tronvillain

I see no reason whatsoever that jealousy would not continue to exist with polygamy and polyandry.

dk

dk: I’ve made a substantive case, and you don’t like it. But It’s a free country so we can disagree. Nevertheless, posturing, blustering and rationalizations are unsubstantial, no matter how emotionally satisfying they seem to you. So lets get real, here’s a short summary from my perspective in my words.

1. I illustrated, Gay culture is laden with promiscuous values and pornographic landscapes marketed in the public square to children under the mask of social sciences, sex education and multicultural ethics i.e. hetero speak for semantic gymnastics.
2. Pro Gay Marriage (acronym PGM) responded, “whatever gays value and do in the privacy of their bedroom, they have as much right to the public square as anyone else, and civil liberties protect gay rights.”
3. I responded that everyone, even gays, are obligation to respect others in the public square, with special respect for the nuclear family and youth.
4. PGMers rationalize gay infidelities with heterosexual infidelities.
5. We cycled through a series of gays scandals
   a) mocking procreation with promiscuous anal sex i.e. Bathhouse Politics
   b) leveraging the hiv/aids epidemic to sympathize legitimacy i.e. don’t blame the victim, blame the great while whale
   c) politicizing hiv/aids to thwart the epidemiological investigation with privacy rights.
   c) using education as a staging area to indoctrinate youth i.e. social engineering
   d) using hate speech in appeals to the courts to void the public debate i.e. judicial social legislation
   d) mocking marriage with same sex unions i.e. deconstruct the nuclear family .
6. PGMers accuse me of being a ignorant bigot
7. I say you’re in denial and provide more evidence
8. PGMers accuse me of being a homophobic bigot
9. I move on to the next plank

I don’t know what to tell you Jinto, but your responses are unsubstantial. In a public debate legitimacy rests upon a coherent presentation of propositional statements supported by evidence that culminates in a necessary conclusion. You haven’t responded with any evidence to support gay marriage, except to

1. rationalize gay infidelities with heterosexual infidelities,
2. assert gay rights are a protected liberty, and
3. ad hominem rants about ignorance, homophobia and hate.

This isn’t an indictment of me but only shows I made my case. I do understand you disagree, but you couldn’t possibly agree and continue to be PGMed.
dk: Sorry but the nuclear family forms the universal archetype of all civilized cultures that exist, so it serves to make cultural diversity possible. Rather, any-group/culture that deconstructs the nuclear family becomes an uncivilized degenerate. Anal sex from a biological, and social perspective can’t consummate a marriage, procreate life or make a family. Gay marriage by definition

1. severs the moral bond between mother[father] and child
2. dissolves the Marital Act and
3. deconstructs the legal standing of the nuclear family before the court.

Gay & Lesbian marriages are functionally and structurally incomputable with the nuclear family and set the rule of law against the nuclear family.
Jinto: Context: The question of whether or not gay marriage somehow infringes on the rights of others (which dk has yet to even adress).
Scope: The United States of America
Magnitude: 3-4% of the U.S. population (that's 8-10 million people, bozo)
Implications: The religous right is quite frequently wrong. Dk is an idiot. People like watching other people make an ass out of themselves. Oh yeah, gay marriage is not the end of the world, but people like dk have to make it sound that way in order to justify their case that the only way to solve the problem of America's increasing immorality is to do things their way.
To wit: you are the only one on this thread who does not understand this. [/quote]
dk: The context is...
2000 Census Bureau
I’m not going to guess-estimate the number of gay and lesbian households with children under 18. Instead to put this into context there’s about 2 married families with children for every gay man that died from an MSM incident. This context shows how risky gay culture has made a gay lifestyle. If you want to know which cities sport large gay communities, look up the cause of death of young men, and if AIDs tops the list 3 then the city has a large gay community. Go test it out on the NYC, LA, SF, and Miami.
dk: Gay and Nuclear families are unrelated, because one can’t be derived from the other. Structurally speaking a gay family is dependent and sterile, while the nuclear family is autonomous, self replicating, procreative and self sufficient. To make a gay family with children, you’ve got to take a child from his/her mother or father. Gay marriage dismantle the archetype upon which civilization is based.
dk: So at a pro gay marriage rally, everyone in the opposition camp contains a cancerous brain.

