Fight for everyone’s right to marriage benefits here,
http://www.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/right_to_marriage_benefits
[quote]clip11 wrote:
You need help for your problem, you left your wife to be with another man. The longer you pretend u dnt have a problem the worst itll get. Its like an alcoholic, he wont make progress until he admits he has a problem, or a drug addict. The question is do you want help?[/quote]
I’ll sign up for reparative therapy right away, based on your educated diagnosis that contradicts what every mental health and medical organization recommends. Thanks for that!
[quote]forlife wrote:
clip11 wrote:
You need help for your problem, you left your wife to be with another man. The longer you pretend u dnt have a problem the worst itll get. Its like an alcoholic, he wont make progress until he admits he has a problem, or a drug addict. The question is do you want help?
I’ll sign up for reparative therapy right away, based on your educated diagnosis that contradicts what every mental health and medical organization recommends. Thanks for that!
[/quote]
Ur welcome. Im expecting great things from u!
Seriously though thats what i mean, youre in denial.
Oh, I hear you loud and clear. Please don’t be offended though if I take the collective consensus of the medical and mental health professionals over the sincere assurance of someone who doesn’t know fuck about gay issues.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
[…]So homosexuality is embedded into the abusive context of HIV and promiscuity, but you’ve got no problem supporting it, but you oppose polygamy because it is usually embedded in an “abusive context”? Why not just be consistent?[/quote]
An abusive context is given when people are forced to do something that infringes on their rights, dignity and hurts them. I’m very consistent - I oppose people who try to do that with others. Look - I’m doing it right now.
I’m aware that you’ve studied religious texts, and as we’ve established in earlier threads, you are the proponent of a competing religion, but your general stance, attitude and rhethoric gives me no reason to believe that your motives are genuine when portraying your knowledge about Islam.
Yeah, could be. How about changing your system then?
That statement shows a lack of understanding with regards to (social) history. Reading a few less religious texts and researching how values and social institutions as their manifestions within societies change would help alleviating that. Check out marriage - interesting developments over the centuries.
Yes, it does - opposition against abuse, upholding human rights and dignity; and of course the current laws.
Makkun
[quote]clip11 wrote:
We all know or know of opposite sex couples who have been together a long time…we cant say the same for gay couples.
[/quote]
I don’t know that many gay people. So yeah, there aren’t that many in a numeric sense. Percentage wise however… straight couples lose out.
Mostly due to… OMG! Cheating.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Oh, I hear you loud and clear. Please don’t be offended though if I take the collective consensus of the medical and mental health professionals over the sincere assurance of someone who doesn’t know fuck about gay issues.[/quote]
Stop feeding the troll. All he’s done on this site is make outrageous comments. The first threads I read his comment in, he tried justifying sex with a 14 year old.
Feeding the troll is my job.
[quote]clip11 wrote:
forlife wrote:
clip11 wrote:
You need help for your problem, you left your wife to be with another man. The longer you pretend u dnt have a problem the worst itll get. Its like an alcoholic, he wont make progress until he admits he has a problem, or a drug addict. The question is do you want help?
I’ll sign up for reparative therapy right away, based on your educated diagnosis that contradicts what every mental health and medical organization recommends. Thanks for that!
Ur welcome. Im expecting great things from u!
[/quote]
I’ve taken to reading “ur” as “uhrr” and “u” as “ooo”. It makes posts like this bearable.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
forlife wrote:
Oh, I hear you loud and clear. Please don’t be offended though if I take the collective consensus of the medical and mental health professionals over the sincere assurance of someone who doesn’t know fuck about gay issues.
Stop feeding the troll. All he’s done on this site is make outrageous comments. The first threads I read his comment in, he tried justifying sex with a 14 year old.
Feeding the troll is my job.[/quote]
Hes a grown man far as I can tell, he can defend himself if he wants to.
Get a life!
[quote]forlife wrote:
You are a joke, because you arbitrarily assign rules on the benefits that should be attached to marriage rather than addressing the underlying purpose of benefiting the couple, their children, and society.[/quote]
Awful. Let us count the ways. First, I don’t “arbitrarily” assign rules on the benefits of marriage - those “arbitrarily-assigned” rules are what defines marriage. To change them is to redefine it entirely, to create a new institution.
It is a ludicrous as saying that I am “arbitrarily assigning” the rules of the Abrahamic religions by saying they don’t believe in a pantheon of gods - there is nothing “arbitrary” about it, that is what defines the religions. If you believe in multiple gods, for example, no problem - but you aren’t part of that religion anymore, which defines itself through a specific set of beliefs.
