Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

lazybones32

NuMarvel wrote: »

For one, that gay people can't provide an ideal environment to raise children, when research indicates otherwise.

That gay people can't already adopt, for another. This has already been covered in this and other threads.

And there's the overall conflation of marriage and procreation. John and Mary in your example either can or can't procreate, their marital status doesn't change that.

Is it your contention that if John and Mary know they can't procreate, they should be barred from marriage? If not, then you can't rationally use the same reason to deny marriage to gay couples.

Yeah...I've been supplied with some of those 'studies' but I do not know whether they have been slated by peers or not. Being published on-line and being reviewed on certain sites does not guarantee credibility.

The people who get married without the intention of having a family are the exception. Marrying an infertile person is enough to get a marriage annulled (as if it never occurred) if that person withheld the fact of their infertility. So, it is accepted in Law that most people marry with the intention of reproducing. I'm tired of writing and rewriting this, so this is the last time.

Why are homosexual couples seeking to have the same recognition as married couples? What benefits are to be gained from having official recognition?

Nodin

lazybones32 wrote: »

Yeah...I've been supplied with some of those 'studies' but I do not know whether they have been slated by peers or not. Being published on-line and being reviewed on certain sites does not guarantee credibility.

The people who get married without the intention of having a family are the exception. Marrying an infertile person is enough to get a marriage annulled (as if it never occurred) if that person withheld the fact of their infertility. So, it is accepted in Law that most people marry with the intention of reproducing. I'm tired of writing and rewriting this, so this is the last time.

Why are homosexual couples seeking to have the same recognition as married couples? What benefits are to be gained from having official recognition?

What have you against gay people?

spookymuffin

lazybones32 wrote: »

Are you male or female?

Children are necessary for the continuation of the species and there needs to be 2.1 births for every death for the successful continuation of the Society (pay more taxes, care for an aging population whose life expectancy increases).

When John and Mary get married, they have the potential for procreating. Supposedly, having children within the context of a stable family unit (where Mom and Dad are present) is the best possible environment for raising children. In a marriage, the parents have supposedly committed to each other and are more stable and less-likely to part (I cannot supply scholarly links to prove this so I guess it's all bull****)

If you and your bf/gf get married...you cannot procreate; you cannot provide the ideal environment for raising children (unless men and women are the same and a man can raise a child in the exact same way a woman can...and a woman can give the exact same service as a dad can)
But you demand to be viewed as important to Society as 'John and Mary'? But you'll get the tax-credits...

I'm not too clued-in on what the current civil same-sex Rights are but your union can be recognised under Law and you can bequeath your stuff to your partner. No-one is stopping you wearing a ring, calling your other-half "hubby/wife"...ot the other trimmings that are associated.

Unless, this whole Marriage Equality is a stepping-stone to getting Adoption 'Rights'...

This is such a poisonous and ridiculous view of marriage. As has already been pointed out to you, not all straight marriages have the potential to produce children. Either because of fertility issues or voluntary sterilisation.

I am a bisexual woman who is married to a man, I also have limited fertility. This was something that my husband and I knew before we got married.
We are two consenting adults that got married to each other despite the fact that there is no potential for unassisted reproduction within our marriage. Funnily enough, this is exactly the same position I would have been in if I had fallen in love with and decided to spend the rest of my life with another woman. Surely you must see how it makes no sense to discriminate against gay couples on the basis of reproduction, they should be treated like any other infertile couple.

Pro Hoc Vice

Nodin wrote: »

What have you against gay people?

They can't make babies is that not enough :-)

Cabaal

lazybones32 wrote: »

Yeah...I've been supplied with some of those 'studies' but I do not know whether they have been slated by peers or not. Being published on-line and being reviewed on certain sites does not guarantee credibility.

The people who get married without the intention of having a family are the exception. Marrying an infertile person is enough to get a marriage annulled (as if it never occurred) if that person withheld the fact of their infertility. So, it is accepted in Law that most people marry with the intention of reproducing. I'm tired of writing and rewriting this, so this is the last time.

Why are homosexual couples seeking to have the same recognition as married couples? What benefits are to be gained from having official recognition?