jinto: And P.S. - you can deny it all you want, but that does not change the fact that you are a bigot. And a moron. And dishonest. And rude too.
dk: It must be my cancerous brain that makes a bigot, moron, dishonest and rude.

jinto: P.P.S. - I'm still looking for a reason that the positive effects of allowing gay marriage in producing more stable families ready to adopt should be ignored.
dk: If you could actually name some positive effects from MSM then that would be substantive. But you haven’t. .
dk: hey, I tried to side step this issue because its so emotionally charged, but when you brought it up I had to respond.
dk:
First: What????? You accused me of presenting biased sources, and I refuted your accusation with impeccable sources by naming names.
Second: Call it what you like, Swift’s article in the most violent degrading explicit terms justified promiscuous values and pornographic landscapes of gay culture as *superior, *aggressive, *malevolent and *dominant, all satire aside.
Third I didn’t confuse anything, I got the message.
Fourth: I don’t believe I appeal to you at all, emotionally or intellectually. Pardon me while I point out the hypocrisy of identifying brain cancer with bigotry. Why do PGMers feel people with brain cancer are bigots????? That’s satire, and I like satire.

jinto: I'm not laughing with you, I'm laughing at you.
dk: Let us test the humor of this kind of satire with context. For every 2 families married with children in the USA one gay man has died from MSM, and 1 more waits to die, approximately. Do you think that kind of satire is contextually a) funny, b) civilized or c) tragic d) all of the above. I pick C.

Kimpatsu

Try swinging, and you'll see.

yguy

Why do you say that?

I wouldn't say it's secular exactly. I'd say the idea has a reality independent of scripture.

Irrelevant. There was no attempt at race baiting here. The black community is only a convenient example.

Evidently these factors are of more import to you than the underlying cause. Have I got that right?

That's what they're good at. You can use a hammer to cut a board in a pinch, but why do that when you have a saw?

Most of the people who do the studies have the same BF Skinnerist mentality that produced this devastation of the family in the first place.

I didn't have Clinton himself in mind so much, but the fact that he was elected twice, because he catered to people's weaknesses just as his mother catered to his. The people who voted for him had, in the main and to varying degrees, the same kind of rotten parenting he did.

What are you, nuts?? Why the hell would anyone have to read scripture to think it a crime to deny a child a mother or father?

Dr Rick

Nevertheless, posturing, blustering and rationalizations are unsubstantial, no matter how emotionally satisfying they seem to you. So lets get real, here’s a short summary of your perspective

1. You asserted that gay culture is laden with promiscuous values and pornographic landscapes marketed in the public square to children under the mask of social sciences, sex education and multicultural ethics, i.e. homophobe speak for hate
2. Those who aren't homophobes responded that gays are human beings entitled to the same rights and liberties as the rest of us
3. You responded with falsehoods and misinterpretations about HIV data, insisted that there is some wide-ranging conspiracy involving Civil rights/feminists/the democratic party/liberals/gays and so implied that gays, and perhaps even Blacks and women, must be put in their place
4. We pointed out that your viewpoint is rehensible. You're entitled to your opinion, but we oppose social policy based upon ignorance and prejudice
5. You rambled on to tell us:
   a) those sexual behavours of which you don't approve or employ yourself should not be allowed among any consenting adults, ie Church stuff.
   b) you don't understand HIV or infectious diseases, but it's bad, so therefore, homosexuality is bad even though more heterosexuals than heterosexuals have HIV infections, and female homosexuals have less HIV than heterosexuals.
   c) there's a conspiracy that hides the truth about HIV, though you clearly don't know the truth about HIV, the information you claim as hidden can be readily found in the medical literature and on the Web, and that readily available information refutes your ignorant and prejudiced claims.
   c) you refuse to be educated about the epidemiology of HIV; you just depise gays.
   d) you can't really figure-out how to translate your prejudiced and uninformed argument into a coherent way to explain why you oppose legitamizing gay relationshiips with marriage which would actually encourage monogamy and discourage promiscuity.
   e)you prefer to deprive liberty and claim it's for the good of the nuclear family .
6. We accuse you of being ignorant and prejudiced.
7. You repeat your ignorant and prejudiced claims; you say we’re in denial and offer some more falsehoods and science stuff that you don't understand, but insist that it must warrant oppressing gays, anyways.
8. We provide the correct information that refutes your position
9. You repeat your ignorant and prejudiced claims.

