Five reasons why gay marriage is a basic, conservative value

Originally posted by kaylaluv
I got news for you dude. The definition has already been changed. Gay marriage is alive and well in 7 states in the U.S. (so far), and in several countries. So, it's a done deal.

And in every state it has been brought in by the back door - through the legislature.

In all 32 states that have been allowed to vote, gay marriage has been rejected.

Gay Marriage refused in all 31 states where the issue has been put directly to the electorate

There is no groundswell of support for gay marriage.

Gay marriage is now the issue through which the elite advertises its superiority over the redneck masses

A question rarely asked about gay marriage is how it became such a massive flashpoint issue. In America and Britain, gay marriage has become one of the key issues of our time.

And yet the remarkable thing is that gay marriage has achieved this hot-potato status without the benefit of a mass movement demanding it, far less any public streetfighting or serious civil unrest by homosexuals determined to get hitched.

The speed and ease with which gay marriage has gone from being a tiny minority concern to become the No 1 battle in the modern culture wars has been truly remarkable – and revealing.

What it suggests is that gay marriage is more a tool of the elite than it is a demand of the demos.

The thing motoring the gay-marriage campaign, its political engine, is not any longstanding desire among homosexuals to get married or an active, passionate demand from below for the right of men to marry men and women to marry women.

No, its driving force, the reason it has been so speedily and heartily embraced by the political and media classes, is because it is so very useful as a litmus test of liberal, cosmopolitan values.

Supporting gay marriage has become a kind of shorthand way of indicating one’s superiority over the hordes, particularly those of a religious or redneck persuasion.

The Telegraph

Gay marriage is being pushed by the elite. The author of the above article frames it in terms of the elite advertising their own percieved moral superiority over the 'redneck masses'.

I suspect an attempt to deflect people from larger, more important issues is also at play.

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

I follow it and have taught my children to follow it without the interference of their teachers. I believe teachers should reinforce the idea of respect and civility, but schools cannot adopt a PC agenda without trampling on someones rights.

Respect and civility always work, every single time.

Again rather than emphasizing negative behavior we need to reward civility. It is a simple concept and it works. Teach the golden rule. Every single kindergartner can understand it.

Funny how some self proclaimed libertarians miss the point that government should get out of the marriage business all together. If government did it would work toward mending a very divided nation and world as a whole concerning this most controversial and divisive issue of our time. That's a plan to prosper civility in regards to this most unsettling civil issue that only serves to foster tensions within society, a society divided in two of very different views of morality.

I have stated many times on this board those exact sentiments. I absolutely believe that the government has no business marrying anyone. We agree completely. I'm not certain why you would think I believe otherwise since I never addressed that in this thread and it has nothing to do with my post you linked.

reply to post by kaylaluv


Kids are often not nice. There are all kinds of reasons they are not nice, and there is no one size fits all way that they behave poorly. Again, we need to emphasize civility and respect to counter this kind of behavior. The concept of treat other people the way you would like to be treated is very simple yet very profound.

It cannot be emphasized enough. My point is don't emphasize the negative behavior, but rather the desired behavior, civility and respect.

Think of how our government leaders behave...

reply to post by mazzroth


Your argument doesn't work. First, because SOME homosexuals entertain perverse fantasies does not necessarily imply that ALL homosexuals do as well. Your second approach aims to associate homosexuality with pedophilia, which is a straw-man fallacy. Homosexuality is not pedophilia, and your argument fails again. Further, because the majority of child molesters are heterosexual, and child-molestations, a majority of which are heterosexual in nature, it follows by your logic, that all heterosexuals are a potential risk to the welfare of children, which is obviously a very stupid proposition.

Now, to answer your question: Yes, hand-jobs and the like are relevant to YOUR argument. If you didn't catch the drift of my objection, then let me clarify again . . . You are obviously seeking to make analogous all forms of non-procreative sex - unless, of course they are only limited to those forms which take place between homosexuals; perhaps you would like to clarify that point.
So, tell us, in your opinion, are all hand-jobs and other forms of non-procreative sex, that do also include the feature of male-orgasm and ejaculation, as well a degradation of the will of the divine?

Originally posted by ollncasino

Gays have no right to hijack the word 'marriage' and force the majority to consider a union between two men to be the same, in a very legal sense, as a union between a man and a women.

Read the history of marriage. It's not a pretty story.

Marriage is a contract - - plain and simple. Gender is not relevant.

Read the history of the marriage license. Originally created to avoid laws. Adopted by the Catholic church when they figured out they could make money issuing marriage licenses.

The marriage license in America was adopted to prevent interracial marriage.

FACT: the government contract Marriage License is not god based - - and can not discriminate. It is only a matter of time before full equal rights becomes Federal Law.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by kaylaluv
I got news for you dude. The definition has already been changed. Gay marriage is alive and well in 7 states in the U.S. (so far), and in several countries. So, it's a done deal.

And in every state it has been brought in by the back door - through the legislature.

In all 32 states that have been allowed to vote, gay marriage has been rejected.

Aren't we just wonderful voting on the rights of a minority. You must be proud.

As with Civil Rights - - marriage rights will become Federal Law - - soon.

Originally posted by ollncasino


Gays have no right to hijack the word 'marriage' and force the majority to consider a union between two men to be the same, in a very legal sense, as a union between a man and a women.

But in a very legal sense, it is the EXACT same thing. Only in a theological sense could you take offense at it. LEGALLY a union is a union regardless of gender, so there is no legal reason to not allow them to marry. It's only the theological opposition that sees a problem with it.

Originally posted by mazzroth
I have yet to hear of one conception from a pair of Gay Men

The young couple stands up in church and shows off their new baby - - - they have waited many years for this moment.

