Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

traditional family values supports SSM

twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 5:31:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't understand why so called traditionalists or conservatives who are for "family values" are against gay marriage. It may seem strange/weird that people are gay, but it should not seem weird that gay people want to find a partner and maybe have a family.

I often hear conservatives criticize the gay community for being "promiscuous", yet at the same time, conservatives would not allow these people to marry. That seems hypocritical...like "Gays have sex with too many different people, so to solve this problem, we will not allow them to take a vow to be faithful to one person". Its seems like a contradiction in thinking.

Also sometimes I hear "conservatives" say that they have no problem with gay people, just a problem with them getting married. I think this should be the opposite. If someone is really for "traditional family values" they should have no problem with gay people getting married. A "married gay person" is living a more traditional lifestyle than an "unmarried gay".

My main point is that if someone is for "traditional family values", they should be for gay marriage. A traditionalist should prefer a married gay person to an unmarried gay person. Am I wrong?
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 5:55:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Everybody who is against Gay Marriage And Civil Unions are against it for one reason and one reason only, they dont like thinking about two guys making out.

Thats it, thats the whole reason.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 6:06:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 6:04:37 PM, Wnope wrote:
But if gays can get married, what happens to traditional marriage? No more dowries?

traditional marriage will continue sliding down the drain in terms of sacredness like it has been since the 1950's, and Gay Marriage wont hasten it one bit compared to what straight people are doing to Marriage
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 6:13:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 6:06:00 PM, imabench wrote:
At 8/28/2012 6:04:37 PM, Wnope wrote:
But if gays can get married, what happens to traditional marriage? No more dowries?

traditional marriage will continue sliding down the drain in terms of sacredness like it has been since the 1950's, and Gay Marriage wont hasten it one bit compared to what straight people are doing to Marriage

Since the 1950s? I'd say since the 1200s.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 6:15:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It has nothing to do with logical "traditional family values." It has to do with a 4000 year old book preaching on the ways to live a life, which include but are not limited to: stoning adulterers, marrying a woman after you rape her, owning women as property, having slaves, and killing the infidels.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 6:16:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 6:13:07 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/28/2012 6:06:00 PM, imabench wrote:
At 8/28/2012 6:04:37 PM, Wnope wrote:
But if gays can get married, what happens to traditional marriage? No more dowries?

traditional marriage will continue sliding down the drain in terms of sacredness like it has been since the 1950's, and Gay Marriage wont hasten it one bit compared to what straight people are doing to Marriage

Since the 1950s? I'd say since the 1200s.

1200's sounds about right actually
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 6:17:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 6:15:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
It has nothing to do with logical "traditional family values." It has to do with a 4000 year old book preaching on the ways to live a life, which include but are not limited to: stoning adulterers, marrying a woman after you rape her, owning women as property, having slaves, and killing the infidels.

^ that too
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 6:26:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 6:13:07 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/28/2012 6:06:00 PM, imabench wrote:
At 8/28/2012 6:04:37 PM, Wnope wrote:
But if gays can get married, what happens to traditional marriage? No more dowries?

traditional marriage will continue sliding down the drain in terms of sacredness like it has been since the 1950's, and Gay Marriage wont hasten it one bit compared to what straight people are doing to Marriage

Since the 1950s? I'd say since the 1200s.

I don't know. I think we have improved from "traditional marriage". Men can no longer beat there wife like in the 1920s, or rape there wife like in the 1200s. I would not say"modern marriage" sliding down the drain. Modern marriage seems like a vast improvement in terms of human rights.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 8:35:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
LordKnukle's post was awesome, lol. It may be the first time we agree.

I agree with the OP. Gay people have kids and raise families. 1/3 lesbian couples and 1/5 gay male couples have children under 18 living in the home. Studies show that kids benefit from having two-parents households regardless of the sexuality of the parents. If traditional marriage is about love and support, combined resources, shared responsibilities and raising children, then to inhibit gays from getting married means you don't care about the values and only care about the tradition... but slavery was a tradition. Human sacrifice was a tradition. So was racism. Clearly traditions change; we ought to examine our values (and the reasons behind them) and work from there.
President of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 9:10:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 5:31:07 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
I don't understand why so called traditionalists or conservatives who are for "family values" are against gay marriage. It may seem strange/weird that people are gay, but it should not seem weird that gay people want to find a partner and maybe have a family.

I often hear conservatives criticize the gay community for being "promiscuous", yet at the same time, conservatives would not allow these people to marry. That seems hypocritical...like "Gays have sex with too many different people, so to solve this problem, we will not allow them to take a vow to be faithful to one person". Its seems like a contradiction in thinking.

Also sometimes I hear "conservatives" say that they have no problem with gay people, just a problem with them getting married. I think this should be the opposite. If someone is really for "traditional family values" they should have no problem with gay people getting married. A "married gay person" is living a more traditional lifestyle than an "unmarried gay".

My main point is that if someone is for "traditional family values", they should be for gay marriage. A traditionalist should prefer a married gay person to an unmarried gay person. Am I wrong?

European conservatives (like David Cameron) make the argument that the institution is primarily about commitment, and thus should be expanded to recognize the commitment of same sex couples.

David Cameron irritates me, but I'm with him on this.
Tsar of DDO
elysian85
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 1:10:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 5:31:07 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
I don't understand why so called traditionalists or conservatives who are for "family values" are against gay marriage. It may seem strange/weird that people are gay, but it should not seem weird that gay people want to find a partner and maybe have a family.

Unfortunately, "family values" do not conveniently reorder themselves as a definition that reads "valuing family." It's a bit more complex than that.


I often hear conservatives criticize the gay community for being "promiscuous", yet at the same time, conservatives would not allow these people to marry. That seems hypocritical...like "Gays have sex with too many different people, so to solve this problem, we will not allow them to take a vow to be faithful to one person". Its seems like a contradiction in thinking.

