Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

Brian Shanahan

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Its everyone's business. And being so arrogant about something so fundamental to society shows a level of immaturity in your statement.

Marriage matters.

With the way you post, constantly, you are seriously accusing other people of being arrogant and immature in their posts? I'll remind you of Matthew 7:1-5 before you accuse anyone of bad behaviour in future.

And to refute your assertion, FairytaleGirl's marriage or who she is married to has no effect on you, has nothing to do with you, and you have no right to refuse her her marriage to her beloved (no matter what gender they are).

NuMarvel

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

No. A society that makes it clear that two different relationships can be treated differently.

Grand. We'll treat heterosexual unions as second class for a few decades, then we'll see how much you like the whole "treat different things differently" schtick.

Vivisectus

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Its everyone's business. And being so arrogant about something so fundamental to society shows a level of immaturity in your statement.

Marriage matters.

Can you expand a bit on your actual objections to gay marriage? I can see that you are against it, but I am having trouble figuring out the rationale behind it.

So far I have seen responses that suggest, and I could be wrong here of course, that you feel gay people should not be allowed to marry because you feel marriage is an important institution, and allowing gay people to marry would lessen or even negate the important contribution of marriage to society.

But you do not clarify what benefits the institute of marriage provides to society, and how it is unique in doing so. This is important if we are to judge the validity of your objection.

After that we need to establish how allowing gay people to marry would then lessen, hamper or otherwise change this effect.

So far I can see THAT you seem to feel that it is reasonable to expect a negative effect on the beneficial effects mentioned above. But I am curious about your reasons for believing this to be the case.

lazybones32

Vivisectus wrote: »

But you do not clarify what benefits the institute of marriage provides to society, and how it is unique in doing so.

Germany, Japan and one other 'Western' Society had an advertising campaign - about 10 years ago - to try encourage people to have more children (I think they were even offering tax incentives for them to do so but it's years since I read that).

The main 'condition' was that it was people who were married - a family unit - who were being targeted because...well, the family is the basis and cornerstone of Society.

There is a mammoth body of empirical evidence, spanning over 100 years, about the benefits of the family...it will be very easy to find.

obplayer

lazybones32 wrote: »

Germany, Japan and one other 'Western' Society had an advertising campaign - about 10 years ago - to try encourage people to have more children (I think they were even offering tax incentives for them to do so but it's years since I read that).

The main 'condition' was that it was people who were married - a family unit - who were being targeted because...well, the family is the basis and cornerstone of Society.

There is a mammoth body of empirical evidence, spanning over 100 years, about the benefits of the family...it will be very easy to find.

Well the idea in these debates I believe, though of course I could be wrong, is for the person making the assertion to provide some evidence to back it up. Some links for example would be helpful.

NuMarvel

obplayer wrote: »

Well the idea in these debates I believe, though of course I could be wrong, is for the person making the assertion to provide some evidence to back it up. Some links for example would be helpful.

And it'll also be useful to explain how allowing gay people to marry would threaten these benefits and advantages of marriage.

krudler

NuMarvel wrote: »

And it'll also be useful to explain how allowing gay people to marry would threaten these benefits and advantages of marriage.

Not in a single way. That's the most baffling thing about anti gay marriage people, there's really no rational reason to oppose it. I've genuinely never heard a reasonable argument against it without using Jesus or adoption (totally different issues). It really boils down to basic bigotry, preventing equal status to someone because they like people of their own sex and you don't. It's baffling.

aloyisious

lazybones32 wrote: »

Germany, Japan and one other 'Western' Society had an advertising campaign - about 10 years ago - to try encourage people to have more children (I think they were even offering tax incentives for them to do so but it's years since I read that).

The main 'condition' was that it was people who were married - a family unit - who were being targeted because...well, the family is the basis and cornerstone of Society.

There is a mammoth body of empirical evidence, spanning over 100 years, about the benefits of the family...it will be very easy to find.

..................................................................................................

