Gay Marriage Bill Passed in New York's State Government.

[Fragony]

'I'd say your analogy is a farce, and entirely pointless to boot.'

Oh, k. I was just wondering what your opinion was glad you stopped by.

Again, gay marriage is a farce because it's a dead end. If Ryl and PVC feel that something has been taken from them not only do I sympathise, I agree. They will have to suck it up but it doesn't hurt trying to understand them.

[Askthepizzaguy]

'I'd say your analogy is a farce, and entirely pointless to boot.'

Oh, k. I was just wondering what your opinion was glad you stopped by.

I aim to please.

Again, gay marriage is a farce because it's a dead end.

How so?

If Ryl and PVC feel that something has been taken from them not only do I sympathise, I agree. They will have to suck it up but it doesn't hurt trying to understand them.

I understand their viewpoint, and I'm sad to say I once shared it. People can change.

[Fragony]

How so?

Because marriage has always been about starting a family, a promise of a future. For gays that's not possible. Asking to pretend it's the same thing is not classy, you can say 'why not' but you can also ask 'why do'.

[Lemur]

Because marriage has always been about starting a family, a promise of a future. For gays that's not possible.

Very strange perspective. Adopting an orphan does not qualify as "starting a family"? How about using a surrogate mother? And as for having a future, don't we all have brief little lives that end? Surely if two people want to spend the time they have together, they shouldn't need to come begging to you for permission.

Your perspective only makes sense if you squint and look from a particular angle.

[jirisys]

Very strange perspective. Adopting an orphan does not qualify as "starting a family"? How about using a surrogate mother? And as for having a future, don't we all have brief little lives that end? Surely if two people want to spend the time they have together, they shouldn't need to come begging to you for permission.

Your perspective only makes sense if you squint and look from a particular angle.

Reminds me of a spanish comedy show which has a gay guy separated from his boyfriend, artificially inseminating (he doesn't like sex with a woman) a lesbian who wants the baby and all three people and her girlfriend live not quite happily. What's really important is that I cannot really say that it hasn't happened yet. And still. Should the man and woman marry just because they have a baby together?

Would you call Angelina Jolie's marriage a non-marriage simply because their kids are adopted?

~Jirisys ()

[Askthepizzaguy]

Because marriage has always been about starting a family

False, and I can give you any number of flagrantly obvious reasons why it's false.

There have been numerous examples in this thread already. That's perhaps the easiest non-point in this argument to refute, but you continue to use it when it's been thoroughly refuted and discredited.

a promise of a future.

False. You know, sometimes people get married even when they're aware they have terminal illnesses. Sometimes, the lack of time left on earth inspires people to literally "spend the rest of their lives" together, even if it's just a few months.

A 'future' for themselves or their children is not the only possible point to marriage, nor the only accepted one.

For gays that's not possible.

False. Gays can procreate, and that's been explained countless times as well. Gays raise families, and that's also been explained countless times. It's not even hypotheticals we're talking about. It's historical fact, indisputable fact.

Asking to pretend it's the same thing is not classy,

Telling gay people they aren't to be treated equally as other couples and families is not classy.

you can say 'why not' but you can also ask 'why do'.

And when sound reasons are given as to why, the next logical step is to ask so.... why not?

And the reasons given are not reasons in the slightest.

[Fragony]

Very strange perspective. Adopting an orphan does not qualify as "starting a family"? How about using a surrogate mother? And as for having a future, don't we all have brief little lives that end? Surely if two people want to spend the time they have together, they shouldn't need to come begging to you for permission.

Your perspective only makes sense if you squint and look from a particular angle.

A succesfull society is where you keep a respectful distance. There is nothing wrong with being gay or being different in general, but different it is. Gay marriage isn't keeping that respectfull distance and that annoys me. Why is not being discriminated by law not enough for them, why claim what isn't theirs.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Respectful distance? You mean like folks with religious opinions telling people who aren't members of their faith that they need to follow the laws of someone else's holy book? Or perhaps, claiming that religion defines marriage, when interfaith marriages happen every day, and secular, agnostic, and atheist folks get married all the time? Or suggesting that traditions must apply to people who don't follow tradition, because it is tradition? Or that tradition has any meaning when the tradition itself has changed repeatedly over history? The respectful distance of putting it to a vote whether or not the couple down the street can get married, even though it doesn't affect you at all?

That kind of respectful distance?

Ah, the nonexistent kind. Gotcha.

[Fragony]

Traditionalists mostly tolerate their lifestyle, it would be nice if gays showed the same courtisy . I don't blame tradionalists if they see it as an act of agression.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Let's talk for a moment about unwarranted government intrusion into people's lives, which is the holy grail of conservative ideology.