I take a similar stance here which I also assume in education. That being: if you really want something, you better work your @ss off to get it. And the institution which offers the credibility you desire should approach your admission with every possible attempt to weed you out and deny you what you seek. End of story; period, paragraph.

And as you've stated the promiscuity idea, it most definitely is a contradiction. However, neither I, nor any other conservative in my personal contacts who values the traditional family is possessed of this contradiction. The matter can be more succinctly stated as: Homosexuality is a platform which traditional conservatives do not agree with. As such, living outside of the traditional family structure has its pitfalls, as does living within it. Since one chooses to live an alternative lifestyle, they must consequentially deal with the choices of said alternative lifestyle just as traditional families must deal with the choices of said conventional lifestyle.

However, is it intrinsically more - dare I say - arrogant to assume that simply because one minority group desires preferential treatment in the face of a majority (i.e. to actually change what it means to be 'married') that they should be allowed to receive it simply because they got up this morning?

Its a slap in the face to the people currently involved in the institution of marriage. The basic implication of altering the definition of who may be involved in marriage is to effectively render all current states of matrimony meaningless. Why get married in the first place if the institution only denotes that any two people who share finances, living quarters, the $250 cost for a license at city hall, and agree to file taxes together qualify?

I've been in that relationship before. Know what it was called? A limited liability corporation.

And guess what? One can purchase an LLC, S-Corp, INC, etc. online at 3 AM from their home computer. Feel like entrepreneurship's in the air tonight? Have $250? Well, here's a registered business.

Honestly, if that's what the Gay Marriage activists want for marriage, then screw it. I suppose the Titanic eventually has to fracture midship and settle on the ocean floor.


Also sometimes I hear "conservatives" say that they have no problem with gay people, just a problem with them getting married. I think this should be the opposite. If someone is really for "traditional family values" they should have no problem with gay people getting married. A "married gay person" is living a more traditional lifestyle than an "unmarried gay".

And... see above.


My main point is that if someone is for "traditional family values", they should be for gay marriage. A traditionalist should prefer a married gay person to an unmarried gay person. Am I wrong?

One hundred percent.
fabulist \FAB-yuh-list\ , noun:
1. A liar.
2. A person who invents or relates fables.

Elysian85's distorted and biased confabulations properly render his rhetoric formulation as entirely fabulistic in nature.

"Through counter-intelligence, it may be possible to pin-point potential trouble-makers and neutralize them... Wake up... Wake up... How long? Not long. 'Cause whatcha reap, is whatcha sow." - Zack de la Roche, certifiably insane (and making sense daily)
Chaos88
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 8:41:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 8:35:01 AM, Danielle wrote:
LordKnukle's post was awesome, lol. It may be the first time we agree.

I agree with the OP. Gay people have kids and raise families. 1/3 lesbian couples and 1/5 gay male couples have children under 18 living in the home. Studies show that kids benefit from having two-parents households regardless of the sexuality of the parents. If traditional marriage is about love and support, combined resources, shared responsibilities and raising children, then to inhibit gays from getting married means you don't care about the values and only care about the tradition... but slavery was a tradition. Human sacrifice was a tradition. So was racism. Clearly traditions change; we ought to examine our values (and the reasons behind them) and work from there.

While I don't disagree that two adults is better than one, I think these stats are faulty. I would assume that of these homes with children and same-sex couples, the vast majority of the children are from straight relationships that have obviously ended. So, the parents break up, and the custodial parent decides to stop living a lie and find their same-sex counterpart.

This is not the same as two peope getting together and decide to "have" a kid, which does happen, but not at the rate these stats would suggest.
Chaos88
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 9:01:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't have a problem with gays, their lifestyle, or even them raising a family. However, my issue with gay marriage is not religious in nature or out of disgust, but out of legal concerns.

Largely, I have never been offered a compelling reason for gay marriage that does not apply to other taboo and illegal unions, namely, incestuous and polygamous.

Who are we to judge their love?
Applies to both groups.

What two people do in the bedroom...
Applies to both groups.

We don't want babies with twelve toes.
Does not rule out polygamy. Also, a brother and sister do not have to have children to get married.

Families (marriage) should be able to take care of one another.
If two adults are better than one, then three are better than two.

Let's get rid of marriage and all benefits tied to it.
Fine, but then incest and polygamy can occur too, right?

So, I see this as an issue of special rights over equal rights. Because I don't hear people advocating other discriminated couples' rights. They just want gays to be able to marry, like everyone else. And by "everyone else", they mean "like any two non-related adults of opposing genders of their own free will, who are not retarded, not married and, of course, are alive and U.S. citizens."

Will I lose sleep over gay marriage? No. In fact, in MN there is an amendment issue on this, and whatever the outcome, it will be bittersweet.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 11:08:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago

Unfortunately, "family values" do not conveniently reorder themselves as a definition that reads "valuing family." It's a bit more complex than that.

Yes, I agree. It seems the conservative take on "family values" does not mean family values. I am curious as to what values they mean by "family values"?


I take a similar stance here which I also assume in education. That being: if you really want something, you better work your @ss off to get it. And the institution which offers the credibility you desire should approach your admission with every possible attempt to weed you out and deny you what you seek. End of story; period, paragraph.

People have been working hard to show that gays should be able to marry. They have been doing this for some time. There are not many good arguments against SSM, so it seems admission should be granted.

And as you've stated the promiscuity idea, it most definitely is a contradiction. However, neither I, nor any other conservative in my personal contacts who values the traditional family is possessed of this contradiction. The matter can be more succinctly stated as: Homosexuality is a platform which traditional conservatives do not agree with. As such, living outside of the traditional family structure has its pitfalls, as does living within it. Since one chooses to live an alternative lifestyle, they must consequentially deal with the choices of said alternative lifestyle just as traditional families must deal with the choices of said conventional lifestyle.