There is such a thing as a modern family, ala that of two people of the same sex both fulfilling the parenthood role in the family unit inclusive of children.

Society has now had for some decades another type of family unit of opposite sex parents and children formed outside both religious and civil marriage ties without the roof falling-in on society or family due to a lack of children being born within what is/was understood to be the "traditional" family.

Just because people (straight and LGBT) and LGBT couples are in favour of the equalization of Civil Marriage does not mean the decline or end of procreation of children as usual in society. Children can and will be born to/within the modern same sex parents family, albeit with/through a surrogate in the role of either donor or carrier.

There are other types of modern family. One is that of Gay or Lesbian parents who married an opposite-sex partner in church, had children within that family and then came out to their partner (and children) with that family splitting up but with the children accepting the news that one of their parents is queer as OK. Some of these "out" parents went on to form same sex families and the children born to the original "straight" marriage/family don't deny the legitimacy of the new unit as a family. The children willingly accept the role of children of the new family. Another is the one where same-sex couples have adopted or surrogacy-born children under their parenting-care in family units.

None of the above family units end up threatening the end of civilization. The children within those families are not affected by their upbringing within the new type of family units & can and do go on to procreate children of their own in opposite-sex families within and without the "traditional" family unit as they choose. I reckon that in time, empirical evidence will prove that equalization of marriage will be as much a threat to society and the procreation of children as divorce and the enfranchisement of women were alleged to be.

lazybones32

obplayer wrote: »

Well the idea in these debates I believe, though of course I could be wrong, is for the person making the assertion to provide some evidence to back it up. Some links for example would be helpful.

I learned this from Social Studies via distance learning. There was a physical book in front of me. No computers involved.

Second, I don't post links. The information is freely available to those who want to find it. I'm not responsible for your education or enlightenment. I'm not trying to be a jackass about it but the majority of human knowledge is at your fingertips...

Cabaal

lazybones32 wrote: »

I don't post links. The information is freely available to those who want to find it. I'm not responsible for your education or enlightenment. I'm not trying to be a jackass about it but the majority of human knowledge is at your fingertips...

So your claims are completely baseless as you refuse to provide evidence to backup anything up, fair enough so.

Atleast we know not to pay much attention to you now.
:rolleyes:

_Redzer_

I know for a fact unicorns exist. I have evidence.

Links?

Source?

Sure I'm not responsible for your education you lazy bollox, find it yourself!

But they do exist. Fact.

Pro Hoc Vice

lazybones32 wrote: »

I learned this from Social Studies via distance learning. There was a physical book in front of me. No computers involved.

Second, I don't post links. The information is freely available to those who want to find it. I'm not responsible for your education or enlightenment. I'm not trying to be a jackass about it but the majority of human knowledge is at your fingertips...

You don't really grasp debate do you, while you may not want to put up references that's fine, but then how can anyone take what you say seriously. You don't have to put up a link but if you are going to claim someone said something in a book then you must at least give the book title and reference it. Otherwise it is not debate it's just you spoting your uninformed view, which while it might be interesting carries no weight in a debate.

Pro Hoc Vice

_Redzer_ wrote: »

I know for a fact unicorns exist. I have evidence.

Links?

Source?

Sure I'm not responsible for your education you lazy bollox, find it yourself!

But they do exist. Fact.

Its true, I know of a family of elves that have one, and before you say it they are a married family, those elves know all about right and wrong and raising a family. I read some time that only 1% of such marriages end in divorce! they are so clever also read that on average they are 6.5% more intelligent than humans, fact.

_Redzer_

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Its true, I know of a family of elves that have one, and before you say it they are a married family, those elves know all about right and wrong and raising a family. I read some time that only 1% of such marriages end in divorce! they are so clever also read that on average they are 6.5% more intelligent than humans, fact.

Seems legit.

Delirium

lazybones32 wrote: »

I learned this from Social Studies via distance learning. There was a physical book in front of me. No computers involved.

