Hello everybody

[molly bloom]

That's the biggest compliment you've ever paid me. Thanks!

Your historical 'skills' are showing.

[notyoueither]

Glad to see you admit it. Of course, you're just fine with imposing your own moral values on all of society.

I don't give a **** if you, as a repressed homosexual, do not care to find a man who is a suitable mate and get married. It is your personal choice and is no skin off my nose.

I don't particularly care when someone makes a choice that marrying outside their class, religion or race is something they prefer not to do. It is their personal choice.

I care when bigots and racists want to make their personal preferences the law of the land by banning marriages of other people.

Your claims of hardship when people are not tolerant of your intolerance are comical.

This makes no sense at all. I, for instance, believe that people should be allowed to express their sexuality as they see fit and, at the same time, believe that fundamentalists should be allowed to disdain the practice.

The problem lies in the imposition of wills. Many religions require public testimony and/or propagation of faith as a core activity. These organizations have de facto embraced the opposition and hostility they encounter. Complaining about it is disingenuous.

Don't like gay sex? Don't do it.
Don't like others having gay sex? None of your business. Really.

This is essentially it, put more patiently than I.

I believe that changing societal norms is a harm. One of the goals of society is to maintain laws, rules and practices which have worked to sustain society for generations. Changing those rules damages society as a whole and makes it less able to cope with other stresses. One of the rules is that marriage is to be between one man and one woman.

I think that society at present is much weaker than it was close to a hundred years ago, because of the changes that have been wrought since then. In some ways it has improved, but in many ways it has not, and I believe the balance is negative. Gay marriage is merely the last of a long sequence of changes that have had the same goal in mind.

Brainless conservatism.

[Aeson]

I think that society at present is much weaker than it was close to a hundred years ago, because of the changes that have been wrought since then. In some ways it has improved, but in many ways it has not, and I believe the balance is negative.

Damn that universal suffrage, those civil rights, allowing interracial marriages, and not being able to beat/rape/molest your wife and kids with impunity. What were we thinking? We've destroyed society...

[MrFun]

So what did I miss?

[Ben Kenobi]

So does this mean that Mr. Fun wants me to reply to all of his threads?

[Ben Kenobi]

Damn that universal suffrage, those civil rights, allowing interracial marriages, and not being able to beat/rape/molest your wife and kids with impunity. What were we thinking? We've destroyed society

Did I say that everything was bad? No. But many things that have come about, especially since the sixties have been bad. And that's after all this stuff here. That's not to say that some of the things that Wilson did were extremely bad, and that many of the things that FDR did were also bad.

[Ben Kenobi]

Your historical 'skills' are showing.

I'm a convert. Calling me a Catholic faithful to the Church is a huge compliment. So thank you for that.

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't give a **** if you, as a repressed homosexual, do not care to find a man who is a suitable mate and get married. It is your personal choice and is no skin off my nose.

Not the point. The point is that you believe that everyone should see things with marriage as you do, and that anyone who doesn't is wrong. You are perfectly happy to impose your beliefs on others. I'm very happy you grant me the comfort of agreeing with you.

I don't particularly care when someone makes a choice that marrying outside their class, religion or race is something they prefer not to do. It is their personal choice.

But you do care when someone articulates the point that marriage is about something other than 'personal choice', and fulfillment. Again, this is my point here.

I care when bigots and racists want to make their personal preferences the law of the land by banning marriages of other people.

And this is exactly my point. If I agreed with you we would have no quarrel, but because I see society as different from the way you see society, you believe that I am a bigot and a racist. Despite the fact that you have zero evidence of either.

Your claims of hardship when people are not tolerant of your intolerance are comical.

Did I say my hardship had anything to do with you? Wow, the world revolves around NYE.

Brainless conservatism.

Agreeing with NYE = smart. Disagreeing with NYE = Dumb. Wow. What an insight.

[Ben Kenobi]

Does the state have an interest in excluding people who cannot produce children?

So you concede that society has an interest in it's own propagation? Thank you. It is true that in promoting marriage, that some do not choose to have children, but that's different from promoting something that has no chance of producing children at all.

You only want it because you hate homosexuals.

Quite the contrary. I believe in this because this is what Christ teaches. If that makes Christ a bigot than so be it. The word ceases to have any meaning, when Christ himself points out that there is a distinction between the person and his sin. The two are not the same.

So, erm, your argument against legalizing same-sex marriage is "they don't have sex the same way"?