So your reason for not allowing SSM is because you do not agree with it. It seems you just do not like changing the status quo. You claim you work hard to find a reason to "deny admission". What is your reason?

However, is it intrinsically more - dare I say - arrogant to assume that simply because one minority group desires preferential treatment in the face of a majority (i.e. to actually change what it means to be 'married') that they should be allowed to receive it simply because they got up this morning?

They did not just get up this morning. They have been arguing for SSM for quite a while. There are many sound arguments for SSM, and not many against it. One being, that gays want a healthy stable monogamous relationship based on commitment and love. This type of relationship can be encouraged by allowing SSM.

Its a slap in the face to the people currently involved in the institution of marriage. The basic implication of altering the definition of who may be involved in marriage is to effectively render all current states of matrimony meaningless. Why get married in the first place if the institution only denotes that any two people who share finances, living quarters, the $250 cost for a license at city hall, and agree to file taxes together qualify?

Slap in the face? Are you implying that a gay relationship is just based on finances and not love? Surely, gays are capable of committed loving relationships. You think that if gays are allowed to marry, marriage would solely be a financial arrangement? I think it hurts the sanctity of marriage if a committed loving couple is not allowed to marry.

I've been in that relationship before. Know what it was called? A limited liability corporation.

And guess what? One can purchase an LLC, S-Corp, INC, etc. online at 3 AM from their home computer. Feel like entrepreneurship's in the air tonight? Have $250? Well, here's a registered business.

Again, it seems you think that allowing SSM, makes marriage a soley a business arrangement. Why do you think this?

Honestly, if that's what the Gay Marriage activists want for marriage, then screw it. I suppose the Titanic eventually has to fracture midship and settle on the ocean floor.

It is my contention that gays do not want business arrangement with partners but a loving committed stable relationship.

Also sometimes I hear "conservatives" say that they have no problem with gay people, just a problem with them getting married. I think this should be the opposite. If someone is really for "traditional family values" they should have no problem with gay people getting married. A "married gay person" is living a more traditional lifestyle than an "unmarried gay".



My main point is that if someone is for "traditional family values", they should be for gay marriage. A traditionalist should prefer a married gay person to an unmarried gay person. Am I wrong?

One hundred percent.
elysian85
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 4:15:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
As I see that my points have not been made clear, I shall attempt to bring crystalline structure to them.

Unfortunately, "family values" do not conveniently reorder themselves as a definition that reads "valuing family." It's a bit more complex than that.

Yes, I agree. It seems the conservative take on "family values" does not mean family values. I am curious as to what values they mean by "family values"?

Family values are those which bind a family together as a means to ensure a cohesive sense of unity among all members of a family unit. Discipline, which requires a responsible disciplinarian (traditionally in the form of the father); emotional support, which requires an empathetic and mature adult (traditionally in the form of the mother); guidance, which requires a reasoning agency bound to a mature moral agent (father); acceptance, which requires an emotive agency bound to a mature non-judgmental agent (mother); apprenticeship, which requires a skilled practitioner of a trade deemed to glean worth to the society (father); domestic dutifulness, which requires a combination of culinary, hygienic, and home-making skills deemed to foster a family identity (mother); participation, which requires an adherence to chores, gamesmanship, and yields rewards either monetary or gifted (traditionally in the form of children); bonding, which requires a quantifiable amount of time to be spent engaged in one-to-one contact between different roles in the family (spouses and children); and commitment, which requires a sanguine understanding that family comes before the individual, bar-none (spouses to one another, children to one another, spouses to children, children to spouses).

In short, family values are defined by fostering an environment whose ultimate goal is to produce fit, productive, industrious, capable, social, civil, responsible, disciplined, and loving adults in every sense of the word maturity.




I take a similar stance here which I also assume in education. That being: if you really want something, you better work your @ss off to get it. And the institution which offers the credibility you desire should approach your admission with every possible attempt to weed you out and deny you what you seek. End of story; period, paragraph.

People have been working hard to show that gays should be able to marry. They have been doing this for some time. There are not many good arguments against SSM, so it seems admission should be granted.

No, I categorically disagree. No one, heterosexual or homosexual should be granted a marriage based upon their ability to breathe alone.

Rather, as I stated above, a marriage is the highest order of family. A marriage, in the conservative tradition, is analogous to a Nobel Prize awarded to those who have shown their commitment to family values and their willingness to serve one another until the end of their lives. This commitment is a legal, financial, emotional, and societal contract (and in the purest conservative sense, a testament before one's deity) that states:

I, (name), take you (name), to be my (wife/husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do us part.

As such, marriage is not something that one just "tries out to see how they like married life." No, marriage is the declaration before the State, community, extended families, and friends that two people will become one. And through this, they must sacrifice some of their individual qualities on the alter of marriage so that their unity can be complete and binding.

Just like one doesn't merit a Nobel Prize simply because they can read about Quantum Mechanics, one doesn't merit marriage simply because they can have sex.


And as you've stated the promiscuity idea, it most definitely is a contradiction. However, neither I, nor any other conservative in my personal contacts who values the traditional family is possessed of this contradiction. The matter can be more succinctly stated as: Homosexuality is a platform which traditional conservatives do not agree with. As such, living outside of the traditional family structure has its pitfalls, as does living within it. Since one chooses to live an alternative lifestyle, they must consequentially deal with the choices of said alternative lifestyle just as traditional families must deal with the choices of said conventional lifestyle.

So your reason for not allowing SSM is because you do not agree with it. It seems you just do not like changing the status quo. You claim you work hard to find a reason to "deny admission". What is your reason?

See above.


However, is it intrinsically more - dare I say - arrogant to assume that simply because one minority group desires preferential treatment in the face of a majority (i.e. to actually change what it means to be 'married') that they should be allowed to receive it simply because they got up this morning?

