Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Aside from sperm banks and options along those lines, it is as simple as one of the women going out and getting herself pregnant.> Then that's not the gay couple creating a child, is it? In fact, none of your examples involve a gay couple creating offspring. That's because it's physically impossible. I'm not sure why this is such a hard concept for some to grasp.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <But don't forget, this from a guy who has no compunction against destroying nature for a few more gallons of gas to satiate our overpopulated, overindulgent planet in the first place.> I've never advocated destroying nature.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It is the same sort of bigotry, in service of a different cause.> No, it's not.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I'm not a SCI-FI geek so will someone please tell me why I need to be so worried about the population dying out hundreds of years from now?> If you aren't concerned about Europe remaining European, or America or Canada remaining mostly American or Canadian, then you don't need to be concerned. In fact, you really don't have too worry about anything - right or wrong, or morals. Just do whatever makes you feel good, whenever you want. Consequences don't matter.
Originally Posted By mele <<In fact, you really don't have too worry about anything - right or wrong, or morals. Just do whatever makes you feel good, whenever you want. Consequences don't matter. >> ROFL! That's right, I'M the immoral one in this scenario. You seem to think you've got some responsibility to tell people how to live their lives. Who the hell are you to give someone consequences in this area? (Hint: you're no one.) But yes, you're right, allowing people to have the same rights as me DOES make me feel good. Pity you get your thrills doing the opposite. And the fact that you're PROUD of it...incredible. Yes, pity is the word to use. Or rather, pitiful.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <No one has ever shown how the data is twisted or why it's not credible. It's simply been dismissed.> Not true, of course. What Doug posted in #190 are the same sources that were thoroughly discredited here a couple of years ago (though he refuses to admit it). The main flaw in these "studies" is a classic logical fallacy: correlation does not equal causation. For instance, the dollar has been getting weaker against the euro this decade. In this decade, we've also seen the premiere and popularity of American Idol. That doesn't mean AI caused the dollar to weaken vs. the euro. This guy (and Doug) believe that because there has been a decline in marriage rates and an increase in out of wedlock births in the countries looked at, at the same time that gay marriage came into being, that this correlation equals causation. This is a logical fallacy to begin with. There is also a far, far more plausible explanation than that straight people suddenly started devaluing marriage simply because gay people could do it. That doesn't make sense anyway. Wouldn't it make more sense to see if something changed for STRAIGHT couples over this period? Lo and behold, it did. In these same countries, co-habiting but unmarried straight couples were granted most of the rights and responsibilities of marriage, without the name. Meaning that straight couples could simply co-habit and get most of the legal rights and protections of marriage. Is it any surprise that those to whom religious marriage rites are unimportant (and the countries looked at are among the more unreligious in Europe), or who wanted to continue hedging their bets, or who simply were content as they were, might not decide to marry? And that more children might be born to these couples? (And even if they got married later, as many did, the children still count as "out of wedlock.") What makes more sense: that a straight couple in a country like this says "Well, we could get married, but legally we're all but married now anyway - what's the rush? Maybe we'll do it later?" or "Well, I'd love to get married, but gay people can do it now, so that just ruins it for us." Me, I think that marriage should retain a special status for any couple, straight or gay, who decides to make that commitment, and remain distinct from co-habitation. As long as everyone has equal access to it, that's what matters. The countries looked at here have decided to make co-habitation nearly equal to marriage, so is it any surprise their marriage rates have fallen? I don't believe, however, that the percentage of straight people forming couples has changed, just those getting technically married. The fact that gay people can legally marry does not seem to have changed the number of straight people who form couples, nor should there be any reason to believe it would. If we in this country do not make co-habitation nearly equal to marriage (and I know of no particular movement to do so, unlike the movement for marriage equality), then we can avoid the experience of these countries. This was said to Douglas last time, and he ignored it and chose to believe what he wants to believe, based on these discredited studies.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "This was said to Douglas last time, and he ignored it and chose to believe what he wants to believe, based on these discredited studies." A week or so ago I said something to the effect that I'd have more respect for people if they just came out and said they didn't like it, couldn't get used to it, etc., rather than hide behind some convoluted reasons. Douglas would be one of those to whom I was referring.
