no one reads everything i say. its always out of context with you this is what i said:

are you even actually against it? you were originally just asking why you should be FOR it..... are you just trying to be a dick now?

sorry, i didnt see that line, only saw the last lines you wrote because i dont have much time on my hands nowadays

but yeah
pedophelia is wrong because of the reasons i explained

insest i suppose, is another matter
its already against the law isnt it?

but gay marriage isnt against the law yet before GWB forces more than half of US into agreeing with him
so i dont know

it is always hard to make a decision like this

i never said i was against it. i asked why i should vote for it. i'm not trying to be a dick. you typed up that whole reply to me, so i take the time to reply to that and i get this kind of answer? i'd really like to hear your input on my replies to your comment.

i also explained that... the first time.

incest is when a family member has sex with another within their gene pool. this is not the same. [unless of course i mentioned having sex with that person. it is only an example though.]

i agree thats why i want the legal reasons not just 'oh these people need the right'.

wow... This thread is becoming intense...

xMerCLorDx: you seem to have missed a major point in all of this. You are acting in a discriminatory way by denying gays the right to marry. This is _NO_ different than racism or sexism. The burden of proof is on _you_ to say why that kind of discrimination is justfied. We have already shown clearly that the legal norms established in history define marriage as between two people. it is only discriminatory officials in the past few years that have changed that. The idea that you need something more is just excuse making. either attack the rights claim, as is.

Remember, Brown vs. Board of Education: Separate is inherently not equal. You are advocating that we have an institutionally established 2nd class citizenry. I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. Continuing to nit-pick the other positive benefits of gay marriage is inane.

Do you know anything about the law?? You do understand that the law is almost entirely rights based? You know when they say the law is 9/10 property. Well, those property claims are _rights_ claims. Wake up. We've given you the response you asked for. If you need a reason to get up from your computer chair to go vote, then you are just expresing the apathy of more than 1/2 of america in not taking part in democratic activity. The joke, then, is on you.

I didn't miss this point. there SHOULD be boundaries held for the sake of the American family unit. I would rather protect this than allow a couple to get married simply because gays do not have the right. If there is a need for this couple to get married than there better be other good legal reasons. This _IS_ different than sexism or racism. when gays have the right to marry, why then would anything else be held back to change our society negatively? for the singular example that I keep bringing up: marrying into family when they are old enough. why would these people not also need the right to be married? would it be socially acceptable like gay marriage?

I don't say no to gay marriage because i don't want them getting married. I do it because it adversely affects the family system. growing up thinking being gay is normal is not the message the family needs. for two reasons. the progress of american families, and because there is no future [i'm talking long term] in gay marriages. (ok for arguments sake non adopting gay married couples)

Continuing to talk about equality in marriage is inane. There is nothing equal between a gay family and a streight one. In a marriage, however, there are some semi equal things, love, and whatnot.

Sure I do. I'm awake and aware of all of this. You don't see me demeaning you for what you say. If you're going to get all defensive please keep the insults to yourself.

this assumes that the LGBT community is incapable of properly raising a child. there is no scientific evidence for this and much to the opposite. again, an example of class based prejudice. I don't think I'm being unfair with this accusation. most informed persons doubt highly, and are backed with plenty examples of functional LGBT parents, that what gender you are attracted to is correlated with your ability to raise a child well.

i see, so you _do_ think allowing gays to marry is a bad thing.

hmm, because this isn't an example of class based discrimination. No one would be able to marry into their family. You would justly ask for reasoning. There is no way society is going to regulate a couple's ability to have children, and allowing family members to procreate (granted, this is not the sole basis of marriage, but it must be kept in mind its somethign we won't regulate directly) poses an inherent risk to the child, which cannot consent to that risk.

again, more evidence of prejudice. And why not? I would disagree STRONLY. If you want to talk about progress of the family unit, I would argue that having them clutch to the prejudices of the new religious right that that would hinder progress. By accepting people on the basis of what they do rather than who they are, the family unit can progress. Then gay brothers and lesbian sisters will not be ostracized from their own family. Kicking your son out of the house because he is gay is not familial progress by any means.

what the hell. so couples with a sterile member shouldn't be allowed to marry? that's the logical end to this argument. this is FUD.

I know there isn't. But that's because the laws prevent that, not because of any inherent parenting ability of heterosexuals.

If you did, you would understand that most of the objections you have made do not even clash with the rights claims. they are empty arguments, prima facie because they do not challenge the rights claim. The arguments you have made argue against the alleged potential impact (which most experts disagree with, hence "alleged," perhaps "believed" would be more appropriate, since its based on no evidence) of the rights claims, which do not challenge the rights claim.

not so much. its assuming [correctly] that they cannot self procreate and therefore there is no way for any real future past one generation. i didn't say gays couldn't properly raise a child. i agree and i did not propose this as an argument.

no, i think what it does to the rest of society is a damaging thing.

its the same as gay partners. what if father a loved daughter a sexually that was old enough to consent to it [which i have mentioned every time].

strange wroding in the first two sentences here. you just used a lot of filler words to state the point of non consent for the second time.


what the hell are you referring to? what new religious right?

you know i wouldn't ostracize my child if he or she were lesbian or gay. On the other hand, I'd be somewhat dissapointed in the respects that my family name and history will not genetically/bloodline continue, and that I haven't done my job as a parent. If you don't understand the longevity of my purpose then I guess this argument will never end. I want my kin to have a history and know what they came from, rather than a gay family that adpoted and who may or may not be ostracized for having gay parents.

not saying this, that would generally be natural causes.

thats because YHBT YHL HAND. :wavey:

alleged potential impact? i'm pretty sure gays aren't going to be having their own genetic babies for a while. [...minus cloning i suppose] seems to be fairily factual and not just alleged.

Ehhhh.........
Everytime people start to quote every section of another's response, someone has taken it as being offensive and at least one person has left in these situations. I'm letting you know that's not going to happen again.