They did not just get up this morning. They have been arguing for SSM for quite a while. There are many sound arguments for SSM, and not many against it. One being, that gays want a healthy stable monogamous relationship based on commitment and love. This type of relationship can be encouraged by allowing SSM.

And homosexuals may have a healthy, stable, monogamous relationship. However, that is merely a precursor to marriage.


Its a slap in the face to the people currently involved in the institution of marriage. The basic implication of altering the definition of who may be involved in marriage is to effectively render all current states of matrimony meaningless. Why get married in the first place if the institution only denotes that any two people who share finances, living quarters, the $250 cost for a license at city hall, and agree to file taxes together qualify?

Slap in the face? Are you implying that a gay relationship is just based on finances and not love? Surely, gays are capable of committed loving relationships. You think that if gays are allowed to marry, marriage would solely be a financial arrangement? I think it hurts the sanctity of marriage if a committed loving couple is not allowed to marry.

See above. And please avoid cherry-picking my exclamations as they are mere emphasis.


I've been in that relationship before. Know what it was called? A limited liability corporation.

And guess what? One can purchase an LLC, S-Corp, INC, etc. online at 3 AM from their home computer. Feel like entrepreneurship's in the air tonight? Have $250? Well, here's a registered business.

Again, it seems you think that allowing SSM, makes marriage a soley a business arrangement. Why do you think this?

See above. My analogy was meant to point out one thing: if marriage becomes a convenience item and is deprived of its institutional value, then it is (as convenience is a measure of the ease in which a good or service can be attained) definitively sapped of its basic meaningfulness. There is a reason that a Maserati costs more and is less convenient to acquire than a KIA. Among those reasons: it is largely crafted by hand, it has a superior design and performance rating, it is of substantially higher quality and durability, and is also more difficult to maintain.

Additionally, if everyone has a Maserati, then that economically and socially devalues it. This means that all people with their Maseratis would give very little thought to abandoning them. To return to the topic: I cite the current divorce statistic.

KIA =/= Maserati. Stable, loving, monogamous relationship =/= Marriage.
fabulist \FAB-yuh-list\ , noun:
1. A liar.
2. A person who invents or relates fables.

Elysian85's distorted and biased confabulations properly render his rhetoric formulation as entirely fabulistic in nature.

"Through counter-intelligence, it may be possible to pin-point potential trouble-makers and neutralize them... Wake up... Wake up... How long? Not long. 'Cause whatcha reap, is whatcha sow." - Zack de la Roche, certifiably insane (and making sense daily)
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 4:59:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago



Family values are those which bind a family together as a means to ensure a cohesive sense of unity among all members of a family unit. Discipline, which requires a responsible disciplinarian (traditionally in the form of the father); emotional support, which requires an empathetic and mature adult (traditionally in the form of the mother); guidance, which requires a reasoning agency bound to a mature moral agent (father); acceptance, which requires an emotive agency bound to a mature non-judgmental agent (mother); apprenticeship, which requires a skilled practitioner of a trade deemed to glean worth to the society (father); domestic dutifulness, which requires a combination of culinary, hygienic, and home-making skills deemed to foster a family identity (mother); participation, which requires an adherence to chores, gamesmanship, and yields rewards either monetary or gifted (traditionally in the form of children); bonding, which requires a quantifiable amount of time to be spent engaged in one-to-one contact between different roles in the family (spouses and children); and commitment, which requires a sanguine understanding that family comes before the individual, bar-none (spouses to one another, children to one another, spouses to children, children to spouses).

In short, family values are defined by fostering an environment whose ultimate goal is to produce fit, productive, industrious, capable, social, civil, responsible, disciplined, and loving adults in every sense of the word maturity.





Rather, as I stated above, a marriage is the highest order of family. A marriage, in the conservative tradition, is analogous to a Nobel Prize awarded to those who have shown their commitment to family values and their willingness to serve one another until the end of their lives. This commitment is a legal, financial, emotional, and societal contract (and in the purest conservative sense, a testament before one's deity) that states:

I, (name), take you (name), to be my (wife/husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do us part.

As such, marriage is not something that one just "tries out to see how they like married life." No, marriage is the declaration before the State, community, extended families, and friends that two people will become one. And through this, they must sacrifice some of their individual qualities on the alter of marriage so that their unity can be complete and binding.

Just like one doesn't merit a Nobel Prize simply because they can read about Quantum Mechanics, one doesn't merit marriage simply because they can have sex.

Thank you for making your definition of marriage clear. I accept your definition. However I don't think children are necessary, or that gender roles must be stuck too. But, I accept this definition of marriage.

However, it seems gays fit this definition of marriage. Thank you for making your definition of marriage clear. What you have not made clear is why you don't think gays fit this definition.



.








See above. My analogy was meant to point out one thing: if marriage becomes a convenience item and is deprived of its institutional value, then it is (as convenience is a measure of the ease in which a good or service can be attained) definitively sapped of its basic meaningfulness. There is a reason that a Maserati costs more and is less convenient to acquire than a KIA. Among those reasons: it is largely crafted by hand, it has a superior design and performance rating, it is of substantially higher quality and durability, and is also more difficult to maintain.

Additionally, if everyone has a Maserati, then that economically and socially devalues it. This means that all people with their Maseratis would give very little thought to abandoning them. To return to the topic: I cite the current divorce statistic.