So by your logic any gay people that want to get married but not ever have children should be allowed, since there's already such an exception for none gay couples when it comes to marriage.

Anything else shows you just have an issue with gay people,

At the end of the day a marriage is a union between two people, that's it, nothing more, nothing less, it's not about children. It's about a commitment between two adults.... Regardless of their gender.

Larry Wildman

What about the balanced perspective provided to a child by being raised by both a man and a woman?

These debates seem more about one side's quest for validation rather than the welfare of children.

NuMarvel

lazybones32 wrote: »

The people who get married without the intention of having a family are the exception. Marrying an infertile person is enough to get a marriage annulled (as if it never occurred) if that person withheld the fact of their infertility. So, it is accepted in Law that most people marry with the intention of reproducing. I'm tired of writing and rewriting this, so this is the last time.

You are incorrect. Infertility, whether known or withheld, is not grounds for annulling a marriage. There is no legal precedent under annulment laws, in Ireland at least, for annulling a marriage on the grounds of infertility.

lazybones32 wrote: »

Why are homosexual couples seeking to have the same recognition as married couples? What benefits are to be gained from having official recognition?

How about you answer my question first? I'll even make it gender neutral so we can make sure you're treating all couples equally: Should a couple who know they can't procreate together, for whatever reason, be barred from marriage?

marienbad

Larry Wildman wrote: »

What about the balanced perspective provided to a child by being raised by both a man and a woman?

These debates seem more about one side's quest for validation rather than the welfare of children.

Irrelevant, gay couples are and do commit to each other right now , only it is not recognised as marriage .

Marriage recognition will not change anything other that the status of these couples .

Children have actually nothing to do with this discussion .

Pro Hoc Vice

Larry Wildman wrote: »

What about the balanced perspective provided to a child by being raised by both a man and a woman?

These debates seem more about one side's quest for validation rather than the welfare of children.

Many children are raised by one parent alone, and turn out very well many children are totally messed up by their o so perfect mommy and daddy. In fact it does not take a man and a women to raise a child it takes the whole community.

BTW what has the right if two men who have no children, want no children, can't have children got to do with children.

In fact if you look at the argument it's you can have children so you can't marry and then you can't have children, god my head hurts lol.

iwantmydinner

Larry Wildman wrote: »

What about the balanced perspective provided to a child by being raised by both a man and a woman?

These debates seem more about one side's quest for validation rather than the welfare of children.

This thread is about same sex marriage though? Not children.

spookymuffin

Larry Wildman wrote: »

What about the balanced perspective provided to a child by being raised by both a man and a woman?.

Could you elaborate on this point? Because unless a child is being raised in a home with 1950s gender roles then I don't really see what you mean here.

Are children not being raised correctly by heterosexual parents that don't follow traditional gender norms?

I can't think of anything that I learnt from my father that I couldn't have learned from him if he had been a woman, or from my mother if she had been of the opposite gender. Or, clutch the pearls, even if they had both been men or both been women!

NuMarvel

Larry Wildman wrote: »

What about the balanced perspective provided to a child by being raised by both a man and a woman?

These debates seem more about one side's quest for validation rather than the welfare of children.

Gay people can already raise children, and they've been doing it in Ireland since at least the 70s. Marriage isn't a parental licencing system so regardless of whether gay people can marry or not, they will continue to raise children. Any discussion about the welfare of children is moot in a discussion about marriage, because the bar on marriage isn't a bar on being parents.

PopePalpatine

_Redzer_ wrote: »

If your ideal is shown to be wrong, even in the face of mountains of evidence to counter your view, then it is idiotic to hang onto it and even defend it.

I might think mixed race parents are not the ideal and be against them because I think they wouldn't be as good as white parents, because that's *my* ideal, even if I was 100% scientifically wrong. I'd just be an ignorant, prejudiced moron.


Btw, read over the thread to find all the links to evidence which destroys your viewpoint entirely.

I would, but I'm lazy and not responsible for your education.

