Amen-Moses

This is probably the funniest most absurd drivel I've seen on here in over 4 years, even dk, radortyh and Ed seem sensible in comparison!

And why do they all seem to be Americans? Is that a result of traditional marriage as well or maybe inbreeding?

Amen-Moses

NHGH

OK, I see that Autonemesis has already followed up on this, but I have a few comments and questions of my own to throw in here. Frankly, some of it is just sort of bewildering...
I'm not sure what you have in mind by "subtle pro-homosexual propaganda". The only possible definition I can think of would be "(tacit) support for gay rights", in which case, of course, "supporting gay rights" most certainly would imply "support for subtle pro-homosexual propaganda". But perhaps I've missed something here?

Plainly correct, to which the logical follow-up question is: What is your basis for asserting that heterosexual couples are more unselfish than homosexual couples?

Autonemesis and Godot have commented at some length, so I'll confine myself to a few brief remarks here:

As I noted in a previous post, it is possible for gays to have children by using surrogates, or artificial insemination, or just adopting a child. Therefore even if we accept your contentious premise that "marriage is ultimately about children", this doesn't give us any reason not to accord gay marriages the same status as straight marriages.

Of course, you could object that gay marriages cannot produce offspring naturally, but if you agree that having children is an event that should be planned for in advance, rather than permitted to just "happen" mindlessly, then the objection loses its force, and the inability of gay marriage to produce offspring in the absense of specific efforts to do so could even be considered an advantage.

Again, this cannot conceivably serve as an argument against gay marriage unless you provide some good reason at least to believe that gay relationships are more likely than straight relationships to be "based on mutual use". Even then, it would be highly debatable.

As noted above, "childbearing families" are not mutually exclusive with "gay marriages" in any relevant sense; and even if they were, it's not clear how it would weaken childbearing families if we permit marriages which are intrinsically incapable of producing offspring. We already agree that heterosexual marriages which can't or won't produce offspring due to infertility, lack of desire for children, etc. should be permitted.

More plausible explanations of support for gay marriage come to mind, e.g. the desire to receive the same civil benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples.

Unsubstantiated hyperbole.

Bill Snedden

Take a look back at page 2 of this thread.

I warned you all! You failed to heed my prophetic words and are all now doomed to suffer the consequences...

RRoman

Wait a sec: don't the Evil Muslim Immigrants From Helltm come after the institution of gay marriage?

yguy

Of course. Once empowered, they eliminate it in favor of strict moral laws which they follow in public to hide the buggering of little boys that goes on in private.

Dr Rick

The gentlemen tied the knot in Canada

yguy

That would be you, from my POV.

I'm guilty of hate speech. Is that it? Since by your reasoning I am an accomplice to homicide, I should be jailed for saying what I think.

Right?

No, that would be because the manual has had chapters ripped out of it by people who think like you.

Enigma

Uh, huh....

Forgive me but I am drawing a blank....

Exactly how many children did Thomas Jefferson father through his slaves? I never can keep track of these things...

yguy

Of course not. It's a silly question.

Don't be absurd. Were that the case this country wouldn't have lasted ten years.

I've been over that with Snedden. I'm sure you'll find my answers to him as satisfactory as he did.

Looks like it from here. What's the alternative?

Obviously a manual by itself - even if it hasn't had chapters ripped out of it as marriage has over the last few decades - is not sufficient if people misuse it.

Assuming you meant "claim that an assertion can be validated" rather than the part in bold, kindly show me where I've made an assertion that I've claimed can be validated empirically.

If you actually said what you meant, I have to ask: what are you, nuts? How in hell do we determine beforehand whether a claim can be validated empirically?

If you think I'm a troll, there is a 2 click solution for you. Use it.

Not marriage by itself, but the moral framework of which it is the central feature.

If nobility and compassion relate to traditional Judaeo-Christian morality, we should expect the nation which adhered to it to a greater degree than other nations to, among other things:

• be able to admit its mistakes, as we did with slavery
  
• in time of war, treat POW's far better than its enemies did
  
• having defeated its enemies, refrain from grinding their faces into the dirt, as they'd have done to us
  
• rather than ravaging the world, which it was within our power to do, help the vanquished nations recover

Any of that sound familiar?

A far better case can be made for the similarity between recognition of homosexuality as legitimate and recognition of pedophilia as legitimate than that between sexual orientation and race.

The morality circumscribed by the Ten Commandments would be a reasonable working definition, I think.

Dr Rick

Would those be same the Ten Commandments that come from the book that also prescribes killing disobedient children, witches, and non-virginal brides, recommends how we are to beat our slaves and how they are to obey us, describes dividing up captured women as "war booty" after their brothers, mothers, and fathers were butchered, and condones infanticide?