Not really. However if you look strictly at logic, then Communism should be very viable and efficient. It isn't logic that shows us this isn't the case, but history.
If you look at the fall of Rome, it was preceeded by an acceptance of decadent behaviour. Let me state right now that I don't believe gay relationships are necessarily decadent in and of themselves, but I do believe that a lot of the push behind the "gay marriage" is the crowd that doesn't want any behavior judged (except maybe being Christian and/or conservative).
Sometimes systems evolve simply because they're the best (I can't believe we're now agruing the opposite sides of "natural selection"). Why are two parent households generally more stable for children than single parent households even when the single parent has an extensive extend family to help in raising the child? There's no "logic" to that. More people caring for and about the child should mean more stablity, but the two parent household trumps "the village".
Anyhow, I mostly fear a society without standards.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
& where in history do you find "gay marriage = bad?"
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
& where in history do you find "gay marriage = bad?"
Where in history do you find "incest = bad"? I can't think of any cultures off the top of my head that state (or stated) that it's okay. There were always issues with royal bloodlines, but even they didn't advertise the incest because incest seems to be a universally accepted "sin" which has trancended all religious and cultural lines.
So why is it bad?
"Because we've always done it this way" is not a very good reason not to change the way things are done, I'll admit. But neither is it a reason to change things without considering whether or not there's a reason it always has been done that way.
Maybe there would be no adverse cultural ramifications what-so-ever with having gay marriages. Some countries in Europe already have them. Let's wait a generation or so and see what happens before we uncork that particular bottle.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
If you look at the fall of Rome, it was preceeded by an acceptance of decadent behaviour. Let me state right now that I don't believe gay relationships are necessarily decadent in and of themselves, but I do believe that a lot of the push behind the "gay marriage" is the crowd that doesn't want any behavior judged (except maybe being Christian and/or conservative).
...
Anyhow, I mostly fear a society without standards.
You're retarded. Seriously, I have no clue what happened to your brain, but you are simply retarded. This whole "argument" you've tried to put forth: mother-fucking retarded.
Seriously, get a new brain. You've apparently used this one up.
If you look at the fall of Rome, it was preceeded by an acceptance of decadent behaviour. Let me state right now that I don't believe gay relationships are necessarily decadent in and of themselves, but I do believe that a lot of the push behind the "gay marriage" is the crowd that doesn't want any behavior judged (except maybe being Christian and/or conservative).
Two things. First, letting gays marry would, to a minor extent, reduce decadent behaviour. While married people do indeed sometimes fool around, having that investment does stop some of them. Secondly, all because people you don't like are in favor of a particular thing doesn't mean that that particular thing is automatically wrong. Perhaps all the rest of their agenda is wrong, but this one might be right. Neither of these reasons are particuarly good to disallow gay marriage, IMO.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Maybe there would be no adverse cultural ramifications what-so-ever with having gay marriages.
Curtailing someone's freedom should be akin to what jury's do. You should have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that curtailing that freedom is a necessity for the good of society. If there is a "maybe" in the arguement, then IMO you have to err on the side of more freedom, not less.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
It wasn't solely the decadent behaviour that killed Rome, either. There's a dumptruck load of reasons why.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Maybe there would be no adverse cultural ramifications what-so-ever with having gay marriages.
Curtailing someone's freedom should be akin to what jury's do. You should have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that curtailing that freedom is a necessity for the good of society. If there is a "maybe" in the arguement, then IMO you have to err on the side of more freedom, not less.
I would go back to the incest example. Using your argument it should be allowed.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
If you look at the fall of Rome, it was preceeded by an acceptance of decadent behaviour. Let me state right now that I don't believe gay relationships are necessarily decadent in and of themselves, but I do believe that a lot of the push behind the "gay marriage" is the crowd that doesn't want any behavior judged (except maybe being Christian and/or conservative).
...
Anyhow, I mostly fear a society without standards.
You're retarded. Seriously, I have no clue what happened to your brain, but you are simply retarded. This whole "argument" you've tried to put forth: mother-fucking retarded.
Seriously, get a new brain. You've apparently used this one up.
I consulted with Merriam-Webster and we're in agreement that you're a dick.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
Two things. First, letting gays marry would, to a minor extent, reduce decadent behaviour. While married people do indeed sometimes fool around, having that investment does stop some of them.