Your responses are unsubstantial. In a public debate legitimacy rests upon a coherent presentation of propositional statements supported by evidence that culminates in a necessary conclusion. You haven’t responded with any evidence to support your prejudices, except to

1. rationalize bigotry with falsehoods and misinterpretations of scientific data that you do not comprehend,
2. assert gays are the root of evil tearing at the fabric of society, and
3. rant about conspiracies, destruction of the nuclear family, and the evils of sex when it's not done the way that you approve.

This isn’t an indictment of us; it only shows that you haven't made your case. I do understand you disagree, but you couldn’t possibly agree and continue to be prejudiced.

Rick

dk

First, I could almost applaud your attempt at satire. I like satire, especially when effectively aimed at me. But for satire to be effective it needs to honestly bite with its own teeth, not some copy cat imitation . Imitation is really a back handed complement so fails in a satirical sense. What I want you to do Rick, is reread my post, find a angle, symbol, analogy or metaphor of your own creation to deliver your satirical comment on its own merits. Take for example the acronym "Pro Gay Marriage (PGM)" used as a satirical vehicle "but you couldn’t possibly agree and continue to be PGMed." or "Why do PGMers feel people with brain cancer are bigots?". If you would do that for me Rick, then I'll count it as substantive and satirical. Still this is the closest to a substantive reply you’ve made, and I mean this in the truest sense as a backhanded complement.

Jinto

Sigh... and again

You have illustrated that you are unable to find any part of social science, sex education or multicultural ethics that actually promotes promiscuity. Even planned parenthood (your deamon, not mine) will tell you first and foremost that the only 100% effective protection against pregnancy and STDs is abstinence. Further, you have yet to establish the existence of a "gay marketing program," admitted that so called "Gay cultrue" does not describe the majority of gay people, and frankly made an ass out of yourself by continuously claiming to have established things that you have merely asserted.

In other words, you use the false assertations of #1 to claim that gays are actively trying to destroy youth, while at the same time failing to refute the right of consenting individuals to do whatever they damn well please in the privacy of their own bedroom. Fallacies of misdirection, anyone?

We argue that the existence of homosexual infidelities does not constitute an argument against the validity of gay marriage. Fact is, claiming that the existence of promiscuous gay people makes gay marriage invalid is like claiming the existence of proprietorships makes corporations invalid. The argument that you use against gay marriage carries just as much validity against heterosexual marriage, which is to say, none at all.

To clarify the analogy with proprietorships, your argument is "There are people in group X who do not desire relationship Y, therefore relationship y should not be allowed for group X." This is not a valid argument, period.

Objection your honor. Relevance? (Also, these assertations are untrue, which means even if they were relevant, they still wouldn't constitute an argument).

Whatever. You are what you are, and your arguments are no more valid because some of us are willing to call a spade a spade. Hiding behind the fact that others don't like you isn't going to convince anyone of anything.

You don't have a case to make. We aren't talking about whether or not gay marriage should be encouraged - this isn't a social engineering discussion, and I wouldn't trust the government to do it correctly if it was. What we are talking about is whether or not gay people should have the same right to formalize their monogamous relaitonships and recieve legal benefits from doing so as anyone else. In order to establish that they should not have this right, you have to show that it directly infringes on the rights of others. What you have given us is instead a rationalization of a clear violation of the fourteenth amendment with homosexual infidelities, and a slippery slope argument based on evidence that has been soundly refuted. The reason why people have difficulty attacking your argument is that you have given us no argument to attack.