Second, I don't post links. The information is freely available to those who want to find it. I'm not responsible for your education or enlightenment. I'm not trying to be a jackass about it but the majority of human knowledge is at your fingertips...

Bit hypocritical since you have no problem asking others to post links to support their claims.

Cabaal

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Its true, I know of a family of elves that have one, and before you say it they are a married family, those elves know all about right and wrong and raising a family. I read some time that only 1% of such marriages end in divorce! they are so clever also read that on average they are 6.5% more intelligent than humans, fact.

Elves's exist!, I will however provide links to backup my claim

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/22/elf-lobby-iceland-road-project

A survey conducted by the University of Iceland in 2007 found that 62% of the 1,000 respondents thought it was at least possible that elves exist.

The fact that people believe they exist makes them real, just like Christians etc and their gods

Cabaal

SW wrote: »

Bit hypocritical since you have no problem asking others to post links to support their claims.

Pro Hoc Vice

Cabaal wrote: »

Elves's exist!, I will however provide links to backup my claim

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/22/elf-lobby-iceland-road-project



The fact that people believe they exist makes them real, just like Christians etc and their gods

We know they exist this is about the fact that the divorce rates among elves is very low about 1%. But let's not even talk about elves and humans marrying. Studies show that's a disaster with lots of issues for the kids.

Pro Hoc Vice

SW wrote: »

Bit hypocritical since you have no problem asking others to post links to support their claims.

Burned!

robindch

lazybones32 wrote: »

I'm not responsible for your education or enlightenment.

You are, however, responsible for the point of view you're supporting and if you don't back it up with evidence, then people are within their rights to say that you're doing that not because you don't want to provide any evidence, but because you can't provide any evidence.

aloyisious

Cabaal wrote: »

Elves's exist!,

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/22/elf-lobby-iceland-road-project

Would they be related to "the little folk" of Ireland, and could they have arrived with the Norse?

Brian Shanahan

lazybones32 wrote: »

Germany, Japan and one other 'Western' Society had an advertising campaign - about 10 years ago - to try encourage people to have more children (I think they were even offering tax incentives for them to do so but it's years since I read that).

Evidence of said campaign please, because this is the first I've heard of it. And given the subject matter and your claim of its extensiveness, I'm going to have to assume this "campain" is a fiction unless shown otherwise.

Brian Shanahan

SW wrote: »

Bit hypocritical since you have no problem asking others to post links to support their claims.

I love the way how he says:

lazybones32 wrote: »

I don't trust second-hand stories is all...

And then he comes along and demands that we accept a second-hand story simply because of the way he tells it.

Oh and lazybones, subsequent to my last post I read further in the thread, and realised that the "ad campaign" you are talking about is simply a lie (mainly from your refusal to give evidence for it) you have chosen to believe to be true). So there is no need to respond to my previous post. It has been superceeded.

NuMarvel

Seeing as how lazybones is being such a, well..., lazy bones, I've found that Germany did offer financial incentives to increase their birth rates. But despite pumping billions of euro into these incentives, it was considered a failure. Mainly because Germans prioritised other aspects of their lives, such as career, hobbies, or friends:

On Monday, the German Federal Institute for Population Research issued a report looking into the reasons behind the failure to increase the country's birthrate. The results are sobering. For many Germans, establishing a family has taken a backseat to a career, hobbies and friends. The report concludes that "children no longer represent a central aspect of life for all Germans."

The reasons for this development are myriad. For one, societal views on parenting have changed considerably. Fifty years ago, a person in Germany was first considered to be a grown up after they had established a career, gotten married and had children. But today society doesn't provide the same level of recognition for having children. Statistics show that few believe their position in society will be improved by having offspring. Many people even fear that having more than two or three children could actually put them at a real disadvantage.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/study-german-efforts-to-increase-birthrate-a-failure-a-873635.html

But regardless of how successful these or other campaigns were, I don't see the relevance to the issue of marriage equality.

