For Tadpole - secular argument against homosexual marriage

Stratman · 12-29-2005, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Maybe you should sack up and tell us what's really going on inside your head...

I'll do that if you come up with a real argument other than "It's bullshit".

Stratman · 12-29-2005, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaxian

You say that allowing same-sex marriage spits in the eye of people participating in opposite-sex marriage, but I disagree. Because allowing same-sex marriage does not make any indication that opposite-sex marriage is less worthy than it once was, there is no disrespect. Though it may be that same-sex relationships will receive the same treatment as opposite-sex relationships, this merely elevates same-sex couples to the same-level as opposite-sex couples without lowering anyone.

Actually, good try, and I appreciate that. Seriously.

Here's the problem: When you introduce a counterfeit into any scenario it devalues the original. If you had (say) counterfeit $20 bills flooding the money supply without being detected, what would happen? Inflation. The devaluation of the dollar. The mythical "gay marriage" is a counterfeit of the original. If it gets to the point where anybody can get married, marriage will mean less than it does now.

And the people who brought you the current state of marriage (via the "sexual revolution" of the 60's) are the same ones who are pushing the "gay marriage" thing, the political left. Yeah, their ideas really worked well the last time, let's try this one.

Quote:

To say that gay people are asking for a right in order to spit in the eye of heterosexuals is irrational.

Ever seen a "Gay Pride" parade?

Quote:

...so they could be free and equal. This is the same reason homosexuals ask for same-sex marriage.

They are free and equal. There is NO RIGHT (let that sink in) that anybody is being cheated out of here. Gays are asking for a special institution to be created just for them that currently doesn't exist.

Quote:

You also mention that there has been no homosexual marriage in the past. But of what value is this statement?

The value of it is that evidently we are the first civilization in the history of the world to not know what marriage is for, and that's to keep the nation state strong. The value of the state is it's citizens. Every baby born has the possibilty of discovering the cure for cancer or some other great discovery, and this is aside from being citizens, soldiers, taxpayers, etc.

Quote:

If you consider same-sex marriage a "special right" for homosexuals, then surely opposite-sex marriage is a "special right" for heterosexuals.

In the first place, it's not a "right" - it's an institution the state recognizes to be beneficial. It is the optimum situation for childraising. That's not a debatable point.

Quote:

We are simply asking that you grant both same-sex and opposite-sex couples the same benefits under the law. I see no reason that opposite-sex couples deserve special rights while same-sex couples do not.

And I see no compelling reason why we should change marriage (the foundation of the nation state). "Because we want you to" is not a good enough reason.

Quote:

I disagree with your claim that gay people cannot pass up any opportunity to reveal their sexual orientation. How would you know that homosexuals do this?

On the other forum I described myself as a "Scientist, Philosopher, Musician, and Theologian. I wish I had a nickel for every "gay" person who adds "gay" to that list, as if it matters to anybody. Maybe I should add "heterosexual" to my list to show the absurdity of it.

Don't try to tell me it doesn't happen - it's like making up fake statistics.

Quote:

But you are required to support freedom and equality under the law.

I'm not required to do that, either, but just so you know I have copies of the Constitution and Federalist papers right here in my library. What a lot of you call "freedom and equality" doesn't exist in the Constitution.

Quote:

This science isn't likely to be the case here, since humans are not yet suffering from overpopulation....

Is that so? As early as 40 years ago you had people running around saying that we were going to be totally out of resources by now, overpopulated, and suffering the effects of that.

Take it for what it's worth. The lemmings thing was just some red meat for the Darwinists, who have yet to explain why homosexuality exists if it's not a choice, other than the population control thing.

Thank you for your well thought out reply. I thought you spoke from the heart with a minimum of sloganeering. What I mean by that is there are people in the world who are for or against something but have never thought their position through so they can't even explain it. Evidently you have put some thought into this.

I, on the other hand, have put a LOT of thought into my politics and philosophy.

We'll talk more if you like.

hevusa · 12-29-2005, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stratman

Quote:

The answer is simple and requires no anti Christian bigotry.

If our government is to honor marriages between citizens and define that relationship by religious standards then we have a conflict since there would clearly be a religion being established in government; In which case all relationships between two consenting adults should be considered civil unions. Christians could still get "married" in a church if they choose but the state could not discriminate non religious unions.

You have given me no compelling reason to change the situation we have.

Except correct law as defined by the constitution that does not discriminate.

tadpole256 · 12-29-2005, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stratman

Because it spits in the eye of people participating in ACTUAL marriage, and I believe that homosexuals, by constantly pushing for it, intend to do precisely that. In the history of the world, there have been homosexuals. There hasn't been homosexual marriage. Suddenly, in the last couple of decades or so, there are rights for every deviant behavior known to mankind, but normal human behavior? Forget it -- we're all bigots and deserve no rights. Homosexuals -- they deserve special rights, simply because there is something screwed up in their heads.