It seems you want a higher standard for marriage (both straight and gay), which is fine. I fail to see how this is an argument against SSM. It seems this is an argument for higher marriage standards all around.
elysian85
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 5:58:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Family values are those which bind a family together as a means to ensure a cohesive sense of unity among all members of a family unit. Discipline, which requires a responsible disciplinarian (traditionally in the form of the father); emotional support, which requires an empathetic and mature adult (traditionally in the form of the mother); guidance, which requires a reasoning agency bound to a mature moral agent (father); acceptance, which requires an emotive agency bound to a mature non-judgmental agent (mother); apprenticeship, which requires a skilled practitioner of a trade deemed to glean worth to the society (father); domestic dutifulness, which requires a combination of culinary, hygienic, and home-making skills deemed to foster a family identity (mother); participation, which requires an adherence to chores, gamesmanship, and yields rewards either monetary or gifted (traditionally in the form of children); bonding, which requires a quantifiable amount of time to be spent engaged in one-to-one contact between different roles in the family (spouses and children); and commitment, which requires a sanguine understanding that family comes before the individual, bar-none (spouses to one another, children to one another, spouses to children, children to spouses).

In short, family values are defined by fostering an environment whose ultimate goal is to produce fit, productive, industrious, capable, social, civil, responsible, disciplined, and loving adults in every sense of the word maturity.


Rather, as I stated above, a marriage is the highest order of family. A marriage, in the conservative tradition, is analogous to a Nobel Prize awarded to those who have shown their commitment to family values and their willingness to serve one another until the end of their lives. This commitment is a legal, financial, emotional, and societal contract (and in the purest conservative sense, a testament before one's deity) that states:

I, (name), take you (name), to be my (wife/husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do us part.

As such, marriage is not something that one just "tries out to see how they like married life." No, marriage is the declaration before the State, community, extended families, and friends that two people will become one. And through this, they must sacrifice some of their individual qualities on the alter of marriage so that their unity can be complete and binding.

Just like one doesn't merit a Nobel Prize simply because they can read about Quantum Mechanics, one doesn't merit marriage simply because they can have sex.

Thank you for making your definition of marriage clear. I accept your definition. However I don't think children are necessary, or that gender roles must be stuck too. But, I accept this definition of marriage.

However, it seems gays fit this definition of marriage. Thank you for making your definition of marriage clear. What you have not made clear is why you don't think gays fit this definition.

And truly, I have not. Though that was not the original assertion which was, "traditional family values support same-sex marriage."

This is where a gray area arises. While I do know from personal experience that same sex couples can be quite as happy and committed as opposite sex couples, if not more so, I must return to my basic definition of marriage as the standard to what constitutes matrimony. That being: a marriage is the highest order of family composed of a man and a woman in which their bond is made eternal by ceremony and concession before State, community, extended family, and friends that they shall commit to become a self-sufficient unit in all matters related to life. One of those being, reproduction.

It can, and most certainly should, be argued that homosexual marriage can support reproduction. However, I find that this defies self-sufficiency. For example, two gay men may adopt a child or artificially inseminate a willing female. Or two lesbian women may adopt a child or received an artificial insemination.

I find that in order to find universal truth, we must remove the comforts and conveniences of modern society from the fold: both of the above example are cursory fixes to the problem of self-sufficiency. Read: not necessary.

In is an indisputable fact that a seed must fertilize an egg to create a fetus. As such, testes and ovaries are a requirement. One might argue that semen can be synthesized artificially - I would ask: is this desirable? Can human geneticists truly construct DNA in a way which is comparably equal or superior to nature?

Back to the original idea: out-sourcing for affection from a monogamous relationship bears the social description of "cheating." Out-sourcing for money from a monogamous relationship bears the social description of "welfare" or having a "sugar-daddy/momma." Out-sourcing for discipline from a monogamous relationship bears the social description of "trailer-trash" or in legal terms, "domestic violence." Out-sourcing for nurturing of children from a monogamous relationship bears the commercial description of "day care" or "an au pair/nanny." Out-sourcing for values from a monogamous relationship bears the societal description of "civil union." And finally, out-sourcing for posterity from a monogamous relationship bears the societal description of "adoption."

Now, I must posit this: if self-sufficiency describes family values more accurately, then how is it that out-sourcing (or as it is commonly referred to, "selling out") is in line with family values?

As such, how is homosexual marriage self-sufficient and in line with family values?



See above. My analogy was meant to point out one thing: if marriage becomes a convenience item and is deprived of its institutional value, then it is (as convenience is a measure of the ease in which a good or service can be attained) definitively sapped of its basic meaningfulness. There is a reason that a Maserati costs more and is less convenient to acquire than a KIA. Among those reasons: it is largely crafted by hand, it has a superior design and performance rating, it is of substantially higher quality and durability, and is also more difficult to maintain.

Additionally, if everyone has a Maserati, then that economically and socially devalues it. This means that all people with their Maseratis would give very little thought to abandoning them. To return to the topic: I cite the current divorce statistic.

It seems you want a higher standard for marriage (both straight and gay), which is fine. I fail to see how this is an argument against SSM. It seems this is an argument for higher marriage standards all around.

Well, lol, if you fail to see that I guess we'll just have to be bygones and forget about the whole thing because it's laid out in long form. And absolutely, I believe, as my conservative friends do, that marriage should be reserved and respected, if not revered, rather than treated as a cute wedding day and a grounds for destroying two immature lives (if not more) several years after its inception.
fabulist \FAB-yuh-list\ , noun:
1. A liar.
2. A person who invents or relates fables.

Elysian85's distorted and biased confabulations properly render his rhetoric formulation as entirely fabulistic in nature.

"Through counter-intelligence, it may be possible to pin-point potential trouble-makers and neutralize them... Wake up... Wake up... How long? Not long. 'Cause whatcha reap, is whatcha sow." - Zack de la Roche, certifiably insane (and making sense daily)
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 6:56:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago

And truly, I have not. Though that was not the original assertion which was, "traditional family values support same-sex marriage."