Where's oldrnwisr when you need him?

aloyisious

@lazybones32... Are you serious or just being facetious with your question (Why are homosexual couples seeking to have the same recognition as married couples? What benefits are to be gained from having official recognition?)?

Apart from the feeling of quality of status, as distinct from inequality, there are rights available to heterosexual married couples that are NOT available to homosexual C/P'd couples, the "next best" form of "union" given official recognition. Just mentally swap the position of an Unmarried Heterosexual Couple, as against a Married Heterosexual Couple, and see there is a clear difference between their status in the view of any fellow citizen, let alone in the view of officialdom. Your argument against the extension of Civil Marriage to homosexual couples is surely a recognition of the fact that you view homosexual couples as lesser than heterosexual couples when it comes to Civil Rights. You have already de-listed propagation and children from the equalization of Civil Marriage argument. Civil Marriage (as an existing affair of state) should and must be part and parcel of our state's Civil Rights. They come from our state, not from some other entity.

lazybones32

aloyisious wrote: »

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

In Para 1 of your argument above on the benefits of marriage between two heterosexuals over that of marriage between two homosexuals, you mention children and their bringing-up, linking them with marriage (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) -- then in Para 2 you have this... (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)

I'm curious as to how you don't see how your "argument" in both para's are at odds with each other, the first is all about marriage and propagation and the children and the second clearly states that the issue is about homosexual unions being granted Legal Equality and Status to heterosexual Marriage, a different topic to the upbringing of children. You link children as part and parcel with marriage in Para 1 and decry the same link in Para 2.

If I understand your question correctly: I supplied the procreation of the species (which involves their socialization and formation) as the main benefit that heterosexual unions supply to Society. Homosexuals cannot supply this same 'service' and therefore do not deserve the same status and position.

Then, I wrote that if you were arguing for Marriage Equality on the grounds of homosexuals being able to raise other people's children as effectively as heterosexuals (providing them with love, security etc;) that this argument was of a different nature as to the Topic.

Did I clarify and answer for you? I didn't think I contradicted myself but I may well have...

Corkfeen

lazybones32 wrote: »

Yes, but a man and woman in a loving committed relationship as the ideal environment for raising children isn't "my" view. I adopted it from others - psychologists, sociologists, teachers - but since I cannot provide references to show that this is the ideal environment, disregard as bull...

There are no perfect parents; lots of ideal and suitable people out there. Big difference between the ideal and perfection of the ideal.

Adoption is not a red-herring: there have been implications (people have implied) and it is a logical and apt progression.

But psychologists have already concluded that same sex parents can provides as ideal a home for straight. I suspect you may need to catch up on the peer reviewed studies on the matter as you're decades behind in research.

aloyisious

Larry Wildman wrote: »

What about the balanced perspective provided to a child by being raised by both a man and a woman? These debates seem more about one side's quest for validation rather than the welfare of children.

In this reply from lazybones32 (see the quote below) your question seem's to have been answered by what he wrote in his second para below. According to what I read from it, children do NOT come into the equation.

Originally Posted by lazybones32 View Post
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.

shruikan2553

Corkfeen wrote: »

But psychologists have already concluded that same sex parents can provides as ideal a home for straight. I suspect you may need to catch up on the peer reviewed studies on the matter as you're decades behind in research.

But they still require the straight couples to make the children! Any children not made by a straight married couple is inferior. Or something like that.

marienbad

lazybones32 wrote: »

If I understand your question correctly: I supplied the procreation of the species (which involves their socialization and formation) as the main benefit that heterosexual unions supply to Society. Homosexuals cannot supply this same 'service' and therefore do not deserve the same status and position.

Then, I wrote that if you were arguing for Marriage Equality on the grounds of homosexuals being able to raise other people's children as effectively as heterosexuals (providing them with love, security etc;) that this argument was of a different nature as to the Topic.

Did I clarify and answer for you? I didn't think I contradicted myself but I may well have...

Again this is just incorrect. For the umpteenth time marriage is not required for the creation of children .

So the issue of children is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

B0jangles

For those looking for peer-reviewed reputable studies on how being raised by same-sex couples affects children, here's a link to Oldrnwisr's massive effort post which covers that very subject, among many others:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=89960006&postcount=5470

Edit: Section 5 is the part that specifically talks about children raised by gay couples.

