I debate a college Democrat.

[Whaleboy]

I think it's possible to make a non-religious argument for his position... but then my position is most certainly not religious and probably appears as a reasonable compromise, which ruins my "hated by all" philosophical extremist chic .

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


That opens up lots of cans of worms though.

The abortion rights folks, insist that abortion is part of the rights for women, and to require male consent crushes their position.

While I agree that a woman needs to have the legal right to decide without LEGALLY required arbitration from a husband, I also think that a pregnant wife who has an abortion without taking a personal initiative to privately talk with the husband beforehand is being grossly insensitive and cold-hearted with her husband.


So basically -- no, a woman's right should not be legally tied to the husband. But, a wife who loves her husband will privately talk with her husband through the decision-making process.

Of course, this is only in concern of those husbands who are loyal, responsible, and not abusive and are in every way, part of their wife's life.

[Wiglaf]

Human life doesn't begin until the mind works. Otherwise it's all plumbing...

Societies that treat developing humans as plumbing are really heading in the wrong direction.

By far your worse argument is your response to the reversible comatose patient. You say "He was and is a part of society, so I count that as life." Here you do value potential life because the life has already impacted society.

It's nice to have such a nuanced, bull**** position on something that has killed, what, 40 million kids now?

I call BS -- Bush has declared a number of times, publicly, that he strongly believes that marriage is only between a man and a woman. THIS implies his strong support for the amendment of bigotry and discrimination.

He does not want the most powerful government in the world to advocate and accept federally recognized unions between gays. I think this is important because otherwise people can marry a soup can otherwise. To maintain some level of consistency in the process ,at the very least, he is justified . He is not stopping you from holding hands or going to gay rallies or whatever gay things you like to do. But he is stopping you from a federally sanctioned union, which is much more reasonable I think we can all agree.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


He does not want the most powerful government in the world to advocate and accept federally recognized unions between gays. I think this is important because otherwise people can marry a soup can otherwise. To maintain some level of consistency in the process ,at the very least, he is justified . He is not stopping you from holding hands or going to gay rallies or whatever gay things you like to do. But he is stopping you from a federally sanctioned union, which is much more reasonable I think we can all agree.

Why do you dehumanize gays by comparing marriage between two people of same gender to that of one's desire to marry an inanimate object?

And an amendment that actively promotes discrimination against a minority group is NEVER, EVER reasonable.

[Wiglaf]

And an amendment that actively promotes discrimination against a minority group is NEVER, EVER reasonable.

I have a minority group called a gang, we like to shoot people and hit up banks, holla holla.

Why do you dehumanize gays by comparing marriage between two people of same gender to that of one's desire to marry an inanimate object?

There are plenty of reasons to legalize same-sex marriage. And soup-can marriages. And pet-marriages.

At the same time, you need to draw a line. Marriage is and has always been between a man and a woman for the purposes of procreation and raising children. The moment you make it so obviously an institution of sodomy and pleasure-seeking is the moment the country and its people lose some respect and dignity.

[MrFun]

For now, I'm not going any further down the road of migraines with you, Wiggy.

[Wiglaf]

Brave Sir Robin ran away
Bravely, ran away...away...
When danger reared its ugly head
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out
Bravely talking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin

[Whaleboy]

How dare you use the power of the python AGAINST a gay person!!

[CygnusZ]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
At the same time, you need to draw a line. Marriage is and has always been between a man and a woman for the purposes of procreation and raising children. The moment you make it so obviously an institution of sodomy and pleasure-seeking is the moment the country and its people lose some respect and dignity.

I'll take this up.

1) Marriage never has, and never will be, about procreation. Procreation and marriage are unrelated activities.

2) The line is drawn by wherever society accepts it. There is no rhyme or reason as to why we accept some pairings as legitimate and others are not, it is arbitrary. You directly represent the type of thought which opposed interacial marriage. Public morality is in a state of constant evolution, and is reaching the state in which many can accept gay marriage. As a society we DO accept sodomy now, and all the wonderful pleasure it brings to its participants.

With all the evil things happening in the world, that gay people simply want a peaceful good thing like marriage is drawing opposition is plain sick. The conservative establishment should be more concerned with the issue of promoting equality among men and building bridges to a peaceful world than what people's private sexual preferences are in their home. How dare you oppose something that will make other people happy with no harm or cost to yourself.

[Wiglaf]

1) Marriage never has, and never will be, about procreation. Procreation and marriage are unrelated activities.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever read in my life.

I guess if you accept that, you can justify any definition of marriage. Marriage is a cultural fling that changes generation from generation. Do with it what you will!

[Asher]

Marriage is about love.

The marriages vows aren't promises to procreate, IIRC.

[Wiglaf]

The generational shift into making marriage about sodomy and screwing members of ths same sex, solely for the purposes of pleasure, is quite the pillaging of a once honored, family institution.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
At the same time, you need to draw a line. Marriage is and has always been between a man and a woman for the purposes of procreation and raising children. The moment you make it so obviously an institution of sodomy and pleasure-seeking is the moment the country and its people lose some respect and dignity.

I wonder where's the dignity:

- Britney Spears get married for 6 hours in order to have sex (with a man), or
- two old Women who loved each other and lived together for the last 40 years finally get married.

[Whaleboy]

It's scary but his argument is common in the anti-gay marriage camp. They don't seem to be able to distinguish between a bowl of soup, a vulnerable child and a free thinking, consenting adult

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
The generational shift into making marriage about sodomy and screwing members of ths same sex, solely for the purposes of pleasure, is quite the pillaging of a once honored, family institution.

The definition of marriage has always shifted in history

At first, it was an institution whose aim was to define a man who is responsible for the children.
Then it became an institution that made women dependent of their husband, legally as well as economically.
Then (during the 20th century), marriage was about love. Reproductive issues were much less important, as the children of unmarried couples got recognized, and as non-reproductive sex appeared.
Finally, today, marriage has completely lost its bond with reproduction, which is only a continuation of the trend naturally started by women's freedom and contraception. It is so unbound with reproduction that some countries who allow same-sex marriage forbid these couples from adopting children (like Belgium). Marriage and parenting is now completely unbundled.