Ohio Senate Approves Gay-Marriage Ban

[Spiffor]

Ben Kenobi:
I keep reading you oppose gay marriage because it weakens / devaluates / desacralizes the institution of marriage. Your argument in this regard is societal more than religious: you are talking about the lives of people rather than about your beliefs.

Yet, I have not noticed any argument backing this assertion. You do not speak about the precise consequences you expect (i.e. how it should devaluate marriage), nor about what in marriage is so sacred that it couldn't suffer homosexuals to experience it (i.e. why it should devaluate marriage).

I hope you'll give a valid argument to back your assertive point of view

[Theben]

Originally posted by Asher
Gay Marriage Poll Gets Annulled

I remember when that thread came by here. Excellent job to all

Their own poll just proved how stupid they are. Typical.

I'm sure they wouldn't have abandoned the project if the numbers were in their favor - even with overwhelming evidence that large numbers of non-members participated. Dishonest. Stupid and dishonest. The irony!

Yes, but that was predictable (and predicted). Would you run with info that hurt your own cause?

I especially like the clause indicating that it was "gay activists" who were responsible for the shift in the poll. I guess the possibility of a gay marriage didn't inflame the 'average american' enough for them to post...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by jimmytrick

I support equal rights for all people. .

I do not support allowing gays to marry.

a) If gays don't like my opinion on that they can kiss my arse.

b) I resent the importance this issue plays in national politics.

Yes, slight contradiction there, you might have noticed.

Oh, and part a)- no, not even for money, dearie.

Part b)- you can blame shock jocks, and opportunist Republican politicians with axes to grind and a grindstone made up of the people who watch all that televangelic crapola the U.S. produces.

Yes, touch the t.v. screen, send me U.S. $ 40 and someone somewhere in the United States will be cured of something!

Unfortunately this malady will not be the urge to vote Republican, wear polyester, or have bad hair.

[MrFun]

Jimmy is good at two-faced double talk.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Ohio must be run by worse than nitwits then, as this law has nullified any ability for the state to provide such civil unions.

I knew Ohio was more conservative than home (hell, you'd be hardpressed to find a city in the US more liberal than Ann Arbor, save Boston & San Fran), but this is quite scary, especially considering I might be moving there in a few months.

[Kramerman]

edited do to lack of political correctness

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by MrFun


Riiiiiiiiight -- because everyone who disagrees with you, MUST be incapable of objective thought and cognitive thinking.

Nope, just the vast majority, but there are a few exceptions here and there.

[Theben]

Maybe Dennis Kucunich freaked 'em all out and they ran to the right?

[Theben]

Originally posted by Kramerman
edited do to lack of political correctness

Self-edited or MtG edited?

[Kramerman]

self

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Sure. But now you have to admit that the state does play a role in marriage.

DUH. Marriages are a legal contract with the state. Of course it plays a role in marriage.

[Ben Kenobi]

Sky, you know that, but not everybody assumes that.

Your argument in this regard is societal more than religious: you are talking about the lives of people rather than about your beliefs.

Spiffor:

Thank you for your patience. I promised I would reply to this before I have to go tonight.

To answer this question requires two points. First of all, what societal benefits come from marriage as one man and one woman? Secondly, would these benefits be adversely affected by allowing gay people to marry?

Societal benefits are twofold. Marriage helps children and the relationship between the man and the woman.

I'll start with the relationship one. Women have more security in a marriage, than in a common law relationship. Part of this has to do with the beneftis, if the two are treated differently, but more of it has to do with the public commitment.

For the man, the benefits of marriage should be obvious. Single men, on average, do much woerse than married men, though the difference is much more for the men than for the woman.

If together, one man and one woman are much more productive than when they are seperated, society should have a vested interest in protecting marriage.

All of this neglects the second part of the argument. A recent study came out and showed that the majority of the earnings difference between men and women comes from childrearing. This, some would argue supports women who choose not to have children, but a better arugment would state that soceity ought to compensate women for childrearing. The difference is about 25% over the course of the career for the woman who has children than the woman who does not. Why is this an arguemtn for marriage?

If a woman is by herself, she will lose 25% of her income. If a woman has a husband, she will lose only 12.5% as the drop gets distributed between the husband and the wife. This difference also neglects the previous eample of the productivity increase of both the woman and the man in marriage. So, if you and to have kids, from the erspecitve of the woman, it makes much more sense to have them in a marriage than not.

In the case of the children, children do much better with a mom and a dad because of the difference in roles. Homosexuality assumes that there are no intrinsic differences between men and women, but this is false. In general Women, are usually much better with kids than men, though of course there will be exceptions to every rule.

Finally, more children grow up in marriages than are born in them. Why is this? Some women who have children prefer to give them a better home with another family, or a family will take on another child. It is much easier for a familiy of 2 or 3 kids to take one more child, than it is for a single mom to take on one.

Gotta go. Second part will come later. Why will gay marriage impact the benefits society derives from marriage?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

In the case of the children, children do much better with a mom and a dad because of the difference in roles. Homosexuality assumes that there are no intrinsic differences between men and women, but this is false. In general Women, are usually much better with kids than men, though of course there will be exceptions to every rule.

This is so loaded with your propaganda it's frankly insulting to all those well-adjusted children who've grown up with two mothers, two fathers, or one mother or one father.

'Homosexuality assumes that there are no intrinsic differences between men and women, but this is false. '

So you've become an expert on homosexuality now, have you? We've already seen how you have compared it with incest, mental illness and physical addiction.

Homosexuality in and of itself, 'assumes' nothing. It's simply another form of sexuality. One doesn't even have to be sexually active to be homosexual- I knew I was gay before I had sex with another man. I think I'm well aware of the intrinsic differences between men and women- but I'm even more aware of societally, culturally and religiously imposed differences.

As for blandishments about women's roles- hmm, yes where have I had that mashed potato schmaltz before- possibly in 'kinder, kuche, kirche'?

Ah yes, that has a familiar ring to it.

[Asher]

I'm sure Ben will agree with the statement that Women ought to be in the kitchen and housewives, rather than career women.

Hooray for modern idealogies.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Asher
I'm sure Ben will agree with the statement that Women ought to be in the kitchen and housewives, rather than career women.

Hooray for modern idealogies.

I pity his girlfriend. Actually, as she seems to be a conservative R.C.er, they deserve each other. Can't you just picture the loving couple on the reproductive rights' clinic's picket line?

Of course, as befits a dutiful modern woman, she's shrouded in a sackcloth hijab, three paces behind Ayatollah Ben, holding twenty five placards, a thermos, a hessian sack of leaflets and his migraine medicine.