_Redzer_

marienbad wrote: »

Again this is just incorrect. For the umpteenth time marriage is not required for the creation of children .

So the issue of children is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

That's the only point he has to try and pass his irrational point off as rational. Without it, he's no means to make himself look in any way reasonable.

That's why he'll never let go of it.

_Redzer_

B0jangles wrote: »

For those looking for peer-reviewed reputable studies on how being raised by same-sex couples affects children, here's a link to Oldrnwisr's massive effort post which covers that very subject, among many others:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=89960006&postcount=5470

Bookmarked the link for future debates. It usually stops many dead in their tracks.

lazybones32

Nodin wrote: »

What have you against gay people?

What I have against some gay people:

1)Some are too feminine - they appear to have more girly-beans than the girliest-girls I've met and I don't think it is genuine...it is affected.

2)Some let their sexuality be the defining characteristic of their personality: I like women as much as they like men but it isn't the most important thing about me.

3)The demands of some to be heard, respected and accepted: everyone has the right to speak and express themselves but others have the right to not listen, not care. Respect and acceptance cannot be demanded but are at the discretion of the individual who gives them. Shouting at me to respect you, is not going to earn my respect.

4) The hypocrisy of the Gay Movement: The recent Alec Baldwin 'incident' is a prime example. In Films, AB has called people much more insulting things than what he said to that journo but his "c*cksucker" quip got him fired from his job. Nothing hypocritical or discriminatory there...


You assume that because I argue against changing Laws, it must be because I have something against gay people. No, I argued that homosexual couples do not have the same contribution to Society as heterosexual couples have the potential for and therefore do not deserve to be given the same status.

I'm not surprised at this accusation but it will be used as a weapon in the forthcoming Referendum to tar those who disagree for whatever reason.

lazygal

lazybones32 wrote: »

What I have against some gay people:

1)Some are too feminine - they appear to have more girly-beans than the girliest-girls I've met and I don't think it is genuine...it is affected.

2)Some let their sexuality be the defining characteristic of their personality: I like women as much as they like men but it isn't the most important thing about me.

3)The demands of some to be heard, respected and accepted: everyone has the right to speak and express themselves but others have the right to not listen, not care. Respect and acceptance cannot be demanded but are at the discretion of the individual who gives them. Shouting at me to respect you, is not going to earn my respect.

4) The hypocrisy of the Gay Movement: The recent Alec Baldwin 'incident' is a prime example. In Films, AB has called people much more insulting things than what he said to that journo but his "c*cksucker" quip got him fired from his job. Nothing hypocritical or discriminatory there...


You assume that because I argue against changing Laws, it must be because I have something against gay people. No, I argued that homosexual couples do not have the same contribution to Society as heterosexual couples have the potential for and therefore do not deserve to be given the same status.

I'm not surprised at this accusation but it will be used as a weapon in the forthcoming Referendum to tar those who disagree for whatever reason.

This is nothing but a wall of homophobic nonsense.

jill_valentine

lazybones32 wrote: »

What I have against some gay people:

1)Some are too feminine - they appear to have more girly-beans than the girliest-girls I've met and I don't think it is genuine...it is affected.

2)Some let their sexuality be the defining characteristic of their personality: I like women as much as they like men but it isn't the most important thing about me.

3)The demands of some to be heard, respected and accepted: everyone has the right to speak and express themselves but others have the right to not listen, not care. Respect and acceptance cannot be demanded but are at the discretion of the individual who gives them. Shouting at me to respect you, is not going to earn my respect.

4) The hypocrisy of the Gay Movement: The recent Alec Baldwin 'incident' is a prime example. In Films, AB has called people much more insulting things than what he said to that journo but his "c*cksucker" quip got him fired from his job. Nothing hypocritical or discriminatory there...


You assume that because I argue against changing Laws, it must be because I have something against gay people. No, I argued that homosexual couples do not have the same contribution to Society as heterosexual couples have the potential for and therefore do not deserve to be given the same status.