Marriage is no different - it is defined by its rules, benefits, and social policies. Just because it don’t fit your lifestyle doesn’t mean anyone has “arbitrarily” assigned rules just to hurt your precious feelings.
Asked and answered, over and over. The law is naturally overinclusive in this area.
[quote]However, you ignore that marriage also benefits gay couples, their children, and society.
Why?[/quote]
I never said it didn’t - this is a straw man, Forlife, PhD. I said that whatever benefits at the margin are not worth the harm that could be done to traditional marriage. Society, in the collective sense, doesn’t reap benefits from married gays in the same way that it does from married straights - and given the potential high costs of gay marriage, it isn’t wroth it.
I’ll need a copy of your dictionary - I was under the impression that “answering the question over and over and over” was not definitionally the same as “dodging the question”.
Do I think gay marriage would benefit gay couples? Of course, that is indisputable, and I have never said otherwise - if this weren’t so, homosexuals wouldn’t be trying to get gay marriage passed. But that isn’t the broader question.
A question that has been answered too many times - but as I said above, unable to form new arguments and provide new material, you stick to your tired script of starting over nearly every post.
A snapshot:
-
Benefiting the couple isn’t the sole purpose of marriage, as marriage serves a bigger purpose. If marriage were all about personal benefits as ends in themselves, there would be a great case for giving the same benefits to unmarried people (surely they would benefit from the tax breaks, etc. and they certainly would want them). Marriage isn’t about the personal benefits - marriage uses public benefits as a means to an end, not an end itself, which is your theme. Learn the difference.
-
Gay couples do not produce children, and, as has been explained at length, our society must prioritize policies that will encourage the raising of children from their two biological parents to the exclusion of competing and lesser arrangements. Policies that incentivize any other arrangement must yield to the first one. Period.
-
Society is not particularly benefited from gay marriage, any more than it would be benefited from other alternative “marriage” arrangements. If the alternative marriage arrangements don’t incentivize the preferred social policies - child raising by biological parents, ordering of procreation, etc. - then there is no point to the policy. Remember, marriage is a means, not an end
-
I am a raging, hateful bigot. I’m not, actually, but I figured I would save you the trouble of doing what you do every third post or so: reach into your bad of mindless ad hominems and challenge the good faith of people who have the audacity to disagree with you (“but I have a PhD!”).
EDIT: added the underlined.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[/quote]
So true, if taken as meant.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
It is a ludicrous as saying that I am “arbitrarily assigning” the rules of the Abrahamic religions by saying they don’t believe in a pantheon of gods - there is nothing “arbitrary” about it, that is what defines the religions. If you believe in multiple gods, for example, no problem - but you aren’t part of that religion anymore, which defines itself through a specific set of beliefs.
[/quote]
Are you implying that marriage is purely the domain of Abrahamic religions?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Stop feeding the troll. All he’s done on this site is make outrageous comments. The first threads I read his comment in, he tried justifying sex with a 14 year old.
Feeding the troll is my job.[/quote]
Tell you what, I’ll let you feed my pet troll Mick if I can toss a scrap to Clip every now and then.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Tell you what, I’ll let you feed my pet troll Mick if I can toss a scrap to Clip every now and then.[/quote]
Sure, but I have to warn you - he’s a sensitive troll.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
First, I don’t “arbitrarily” assign rules on the benefits of marriage - those “arbitrarily-assigned” rules are what defines marriage.[/quote]
Hold on, cowboy. I didn’t say you arbitrarily defined marriage (although that is a discussion we can have at some point if you like). I said that you arbitrarily defined the reasons for marriage. Who are you to say why marriage exists, and to categorically exclude other valid reasons which pertain to the health and well being of the couple, their children, and society? What is your authority outside of your own narrow agenda?
That is lame, and you know it. It amounts to allowing marriage to infertile couples solely because of an administrative issue, which could easily be addressed through a fertility test. You know very well that if marriage were restricted to fertile couples only, the country would be in an uproar. Which illustrates the fallacy of cherry picking some reasons for marriage while ignoring other equally valid reasons.
You are passing categorical judgment on an entire class of tax paying citizens based on shallow stereotypes and fearmongering. Where is your objective evidence that the benefits of marriage to gay couples, their children, and society are outweighed by these hypothetical “risks” to traditional marriage?
