

and people wonder why I am opposed to it......thanks for justifying my objections....

 

[WinterBorn]

Except that people have been marrying across racial lines for millennia, strengthening the gene pool and hence society as a whole. No one can argue that queer marriage will do that.

Hissy is making a caricature of my argument as you attempted.

The gene pool is not an issue at all. Strengthening the gene pool has never been a reason for any marriage. It may have been a side benefit, but never a reason.

And gay marriage will have no effect on the gene pool.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

no....you are a coward.....you again cut my post off and only answered what you wanted...

????....you're lucky I bother to read your posts....l

 

[DamnYankee]

You really aren't paying attention, are you?

Gay marriage is about having the same benefits bestowed on straight couples who marry. Being normalized doesn't gain them those benefits.

Those benefits can be realized or equalized with traditional marriage in simple ways instead of inflicting such a drastic change on society.

Most queers accept the concept of formalized social unions. It is only the most militant ones who insist on changing the definition of marriage. Have you asked yourself why that is?

 

[DamnYankee]

????....you're lucky I bother to read your posts....l

 

[WinterBorn]

/facepalm....

Except for the marrying the elephant part. (unless you were just referring to a fat chick)

 

[Damocles]

You really aren't paying attention, are you?

Gay marriage is about having the same benefits bestowed on straight couples who marry. Being normalized doesn't gain them those benefits.

It isn't the government's place to bestow such bounty onto one set of beliefs over another. Arguing for further government action in an area that the government already muddied the waters so much, each time to try to keep "undesirables" from marrying, further mucking it up doesn't resolve anything.

We need the government to get out of the "sanctifying" business. Leave it to the churches.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

But for the life if me I cannot understand why.

read free's post #797 above and it should become obvious....

 

[WinterBorn]

????....you're lucky I bother to read your posts....l

Not reading the posts does make debating easier. I think some people make a habit of arguing without bothering to read the opposing opinions.

You have not seemed the type for that.

 

[DamnYankee]

Nobody has tried to argue that it would do that, now you are setting up strawmen to tackle because you haven't been able to tackle the actual argument.

And I quoted it, you directly stated that" making it the basis of society" would be bad, I am not making a caricature I am simply directly speaking to what you actually stated.

I was simply arguing that a society using queer marriage as its basis won't survive past one generation.

 

[DamnYankee]

Fat chicks need love too...

 

[Damocles]

I was simply arguing that a society using queer marriage as its basis won't survive past one generation.

And I am pointing out that the statement is silly hyperbole. As the original post's video stated, a society based on everybody being a catholic priest would have the same genetic dead end. And if we all had to wait for green aliens to marry the result would still be the same and the statement just as silly.