I'm not surprised at this accusation but it will be used as a weapon in the forthcoming Referendum to tar those who disagree for whatever reason.

I'm not sure we can even bother calling that "the mask slipping" since I don't think there was any doubt.

marienbad

lazybones32 wrote: »

What I have against some gay people:

1)Some are too feminine - they appear to have more girly-beans than the girliest-girls I've met and I don't think it is genuine...it is affected.

2)Some let their sexuality be the defining characteristic of their personality: I like women as much as they like men but it isn't the most important thing about me.

3)The demands of some to be heard, respected and accepted: everyone has the right to speak and express themselves but others have the right to not listen, not care. Respect and acceptance cannot be demanded but are at the discretion of the individual who gives them. Shouting at me to respect you, is not going to earn my respect.

4) The hypocrisy of the Gay Movement: The recent Alec Baldwin 'incident' is a prime example. In Films, AB has called people much more insulting things than what he said to that journo but his "c*cksucker" quip got him fired from his job. Nothing hypocritical or discriminatory there...


You assume that because I argue against changing Laws, it must be because I have something against gay people. No, I argued that homosexual couples do not have the same contribution to Society as heterosexual couples have the potential for and therefore do not deserve to be given the same status.

I'm not surprised at this accusation but it will be used as a weapon in the forthcoming Referendum to tar those who disagree for whatever reason.

This is one of the most bizarre efforts I have seen on boards . And then to say you have nothing against gay people ?

Cane you be unaware that this is just bigoted drivel ?

lazybones32

NuMarvel wrote: »

You are incorrect. Infertility, whether known or withheld, is not grounds for annulling a marriage. There is no legal precedent under annulment laws, in Ireland at least, for annulling a marriage on the grounds of infertility.



How about you answer my question first? I'll even make it gender neutral so we can make sure you're treating all couples equally: Should a couple who know they can't procreate together, for whatever reason, be barred from marriage?

I stand corrected...
"Voidable marriage
To prove to the court that your marriage is voidable, you must show one of the following grounds:

At the time of the marriage ceremony, either party was impotent. You must show that either you or your spouse was unable to consummate the marriage." If the Marriage is declared "voidable", this opens the door to annulment. Citizens information has more...

As I've answered so many times today, no, couples who cannot or choose not to procreate, should not be denied marriage. The number of those who cannot or choose not to produce offspring is inferior to those who do produce a family within marriage. How many more times today do I need write this...

aloyisious

lazybones32 wrote: »

If I understand your question correctly: I supplied the procreation of the species (which involves their socialization and formation) as the main benefit that heterosexual unions supply to Society. Homosexuals cannot supply this same 'service' and therefore do not deserve the same status and position.

Then, I wrote that if you were arguing for Marriage Equality on the grounds of homosexuals being able to raise other people's children as effectively as heterosexuals (providing them with love, security etc;) that this argument was of a different nature as to the Topic.

Did I clarify and answer for you? I didn't think I contradicted myself but I may well have...

Below are your quote-para's. In your first para, you DO NOT mention propagation of children by heterosexual couples as being the main benefit of marriage (you might see that as an accepted benefit). You mention "unique" benefits and then deliberately deny legitimacy to the fact that homosexual couples use surrogacy and implantation as regular normal means of propagation of the species. It may NOT be to your personal taste but surrogacy and IVF are now facts of life. Another effect of your view on the legitimacy of surrogacy and IVF is that it would have to apply to part-sterile heterosexual married couples who are, due to nature, unable to propagate children without a third partner or medical assistance. In your second para. you make no reference whatever to "raise other people's children". You might see that as implicit in your quote, but the words are NOT there. Re the end piece of your third para, we are, maybe unfortunately, lol, arguing/debating here.


Originally Posted by lazybones32 View Post
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.

_Redzer_

lazybones32 wrote: »

What I have against some gay people:

1)Some are too feminine - they appear to have more girly-beans than the girliest-girls I've met and I don't think it is genuine...it is affected.

2)Some let their sexuality be the defining characteristic of their personality: I like women as much as they like men but it isn't the most important thing about me.