It is fucking ridiculous to even claim that gay marriage hurts traditional marriage. Your reasoning on this point is so convoluted it is laughable. If your marriage is threatened by my partner and I getting married, you have far bigger issues to worry about than sticking it to the gays.
I never said otherwise. I have consistently said marriage benefits not only the couple, but also their children and society. Learn to read.
This is an artificial construct which completely ignores the children that are not being raised by both biological parents. What about children that would otherwise be raised in an institution? What about cases like mine where children from a former relationship would benefit from my partner and I being married? Those children exist regardless of your ignorance, and their well being will be improved by allowing gays to marry. Doing so in no way hurts children that ARE raised by both biological parents.
False. Marriage provides social stability. It reduces promiscuity and the spread of life threatening diseases. All of those are direct benefits to society from allowing gays to marry.
Quit putting words in my mouth, and learn to listen. When I call you a homophobe, I am referring to your direct advocacy against the well being of gays and their loved ones. I don’t know and I don’t care whether you love or hate gays. What matters to me are your actions, and by any definition those actions are blatantly homophobic.
[quote]forlife wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
First, I don’t “arbitrarily” assign rules on the benefits of marriage - those “arbitrarily-assigned” rules are what defines marriage.
Hold on, cowboy. I didn’t say you arbitrarily defined marriage (although that is a discussion we can have at some point if you like). I said that you arbitrarily defined the reasons for marriage. Who are you to say why marriage exists, and to categorically exclude other valid reasons which pertain to the health and well being of the couple, their children, and society? What is your authority outside of your own narrow agenda?
The law is naturally overinclusive in this area.
That is lame, and you know it. It amounts to allowing marriage to infertile couples solely because of an administrative issue, which could easily be addressed through a fertility test. You know very well that if marriage were restricted to fertile couples only, the country would be in an uproar. Which illustrates the fallacy of cherry picking some reasons for marriage while ignoring other equally valid reasons.
I said that whatever benefits at the margin are not worth the harm that could be done to traditional marriage.
You are passing categorical judgment on an entire class of tax paying citizens based on shallow stereotypes and fearmongering. Where is your objective evidence that the benefits of marriage to gay couples, their children, and society are outweighed by these hypothetical “risks” to traditional marriage?
It is fucking ridiculous to even claim that gay marriage hurts traditional marriage. Your reasoning on this point is so convoluted it is laughable. If your marriage is threatened by my partner and I getting married, you have far bigger issues to worry about than sticking it to the gays.
Marriage isn’t about the personal benefits - marriage uses public benefits as a means to an end, not an end itself, which is your theme. Learn the difference.
I never said otherwise. I have consistently said marriage benefits not only the couple, but also their children and society. Learn to read.
Gay couples do not produce children, and, as has been explained at length, our society must prioritize policies that will encourage the raising of children from their two biological parents to the exclusion of competing and lesser arrangements.
This is an artificial construct which completely ignores the children that are not being raised by both biological parents. What about children that would otherwise be raised in an institution? What about cases like mine where children from a former relationship would benefit from my partner and I being married? Those children exist regardless of your ignorance, and their well being will be improved by allowing gays to marry. Doing so in no way hurts children that ARE raised by both biological parents.
Society is not particularly benefited from gay marriage, any more than it would be benefited from other alternative “marriage” arrangements.
False. Marriage provides social stability. It reduces promiscuity and the spread of life threatening diseases. All of those are direct benefits to society from allowing gays to marry.
I am a raging, hateful bigot.
Quit putting words in my mouth, and learn to listen. When I call you a homophobe, I am referring to your direct advocacy against the well being of gays and their loved ones. I don’t know and I don’t care whether you love or hate gays. What matters to me are your actions, and by any definition those actions are blatantly homophobic.
[/quote]
It destroys traditional marriage in the sense that you teach children sexual deviancy is ok.
and allow these fragile minds to be twisted and warped by by twisted individuals.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
It destroys traditional marriage in the sense that you teach children sexual deviancy is ok.
and allow these fragile minds to be twisted and warped by by twisted individuals.[/quote]
-
Define sexual deviancy.
-
Prove that homosexuality is taught to children of homosexual couples/parents.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
It destroys traditional marriage in the sense that you teach children sexual deviancy is ok.
and allow these fragile minds to be twisted and warped by by twisted individuals.
[/quote]
So labeling homosexuality as sexual deviancy magically makes it so? How about actually demonstrating how straight marriages are harmed by gay marriage? Is your marriage at risk if my partner and I get married?