Corkfeen

I wish I wrote that as my reference in college essays.' Go Google it ffs, you're supposed to be educating me! '

_Redzer_

Cabaal wrote: »

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand he's gone.

Nodin

lazybones32 wrote: »

I learned this from Social Studies via distance learning. There was a physical book in front of me. No computers involved.

Second, I don't post links. The information is freely available to those who want to find it. I'm not responsible for your education or enlightenment. I'm not trying to be a jackass about it but the majority of human knowledge is at your fingertips...

Class. That's like the one where they're waiting for somebody to swear, then going 'I won't be subject to that kind of langauge' and bailing.

freyners

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY0WxgSXdEE

SW I applaude you

lazybones32

My not instantly replying to everyone does not mean I 'run' from you. I will reply in due course.

Cabaal

lazybones32 wrote: »

My not instantly replying to everyone does not mean I 'run' from you. I will reply in due course.

Fair enough so,
Be nice if any future "claims" by you have evidence to support then though, otherwise your posts are pretty pointless and you might as well not post

Vivisectus

lazybones32 wrote: »

Germany, Japan and one other 'Western' Society had an advertising campaign - about 10 years ago - to try encourage people to have more children (I think they were even offering tax incentives for them to do so but it's years since I read that).

The main 'condition' was that it was people who were married - a family unit - who were being targeted because...well, the family is the basis and cornerstone of Society.

There is a mammoth body of empirical evidence, spanning over 100 years, about the benefits of the family...it will be very easy to find.

I think you are missing the point a bit here. First I am seeking to establish what unique benefits phil believes heterosexual marriages have. Once we have established that these exist and what they are, we can see if these unique benefits are threatened by allowing homosexuals to marry as well.

As far as I can tell from your response, you personally believe that heterosexual marriage has unique benefits because of evidence that you feel exists on the internet somewhere. But unless you point me to what evidence you mean exactly I cannot check if I agree with you: there is indeed a great mass of research that touches on the topic somehow, but it ranges from excellent and completely relevant to ludicrously biased and out of scope.

To be frank, it sounds to me like you feel it is self-evident that these benefits exist, and that you simply assume that there is a "mammoth body" of evidence to support that view. But perhaps you are aware of some really good research that you could share to change my mind?

Vivisectus

Reading back, I feel it is perhaps useful to clarify things a bit more:

I am asking what unique benefits you believe heterosexual marriage has, and what you base this belief on.

I am then asking you why you feel that allowing homosexuals to get married as well threatens these unique benefits.

For the sake of completeness, I will share with you why I do not see any reason to oppose gay marriage at the moment myself: it is for the simple reason that a significant number of gay people desire the right to get married, and because I see no reason not to give them that right.

I am not aware of any impact on child-rearing, because homosexual couples can already adopt or reproduce by making some other arrangement, so I do not see how any arguments regarding child-rearing can apply.

I can see no impact on existing or prospective heterosexual marriages: their rights, responsibilities, eligibility and benefits remain exactly the same.

In the absence of any impact on anyone who is not gay and does not want to get married, I do not see how we can reasonably object.

Links234

Wow.... http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2014/08/anti-gay-group-sneaks-vancouver-pride-parade-hands-2500-fake-condoms-hateful-letters/

Just, wow :eek:

shruikan2553

Links234 wrote: »

Wow.... http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2014/08/anti-gay-group-sneaks-vancouver-pride-parade-hands-2500-fake-condoms-hateful-letters/

Just, wow :eek:

“While evangelism and the issues of homofascism and where one will spend the rest of eternity are deadly serious issues, we decided that seeing as we purchased our parade permit fair and square and seeing as all the pagans were having fun while rebelling against God, we would have fun too, while evangelizing the parade route and winning souls for the Lord,” writes Whatcott on the forum.

Religious people keep using that word. With all the time they have to do nothing useful like helping the sick and poor you would think they might educate themselves on the words the keep using, maybe read the bible too.