3)The demands of some to be heard, respected and accepted: everyone has the right to speak and express themselves but others have the right to not listen, not care. Respect and acceptance cannot be demanded but are at the discretion of the individual who gives them. Shouting at me to respect you, is not going to earn my respect.

4) The hypocrisy of the Gay Movement: The recent Alec Baldwin 'incident' is a prime example. In Films, AB has called people much more insulting things than what he said to that journo but his "c*cksucker" quip got him fired from his job. Nothing hypocritical or discriminatory there...


You assume that because I argue against changing Laws, it must be because I have something against gay people. No, I argued that homosexual couples do not have the same contribution to Society as heterosexual couples have the potential for and therefore do not deserve to be given the same status.

I'm not surprised at this accusation but it will be used as a weapon in the forthcoming Referendum to tar those who disagree for whatever reason.

Haha!

Oh this is what I'm going to revel in when I get my equal rights eventually, all you lot will be miserable, completely defeated and left on the wrong side of history. There won't be a thing you could do about it either, and it'll be fantastic.

A secondary laugh at me not contributing to society. I'm an egalitarian and all for treating people as equal. That alone has made me contribute more positively to society than you have, clearly, if you're against everyone being treated fairly.

That's also not mentioning that I'll be branching into regenerative medicine and pharmaceuticals in future- you know, helping people, progressing modern medicine.

What have you contributed so far to society, and what will you plan on doing to better your efforts still?

Pro Hoc Vice

lazybones32 wrote: »

I stand corrected...
"Voidable marriage
To prove to the court that your marriage is voidable, you must show one of the following grounds:

At the time of the marriage ceremony, either party was impotent. You must show that either you or your spouse was unable to consummate the marriage." If the Marriage is declared "voidable", this opens the door to annulment. Citizens information has more...

As I've answered so many times today, no, couples who cannot or choose not to procreate, should not be denied marriage. The number of those who cannot or choose not to produce offspring is inferior to those who do produce a family within marriage. How many more times today do I need write this...

You really don't understand plain English do you a person may be impotent but fertile a person may not consummate the marriage but be fertile. So once ya can get it up and she can take it in and ya shoot your load then your away for slates no matter if the sperm don't swim or the other person don't have no eggs then it makes no difference. Infertility is very different to non consummation.

You really need to learn the difference between certain words. With you evident grasp of certain concepts I wonder about your age should we be discussing such things in front of you.

lazybones32

marienbad wrote: »

This is one of the most bizarre efforts I have seen on boards . And then to say you have nothing against gay people ?

Cane you be unaware that this is just bigoted drivel ?

I don't like overly-effeminate men and people who make their sexuality their defining characteristic; I dislike the hypocrisy of a lobby-group and this makes me bigoted?

I'd be more concerned if everyone here was agreeing with me...

Pro Hoc Vice

lazybones32 wrote: »

I don't like overly-effeminate men and people who make their sexuality their defining characteristic; I dislike the hypocrisy of a lobby-group and this makes me bigoted?

I'd be more concerned if everyone here was agreeing with me...

No you are a bigot because your a bigot, alls well and good to dislike traits (I dislike members if the uptight virgins of ireland group) but it's when you or anyone take that dislike of traits and views and deny rights based on that guess what that is go on you can join the dots and get it.

So I get this straight acting manly man and another manly man who do not advocate for them gays but want to marry you have no issue with them as long as they conform to your view of what a man is.

Turtwig

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

...I wonder about your age should we be discussing such things in front of you.

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

No you are a bigot because your a bigot. .

Mod: No need to get so personal. If needs be take a breather, deal with the points not the nature of the point maker.

Thanks,

marienbad

lazybones32 wrote: »

I don't like overly-effeminate men and people who make their sexuality their defining characteristic; I dislike the hypocrisy of a lobby-group and this makes me bigoted?

I'd be more concerned if everyone here was agreeing with me...

This and the other guff in your previous post makes you a bigot. Would you like me to parse it for you just to be sure ?

aloyisious

lazybones32 wrote: »

I don't like overly-effeminate men and people who make their sexuality their defining characteristic; I dislike the hypocrisy of a lobby-group and this makes me bigoted?

