Why Is Gay Marriage Wrong?

[Diemen]

I knew your ego couldn't keep you away for long.

But to respond to your post:

Why is it when I leave threads the post averages take a tumble like a bad day on Wall Street?

Perhaps it is because the rest of us are of a similar opinion on this topic. No one posted a logical, secular reason why gay marriage is wrong, so we're pretty much in consensus here. With you not posting, a lovely sense of serenity visited the thread for a bit.

That said on a scale of 1-10, 10 being the maddest, how mad are some of you at me?


Is it safe to have a coherent dialouge with you or are some of you still unfocused with your anger?

Maybe it would take yolland saying this for you to even register the possibility (and even then I doubt you would consider it for long), but did you ever stop to think that perhaps it is YOU who needs to re-evaluate YOUR approach on here?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I will thru sound reasoning at the right time when cooler heads prevail.

And the others should follow your heed likewise as well.

So you still prefer to point fingers at others rather than take an honest look at what caused the lack of "coolness"?

I give up, it's hopeless.

 

[martha]

No one posted a logical, secular reason why gay marriage is wrong,

I don't know.

That "gay-marriage-makes-no-provision-for-randy-polygamous-bisexuals-so-marriage-should-stay-being-only-for-straight-couples" reason almost had me convinced.

 

[melon]

This thread has long devolved into a bad joke.

diamond, just keep your word and go away.

 

[maycocksean]

I've been the most even keeled, level headed unemotional person thru out this thread.



<>

Doesn't it bother you how hurtful you can be though? It is easy to have a "cool head" when the issues don't effect you directly. You've taken a very glib and cavalier approach about issues that are deeply meaningful and painful to several people here at FYM. You're reprimanding them for not being "level-headed" only adds insult to injury.

You seem to hold compassion and tolerance in high value theoretically but I'm puzzled that I don't see you put those values in action more on these threads.

 

[diamond]

diamond, just keep your word and go away.

No, I deserve a voice at the table, and the time is now,
please read my post thoughtfully.

The reasons I posted my views in this thread are:

1- To let you know I'm more or less on the side of people who we're different than me, I'm in favor of their civil rights.

2-That labeling a fellow a "bigot" when in fact what I'm saying is that Gay ppl can have everything they want -just don't change the definition of an existing word..I can't be a "bigot" or "close-minded" if I'm giving the same rights to people that I enjoy. In short this is an argument on semantics where I'm correct and some choose to misconstrue my character over it.

3-Marriage involves a penis and a vagina, any other variation of that can be called something else- with the same meaning or with even greater meaning to the parties involved.

4-Interracial marriage comparisons still involve a penis and a vagina, and using people and bigots of the past and present in support of your cause is oppurtunistic and offensive to many, especially many of those of a different pigmentation then yours, so please don't go there.

5-My thought is if all truth and feelings were made known by the Gay community that the Gay commmunity would be ok with the designation of civil or religious unions of their orientation-as long as they have the benifits of marrieds matched- in which I've clearly stated I'm in support of. So what's the problem here people?


I think some of you hate the messenger and were deaf and closeminded to my message, thereby missing and oppurtunity to celebrate our commonalities and moving forward for the benifit of Gay ppl and because of this some of you here are unwittingly doing a dis service to the Gay community.

Peace,

<>

 

[martha]

Even though I know better, I have to. I'm as weak as you diamond. You say you're going away, yet you won't. I swear I won't answer you, yet I do. I noticed that you carefully avoided Sean's post. An uncharacteristically wise decision for you.

No, I deserve a voice at the table, and the time is now,

Why do you deserve a voice at the table, when you're so willing to deny others a fully equal voice?

1- To let you know I'm more or less on the side of people who we're different than me, I'm in favor of their civil rights.

"More or less" says it all here.

2-That labeling a fellow a "bigot" when in fact what I'm saying is that Gay ppl can have everything they want

Except the thing that they want.

3-Marriage involves a penis and a vagina, any other variation of that can be called something else-

You've decided this, so others have to live by your decision. What if I decide differently? Do my decisions carry less weight?