Pwindedd

Links234 wrote: »

Wow.... http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2014/08/anti-gay-group-sneaks-vancouver-pride-parade-hands-2500-fake-condoms-hateful-letters/

Just, wow :eek:

What a woeful waste of time energy and money on their part. Channel your creativity into something more productive FFS

aloyisious

Interesting choice of word "homophobe" Whatcott say's his team member Jonathan made use of to describe the person Jonathan told the upset woman he'd got the Gospel Condom from. Almost like an involuntary admission as to the nature of the group's activity at the parade. The brand-name of the genuine condom (Trojan) used to prevent detection is ironic, as the group's activity was done in disguise. Just seen the photos, wonder what the policeman will think about the photo, mindful of the fact that he was there at public expense to protect the rights of the Priders to march in peace undisturbed.

Zillah

Links234 wrote: »

Wow.... http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2014/08/anti-gay-group-sneaks-vancouver-pride-parade-hands-2500-fake-condoms-hateful-letters/

Just, wow :eek:

Haha, he looks like he's having so much fun at the parade. This reminds me of that episode in South Park where the cop went undercover as a prostitute and got so into it he started having sex with clients, all while pretending it was part of the investigation.

Suuuure, you're here to spread the word of God.
*dances in the street with wild abandon for four hours*

PopePalpatine

Bloody hell, that's low, not even Youth Defence have gone to those depths.

lazygal

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Bloody hell, that's low, not even Youth Defence have gone to those depths.

Yet.

aloyisious

The next thing is he'll be "coming out".

lazybones32

Vivisectus wrote: »

I think you are missing the point a bit here. First I am seeking to establish what unique benefits phil believes heterosexual marriages have. Once we have established that these exist and what they are, we can see if these unique benefits are threatened by allowing homosexuals to marry as well.

As far as I can tell from your response, you personally believe that heterosexual marriage has unique benefits because of evidence that you feel exists on the internet somewhere. But unless you point me to what evidence you mean exactly I cannot check if I agree with you: there is indeed a great mass of research that touches on the topic somehow, but it ranges from excellent and completely relevant to ludicrously biased and out of scope.

To be frank, it sounds to me like you feel it is self-evident that these benefits exist, and that you simply assume that there is a "mammoth body" of evidence to support that view. But perhaps you are aware of some really good research that you could share to change my mind?

What unique 'benefits'? The propagation of the species. The socialization and formation of those children within a family, with the ideal that they become happy, fulfilled, law-abiding members of Society. No homosexual union can ever produce children - ever. (Don't waste time by mentioning IVF et al because that uses male and female material, not solely male/male or female/female) Homosexual unions cannot be treated equally as heterosexual unions for this reason alone...because they are simply not equal. (Were you born of Man and Woman?)

If you are arguing along the lines of the quality of up-bringing, love shown to the child, etc; this is a different topic to homosexual unions being granted Legal Equality and Status to heterosexual Marriage.

The information exists in reality and in the virtual world. You have an Encyclopedia at your fingertips and you can research for yourself - like I did - to get the knowledge you seek. I'm not concerned at whether you believe what I write or not; I've supplied information and it's your decision to accept or reject. This is not the debate forum, nor is it a Scientific Journal whereby I must supply references and scholarly links.

iwantmydinner

lazybones32 wrote: »

What unique 'benefits'? The propagation of the species. The socialization and formation of those children within a family, with the ideal that they become happy, fulfilled, law-abiding members of Society. No homosexual union can ever produce children - ever. (Don't waste time by mentioning IVF et al because that uses male and female material, not solely male/male or female/female) Homosexual unions cannot be treated equally as heterosexual unions for this reason alone...because they are simply not equal. (Were you born of Man and Woman?)

If you are arguing along the lines of the quality of up-bringing, love shown to the child, etc; this is a different topic to homosexual unions being granted Legal Equality and Status to heterosexual Marriage.

