Quote:Actually, allowing same sex marriage will cut down on premarital sex, since all those previously "hedonistic" people having sex outside of marriage would then be married.

They should let priests marry other priests. Might go a bit easier on the altar boys, eh.

Lion -

My reaction to reading your posts:



(Eyebeams included)


You have no idea what you're talking about. Connecting dots with imaginary lines does not help your "argument". The only real problem with gay marriage is that it is not everywhere, and also not simply called 'marriage'. All you've shown is misunderstanding and irrationality - as others already pointed out.

@ Lion

I am genuinely mystified as to why you care at all what other consenting adults do at home. How does it affect you? Go ahead and feel ooged out by it, but WHY DO YOU CARE? If it's only because of your Bible, then let Jesus deal with all those sinful homos and all their sinful supporters. He doesn't need your help. Or is there another reason- like that Massachusetts society has crumbled into chaos over the last 10 years?

I can make a purely secular argument against SSM based on the benefits of defending the nuclear family ie. Heterosexual, monogamous, committed parents and their biologically-related children.

---

...and I can additionally make an argument from the religious culture which people are democratically entitled to pursue and embrace even at the expense of certain minorities.

---

And I can make a biblical, theological argument.

---

And I can use an argumentum ad baculum based on fear of Gods punishment!

The already declining institution of marriage receives further blows, as it seems. Perhaps some 40 years later, your sons and daughters, and their sons and daughters will look back on how you allowed it to happen.

Yeah, I'm not too scared for some fucking reason.

(November 13, 2013 at 8:34 am)Psykhronic Wrote: Yeah, I'm not too scared for some fucking reason.

Neither am I, for every action begets a reaction.

(November 13, 2013 at 12:33 am)Lion IRC Wrote: I can make a purely secular argument against SSM based on the benefits of defending the nuclear family ie. Heterosexual, monogamous, committed parents and their biologically-related children.

So of course, single parents and adoptive parents and Brady Bunch families would be equally as bad for society with this argument, right? And gay parents with biological children not so bad. I think this would be an amusing argument to see.

---

Quote:...and I can additionally make an argument from the religious culture which people are democratically entitled to pursue and embrace even at the expense of certain minorities.

Religious arguments mean fuck-all to me. Do what you want- you have no business forcing that religion on others.

Quote:And I can make a biblical, theological argument.

And this means less. Don't bother, because I don't care about your biblical argument, any more than I care about the biblical arguments made by racists or misogynists.

Quote:And I can use an argumentum ad baculum based on fear of Gods punishment!

And this is possibly the worst argument you could make- it puts you squarely in the Westboro Baptist Church camp. You might as well start protesting military funerals and ranting that God is punishing America. Have fun with the Phelpses.

(November 13, 2013 at 12:33 am)Lion IRC Wrote: I can make a purely secular argument against SSM based on the benefits of defending the nuclear family ie. Heterosexual, monogamous, committed parents and their biologically-related children.

---

...and I can additionally make an argument from the religious culture which people are democratically entitled to pursue and embrace even at the expense of certain minorities.

---

And I can make a biblical, theological argument.

---

And I can use an argumentum ad baculum based on fear of Gods punishment!

And none of it will matter the least tiniest bit.

You can keep railing against gay marriage, hell you can even go out and campaign to make all gay marriage illegal again, and even if you and your fellow bigots succeed, (this is the clincher) you're never, ever going to keep gay people from being gay and living together. I don't care how much you want to defend the "nuclear family" (whatever that means these days), but whether or not gay marriage is legal or not, gay people will still be gay and will still want to live together as domestic partners.

So, since that is the case, give me one good reason we shouldn't allow them to have all the benefits of legal marriage.

(November 13, 2013 at 7:20 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: The already declining institution of marriage receives further blows, as it seems. Perhaps some 40 years later, your sons and daughters, and their sons and daughters will look back on how you allowed it to happen.

Ummmm? WHY???
Why would our sons and daughters care that their gay acquaintances have the same rights that they do???

40 years from now, when many religious primitives have died off, we will be living in a slightly better, more open-minded society. My son will be 45 and likely married. Why in the holy hell would he ever come up to me and demand to know why I "ALLOWED" everyone to have equal civil rights????

That doesn't even make sense. It's not like I'm preventing marriage and platonic families. We're not doing away with marriage here; we're actually making it so MORE people can GET married. We're not magically creating more gay people. I'm not telling my future children to gave a gay marriage.

I mean seriously --- what the hell is your point???