Most gay couples probably aren't getting married even now that it's legal

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by SpaceCricket79, Dec 8, 2015.

  1. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's also the joining of 2 men or 2 women.
    Neither of which is relevant to marriage.

    marriage is a human construct. Nature has nothing to do with it. Marriage is whatever society says it is. It says it isn't just one man and one woman. Deal with it
     
  2. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not relevant.
     
  3. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,251
    Likes Received:
    18,016
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What difference does that make?

    You claimed there was no merit to their marriages because they can't reproduce. To wit I stated that they are normal human beings and yes they can.

    You moved the goal post to this argument that they can't have children with each other. That is only because up until the moment same sex couples were allowed to marry the state wouldn't let a same sex spouse adopt his/her partner's child. Now they can.

    Adoption is a way of having kids. So if it's illegal for somebody to apply merit that it's necessary for state recognition of their marriage, that really begs the question doesn't it?

    If your position is that two people of the same sex can't biologically procreate with each other abd thus civil law should not recognize their union, I disagree. There are benefits to step children and adopted children if their adoptive parents are married. There is plenty of merit in a spouse adopting their spouse's child, or adopting an unwanted child. I'd say there is merit in them providing a stable home for these children.

    I'd go as far to say there is much more merit in that than claiming you can do what every other biological organism on this planet is capable of

    Your argument isn't really against same sex marriage, it's against single parents marrying.

    If you say that we should forbid a sane sex couple from marrying because they don't reproduce with each other, than logic would dictate that we ought not allow anybody to claim marriage on their tax forms if they haven't had children.

    We simply don't live in a country like that. State law should not interfere with families because some people don't like how they are formed. And apparently the federal court thought so as well.
     
  4. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,251
    Likes Received:
    18,016
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I would agree, the left did use marriage for political gain. The right did exactly the same thing, less logically. Look at your post, you say it's " pretty much the same thing." The left wants it to be the same thing, you said it's basically the same thing. You disagree with them because they agree with you?

    If it's basically the same thing why ban it?

    I'm a conservative libertarian and I generally agree with the conservative right. On this subject however the right is out of its mind. They are trying to appeal to religious socialism. Thus they make hypocrites of themselves.

    If it's the same thing and you don't have problems with people that are gay how can you stand by banning a marriage you aren't party to? That's kind of like an ultra left progressive ideal.
     
  5. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,251
    Likes Received:
    18,016
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes I completely agree with this statement. That is why I cannot be for same sex marriage bans. The requirement that the couple be opposite sexes holds no merit. Nothing is required of a heterosexual couple that can't be fulfilled by a homosexual couple.

    So the state has no interest in banning it, thus they have no business banning it.
     
  6. SpaceCricket79

    SpaceCricket79 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2012
    Messages:
    12,934
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Then it would make more sense for states to recognize marriages only if the couple has a child; gay relationships don't naturally lead to procreation like straight relationships do, so there's not an incentive to offer marriage benefits to gay couples just because they're "in love".

    IMO it should boil down to states' decision; if a state allows a gay couple to adopt then I wouldn't be totally against the state recognizing their union, but the idea that marriage is an "entitlement" to any 2 people who "love each other" I'd say is completely false.

    Problem is that children in gay households may be disadvantaged since they aren't growing up with with a traditional male and female role model, this could lead to gender or identity confusion.

    Most states don't let single people adopt kids because they believe not having a mother and a father is a disadvantage to them.
     
  7. Dollface

    Dollface New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2013
    Messages:
    4,563
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Actually in America if the constition says it is a right then it is.
     
  8. SpaceCricket79

    SpaceCricket79 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2012
    Messages:
    12,934
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That renders the meaning of "rights" meaningless, since if an amendment was created allowing people to own slaves again all of a sudden it would not only be legal, but also be a "moral right"? Rubbish.
     