I would say any reduction there is negligable (or however that's spelled). You show me a guy that cheats on his fiance, and I'll show you a guy that will be cheating on his wife. To the cheaters for whom being married would make a difference, they just don't get married.
Besides, being gay isn't the decadent behavior that I'm referring to. I think there are a lot of other groups that are marching lock step in the Gay Pride parades that are wanting other thing legitimized, and they believe that an acceptance of gay marriage is a step in that direction. Go read up on NAMBLA some time. Pretty scary group. And you better believe that they have an interest in the idea of legal gay marriages.
Edited By Vince on 1150171795
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
Another thought I've had in the past about the whole gay marriage thing. What about adoption? Currently (at least in Tennessee... not sure about other states) one of the homosexuals in the relationship is allowed to adopt. They can't jointly adopt because they aren't legally married. Being single, the state doesn't consider it an optimal home, so they usually don't end up with the more desirable kids (young white kids). They usually end up with kids that are minorities, often from mothers that were drug addicts.
I despise the state of the foster care system in this country. It's borderline criminal. Often the gay couples end up with children that wouldn't be adopted otherwise. I can state that I absolutely 100% think these kids are better off in the home of a gay couple than they would be in the foster care system. I think it's great that the gay couples are adopting these kids.
Is it optimal for the kid? Are there social development issues that arise from being brough up in a gay household? Are they severe enough that they shouldn't be considered on the same level of being a "fit household" as a heterosexual couple? I've only known one "heather has Two Mommies" in my life, and she was plenty fucked up. That's by no means a scientific sampling, but she was screwed up enough to give me pause to consider the need to do such studies.
Actually I take that back. Sharon from my old forum has three daughters and they're all majorly fucked up as well.
At any rate, giving them the legal right to marry would also place them on the same legal footing as a hetrosexual couple when it comes to adopting. Is that optimal? Is that detrimental to the kids? As I've said, I don't know. But I think it's worth considering other consequences to the idea of gay marriage as well.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
Vince, you started by saying, "Gays can have a union, but don't call it marriage". Yet, everything you've said since then says you don't want that union to be recognized. I got the impression that you'd recognize the union, you just wanted it called "Banana Pie" (or whatever word they wanted I guess), instead of marriage. So, where exactly do you stand as far as the gay union thing?
I'm looking forward to Catt's rebutle. . . that sub thread is crackin' me up.
I'm personally for recognizing the union, giving them full rights as a couple, and leaving them alone. Don't call it marriage if you want, but let the 'partner' be elligable for health benefits, etc. What difference does it make if I put Gordon down as my spouse and he can ride on my insurance or if I put a woman's name? I'm paying extra for the insurance anyway. . . who cares what sex the partner is? Anyway, that's where I stand. However, your last statement gave me pause. They would then have equal standing when adopting kids. But then I thought, is it better for the kid to stay in foster care, or be raised by fags? Hmmm. Could go either way on that one. Currently, the system only protects the elite white kids from the fags. The black crack kids can just get screwed up more by the fags. . . or something. I'm going off the deep end there, but point is, which is better for the child? Foster care, or fags? I dunno.
Lastly, gays all say it's genetic. It's not a choice, it's who/what they are. Fine. I accept that. Get married. Have a life together. Let natural selection take care of things. They would non-procreate themselves out of exsistance instead of knocking up their beards!
I think there are a lot of other groups that are marching lock step in the Gay Pride parades that are wanting other thing legitimized, and they believe that an acceptance of gay marriage is a step in that direction. Go read up on NAMBLA some time. Pretty scary group. And you better believe that they have an interest in the idea of legal gay marriages.
This is actually a very good statement, but it's still not a deal killer for gay marriage. Gays have hurt theeir own movement by associating with groups like NAMBLA and if any gay people or strongly involved gay rights activists can explain to me why NAMBLA isn't rejected like Gordon asking his prom date for a quickie when they come asking to march, I'd love to hear the explanation.
That being said, saying that gay marriage will lead to marriage between a man and a child or a woman and a child is ridiculous. It's comparing apples to oranges. In one case you have two consenting adults. In the other, you have an adult and a child with no legal choice. Hell, even if some guy tries to marry his lawn jockey society has to deem that it's not acceptable. Not just from a common sense point of view, but also from the fact that we don't want to pay higher insurance rates so his lawn jockey doesn't have to worry about getting hurt while hang gliding.
