equality blooms with spring, pt. II

[phillyfan26]

And you've yet to tell me why it isn't a good idea. Everything you've said so far has been completely absurd. This has been proven numerous times by rational posts by myself and others.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by financeguy

Didn't you used to be a scientist?

Yes, until I no longer wanted to kill mice for a living.

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by phillyfan26

I'm not saying teen pregnancies aren't a problem, dude. That's an entirely different issue. What I'm saying is that at no point before they get pregnant do they think, "Hey, you know what? I don't really mind if I get pregnant because I can just put it up for adoption." Which is the only thing you can be implying for your post to make any sense and have relevance in this conversation.

I think that's pretty naive, to be honest. Given that contraception and social welfare are readily available, it's naive to think that moral hazard isn't an issue here. Before contraception and the welfare state, you might have had a point.

There are communities where pregnancy and having a bunch of kids is a badge of honour. Not least because of the social welfare benefits.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Diemen

It's because the state shouldn't be involved in marriages at all.

Someone actually remembers...

Originally Posted by Diemen

Not that that in any way addresses why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married, mind you...

I also suggested they could get married by any organization (religious or secular) that wants to marry them.

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by anitram

Yes, until I no longer wanted to kill mice for a living.

So you are aware that an anecdote involving one acquantaince that said he didn't like seeing guys kissing is essentially meaningless in the context of the broader debate?

[martha]

Originally Posted by AEON

I also suggested they could get married by any organization (religious or secular) that wants to marry them.

So all the monetary and legal benefits of marriage given by the states and the feds will be repealed?

[AEON]

Originally Posted by A_Wanderer

I can see that you want to treat same-sex couples as inherently inferior to heterosexual couples, you have explicitly stated this belief is religious...

While I did share that my opinions are formed by my faith (as well as reason) - I also conceded that my opinions should have a limited impact on others:

Originally Posted by AEON

...I do realize that my opinion is only one in a sea of opinions. And more often than not, when we are discussing activity between two consenting adults, my opinions end where their freedom begins. Because of this, among other things, I have taken a rather libertarian view that the state should no longer be involved in the marriage process.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by financeguy

So you are aware that an anecdote involving one acquantaince that said he didn't like seeing guys kissing is essentially meaningless in the context of the broader debate?

I wasn't trying to prove anything with it; that's simply what I was reminded of when I read martha's post.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by martha

I thought we were discussing the reasons gays shouldn't be allowed to get married?

So far poor AEON hasn't come up with a good reason. At all.

And if there were good reasons, would you allow yourself to be convinced?

[martha]

Originally Posted by AEON

And if there were good reasons, would you allow yourself to be convinced?

Give it a shot. See what happens. You never know till you try.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by anitram

I wasn't trying to prove anything with it; that's simply what I was reminded of when I read martha's post.

So you are saying that if I just came and said, "gays kissing is gross" - that would be a more acceptable reason to oppose gay marriage? That seems to be what you implied and what Martha is jumping up and down to hear...

[martha]

Originally Posted by martha

So all the monetary and legal benefits of marriage given by the states and the feds will be repealed?

I'm addressing the belief that the state shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, yet you refuse to engage in this discussion. Why is that?

[martha]

Originally Posted by AEON

So you are saying that if I just came and said, "gays kissing is gross" - that would be a more acceptable reason to oppose gay marriage? That seems to be what you implied and what Martha is jumping up and down to hear...

To me, it would be a more honest reason that the ones you keep trying to defend.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by martha

Give it a shot. See what happens. You never know till you try.

After sixty something pages covering two threads you have yet to concede one single point to anyone.

I think I have a better chance of converting A-Wanderer to Christianity...but I will keep at it, just for you

[martha]

Originally Posted by AEON

After sixty something pages covering two threads you have yet to concede one single point to anyone.

I think I have a better chance of converting A-Wanderer to Christianity...but I will keep at it, just for you

Originally Posted by martha

So all the monetary and legal benefits of marriage given by the states and the feds will be repealed?

You could start by addressing my questions.

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by anitram

I wasn't trying to prove anything with it; that's simply what I was reminded of when I read martha's post.

Well, if we're in the business of just telling random anecdotes of homophobia, probably the most homophobic outburst I ever heard in my life was from a female office colleague - in her twenties, and very good looking. This was around the time when an ad agency had attracted some controversy in Ireland after putting out an add featuring two Gaelic footballers kissing - I can't even remember what the campaign was for. Anyway, this lady happens to notice a billboard displaying the add during a lunchbreak walk and having returned reported that she found it absolutely disgusting and proceeded to go a loud rant about 'the gays' for around five minutes.

Frankly, it was really embarassing, especially seeing as a gay colleague was well within earshot.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by martha

I'm addressing the belief that the state shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, yet you refuse to engage in this discussion. Why is that?

Because I already answered it.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by financeguy

Well, if we're in the business of just telling random anecdotes of homophobia, probably the most homophobic outburst I ever heard in my life was from a female office colleague - in her twenties, and very good looking. This was around the time when an ad agency had attracted some controversy in Ireland after putting out an add featuring two Gaelic footballers kissing - I can't even remember what the campaign was for. Anyway, this lady happens to notice a billboard displaying the add during a lunchbreak walk and having returned reported that she found it absolutely disgusting and proceeded to go a loud rant about 'the gays' for around five minutes.

Frankly, it was really embarassing, especially seeing as a gay colleague was well within earshot.

[corianderstem]

Originally Posted by financeguy

... in her twenties, and very good looking.

Pshyeah right! I can't believe there are any good-looking homophobes.

[phillyfan26]

Originally Posted by financeguy

I think that's pretty naive, to be honest. Given that contraception and social welfare are readily available, it's naive to think that moral hazard isn't an issue here. Before contraception and the welfare state, you might have had a point.

There are communities where pregnancy and having a bunch of kids is a badge of honour. Not least because of the social welfare benefits.

Wow.

I'm going to just skip to the main question I have after reading this: Do you honestly think allowing gay couples to adopt (mind you, this like 5% of the population) would increase teen pregnancy?