  9. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,251
    Likes Received:
    18,016
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, many gay couples have children.
    Actually many of them do. Gay people as I have stated before are human, and as such possess the ability to procreate.
    Well Actually there is. Gay couples have and adopt children. I have pointed this out many times. I never once mentioned love.

    So you are attempting to pose the sane broken argument. It isn't against same-sex marriage, it's against single parents marrying and infertile people marrying. Neither of those are exclusive to homosexuals.

    I never claimed it was an entitlement. I pointed out that your claim that there was no merit was based on circular logic.


    Gender identity only matters of you are obsessed with what other people tell you what you should be. I would think a child raised in a household where behaviors based on sex aren't enforced would be greatly advantaged.

    Actually the only two states that don't let singles adopt are Utah and west Virginia. Most states don't really have rules about singles adopting. Now agencies may give preferential treatment to married couples, but that isn't a state law in most places.
     
  10. SpaceCricket79

    SpaceCricket79 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2012
    Messages:
    12,934
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A man who marries a horse has the ability to procreate... with a woman yeah. That makes no sense.

    Myself I'd deny them the right to marry as well in order to make it even.
    Nope, it's a widely understood biological construct and it's understood that children take up after those they are around. Your Marxist deconstructionist theory of gender is just plain wrong and ignores a lot of biology and social science.

    Behavior and sex are synonymous because at the most basic level they are hardwired based on evolutionary sociobiology. There's no way to separate behavior from sex. Just like taking a lion out of a jungle and raising it as a housecat won't "eliminate" the lion's hardwired behaviors and instincts - it will only repress them which is unhealthy for the lion since it's a wild animal, not a domesticated pet that was breed for over 100s of years for that purpose.
     
  11. LeeroyHim

    LeeroyHim Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2015
    Messages:
    2,025
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No the left does not want it to be the same thing. They wanted to had incentives and preferential add-ons for gays, and to strip those forms straight couples. It WAS pretty much the same, and it's why gays aren't jumping on it. it's not just gays they are chaging that word for either.
     
  12. Dollface

    Dollface New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2013
    Messages:
    4,563
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ummmmm no totally incorrect but nice try.
     
  13. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,251
    Likes Received:
    18,016
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree. The requirement to procreate with only your spouse makes no sense. Many children call a man dad that married their mother but are not biological fathers. That is a benefit to society.

    I agree your statement makes no sense. Try reading and responding to what I say verses making up bizarre scenarios that aren't relevant.


    So? People would deny you the right to own a gun so that you are equal with others that don't have guns.

    Denial of rights for equality's sake is socialism.

    No, gender is behavioral expectations placed on the sexes. We were having this discussing in another thread and you abandoned it. I don't agree with your definition of gender.
    Actually you were the one supporting denial of liberty for equality's sake. Your views are far more reminiscent of Marxism than mine.

    I reject the idea that gender is part of biology and I'd happily discuss that with you, it was an enlightening and civil discussion that I was enjoying. For the purposes of this thread, gender is behavioral expectations placed on the sexes. Yes they effect the physical body, all behavior does. But I don't agree they are a result of the physical form, rather the physical form is the result. Discuss this in the appropriate thread, let's not detail this discussion.


    Not on any level. Sex relates to what side of the reproductive process you are part of. Behavior refers to the way one acts or conducts themselves in relation to others or their environment. Animals and other organisms that do not have sexes still possess behavior.

    Snails exhibit behavior yet they have only one sex. So I would disagree with you.
     
  14. PUBLIUS_INFINITUM

    PUBLIUS_INFINITUM New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2015
    Messages:
    278
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    False... Marriage is defined by natural law, which is not effected by the whimsy of a degenerate pop-culture.
     
  15. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,472
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please cite a "preferential add-on".

    Please cite something straight couples lost.

    Careful here. I'd point out that our marriage law here in WA (and probably in many states) almost never refers to the gender of the individual. Even before we voted for same sex marriage, our marriage law referred to "spouse" rather than "husband" or "wife". The reason is that we were already supportive of the equal rights of women - making it unlikely to find valid uses of references to a specific gender.
     