As for the whole raising kids thing, why can't a gay couple do a good job raising kids? I understand the fear that the couple will try to turn the kids gay as well, but I think you'll find that isn't the case. Remember, if nature decides who is gay, then those parents won't be able to turn their kid gay. I mean, who are raising gay kids now? Straight people. Outside of the gay issue, what other concerns are there about gay parents? Do they allow more cussing or irresponsibility? Do their kids grow up to be little fuckheads?
Last time I checked, the national stats showed that the most likely kids to do drugs and commit crimes were raised by a single parent. I don't see national debates and news stories about stopping that behavior. In fact, being a single mother has become something of a badge of honor for some women.
What's funny about that is that here we are as a society trying to stop gay people from getting married, yet the straight people haven't mastered the art yet. Who the hell are we to judge? The divorce rate is 51%, lots of parents are single, many parents have children by different mothers and fathers, we've got an entire generation of kids who think they're entitled to being spoiled who are in for a RUDE awakening when they reach adulthood, etc.
Yeah, we know what the hell we're talking about right? We're the "experts".
And who do we ask for advice when we don't know what to do in marriage? We ask priests. People who have never been married and never aspired to be married.
I submit that we as a society are fucking clueless, so who are we tell gay people they can't do it?
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
Lastly, gays all say it's genetic. It's not a choice, it's who/what they are.
Not exactly. Some gays say it's genetic, and they've even found a "gay gene." But then some gays disagree witht he whole idea that gayness is something that is a genetic defect and might someday be cured.
See: X-Men 3.
But seriously, what I said is true.
But all in all, an evolutionary dead-end seems like a defect to me. Gay peeps couldn't have genetic offspring... and pass on this genetic mutation... without either biting the bullet and banging the opposite sex, or using modern science.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
As for the whole raising kids thing, why can't a gay couple do a good job raising kids? I understand the fear that the couple will try to turn the kids gay as well, but I think you'll find that isn't the case. Remember, if nature decides who is gay, then those parents won't be able to turn their kid gay. I mean, who are raising gay kids now? Straight people. Outside of the gay issue, what other concerns are there about gay parents? Do they allow more cussing or irresponsibility? Do their kids grow up to be little fuckheads?
Caveat: I have no firsthand evidence of what I'm about to say, I can only go by what I've observed in media.
Does anyone argue that kids aren;t more messed up today than at any other time in American history? Drugs, sex at 12, lack of discipline, no consequences for actions, columbine, emo, "cutting themselves to dull the pain." How does this type of sociopathic mindset develop? Can it possibly have anything to do with shifting attitudes toward broken homes, and what constitutes parents? Because, I don't know, it seems ridiculously and blindingly obvious to me that something got broken with the raising of children, somewhere.
It's so blindingly obvious that, in fact, it takes a real intellectual to ignore it.
But instead of observing root causes and being politically incorrect and saying, "you know, maybe this 'times changed' new definition of family isn't working..." we just shoot the kids up with ridilin and pray for the day they turn 18 so you can get rid of them without penalty of law. They then, in turn, are free to begin reproduction.
I don't know. Maybe gay parents are the wave of a healthy, bright future and it just isn't working yet because the terrorists poisoned the water supply.
Yep, times change. That means that good times can change into bad. Bummer.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Addendum: I'm not suggesting that kids are screwed up today because of ghey marriage. I'm suggesting that instead of throwing every tradition and historic morality to the wind in the name of freedom and political correctness and 'things change,' we stop and consider the consequences, and even worse completely ignore the consequences, and at the very worst blame something else entirely for the consequences.
Doom 2 didn't help 2 high school kids stockpile shotguns and pipe bombs in their bedrooms in colorado. The fact they were unsupervised (because it is ok for both parents to work, right? things change) allowed them to do it and some other type of neglect allowed them to develop the desire. I don't know enough about their upbringing to make a snarky comments about that. Just insert lack of parental attention/love/discipline/ass whoopings/ridilin/poor diet/etc as appropriate.
Edited By GORDON on 1150233178
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
They would non-procreate themselves out of exsistance instead of knocking up their beards!