The information exists in reality and in the virtual world. You have an Encyclopedia at your fingertips and you can research for yourself - like I did - to get the knowledge you seek. I'm not concerned at whether you believe what I write or not; I've supplied information and it's your decision to accept or reject. This is not the debate forum, nor is it a Scientific Journal whereby I must supply references and scholarly links.

Marriage has nothing to do with conception, pregnancy, childbirth, etc.

Science tells us that kids raised by same-sex couples are equally as happy as those raised by heterosexual couples.

lazybones32

SW wrote: »

Bit hypocritical since you have no problem asking others to post links to support their claims.

That was #205. This would have been a stone-cold "Gotcha!" if it weren't for this...

...(I hate it when someone asks me for links so I understand if no-one can be bothered...) lazybones32 #209 of the same thread

6/10 for effort.

lazybones32

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Marriage has nothing to do with conception, pregnancy, childbirth, etc.

Science tells us that kids raised by same-sex couples are equally as happy as those raised by heterosexual couples.

Were those babies born of homosexual unions? No. Therefore, they are not the same as heterosexual unions. Did you read the part...forget it.

marienbad

lazybones32 wrote: »

Were those babies born of homosexual unions? No. Therefore, they are not the same as heterosexual unions. Did you read the part...forget it.

Are infertile marriages less than fertile marriages so ? Should infertile people be allowed marry ?

Pro Hoc Vice

lazybones32 wrote: »

What unique 'benefits'? The propagation of the species. The socialization and formation of those children within a family, with the ideal that they become happy, fulfilled, law-abiding members of Society. No homosexual union can ever produce children - ever. (Don't waste time by mentioning IVF et al because that uses male and female material, not solely male/male or female/female) Homosexual unions cannot be treated equally as heterosexual unions for this reason alone...because they are simply not equal. (Were you born of Man and Woman?)

If you are arguing along the lines of the quality of up-bringing, love shown to the child, etc; this is a different topic to homosexual unions being granted Legal Equality and Status to heterosexual Marriage.

The information exists in reality and in the virtual world. You have an Encyclopedia at your fingertips and you can research for yourself - like I did - to get the knowledge you seek. I'm not concerned at whether you believe what I write or not; I've supplied information and it's your decision to accept or reject. This is not the debate forum, nor is it a Scientific Journal whereby I must supply references and scholarly links.

But you are making statments of fact not your opinions, you are saying X is true and is backed up by studies and you say you have read the information, if you won't produce then I like others will just ignore anything you say as having no value.

Cabaal

lazybones32 wrote: »

That was #205. This would have been a stone-cold "Gotcha!" if it weren't for this...

...(I hate it when someone asks me for links so I understand if no-one can be bothered...) lazybones32 #209 of the same thread

6/10 for effort.

Everyone in this forum hates when somebody makes claims and when asked for proof of said claims they come out with some half arsed excuse as to why they won't provide proof.

0/10 for credibility

Harold Weiss

I was just thinking the other day this is indeed one of the most challenging problems facing mankind today.

When I think of problems humanity needs to solve, Gay Marriage is definitely top of the list.

shruikan2553

lazybones32 wrote: »

Were those babies born of homosexual unions? No. Therefore, they are not the same as heterosexual unions. Did you read the part...forget it.

Lets start treating people with fertility problems the same as a homosexual couple then.

lazybones32

For those who wanted info on birthing incentives...

"Since the mid-1970s, when it became clear that the number of births was resolutely declining, Japanese governments have made efforts to encourage people to have more babies. But for all that they have increased child benefits and provided day-care centres in the past 30 years, the birth rate has remained stubbornly low." The Death of Births - The Economist - Nov 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/magazine/29Birth-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/03/27/do-it-for-denmark-campaign-wants-danes-to-have-more-sex-a-lot-more-sex/

(the last two are left-wing newspapers, so you are more likely to trust their version of events)

And http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2007/09/how_to_make_more_babies.html