  16. SpaceCricket79

    SpaceCricket79 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2012
    Messages:
    12,934
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm debating whether it's a right at all.

    I explained to your that innate differences in sexes are proven to exist completely unrelated to expectations, and that this is the case in other animals to.

    You don't have to agree with it but it's what most science supports, your notion that no innate behavior differences exist is the fringe belief, not mine.
    So all of the researchers who've documented innate brain and behavioral differences are wrong, and you are right?

    Your view is related to cultural Marxism which seeks to "deconstruct" everything and re-write it simply in terms of "oppression", even basic biology.

    You can claim that "species" is just the result of expectations too, but that doesn't make it so.
    No, not in relation to their environment - in relation to their brain structure, which is the biological construct of gender.

    If you force a lion to live in a zoo you will "condition" its behavior since it doesn't have an outlet for natural instincts such as hunting game. But just because you keep the lion in a cage doesn't mean you've "turned" the lion into a docile creature which would be safe to leave around a small child - the lion's natural instinct to hunt is still there and if you put a child in the cage the child would be in danger.

    Humans are also "wild" creatures, so you can't "condition" innate drives and desires out of humans simply by repressing them - that's psyhologically unhealthy, and the fact that many young people today grow up without fathers has had adverse effects. This is why crime rates among young blacks are so high, because most of them grow up without dads and boys naturally look up to a "father figure"; without a dad they end up idolizing celebrities and their values, such as "gangster rappers".

    Read about the "John Money case" which I'd say disproves your idea - a child's penis was accidentally cut off in a botched circumcision so the therapist recommended they raise him as a girl instead - but when he turned adolescent he ended up identifying as a boy anyway even though he had been "raised" as a girl from birth, and as a result of the trauma he later committed suicide.

    Asexual animals possess "behavior" sure but at its root it's driven to perpetuate the species and its own existence.

    Animals with 2 sexes' have different innate behaviors between the sexes based on what leads toward reproductive and individual success best for each sex.

    If you don't want to discuss this here then I'll accept that for now, but we can't have a debate on gay adoption if we don't even agree whether innate gender "roles" exist or not to begin with. Personally I'd say they do.
     
  17. PUBLIUS_INFINITUM

    PUBLIUS_INFINITUM New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2015
    Messages:
    278
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Just VERY WELL SAID!

    I often ask those purveying the drivel which you effectively smacked-down, how they would feel, if the Government passed a law, say... through the nine-member panel of jurists, wherein 5 individuals on that panel represented the majority view that The Ideological left represented a clear and present danger to the United States and through their vote, 5 members voted to make it not just a legal right to summarily execute Leftists on sight... but obligated each citizen to do so, with the penalty for failing to do so, being the forfeiture of their own lives.

    The conversation usually dries up at that point, because the answer is obvious... not only would they NOT STAND UP AND SALUTE THAT "LAW!". They'd likely point out that a 9 member panel of Jurists cannot make law in the US.

    That the Constitution only provides the power to make law, to the Legislature... which of course invalidates their entire argument in the recent Federal Licensing of Degeneracy, which over-turned the WILL OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE... IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATES.

    It also demonstrates the invalid nature of their argument on the whole... with regard to abortion, the stripping of Religious originated principle from government and so on... .

    It literally strips the Left of every sense of validity in every facet of their reasoning. Not the least of which is that the Left had anything to do with the freeing of the Slaves... while pointing out that the reasoning which KEPT slaves, enslaved was that which we know today as Relativism... and Left-think rests ENTIRELY in Relativism.
     
  18. PUBLIUS_INFINITUM

    PUBLIUS_INFINITUM New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2015
    Messages:
    278
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Yes... Washington State had long undermined the purpose of language and as such is largely responsible for that which began the US Culture down the slippery slope that lead to the recent Federal Licensing of Degeneracy by the Supreme Legislature... .