Your constant harping about "civil rights" makes your posts and your opinions laughable. Especially when you bring up men who have sex with animals and then wonder why you have no credibility when you babble on about your ideas about "civil rights". You're offensive and smug. I agree with melon: I have no idea why you're allowed to post most of the shit you post.

 

[VintagePunk]

No, I deserve a voice at the table, and the time is now,
please read my post thoughtfully.

The reasons I posted my views in this thread are:

1- To let you know I'm more or less on the side of people who we're different than me, I'm in favor of their civil rights.

2-That labeling a fellow a "bigot" when in fact what I'm saying is that Gay ppl can have everything they want -just don't change the definition of an existing word..I can't be a "bigot" or "close-minded" if I'm giving the same rights to people that I enjoy. In short this is an argument on semantics where I'm correct and some choose to misconstrue my character over it.

3-Marriage involves a penis and a vagina, any other variation of that can be called something else- with the same meaning or with even greater meaning to the parties involved.

5-My thought is if all truth and feelings were made known by the Gay community that the Gay commmunity would be ok with the designation of civil or religious unions of their orientation-as long as they have the benifits of marrieds matched- in which I've clearly stated I'm in support of. So what's the problem here people?


I think some of you hate the messenger and were deaf and closeminded to my message, thereby missing and oppurtunity to celebrate our commonalities and moving forward for the benifit of Gay ppl and because of this some of you here are unwittingly doing a dis service to the Gay community.

Peace,

<>

Diamond, I think the main issue here, and that many have with your argument is, as long as you're willing to admit that gays and lesbians are entitled to the benefits of marriage without it being called marriage, that's still relegating them to the role of second class citizen in our culture. They're entitled to everything that we are, they just can't sully the good name of an institution for straight people by calling it the same thing?

Please think about this. Many countries now are allowing gay marriage, my own included. And you know what? Our society isn't falling apart. Straight marriages are not threatened. Really. If anything, the nations that practice this are enriched, because a segment of our citizens are truly equal now. If homosexuals in your country are allowed to marry, your own marriage, and the marriages of your straight friends and family will go on as though nothing even happened. Honest.

Personally, I find the notion of calling it anything but marriage insulting, as if they are almost good enough, but they don't quite make the cut, they fall a little short, and must be kept in their place.

You keep asking people to think about the content of your posts. I have. Now think about mine, and please tell me why the word 'marriage' should be reserved for only couples comprised of a penis and vagina. It really makes no sense, other than to continue to practice a less overt form of bigotry.

 

[martha]

Well, he did say "more or less".

 

[diamond]

Vpunk-

Not to be smug, my 15 year old is in an all city track ( -she's a Vanilla Flo Jo of sorts) meet so I have time constraints and Im out the door- here is my short answer I do appreciate you and your country's thinking, but that's one reason America and Canada are different-not a bad thing, only different.

mar·riage Audio Help /ˈmærɪdʒ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mar-ij] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.

Also look at my #5 answer again, is it your agenda more important then the majority of your community's?

your friend,

<>

 

[martha]

Also look at my #5 answer again, is it your agenda more important then the majority of your community's?

It was when slavery was outlawed. It was when women started agitating for the right to vote.

Dictionaries are all you have.

 

[VintagePunk]

Vpunk-

Not to be smug, my 15 year old is in an all city track ( -she's a Vanilla Flo Jo of sorts) meet so I have time constraints and Im out the door- here is my short answer I do appreciate you and your country's thinking, but that's one reason America and Canada are different-not a bad thing, only different.

mar·riage Audio Help /ˈmærɪdʒ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mar-ij] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.

Also look at my #5 answer again, is it your agenda more important then the majority of your community's?

your friend,

<>

I agree with Martha and the many others here who have argued against using traditional definitions. As I'm sure you know, many, many definitions have changed to meet the needs of an evolving society. It's nothing new. If definitions had never changed, consider the kind of world we'd live in now. I shudder to think. So, that argument holds no water for me.