Meanwhile, let me remind you that not only have we refuted your arguments, but I have also shown that there is a clear public policy reason to favor gay marriage: it increases the number of stable two-parent families available for taking care of the children that are already floating around in our foster care system. Further, it increases this number disproportionately: while a heterosexual couple is likely to consider adoption iff they are infertile, since by definition all gay couples are infertile, that means that all gay couples who are considering having children in the first place will consider adoption. That in an ideal world there wouldn't be so many unadopted children is irrelevant. The fact is that this is NOT an ideal world and that by prohibiting gay marriage we are denying children the potential for a loving and stable family. Now the validity of this argument is not required to establish that we should allow gay marriage - the simple fact that there is no valid reason not to is sufficient. But in this case, you are actually hurting more than just people who are unable to see their significant other in the hospital because they cant' actually marry them. You are hurting millions of American children who currently don't have families available to take care of them.

I don't expect you to ever agree, but I do expect you to stop using slippery slope fallacies and red herrings to justify yourself.

The nuclear family is not universal, it just happens to be the family archetype in the culture that has most forcefully imposed itself on others. The U.S. isn't the shining beacon of morality you know.

But that's perfectly irrelevant because

1. Gay marriage does not nessecarily even involve children
2. In cases where it does involve children, these children are better off actually having a home than remaining in the state's foster care system (and don't tell me that that system shouldn't even exist in the first place if the "nuclear family" was working, because the fact is that the system does exist, and we live in reality)
3. Gay Marriage is a marital act. Two people coming together within the bonds of holy matrimony. There is no reason why the respective gender of the participants should make that any less valid
4. Gay Marriage does not deconstruct any legal standing of families before the court. If the court is inclined to view family different because it can involve two people of similar sex, then perhaps that is indicitive of a problem with the court itself, since there is no logical necessity to dicriminate on the basis of relative gender.

In short, gay marriage and straight marriage are indeed compatable and there is no more reason to distinguish between the two than there is to distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution. The fact that conservatives will insist that the two aren't the same thing (for either marriage or evolution) is a reactionary response based on fear and not indicitive of any actual difference.

Then you'd think that expanding the scope of marriage under the law would be a very good thing to do. Thank you for supporting my argument.

Go test it out on any city in Europe. In any case, this is a red herring.

Excuse me? I'm sorry, but both can be derived from the common ancestor of family, which is defined as "Two or more people who share goals and values, have long-term commitments to one another, and reside usually in the same dwelling place." The issue of marriage, by itself, has nothing to say about whether or not these marriages ever produce children. People can and do get married for the sole purpose of formalizing a monogamous, committed relationship under the law, without children as a consideration. That said, if children are a consideration, I will always point couples first and foremost to the millions of children in the U.S. who currently have no one that they can call mom or dad. This will remain my position even if the couple is capable of producing their own children, for I can concieve of no act more selfish than fulfilling the selfish needs of your own genes and bringing yet another unnessecary mouth into this already overpopulated world while simultaneously turning your back on those who are already in need of people to take care of them. Frankly, if you deem that anyone who either does not raise children or raises the children that someone else abandoned or abused to be unworthy of being called a family, then you are not only redefining family to suit your own purposes, but you are also hailing as an acrhetype all of the ideals of selfishness fear and uncontrolled reproduction that have been the cause of all our societies problems. However, I define a family precisely as it is defined above, and I will not be guilty of wrongfully excluding worthy people from that definition.

No, some of them might simply be ignorant of the facts. However, if someone consistenly is unable to change their viewpoint in spite of all evidence to the contrary, then it is logical to classify this inability as a mental disorder, a malfunction of the brain. As for my reccomendation of neurosurgery, that was sarcasm. Neurosurgery invariably produces worse problems than it actually solves.

And where did I ever say anything about cancer?

If you have brain cancer, then that is certainly a possibility. You are perfectly free to talk to your psychiatrist about the possible effects of your affliction, and the various possibilities for treatment, as (s)he is probably more knowledgable about such things than I.

I did. It was in the very sentence you responded to:

P.P.S. - I'm still looking for a reason that the positive effects of allowing gay marriage in producing more stable families ready to adopt should be ignored.

Red herring then.

Read:

Jinto:
If you insist, “We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They shall be recast in our image. They will come to crave us and adore us” ----- Michael Swift, in The Gay Community News.
dk: Swift? Why does that name sound familiar? I wonder if this guy is related to Johnathan Swift, you know, the one who wrote "A Modest Proposal." He certainly seems to share the guy's gift for satire. You did realize that this was satire, right? It should have been obvious from the first line: This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor..
Jinto: Or did you get this off of a RCC website?