    Such is a wonderful demonstration of the chaos, calamity and catastrophe that is common to the adherence of Left-think... and how such is inescapable. As Natural Law is LAW... not suggestions, or ideas that can be adopted if people feel so inclined. It is how our universe works, and one will either benefit from recognizing, respecting, defending and adhering to those laws, or one will suffer the unenviable consequences common to failing to do so.

    And that is where the US is presently at... and it is that which the US is presently suffering.
     
  19. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,251
    Likes Received:
    18,016
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    For instance?

    Well if they were the sane than it shouldn't have been much of a deal to remove the bans. Why were states so adamant?
     
  20. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,472
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No. There is no chaos, calamity or catastrophe here that could possibly be traced to marriage law.

    In fact, marriage is a force for monogamy, stability, and focus on the family - the direction of warding off the degeneracy and calamity that so rightly concerns you.

    Same sex orientation is a part of natural law. So, we are on the right track.
     
  21. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,472
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You missed the following:
    It's hard to know what you are talking about.
     
  22. SpaceCricket79

    SpaceCricket79 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2012
    Messages:
    12,934
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There's no conclusive evidence of that - no "gay gene" has been found, and research shows it may be caused by imbalance in hormonal exposure during fetal development if anything.

    Considering how many estrogen are present in everyday foods and ingredients, and how much lower the average male's testosterone level is today due to bad diet and lack of exercise, it wouldn't surprise me if this is resulting in more children becoming gay.
     
  23. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,472
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, there are a number of mechanisms that affect characteristics. Hormones during gestation may be one that affects sexual orientation - at least I've seen one study that does not rule it out, although that one study suggests that there are likely to be other significant mechanisms, and combinations of mechanisms might be involved. I haven't seen that it comes from hormone "imbalance" - that is, imbalance suggests something went wrong, while the study I saw simply said there were differences in hormone levels.

    It would be interesting to see evidence of a change in rate of same sex orientation. I tried googling for that, but there are so many questions that are similar that I didn't succeed. If you see something, I'd be interested.
     
  24. PUBLIUS_INFINITUM

    PUBLIUS_INFINITUM New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2015
    Messages:
    278
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So such must be instantaneous for such to exist?

    Fascinating.

    Of course such policy doesn't detonate the culture upon passage... oh that it only would, then even the dimmer bulbs could see the problem.

    Such policy is corrosive... eating away at the fabric of society.

    The Left's assault on Marriage has been on-going for generations... . From No fault divorce, through to this recent Federal Licensing of Degeneracy.

    Which is to say that no-fault divorce, lead to this... DADT lead to this... all seemingly insignificant policies which were hotly debated and throughly contested... and all policy that lowered cultural standards and in so doing lowered the cultural expectations of every individual and which can only lead to the lowering of the standard of behavior, for all individuals... .

    Now you can claim that declining standards do not effect behavior and as such will not result in lower thresholds of realized behavior... but you seem like a bright individual, so I suspect you'll try to avoid being seen as doing so.

    But... if you're keeping score... that IS what you're doing.

    So... if you possess the objectivity common to a viable human being, you'll retract and correct.

    Let's see how ya do.


    Same sex orientation is not only a deviation from natural law... it is the most deviant of 'orientations' possible, where the sexual subjects at issue remain exclusively human.

    Your argument seeks to establish deviant behavior as normal behavior... that is a falsity advanced to present truth.

    Now... within the two competing forces of "Good and Evil", which is it that is known to be capable of advancing, purely through the pretense of falsity, as truth?

    Take you time... as I'll be asking to see your math. Just let me know when you're ready. I'll be here for you.
     
  25. PUBLIUS_INFINITUM

    PUBLIUS_INFINITUM New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2015
    Messages:
    278
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    OH! What a lovely means through which to concede... .

    Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
     

Share This Page