I really doubt that you've taken a poll of every gay and lesbian in your country, and certainly, neither have I, but I strongly suspect that if questioned as to whether they'd prefer to label their legal /religious commitment to spend a lifetime together as a marriage or as something else, they'd opt for marriage just like everyone else.

Good luck to your daughter!

 

[achtung_girl]

2.
wedlock: a happy marriage.

my english improves every day.

 

[martha]

It just occurred to me. Mr. Civil Rights is really advocating separate but equal. So much for any civil rights arguments from here on out.

It would be hilarious, but it doesn't meet my personal definition of hilarity.

 

[verte76]

Problem with that of course is that marriage exists for people without religion too, so whatever god wants is not even really a relevant argument.

I agree.

 

[verte76]

Gay marriage isn't wrong. The politicians are using stupid religious stuff to keep gays from marrying. This pisses me off dammit!

 

[diamond]

There's a rather conservative book out there called, "The Closing of the American Mind," by the late Allan Bloom. tolerate bigotry. Period.

So, I ordered this book via Amazon.

I have a vast collection of books both of liberal thought and consevative thought.

My question to you is would you read a book I think could be enlightening to you?

Would you be openminded and free and thinking enough to read a book that I think could benefit you?

I will be happy to correspond via PM if you wish re this matter.

Let me know.

<>

 

[diamond]

Except the thing that they want.

You've decided this, so others have to live by your decision.

Your constant harping about "civil rights" makes your posts and your opinions laughable. Especially when you bring up men who have sex with animals and then wonder why you have no credibility when you babble on about your ideas about "civil rights". You're offensive and smug. I agree with melon: I have no idea why you're allowed to post most of the shit you post.

You missed the point of the horse post by a mile, but I digress and will address that on another day.

I didn't decide what the definition of marriage was, ppl did 6000 years ago and it's been so thru out recorded history, so get over it.

You want to change it, you are in the minority and if you want to change the meaning of the word, this can occur thru a orderly legal process. That's how we do things in America.

I do think the Gay culture would move forward more quickly if it wasn't an all or nothing issue that you're proposing here. Cultures evolve incrementally. If it's meant to be it will happen in due time-not my schreeching and using profanity.

I noticed that you carefully avoided Sean's post. An uncharacteristically wise decision for you.

Sean and I have a mutually respectable online relationship here, try as you may, you'll never see Sean and I mixing it up.

<>

 

[martha]

if you want to change the meaning of the word, this can occur thru a orderly legal process. That's how we do things in America.

Um. That's what's happening right now.

 

[martha]

Sean and I have a mutually respectable online relationship here,

Meaning he talks to you, but you ignore him?

 

[diamond]

Um. That's what's happening right now.

In America yes, in this thread, no.

<>

 

[maycocksean]

Meaning he talks to you, but you ignore him?

:chuckle:

 

[melon]

You missed the point of the horse post by a mile, but I digress and will address that on another day.

I didn't decide what the definition of marriage was, ppl did 6000 years ago and it's been so thru out recorded history, so get over it.

You want to change it, you are in the minority and if you want to change the meaning of the word, this can occur thru a orderly legal process. That's how we do things in America.

I do think the Gay culture would move forward more quickly if it wasn't an all or nothing issue that you're proposing here. Cultures evolve incrementally. If it's meant to be it will happen in due time-not my schreeching and using profanity.

You know, diamond, although I do not agree with what you are saying here, if you would discuss calmly like this in all of your threads in FYM (as this isn't exactly a humorous place), I could, at least, respect what you have to say.

So take this as my advice to you.

 

[melon]

So, I ordered this book via Amazon.

I have a vast collection of books both of liberal thought and consevative thought.

My question to you is would you read a book I think could be enlightening to you?

Would you be openminded and free and thinking enough to read a book that I think could benefit you?

I will be happy to correspond via PM if you wish re this matter.

Let me know.

Enjoy the book. One thing I hope is that you don't treat the book like the "gospel truth," and use it as a springboard for future reading in classical Western philosophy.

A couple of things I'd like to mention about Bloom. He was a neocon, inasmuch as he was one of Leo Strauss' students, but he stated once that he didn't necessarily consider himself to be a conservative, in the modern Republican sense. Nonetheless, consistently Straussian views, if one is familiar with them, is prevalent throughout the book.