Well now that we have established what traditional values are, lets see if they support SSM

This is where a gray area arises. While I do know from personal experience that same sex couples can be quite as happy and committed as opposite sex couples, if not more so, I must return to my basic definition of marriage as the standard to what constitutes matrimony. That being: a marriage is the highest order of family composed of a man and a woman in which their bond is made eternal by ceremony and concession before State, community, extended family, and friends that they shall commit to become a self-sufficient unit in all matters related to life. One of those being, reproduction.

I agree with everything about this "traditional marriage" except being able to reproduce. I do not think a couple has to have children or the ability to reproduce to live by traditional family values. This is where we disagree.

It can, and most certainly should, be argued that homosexual marriage can support reproduction. However, I find that this defies self-sufficiency. For example, two gay men may adopt a child or artificially inseminate a willing female. Or two lesbian women may adopt a child or received an artificial insemination.

So, not only do you think reproduction needed to have "traditional family values" you believe that self sufficient reproduction is a traditional family value. So, clearly you believe that infertile couples or those who choose not to have kids live by traditional family values.

I find that in order to find universal truth, we must remove the comforts and conveniences of modern society from the fold: both of the above example are cursory fixes to the problem of self-sufficiency. Read: not necessary.

Any person that needs an medical procedure to produce children, they also do not live by traditional family values?

In is an indisputable fact that a seed must fertilize an egg to create a fetus. As such, testes and ovaries are a requirement. One might argue that semen can be synthesized artificially - I would ask: is this desirable? Can human geneticists truly construct DNA in a way which is comparably equal or superior to nature?

Back to the original idea: out-sourcing for affection from a monogamous relationship bears the social description of "cheating." Out-sourcing for money from a monogamous relationship bears the social description of "welfare" or having a "sugar-daddy/momma." Out-sourcing for discipline from a monogamous relationship bears the social description of "trailer-trash" or in legal terms, "domestic violence." Out-sourcing for nurturing of children from a monogamous relationship bears the commercial description of "day care" or "an au pair/nanny." Out-sourcing for values from a monogamous relationship bears the societal description of "civil union." And finally, out-sourcing for posterity from a monogamous relationship bears the societal description of "adoption."

Okay, I take it you believe that all couples who "outsource" in these situations should not be able to marry? I assume this because you believe gay marriages "outsource" so they should not marry. So anyone who commits "outsources" also should not marry.

Now, I must posit this: if self-sufficiency describes family values more accurately, then how is it that out-sourcing (or as it is commonly referred to, "selling out") is in line with family values?

As such, how is homosexual marriage self-sufficient and in line with family values?

One difference is that gays have a physical disadvantage. They cannot physically have kids, so they need help to have kids. Infertile couples are the same and they can marry? If a couple falls on hard times and need welfare (hurricane destroyed house, father got injured/laid off and cannot work), should they not be allowed to marry because of outsourcing?

Furthermore, I disagree with some of these "outsourcing" being traditional family values. Adopting, welfare (if not abusing the system) and nannies (in most cases) are consistent with traditional family values and should not be reason to deny marriage.




Well, lol, if you fail to see that I guess we'll just have to be bygones and forget about the whole thing because it's laid out in long form. And absolutely, I believe, as my conservative friends do, that marriage should be reserved and respected, if not revered, rather than treated as a cute wedding day and a grounds for destroying two immature lives (if not more) several years after its inception.

We agree that gay couples should marry because of most traditional family values. Except you believe that the need to reproduce children self sufficiently is a traditional family value. I do not think the ability reproduce children self sufficiently is a traditional family value.

However, like infertile couples, should all the other traditional family values that are inline with SSM out-way the fact that they cannot reproduce children self sufficiently?
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 7:11:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 5:31:07 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
I don't understand why so called traditionalists or conservatives who are for "family values" are against gay marriage. It may seem strange/weird that people are gay, but it should not seem weird that gay people want to find a partner and maybe have a family.

I often hear conservatives criticize the gay community for being "promiscuous", yet at the same time, conservatives would not allow these people to marry. That seems hypocritical...like "Gays have sex with too many different people, so to solve this problem, we will not allow them to take a vow to be faithful to one person". Its seems like a contradiction in thinking.

Also sometimes I hear "conservatives" say that they have no problem with gay people, just a problem with them getting married. I think this should be the opposite. If someone is really for "traditional family values" they should have no problem with gay people getting married. A "married gay person" is living a more traditional lifestyle than an "unmarried gay".

My main point is that if someone is for "traditional family values", they should be for gay marriage. A traditionalist should prefer a married gay person to an unmarried gay person. Am I wrong?

I don't even have anything to say to this since I agree so much.
elysian85
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 9:53:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is where a gray area arises. While I do know from personal experience that same sex couples can be quite as happy and committed as opposite sex couples, if not more so, I must return to my basic definition of marriage as the standard to what constitutes matrimony. That being: a marriage is the highest order of family composed of a man and a woman in which their bond is made eternal by ceremony and concession before State, community, extended family, and friends that they shall commit to become a self-sufficient unit in all matters related to life. One of those being, reproduction.

I agree with everything about this "traditional marriage" except being able to reproduce. I do not think a couple has to have children or the ability to reproduce to live by traditional family values. This is where we disagree.

lol... ok.


It can, and most certainly should, be argued that homosexual marriage can support reproduction. However, I find that this defies self-sufficiency. For example, two gay men may adopt a child or artificially inseminate a willing female. Or two lesbian women may adopt a child or received an artificial insemination.

So, not only do you think reproduction needed to have "traditional family values" you believe that self sufficient reproduction is a traditional family value. So, clearly you believe that infertile couples or those who choose not to have kids live by traditional family values.

Um... yes. What is the purpose of having "family values" traditional or otherwise, if there are no progeny to pass them on to?


I find that in order to find universal truth, we must remove the comforts and conveniences of modern society from the fold: both of the above example are cursory fixes to the problem of self-sufficiency. Read: not necessary.