1) Homosexual marriage is everybit as legitimate as heterosexual marriage. In your entire post, you gave no proof otherwise.

2)The reason homosexuals are just now begining to be able to marry is because just like blacks, jews and women they have been marginalized, bullied and repressed by people much like yourself throughout history.

3)Homosexuals are not seeking any SPECIAL rights, they simply want the same rights as you and I have.

You make a very interesting point by the way...

You said that it is not a life style, it's just butt-fucking... Well if that is true, then why shouldn't they have all the same rights? What if I wanted to restrict the rights of the nose pickers? Wouldn't that make an equal amount of sense?

tadpole256 · 12-29-2005, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stratman

Where's that little fudgepacker, Tadpole? I thought he'd be right in here with his "intellectual" input...

I apologize for the delay in my response. I have been in training to return to the war in Afghanistan, and thus have not had the amount of time to spare to the debates that I would like to. I have posted my reply, and am very interested to see your response, preferably sans insult. By the way, I am not little in any way...

tadpole256 · 12-29-2005, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stratman

Ever seen a "Gay Pride" parade?

Ever seen a St. Patricks Day Parade? A Polaski Day Parade? Columbus Day Parade? Mummers Parade? ... all the same...

Stratman · 12-29-2005, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tadpole256

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stratman

Where's that little fudgepacker, Tadpole? I thought he'd be right in here with his "intellectual" input...

I apologize for the delay in my response. I have been in training to return to the war in Afghanistan, and thus have not had the amount of time to spare to the debates that I would like to. I have posted my reply, and am very interested to see your response, preferably sans insult. By the way, I am not little in any way...

You REALLY don't expect me to believe you have been to Afghanistan, do you?

Very well, after I reply I will return to my job as Queen of England.

Stratman · 12-29-2005, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tadpole256

1) Homosexual marriage is everybit as legitimate as heterosexual marriage. In your entire post, you gave no proof otherwise.

2)The reason homosexuals are just now begining to be able to marry is because just like blacks, jews and women they have been marginalized, bullied and repressed by people much like yourself throughout history.

3)Homosexuals are not seeking any SPECIAL rights, they simply want the same rights as you and I have.

You make a very interesting point by the way...

You said that it is not a life style, it's just butt-fucking... Well if that is true, then why shouldn't they have all the same rights? What if I wanted to restrict the rights of the nose pickers? Wouldn't that make an equal amount of sense?

These are talking points, Tad. I could have pulled these off of any left wing website if that's what I wanted, but I'll deal with them anyway.

Quote:

1) Homosexual marriage is everybit as legitimate as heterosexual marriage. In your entire post, you gave no proof otherwise.

It doesn't even exist. As I have repeated ad nauseum, there is no such thing as "gay marriage". Almost every state in the union recognizes marriage as being between a "man and a woman", and some states are now amending their constitutions to prevent judges from making law against the will of the majority.

Quote:

2)The reason homosexuals are just now begining to be able to marry is because just like blacks, jews and women they have been marginalized, bullied and repressed by people much like yourself throughout history.

Queers are not a race, they are not an ethnic group, and contrary to what you would have me believe, they are not a third sex. So that comparison is not only BS but it doesn't hold water.

As far as my having "marginalized, bullied and repressed" them "throughout history" do you realize that there are whole cultures who engaged in not only heterosexual but also homosexual behavior with no sanctions from their society at all? Some even thought it preferable to heterosexual sex but, as I have said, even they realized that in order to keep a nation strong it was necessary to procreate.

The difference between then and now is that people simply expressed it as their preference and didn't bother with intellectually bankrupt arguments like the ones you present here. I believe, as I said, that these intellectually dishonest arguments are designed to poke a finger in the eye of tradition. Especially those nasty Christians you and the lib hate so much.

Quote:

3)Homosexuals are not seeking any SPECIAL rights, they simply want the same rights as you and I have.

They have the same "rights" I have. I dare you to prove otherwise.

Stratman · 12-29-2005, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hevusa

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stratman

Quote:

The answer is simple and requires no anti Christian bigotry.

If our government is to honor marriages between citizens and define that relationship by religious standards then we have a conflict since there would clearly be a religion being established in government; In which case all relationships between two consenting adults should be considered civil unions. Christians could still get "married" in a church if they choose but the state could not discriminate non religious unions.

You have given me no compelling reason to change the situation we have.

Except correct law as defined by the constitution that does not discriminate.

What discrimination are you speaking of?

onthefence · 12-29-2005, 11:57 AM

Quote:

In the history of the world, there have been homosexuals. There hasn't been homosexual marriage.

Fun fact for today: according to the Wiki, the Chinese, the Romans, Native Americans, and Africans all did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-se...ame-sex_unions

Hopefully that's a complete enough sentence for you, and my spelling is ok.

Is this a complete sentence? Stratman is wrong.