Another thing that's interesting is that it was posthumously revealed that Bloom was gay, as noted by his old friend, Saul Bellow (who wrote the preface to Bloom's book you're about to read, and wrote extensively about Bloom and his private life in last novel, Ravelstein).

Overall, though, both Strauss and Bloom were academics, above all, and, like any philosophy teacher, they would not want one to merely absorb this material and just regurgitate it. That's what one would expect from an acolyte of Ayn Rand (whose beliefs Bloom dismisses as "pseudo-philosophy"). Instead, I believe the challenge is to take this knowledge, be free to critically analyze it as one wishes, and then be free to rip it to pieces--as long as one has the right argument and research to back it up.

Nonetheless, I think this is a very interesting wing of 20th century political philosophy that is both overlooked (because it is conservative, rather than liberal) and misunderstood (in light of the neoconservative "War on Terror" and its various missteps). So, as I said in the beginning, enjoy the book.

Feel free to share the book you'd like me to read. I can't promise that I'll have time to read it right away, if only because I'm in a terribly hectic time in my life right now, and I don't have time to read much of anything at the moment!

 

[diamond]

Enjoy the book. One thing I hope is that you don't treat the book like the "gospel truth," and use it as a springboard for future reading in classical Western philosophy.

A couple of things I'd like to mention about Bloom. He was a neocon, .

Another thing that's interesting is that it was posthumously revealed that Bloom was gay,

So, as I said in the beginning, enjoy the book.

Feel free to share the book you'd like me to read.

Melon-

It should arrive in the next 5-10 days via Amazon. I find it mildly amusing that this book cost me a penny but Jonathan Livingston Seagull ran me a 1.49 on Amazon.

I don't take anything as Gospel written by mortal men these days, I've lived long enough to experience the disappointment in doing so; I will take it as a view point written by an intelligent gentleman.

The term "Neocon" to me as a conservative rubs me uncomfortablely by the structure of the word itself, it conjures up other neo words and movements such as neo Nazis etc.

I think Gay conservatives make the best conservatives because their organic and possibly learned orientation is secondary to their polictical thought processes, in other words they think outside of the box.

I will let you know what I think of the book later, reading good books is my night cap before dozng off-as I don't consume alcohol.

I'll PM you later re the other book.

Cheers-

<>

 

[diamond]

You know, diamond, although I do not agree with what you are saying here, if you would discuss calmly like this in all of your threads in FYM (as this isn't exactly a humorous place), I could, at least, respect what you have to say.

So take this as my advice to you.

Advice taken, however for some of us if we don't inject humor into a heated discussion our heads are liable to explode, I'm merely trying to prevent that.



<>

 

[Irvine511]

I think Gay conservatives make the best conservatives because their organic and possibly learned orientation is secondary to their polictical thought processes, in other words they think outside of the box.

when did you learn to be straight?

 

[nathan1977]

It just occurred to me. Mr. Civil Rights is really advocating separate but equal. So much for any civil rights arguments from here on out.

There was another thread about this several weeks ago, and though I hesitate to poke my head into any thread where horses and polygamy occupy the same space, I am curious if anyone can answer the question of whether marriage itself is a civil right.

Because if we are going to give marriage civil right status, then, legally speaking, there are a host of alternative lifestyles that might clamor for the same opportunity....as this thread has proven.

 

[diamond]

when did you learn to be straight?

i forget but found is was far less complicated this way.



<>

 

[diamond]

Good luck to your daughter!

On a side note she did very well.
She's one of the fastest 9th grade girls in the city of Mesa, Az.
She also scored 2nd in High Jump.
This was a city track meet with 10 Jr High Schools participating.

She's being courted now by the High School track coach next door from her Jr High to run Varsity Track. She juggles track and field, club soccer, school soccer, violin a 4.0 GPA and being my daughter, all at the same time-dont know how the kid does it.

Out of curiousity I googled her first and last name plus the word track, and she was on top of the Google.Com-lead entry.

Oh dear.

<>