beervolcano
Posts: 147
Joined: Dec. 2005
|
Ok, to #### with it.
| Quote | | Second, the most obvious opposition to gay "marriage" is due to the effect of rendering marriage of any larger societal meaning. This is the MAIN MOTIVATION behind the push for gay "marriage." |
So, when gay people say they just want to be able to visit their spouses in the hospital or let them inheret their property by default or file for joint insurance policies, what they REALLY want is to undermine the "larger societal meaning" of marriage. Yeah, makes sense.
| Quote | | The problem is the radicalness of the "other" side and its insistence that no legitimate argument can be made in opposition to gay "marriage." |
An argument can be legitimate and be totally wrong. All I have ever said, is that any argument against gay marriage that is not really based in religion will invariably be an argument against heterosexual marriage too.
| Quote | | Let's dissect this specifically. First, "liberals" don't believe in "slippery-slope" arguments because a belief in such arguments would force them to face the consequences of their actions. That's why they deny any and all "slippery-slope" arguments. |
Haven't been paying attention to the Privacy debate have you? These are all slippery slope arguments made by liberals. Oh, the NSA just says they are spying on terrorists, but it's a slippery slope and they might be spying on their political rivals or even private citizens. Net Neutrality is another slippery slope argument made by liberals. First they wall off websites that didn't pay enough, then they control your lives...classic slippery slope stuff.
| Quote | | Most "liberals" (especially the ones on this forum) have no real experience with real racism yet they pontificate like they were blacks in the 1960's or homosexuals in the 21st century. Likewise, most real traditionalists have little experience with real racism because oppressing blacks or homosexuals is really only something "liberals" are always ranting about. |
This is some amazingly boneheaded stuff right here.
I've never been in a war, but can that stop me from opposing war?
| Quote | | I don't just want to know if a particular "ideal" will benefit some particular minority. I want to know if this "ideal" will benefit our nation as a whole? |
Wow, man, wow! I'm sure I could pull out numerous analogies to show why this is totally fascist thinking. If the majority of the nation is xian, then who cares about some piddling minority like jews or athiests? If the majority is white, who cares about those damned asians? Lesbians? Who cares what happens to them as long as the rest of the country isn't "burdened" by letting them have legal marriage rights.
I say the country as a whole would benefit if the govt got completely out of the marriage business. Don't you?
| Quote | | It is the end game for the radical homosexuals (those that have emnity towards traditional marriage, family and children). They do exist, no? |
No.
At least not as a political entity. There may be one or two nutcases out there that thinks this, but come on. You might not be so paranoid if you laid off the crack. Once you realize that you are being manipulated and motivated by fear, you might become more reasonable about things like this. Once you realize that Republicans are using this as a wedge issue ONLY and have no real desire one way or the other as long as it gets people like you off their butts to go vote for their corrupt asses. If those damned gays didn't want to be treated like everyone else, they couldn't use it as an issue right? Just like if those damned blacks hadn't started so much trouble, racist politicians wouldn't have a platform, would they?
| Quote | | Once this foundational criteria is toppled, marriage is meaningless in any cultural context. It is simply the assertion of the will of the individual for societal validation. |
Is this even supposed to mean anything?
From PuckSR: | Quote | | Honestly...I'm not at all concerned about "destroying" the sanctity of marriage. I am also not opposed to "opening the flood gates". I am opposed to half-ass legal reform that is selectively beneficial to a very small minority(gays who wish to get married). |
That's the way I see it. get govt out of marriage altogether.
But in lieu of that, for now, most gays would settle for the half-assed legal reform.
| Quote | No...
but the majority have a problem with the enforcement of legal documents, commonlaw marriage, financial classification of marriage, work benefits for married people. |
Here's an example. It's not a huge deal, but it's just illustrative.
Personally, I don't see a real need to be married. If my gf and I wanted to have kids one day, then we'd get married, for them. But until that day, there really isn't any need in my eyes to go through an expensive ceremony, sign contracts, and buy rings and all that just to be together. So we've just been living together (in sin! ) for the past 6 years. Now, I don't have dental insurance right now, but she does. It would be cheaper on both of us if I could be on her policy. But we can't because we're not married. Ah! But at her company if we were the same sex, we could. This is obvious discrimination. Non-married (legally) gay partners can apply for joint health/dental insurance policies, but non-married hetero couples cannot.
Again, this isn't a big deal to me since I could just go get my own policy for more money, but it's just illustrative of the kind of petty BS that permeates this whole "debate."
--------------
("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."--Jonathan Swift)
|