I'd be more concerned if everyone here was agreeing with me...

Well, at least you're an equal-opportunity arguer

lazygal

lazybones32 wrote: »

I don't like overly-effeminate men and people who make their sexuality their defining characteristic; I dislike the hypocrisy of a lobby-group and this makes me bigoted?

I'd be more concerned if everyone here was agreeing with me...

What about underly effeminate women, are they acting the wrong way too?

shruikan2553

If people who just didnt like gay people could be honest and not waste everyones time trying to justify treating others as lesser people it would be great.

NuMarvel

lazybones32 wrote: »

As I've answered so many times today, no, couples who cannot or choose not to procreate, should not be denied marriage.

Then you have no grounds for insisting gay couples should continue to be barred from marriage.

Our laws carry a presumption of equality, which means that we must treat all people in the same way unless there is just cause for differing treatment. If inability to procreate isn't grounds to bar marriage from one group of people, then it can't be grounds to bar marriage from another. Otherwise, it is just a case of you having something against gay people, even if you can't or don't want to admit to it.

Nodin

lazybones32 wrote: »

What I have against some gay people:

1)Some are too feminine - they appear to have more girly-beans than the girliest-girls I've met and I don't think it is genuine...it is affected..

However you've no way of knowing that, and at the end of the day if somebody wishes to comport themselves in that way, what odds is it to you?

lazybones32 wrote: »

2)Some let their sexuality be the defining characteristic of their personality: I like women as much as they like men but it isn't the most important thing about me..

Vague blather, oddly reminiscent of a complaint about black folk.

lazybones32 wrote: »

3)The demands of some to be heard, respected and accepted: everyone has the right to speak and express themselves but others have the right to not listen, not care. Respect and acceptance cannot be demanded but are at the discretion of the individual who gives them. Shouting at me to respect you, is not going to earn my respect. ..

Yet when confronted with a man acting in a feminine way, you do listen and you do care, albeit in a negative fashion. I note throughout your post there is not one mention of the lesbian community. Why?

lazybones32 wrote: »

4) The hypocrisy of the Gay Movement: The recent Alec Baldwin 'incident' is a prime example. In Films, AB has called people much more insulting things than what he said to that journo but his "c*cksucker" quip got him fired from his job. Nothing hypocritical or discriminatory there.....

Do you understand the difference between fiction, eg a Film, and reality?

lazybones32 wrote: »

You assume that because I argue against changing Laws, it must be because I have something against gay people. No, I argued that homosexual couples do not have the same contribution to Society as heterosexual couples have the potential for and therefore do not deserve to be given the same status. .....

Considering that you've just listed four things you have against gay people, that's a bit of double think there. There are many heterosexual couples who either can't or have no wish to reproduce, so this "do not have the same contribution" line is a nonsense.

aloyisious

(glances upwards at latest debaters) @lazybones32. I fear all you have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill it with a terrible resolve.

MrPudding

lazybones32 wrote: »

Where did I say marriage was a requirement for procreation?!

No, the argument is that a man and a woman can reproduce: most of the time they do this as a family - whether married or not. As in, they decide to have children, so there will be at least one parent and at least one child.

Civil marriage, Christian, Jew, Pagan marriage has the potential to produce offspring; unlike homosexual unions. Can you see the distinction that doesn't make them equal? Do you know what equality means?

The distinction you are drawing is quite obvious, and I don;t think anyone if denying it. Clearly there is a difference between same-sex and opposite-sex unions, but, so what? I am having trouble trying to see the point you are trying to make with this line of argument... What you seem to be saying is same-sex unions can't produce children, therefore they should not be allowed. This seem to ignore the fact that, as they are same-sex attracted, they will not get in evolved in an opposite-sex union. It is almost as if you are scared that if same-sex marriage was allowed all the men would be off marrying men and the women marrying women and it would be the end of the world.

I really don't think this will happen...

You have been provided, quite helpfully, with a link to a post which has a huge amount of information to educate you on your unfortunate misunderstandings around same-sex parents. It would be really useful if you would have a read of at least some of them and get back to us with a response.