The young husband was sterile and unable to produce a child. So through modern science they used IVF and a sperm donor.

As the child is being baptized and declared a miracle for this young couple - - - the congregation weeps and breaks out in Amens.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by kaylaluv
All this education bill wants to do is to point out that this group of people have contributed positive things to our society. It won't turn children gay -- I promise you.

Hetrosexual people have also contributed positive things to our society.

But no one has passed a law forcing teachers to point out that they preferred to have sex with members of the opposite sex.

Why can't gays keep sex out of classroom?

edit on 22-5-2012 by ollncasino because: Fix error

edit on 22-5-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)

And when we learned about those great people who made great contributions, we always learned about who they were married to as well didn't we? Same thing.

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
I absolutely believe that the government has no business marrying anyone.

Which is a completely different subject - - - and one some use to try to derail the real issue of equality of marriage.

Fact is - - legal government marriage for every citizen - - regardless of gender - - is the subject.

Not - - whether governments should have legal marriage licenses.

reply to post by Annee


But: that is the difference between biology not working as it should and biology doing something it never could. People do draw a line between the two.

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
reply to post by Annee

 

But: that is the difference between biology not working as it should and biology doing something it never could. People do draw a line between the two.

So every couple that gets married is required to reproduce?

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by kaylaluv
I'm saying it isn't ALL about sex. My relationship with my husband isn't ALL about sex. It's also about having a companion, and a partner to raise a family with.

What an absurd argument.

Being homosexual by definition is about sex.

So being heterosexual is, by definition, about sex as well? Given that logic, it has to be. Should we exclude all heterosexual contributions to society because it focuses on the sexuality of the contributer? We sure won't have much to teach if all sexual preferences have to be left out will we?

Now, with that being said, I don't think they should say "Ok, these are all the homosexuals and what they did". I think, when discussing the individual and their contributions, where we would normally interject "He was married to so and so, the daughter of blah blah blah..." we interject in the same way, "He was married to so and so, the son of blah blah blah..." Same thing. Equal treatment, equal address of it, no big deal made of it so the kids see it as no big deal and concentrate on the facts without either hiding it or pointing it out. It's just another fact about the person being discussed.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by grandmatruthseeker

As for the semantics, * marriage vs. union,* what difference does it make what word is used to describe it?

It seems to matter to some gay people very much. In the UK they have the same legal rights, via civil unions, as hetrosexuals.

Yet they demand that the historical and legal meaning of 'marriage' be changed to encompass same sex unions.

They have no right to redefine marriage for the rest of us.

Why not? Marriage has been defined and redefinied for ... well, ever since marriage has been around. It was performed by the church, then it was performed by the state and you had to have a license for it, then there was polygamy, then there wasn't polygamy, then certain races couldn't intermarry, then they could... it's not something that's been the same since time began, it changes over and over again. This will be no different and 10 years from now, people will look back and say "What was the big deal anyway?"

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

So being heterosexual is, by definition, about sex as well?

Isn't it weird - - - that no one is more obsessed with gay sex then anti-gays.

I know its shocking - - that gays have jobs/careers - - hobbies - - eat and crap - just like heteros.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
I absolutely believe that the government has no business marrying anyone.

Which is a completely different subject - - - and one some use to try to derail the real issue of equality of marriage.

Fact is - - legal government marriage for every citizen - - regardless of gender - - is the subject.

Not - - whether governments should have legal marriage licenses.

That's the subject according to you. Please spare me the phony either, or arguments. We have a fundamental disagreement. I believe the government has only a right to issue contracts between two consenting adults. I think if a couple, same sex or not, wants to marry there are many, many churches, synagogues, mosques, temples ect. who will conduct their marriages, and others that won't, and for various reasons. That my friend is the essence of liberty. It doesn't infringe on anyone's rights or freedom. It keeps the religion out of government, and the government out of religion.

reply to post by kissy princess


Where do I begin ? perhaps there is no point taking this further as we agree to disagree. My life experiences in this department have taught me a few things, the first being that if an argument is "agenda driven" then truth and facts are usually the first casualty. I have no reason to contest your obvious acceptance of Homosexuality, I haven't read whether you have come out of the closet or one of the PC crowd trying so hard to be part of it so I don't know your agenda.

But one thing is clear, if you accept Homosexuality then you have to accept the whole of it and not just the bits you think are ok and sanitized for the general public so it appears clean and healthy and normal. One simply fact is that Gay Men participate in the act of Anal Sex, this is not hygienic and would never actually produce anything close to a loving healthy child and in fact would statistically improve the chance of a venereal disease contraction due to the promiscuity of that demographic.

Originally posted by ollncasino


And in every state it has been brought in by the back door - through the legislature.

In all 32 states that have been allowed to vote, gay marriage has been rejected.

So, if, at some point in time, closing in ever more quickly, white males or Christians become the minority, let's go even further and say heterosexual, christian, white men become the minority, is it fair for the majority (who isn't Christian) to vote on whether Christianity is allowed to be worshiped? Is it fair for the majority (who isn't white) to vote on the role that whites will play? Is it fair for the majority (who is gay) to vote on the rights of the heterosexuals?

An important poem to keep in mind:

"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Originally posted by MsAphrodite

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
I absolutely believe that the government has no business marrying anyone.

Which is a completely different subject - - - and one some use to try to derail the real issue of equality of marriage.

Fact is - - legal government marriage for every citizen - - regardless of gender - - is the subject.

Not - - whether governments should have legal marriage licenses.

That's the subject according to you.

.
FACT: we currently have a legal government marriage license.

FACT: whether government should be involved in the marriage license business - - is not the subject. It is a diversion tactic.

reply to post by Annee


Again, you are creating a false dilemma. There are other better alternatives.