The portion in italics is MY commentary, but you tried to attribute YOUR name to it. I don't like that. Clear?

Yeah, and "A Modest Proposal" justified eating babies. You cannot escape the fact that your argument depends on deliberately misinterpreting the intent of an article. Imagine if I were to tell you about Bush's political positoin using articles from the onion as evidence. That's the mistake you're making.

The message was how utterly insane it is to force people into heterosexuality, delivered by showing how utterly insane it would be to apply the same principle in reverse, thereby exposing the hypocrisy of the religous right. Unfortunately, he underestimated just how outrageously distorted their view on gay people were, since many people thought he was serious, thereby missing the point of his message. Just as you did.

Where did I ever mention brain cancer? I said you have a malfunctioning brain. Further, I did not say that all people with malfunctioning brains are bigots. I did not even say that all bigots have malfunctioning brains, although I admit cannot see how a sane person could qualify as a bigot, or otherwise give nonequal consideration to people based on their gender, race, age, sexual orientation or other nonrelevant charactaristics. And it appears that you do not know the definition of satire, so I will provide it for you:

Satire (n.) - 1. a. A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.
b. The branch of literature constituting such works. See Synonyms at caricature.
2. Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.

Now, please tell me how your deliberate strawman constitutes satire.

I pick E. irrelevant. Because it is.

Now I would like to formally apologise for mocking you for having a malfunctioning brain. I really had no knowledge that you had brain cancer, and never meant to imply that you should be considered subhuman because of that. I really wish you the best of luck in getting through it. If you like, I'm sure that the people in SL&S will be sympathetic to your needs.

Philosoft

Because your "axiom" isn't self-evident, as axioms are wont to be.

This is marriage we're talking about, not just monogamy. The ceremonial aspect of marriage has no secular counterpart, as I am aware.

Whatever. Politics is orthogonal to this discussion anyhow.

Please. You were the one who broached the 'correlation isn't causation' theme. I made no judgements of importance. My only point was that there are more factors than just family makeup.

The natural world is filled with compromises.

And just what is the alleged agenda of the experimenters?

You don't expect me to take this kind of unsupported generalization seriously, do you?
Because homosexual parenting is not obviously a crime.

yguy

It is profoundly self-evident to me.

However, for the sake of argument, let us say marriage can rightly include homosexual unions. On what basis do we exclude polygamous, incestuous or other unions now considered illegitimate?

And on't you dare tell me nobody is suggesting that, because no one was promoting homosexual marriages 40 years ago either.

You lost me. How is the ceremonial aspect of marriage of any moment?

To make all children wards of the state. They have in great part succeeded in cutting the father out of the picture, and the mother is next. That's what the feminist propaganda of the 70's and 80's, which encouraged women to work outside the home was all about, IMO.

No, I'm not implying a conscious conspiracy. That would be too easy to disrupt. Unconscious conspiracies offer the participants perfect deniability.

If you mean am I gonna provide data to support it, no. It seems obvious to me.

Look at Monica Lewinsky's father. What a repulsive, spineless little weasel. Is it any surprise his daughter was a slut?

How about bringing a child into the world and deliberately depriving that child of a mother or father?

Philosoft

Incestuous sexual relationships have certain genetic implications that make those marriages undesirable. I can't think why you would be opposed to polygamous marriages in principle - presumably there would be at least one mother and one father.

No problemo. I am a big fan of judging opinions, theories, suggestions, etc. on their own merits.

Is marriage any more than a ceremony, a piece of paper and possibly a state-of-mind?

My goodness but you've done everything possible to isolate your assertion from criticism. Thankfully, you've relegated it to the realm of pure speculation, as well.

Well, I certainly feel vindicated for having put in effort in this debate thus far. At least you're honest; I suppose I should take some solace in that.

I'm curious. As far as you know, she only did sex-type things with one guy. Granted, that particular relationship indicated extremely poor judgement, but it didn't necessarily imply she was sexually unrestrained. You seem to have a very loose definition of "slut."
They're not killing anyone like you make it sound. If the child gets the proper rearing, I don't see how homosexual parenting is a executable offense.