Also, it would be really nice if you could provide us with some references for your views. You say that there is plenty of information out there which supports your view, but unfortunately I can't find it, at least none that are remotely scientific or credible. Please note, if you are going to post the 'Child Trends' or the 'Regnerus' study, don't bother. They have been dealt with previously and do nothing to support your view.

MrP

Brian Shanahan

lazybones32 wrote: »

Are you male or female?

Children are necessary for the continuation of the species and there needs to be 2.1 births for every death for the successful continuation of the Society

Wow, your maths is as woeful as your thought processing isn't it?

If there were twice as many people born as killed, the human population would quickly spiral out of control (even more so than what we have currently). At the rate you suggest the population would double every generation, let's see how that works (I'm going to ignore the 0.1, because it's messy):

Gen 0: 2
Gen 1: 5 (half the last generation left alive)
Gen 2: 12
Gen 3: 28
Gen 4: 70
Gen 5: 175
Gen 6: 437
Gen 7: 1,092
Gen 8: 2,730
Gen 9: 6,825
Gen 10: 17,062
Gen 11: 42,655
Gen 12: 106,637

We've just taken 12 generations (roughly 360 years in human terms) to advance from a single breeding pair to a population 53,000 times it's size. This is an unsustainable rate no matter how you look at it. Now we're not correcting for disease, but to be honest disease rates would have to be pretty catastrophic at the birth rate you are proposing like killing off well over half of the population every generation in order to keep the population stable.

Larry Wildman

That poster is entitled to his opinion and is not a bigot in my view.

Disliking all homosexuals is bigoted.

Disliking camp OTT homosexuals is just a matter of preference and no different to disliking bible bashing Deep Southerners.

shruikan2553

Larry Wildman wrote: »

That poster is entitled to his opinion and is not a bigot in my view.

Disliking all homosexuals is bigoted.

Disliking camp OTT homosexuals is just a matter of preference and no different to disliking bible bashing Deep Southerners.

I'm all for letting bible bashing deep southerners have the same rights as everyone else though.

freyners

Larry Wildman wrote: »

That poster is entitled to his opinion and is not a bigot in my view.

Disliking all homosexuals is bigoted.

Disliking camp OTT homosexuals is just a matter of preference and no different to disliking bible bashing Deep Southerners.

The poster is a bigot, he stated quite clearly that an ability to procreate should not define a marriage, yet wants to exclude gay people from marriage because they cant procreate.
Wishing to deny rights to one set of people based on their race/gender/sexual orientation/etc. is bigotry, pure and simple

Cabaal

Larry Wildman wrote: »

What about the balanced perspective provided to a child by being raised by both a man and a woman?.

So we should remove children from all the single mothers?

Larry Wildman

Cabaal wrote: »

So we should remove children from all the single mothers?

Of course not.

We're not talking about situations that "arise" though (e.g. single parent, bereavement, etc). We're talking about prioritising where children who require a home should go.

I wouldn't have an issue with a stable long term homosexual couple adopting a child, but only after there were no heterosexual couples looking to adopt.

NuMarvel

Larry Wildman wrote: »

We're not talking about situations that "arise" though (e.g. single parent, bereavement, etc). We're talking about prioritising where children who require a home should go.

Actually, we're talking about marriage. Do you have anything to contribute on that topic?

lazygal

Larry Wildman wrote: »

Of course not.

We're not talking about situations that "arise" though (e.g. single parent, bereavement, etc). We're talking about prioritising where children who require a home should go.

I wouldn't have an issue with a stable long term homosexual couple adopting a child, but only after there were no heterosexual couples looking to adopt.

So a homosexual couple are second best as an option?
What does adoption have to do with gay marriage though?

freyners

Larry Wildman wrote: »

Of course not.

We're not talking about situations that "arise" though (e.g. single parent, bereavement, etc). We're talking about prioritising where children who require a home should go.

I wouldn't have an issue with a stable long term homosexual couple adopting a child, but only after there were no heterosexual couples looking to adopt.

Because why, gays are icky?