You want to look at most kinds of pornography in your home? That's fine. And many will argue the government has no right to intervene, unless there's a reason for it, such as viewing child pornography, which violates age of consent and is by its very nature predatory. You want to get absolutely plastered drunk in your home, even though drinking and driving (or even being publicly intoxicated) can be illegal, and is provably dangerous and irresponsible? Sure, that's fine. And many will argue the government has no right to intervene, unless there's a reason for it. You want to own all kinds of guns and ammunition, which can be used dangerously and irresponsibly? Sure, that's fine. And many will argue the government has no right to intervene, unless there's a reason for it. You want to hold certain beliefs, and start organizations inside your house dedicated to the worship of whatever you like, and condemn whoever you want as a sinner? Sure, that's fine. All of these are bedrock principles of "conservative values".

But, here we arrive at an inconsistency. We are suggesting that the private morality police of everyday voters, combined with state and federal governments, are to be invited into our lives, for this instance. This is an exception to the rule.

Family values voter, state legislator, and Senator, all sitting down at a table with a gay couple, in their home, uninvited, without a warrant. They are telling this couple that they cannot do the same things that family values voter can do with his loved one, and giving absolutely no reasons for it. Here, a couple's life together is in the hands of total strangers, politicians, whose opinions have no bearing on whether or not they love each other, and will stay together. They are telling this gay couple that they can veto their attempts to get married, and that they are not entitled to see each other in the hospital or be afforded the same status of family or spouse that other couples have. And the reason given is "no reason, we just think tradition is good for its own sake. Now be second-class citizens, and stop being all up in our face about wanting equality already! Let's put it to a vote. 3-2, you lose."

Yes, indeed. The gays are all up in our face, while average joe voter and state legislator and Senator are sitting in their home, telling them that they aren't equal, they aren't the same, and they're not entitled to the same basic rights and freedoms as family members and heterosexual spouses, and that's the LAW. That's not just the private opinions of churchgoers and assorted unaffiliated homophobes, which they're entitled to have in their own home.

No, they're sitting at the dinner table of the gay couple, making their private opinion the law of this couple's household, telling them that since they have the votes, they can veto this couple's marriage. Render it null and void, without just cause. Then, these fearless crusaders for limited government go home to their house, and decry the government intrusion into their lives such as paying taxes, or not being able to own assault rifles; because apparently, it is a sacred thing to not be bothered by the government in unwarranted fashion... the default situation is to leave people be, and let them lives their lives as they want if they aren't harming anyone, because that's what freedom means. Except of course, when you're the ones intruding. Then of course, it's a bedrock principle, a moral value that founded this country.

But it pertains to matters for public courts, and everyone pays taxes on public courts, therefore there's a loophole, and all of a sudden mister no-government-interference has a say in this matter!

Interesting. So, when a gay person wants the same rights to visit their spouse in a hospital as heterosexual couples, this becomes a matter of public interest why? When a gay couple wants their spouse to be considered "family" and be entitled to their estate when they die automatically, how is that wish destroying heterosexual marriages? When did these private legal matters become something that hetero person who doesn't even know them (and has bias or disgust toward them) has a say in?

I constantly hear complaints from certain people that gay people are a distraction, and their rights aren't even rights, and their freedoms aren't even freedoms, and that we shouldn't even be wasting our time talking about this stuff, and that sometimes, they wish gays would just be okay with the near-equal status that people imagine that they have. You want them to be quiet about these perceived injustices? You're tired of debating them? You don't ever, ever, want to have to subject yourself to the homosexual "agenda" ever again? I have a simple solution for you. Stay out of the debate if you don't like it, stay silent on the matter if you want to end the debate, and you want to focus on the 'real issues affecting America' then for the love of consistency, stay focused on those issues instead of allowing certain politicians with no energy policy, no foreign policy, no economic policy, and no other agenda besides lowering taxes throw controversial issues like gay rights out there to distract the millions upon millions of people who should have absolutely no say in what gay people do with their lives, and get them to focus on imagined threats to the "traditional family" instead of real threats to the "traditional family" like divorce, marital infidelity, spousal abuse, drugs and alcoholism, depression, and society's changing views on the importance of marriage in the first place.


You don't want to waste time debating this? Finally let it go.


You see the gays as the aggressor here? That would be called blaming the victim. The aggressor is the person who says that gays can't have certain rights and freedoms because they said so, blows raspberries, and then complains that there's even a debate about the issue.

[ajaxfetish]

Because marriage has always been about starting a family, a promise of a future. For gays that's not possible.

Glad to hear my aunts somehow don't have two kids. I think the oldest's even a teenager by now. Do you need to sober up, Frags?

Ajax

[Fragony]

Glad to hear my aunts somehow don't have two kids. I think the oldest's even a teenager by now. Do you need to sober up, Frags?

Ajax

It's the idea behind no, it isn't even my idea I am not against gay marriage myself

[Rhyfelwyr]

ATPG I just can't cope with how much you write, sorry.

Anyway, the funny thing I don't give a damn what gays do, but somehow the state is intruding in their lives if it doesn't put a rubber stamp on their relationship.

Guess what it works the other way around. They are intruding when they want recognition.

[Fragony]

How so?

Because marriage has always been about starting a family, a promise of a future. For gays that's not possible. Asking to pretend it's the same thing is not classy, you can say 'why not' but you can also ask 'why do'.