Any person that needs an medical procedure to produce children, they also do not live by traditional family values?

Specifying a medical procedure (e.g. cesarean, etc.) would be helpful, but at the end of the day: if nature didn't intend it to go off successfully without help, I just assume trust in nature. It seems to have a lot fewer problems than humanity does.

You must understand: there have been people in my own life that got married on the predicate of love and commitment alone, then decide to have children, only to find out that one partner or the other is sterile or infertile. These have unanimously ended in divorce. That to me, while anecdotal, suggests that naturally producing children is quite an important feature to the idea of traditional family values and marriage as a whole.

One would be quite hard-pressed to come across a married couple who simply want to be married "just because they're in love and committed to one another." People marry to start families. If people are infertile, sterile, or otherwise lack the corresponding reproductive organs to sufficiently produce offspring which is a genetic reflection of both partners, then it seems to me that marriage is unnecessary and a civil union or domestic partnership should suffice.


In is an indisputable fact that a seed must fertilize an egg to create a fetus. As such, testes and ovaries are a requirement. One might argue that semen can be synthesized artificially - I would ask: is this desirable? Can human geneticists truly construct DNA in a way which is comparably equal or superior to nature?

Back to the original idea: out-sourcing for affection from a monogamous relationship bears the social description of "cheating." Out-sourcing for money from a monogamous relationship bears the social description of "welfare" or having a "sugar-daddy/momma." Out-sourcing for discipline from a monogamous relationship bears the social description of "trailer-trash" or in legal terms, "domestic violence." Out-sourcing for nurturing of children from a monogamous relationship bears the commercial description of "day care" or "an au pair/nanny." Out-sourcing for values from a monogamous relationship bears the societal description of "civil union." And finally, out-sourcing for posterity from a monogamous relationship bears the societal description of "adoption."

Okay, I take it you believe that all couples who "outsource" in these situations should not be able to marry? I assume this because you believe gay marriages "outsource" so they should not marry. So anyone who commits "outsources" also should not marry.

I'm not entirely certain I understand this whole "ability" argument. If by ability, you mean capacity to marry, then I argue that if raising a family is not the primary goal between two partners (i.e. the devotion of the majority of their time, money, energy, resources, and emotions, etc.), then no, their marriage permit should not be granted.

Time, as I understand it, is as much a commodity as gold or silver (i.e. each person may only possess a finite amount of it). If two partners who very much fit the requirements as stated above in the traditional family values definition sans the child-rearing aspect of it (i.e. could fill the parental roles in a balanced way though they have not created a child between them, yet intend to) are of the ambition that they wish to start a business together, run for public office together, or any number of the possible time-consuming ambitions that exist; then it follows that since time is limited, raising a family in addition to pursuing personal achievement would constitute a choice between one or the other. Family or ambition.

If one chooses ambition, more power to them - may they reap the benefits of the world. However, a family is a full-time job. To both parents. To posit that one may pursue their personal ambitions (i.e. the pursuit of ambition is a full-time job) to the fullest and also create and devote to a family unit (i.e. maintaining a family is a full-time job) is to imply that a partnership should consist of four (4) full-time jobs, not to mention that people must work to eat. Not surprisingly, people who assume this path will also complain of being starved for romance. I wonder...

Realistically, a family is comprised not only of the parents, but of the children. They come first. Always.

As such, how is homosexual marriage self-sufficient and in line with family values?

One difference is that gays have a physical disadvantage. They cannot physically have kids, so they need help to have kids. Infertile couples are the same and they can marry? If a couple falls on hard times and need welfare (hurricane destroyed house, father got injured/laid off and cannot work), should they not be allowed to marry because of outsourcing?

I'd say they have more than a "physical disadvantage." See above.

Furthermore, I disagree with some of these "outsourcing" being traditional family values. Adopting, welfare (if not abusing the system) and nannies (in most cases) are consistent with traditional family values and should not be reason to deny marriage.

We agree that gay couples should marry because of most traditional family values. Except you believe that the need to reproduce children self sufficiently is a traditional family value. I do not think the ability reproduce children self sufficiently is a traditional family value.

Now, do we actually agree or are you putting words in my mouth? The fact is, I don't agree, which I thought was made quite clear...

Here's the ability thing again. The capacity to reproduce self-sufficiently is what ultimately makes a marriage (and the family that follows) and is not merely a TFV, but a requirement for life.

If two gay men dislike vagina, that's fair. My question would be, why would they feel entitled to what comes out of it?

However, like infertile couples, should all the other traditional family values that are inline with SSM out-way the fact that they cannot reproduce children
fabulist \FAB-yuh-list\ , noun:
1. A liar.
2. A person who invents or relates fables.

Elysian85's distorted and biased confabulations properly render his rhetoric formulation as entirely fabulistic in nature.

"Through counter-intelligence, it may be possible to pin-point potential trouble-makers and neutralize them... Wake up... Wake up... How long? Not long. 'Cause whatcha reap, is whatcha sow." - Zack de la Roche, certifiably insane (and making sense daily)
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 11:04:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 5:31:07 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
I don't understand why so called traditionalists or conservatives who are for "family values" are against gay marriage. It may seem strange/weird that people are gay, but it should not seem weird that gay people want to find a partner and maybe have a family.

I often hear conservatives criticize the gay community for being "promiscuous", yet at the same time, conservatives would not allow these people to marry. That seems hypocritical...like "Gays have sex with too many different people, so to solve this problem, we will not allow them to take a vow to be faithful to one person". Its seems like a contradiction in thinking.

Also sometimes I hear "conservatives" say that they have no problem with gay people, just a problem with them getting married. I think this should be the opposite. If someone is really for "traditional family values" they should have no problem with gay people getting married. A "married gay person" is living a more traditional lifestyle than an "unmarried gay".