Originally Posted By X-san ***Then that's not the gay couple creating a child, is it? In fact, none of your examples involve a gay couple creating offspring. That's because it's physically impossible. I'm not sure why this is such a hard concept for some to grasp.*** The examples I cited are no different than what an infertile couple might attempt in order to have a child. Not to mention your particular rantings are pretty darned insulting to the selfless families who adopt children, infertile or not. So, Douglas, according to your theory a certifiably infertile couple is also useless to society. Would you advocate testing, and banning such persons from the option marriage as well? If not, why not? Your argument by default includes them as well.
Originally Posted By X-san I'll just go ahead and finish replying to Douglas all at once. **I've never advocated destroying nature.** I'll grant you one point here, there must be found a happy medium between corporate Republican culture which would pave over the planet in a heartbeat if it meant more profit, and the opposite extreme where we've got preservationists fighting tooth and nail for every single acre in question while at the same time we are further indebting ourselves to countries we shouldn't even be associating with, and who want to kill us. However, your arguments consistently lean towards the former and you know it. ***It is the same sort of bigotry, in service of a different cause. No, it's not.*** If you're being truthful, then you must admit that your argument also implicitly demands that a responsible society identify its' infertile members and ban them from ever getting married. If you believe that, then you are truly not prejudiced. If not, you're a bigot in my book. Just spouting convenient arguments and theories to support your cause. ***If you aren't concerned about Europe remaining European, or America or Canada remaining mostly American or Canadian, then you don't need to be concerned.*** That's no concern of mine, per se. It might have been in the past, but not since I've seen what our country is capable of becoming so easily. Frankly, if the world were to begin to drift towards the better points in every culture, and not cling to old, dusty ideas of "right and wrong" (usually based on founding religions and religious ideas centuries old in the countries in question), we'd be much better off. Would you have a problem with that, even if it meant losing some of the American identity? Or are you so proud as to be blind to glaring faults? ***In fact, you really don't have too worry about anything - right or wrong, or morals.*** So unless someone drapes themselves with the stars and stripes and sings "God Bless America", they are incapable of being moral? Interesting argument. Nationalistic, prideful, and dead wrong. ***Just do whatever makes you feel good, whenever you want.*** I expect the right to do just that, so long as I'm not directly stepping on the rights of others. Whether I chose to do that, or follow a more spiritual path that involves some sacrifice and effort in order to help others, is up to me. It's called freedom. Fun concept, you should look it up sometime. ***Consequences don't matter.*** Of course they do. If I infringe upon the freedom of another, such as stealing from someone, defrauding someone, physically harming someone or worse, I fully expect to be punished severely. Otherwise, don't tread on me. God Bless America. peace.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >><It is the same sort of bigotry, in service of a different cause.> No, it's not.<< Oh? It must be some other form of bigotry, then. I'm not sure why it's so difficult for you to accept that you are advocating bigotry against two consenting adults wishing to be married. But I'm afraid it's your problem if you are choosing to line up on the side of bigotry.
Originally Posted By X-san ***That doesn't mean AI caused the dollar to weaken vs. the euro.*** I'm not so sure Dabob. American Idol seems to me a clear harbinger of the fall of American civilization as we know it. Certainly that had an impact on the dollar euro situation.
Originally Posted By jdub I'm picturing a rippin' drinking game that is triggered by a certain someone's every utterance of "no, it's not."
Originally Posted By jdub >>If you aren't concerned about Europe remaining European, or America or Canada remaining mostly American or Canadian, then you don't need to be concerned<< What does that even mean? Did the Spaniards care about America remaining American when they colonized it? How about the later settlers, from England and from the new colonies, as they settled in & began to expand westward? What does it mean, "Europe remaining European, or America or Canada remaining mostly American or Canadian?"
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<What does it mean, "Europe remaining European, or America or Canada remaining mostly American or Canadian?">> Sounds like someone is afraid of change...
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh As usual, the proponents of gay marriage rely on dismissal, distortion, and demonization, rather than present logic or evidence.
Originally Posted By X-san THAT'S your reply? There are about ten new and valid points up there for you to reply to. Nothing to retort, Douglas? Pretty weak argument there buddy. At least tell me whether or not you would support banning sterile people from marriage? I'd really like to hear the answer to that one and how it differs from your logic regarding gays and the (antiquated) societal need for procreation.