The core of marriage is the union between a man and a woman.

I think you're just being arbitrary.

Then why is failure to consummate grounds for divorce?

I have no idea what self-actualization is.

Then perhaps you ought to look it up.

Marriage is about love.

Storge? If I love my grandmother should I marry her?

Marriage is not just about love, and nor is love confined in marriage. There are many types of love which do not corroborate with marriage, and love is only part of what makes marriage work.

[Ben Kenobi]

I do think that BK is a bigot

Then personal attacks are permitted and encouraged here?

[giblets]

So you concede that society has an interest in it's own propagation? Thank you. It is true that in promoting marriage, that some do not choose to have children, but that's different from promoting something that has no chance of producing children at all.



Quite the contrary. I believe in this because this is what Christ teaches. If that makes Christ a bigot than so be it. The word ceases to have any meaning, when Christ himself points out that there is a distinction between the person and his sin. The two are not the same.



The core of marriage is the union between a man and a woman.



Then why is failure to consummate grounds for divorce?



Then perhaps you ought to look it up.



Storge? If I love my grandmother should I marry her?

Marriage is not just about love, and nor is love confined in marriage. There are many types of love which do not corroborate with marriage, and love is only part of what makes marriage work.

I did not concede that the state has an interest in promoting childbirth. Apparently it's not important to exclude heterosexual couples who aren't fertile, so I can only conclude that it's also not important to exclude homosexual couples. So really, who ****ing cares if they can produce babies. The state certainly does have an interest in promoting stable two-adult households that can adopt children. I don't consider your "Christ teachings" to be relevant to public policy. Whether "failure to consummate" is considered grounds for divorce depends on the laws of the state, but it is not controversial to state that sexual relations are a part of marriage and same-sex marriages are not celibate so again, not relevant. If you want to introduce the concept that "self-actualization" is the whole point of marriage, then maybe you should define it, because it's not my ****ing idea. No, you should not marry your grandmother you ****ing pervert. You are a brainwashed bigot who will feel quite at home in Texas until attitudes change over the next couple decades.

[Ben Kenobi]

I did not concede that the state has an interest in promoting childbirth.

Then you believe that society has no interest in supporting marriage? Why do you believe this to be the case? Or is your objection that society wants to support marriage, but not childbirth?

Apparently it's not important to exclude heterosexual couples who aren't fertile, so I can only conclude that it's also not important to exclude homosexual couples.

There are substantial differences between the two. What purpose does it serve for society to recognise two different things as being the same? Sure, some who can have children, choose not to have children, but that doesn't negate the fact that one can produce children and the other cannot. This is a difference in nature, that is significant.

So really, who ****ing cares if they can produce babies.

Society insofar as it has an interest in it's preservation and perpetuation?

The state certainly does have an interest in promoting stable two-adult households that can adopt children.

On what grounds does society have an interest in promoting adoption over childbirth?

I don't consider your "Christ teachings" to be relevant to public policy.

And why should your opinion in this matter take precedence over others?

Whether "failure to consummate" is considered grounds for divorce depends on the laws of the state

That still doesn't explain why it is considered grounds for divorce. Why is it considered grounds for divorce, Gribble?

that sexual relations are a part of marriage

If sex is a core part of marriage, than relationships that do not engage in sex cannot be considered marriage. This is a key part.

so again, not relevant.

Absolutely relevant. You're conflating two things that are different.

No, you should not marry your grandmother you ****ing pervert.

Why not? I thought marriage was all about love? Now you're backtracking.

You are a brainwashed bigot who will feel quite at home in Texas until attitudes change over the next couple decades.

And we have confirmation. It was *always* about forcing your opinion on others. Thanks for confirming.

[Aeson]

Did I say that everything was bad? No. But many things that have come about, especially since the sixties have been bad. And that's after all this stuff here. That's not to say that some of the things that Wilson did were extremely bad, and that many of the things that FDR did were also bad.

You said the balance of social change in the last 100 years was negative. Of course the obvious implication of my statement is that there's nothing that even comes close to balancing out the good social changes that have occurred in that timeframe.

[giblets]

I do think that BK is a bigot, but not particularly from this thread so far.

Opposing same sex marriage is bigotry.

[MrFun]

Society insofar as it has an interest in it's preservation and perpetuation?

Gay people may make up about ten percent of population. Granting ten percent of population equal marriage rights will not force the other ninety percent to stop reproducing.