My main point is that if someone is for "traditional family values", they should be for gay marriage. A traditionalist should prefer a married gay person to an unmarried gay person. Am I wrong?

Alright, don't refute my content rather think like you are me.

Why should I support SSM? Why would I prefer "married" gay couples? Marriage is a union between one man and one woman whom love each other and consummate marriage through procreation and create a healthy environment for children. Homosexuals inherently cannot do this.

SSM has been shown to decrease marriage rates and the amount of homosexuals marrying does not even out the amount lost. This means a loss in areas where good citizens can be raised (married parents fair better).

Studies also show children raised by biological parents are better then those not. It is also shown in three studies (these three specifically meet rigorous standards while others don't) show children raised by homosexuals fare worse then those raised by heterosexual and biological parents. Note marital status was controlled in these studies. It is also shown specifically more children are raised fatherless. Lesbians are bigger into the adoption and vitro insemination idea. However, fathers have been shown to have special qualities mothers do not have and play a large role in a child's life.

Further, I think marriage is sacred. No fault divorces and Las Vegas weddings are not beneficial to the institution. Why would I want to add a group of people I think would hurt the institution?
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 11:08:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"Why should I support SSM? Why would I prefer "married" gay couples? Marriage is a union between one man and one woman whom love each other and consummate marriage through procreation and create a healthy environment for children. Homosexuals inherently cannot do this."

There is so much wrong with this.

1. You're using an archaic definition of marriage with no evidence to back it up. Just because marriage was done with X in the past, doesn't mean that it should be done like X in the future. This is a whole host of fallacies, including Appeal to Tradition and Is/Ought.

2. Homosexuals can reproduce via in-vitro fertilization. As well, homosexuals can adopt which is effectively the same thing as procreating (from a societal point of view, which you oh so adore).

3. Homosexuals cannot inherently provide a healthy environment for children? Stupidity knows no racial bounds.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
elysian85
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 11:34:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 11:08:00 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
"Why should I support SSM? Why would I prefer "married" gay couples? Marriage is a union between one man and one woman whom love each other and consummate marriage through procreation and create a healthy environment for children. Homosexuals inherently cannot do this."

There is so much wrong with this.

1. You're using an archaic definition of marriage with no evidence to back it up. Just because marriage was done with X in the past, doesn't mean that it should be done like X in the future. This is a whole host of fallacies, including Appeal to Tradition and Is/Ought.

2. Homosexuals can reproduce via in-vitro fertilization. As well, homosexuals can adopt which is effectively the same thing as procreating (from a societal point of view, which you oh so adore).

3. Homosexuals cannot inherently provide a healthy environment for children? Stupidity knows no racial bounds.

I see you missed my argument largely supporting all his points a few posts prior.
fabulist \FAB-yuh-list\ , noun:
1. A liar.
2. A person who invents or relates fables.

Elysian85's distorted and biased confabulations properly render his rhetoric formulation as entirely fabulistic in nature.

"Through counter-intelligence, it may be possible to pin-point potential trouble-makers and neutralize them... Wake up... Wake up... How long? Not long. 'Cause whatcha reap, is whatcha sow." - Zack de la Roche, certifiably insane (and making sense daily)
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 11:42:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 5:55:37 PM, imabench wrote:
Everybody who is against Gay Marriage And Civil Unions are against it for one reason and one reason only, they dont like thinking about two guys making out.

Thats it, thats the whole reason.

If they tried to pass a law that said gay women can get married (so long as they post a honeymoon video) it would pass with near universal support.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 11:42:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 11:34:36 PM, elysian85 wrote:
At 8/30/2012 11:08:00 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
"Why should I support SSM? Why would I prefer "married" gay couples? Marriage is a union between one man and one woman whom love each other and consummate marriage through procreation and create a healthy environment for children. Homosexuals inherently cannot do this."

There is so much wrong with this.

1. You're using an archaic definition of marriage with no evidence to back it up. Just because marriage was done with X in the past, doesn't mean that it should be done like X in the future. This is a whole host of fallacies, including Appeal to Tradition and Is/Ought.

2. Homosexuals can reproduce via in-vitro fertilization. As well, homosexuals can adopt which is effectively the same thing as procreating (from a societal point of view, which you oh so adore).

3. Homosexuals cannot inherently provide a healthy environment for children? Stupidity knows no racial bounds.

I see you missed my argument largely supporting all his points a few posts prior.

Your arguments are incoherent and full of straw mans. At least his arguments are straight forward, factually incorrect, but easily discernible.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
thett3
Posts: 14,349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 11:44:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 11:42:04 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/28/2012 5:55:37 PM, imabench wrote:
Everybody who is against Gay Marriage And Civil Unions are against it for one reason and one reason only, they dont like thinking about two guys making out.

Thats it, thats the whole reason.

If they tried to pass a law that said gay women can get married (so long as they post a honeymoon video) it would pass with near universal support.

The great compromise.

I see a president Ore_Ele in America's future!
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 11:44:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
For civil unions with the same benefits of marriage.

Not for changing word definitions so easily, and ones that are so pivotal.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 11:46:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 11:44:40 PM, OberHerr wrote:
For civil unions with the same benefits of marriage.

Not for changing word definitions so easily, and ones that are so pivotal.

Oh yes. God forbid words never change. Fagg0t is just a bundle of sticks, n!gger is just a regular name for a black person, and marriage still allows multiple wives with their property.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 11:47:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 11:46:19 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/30/2012 11:44:40 PM, OberHerr wrote:
For civil unions with the same benefits of marriage.

Not for changing word definitions so easily, and ones that are so pivotal.

Oh yes. God forbid words never change. Fagg0t is just a bundle of sticks, n!gger is just a regular name for a black person, and marriage still allows multiple wives with their property.

I wish they didn't, or at least not so easily.

Call me stingy, but I like keeping things the way they are as much as possible, depending.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-