God Hates You.......

@Fountofwisdom,

My religious views, backward or not, however, do not factor into my conclusion re preserving the definition of marriage. They hever have. My concern for positive environments that benefit everybody, straight and gay, and my concern that what is best for children should always override the personal preferences of adults do factor into my conclusions re preserving the definition of marriage.

Again it is not religion nor sexual orientation that is the issue here. The traditional definition of marriage deals with gender and other pertinent factors, and I am unaware of any marriage laws anywhere in the USA that address either religion or sexual orientation in any aspect.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Your concerns are not beneficial or positive for gays. I guess you think you know better than them right? As for the what's best for the children, gay men and women raise their biological children right now in the USA. The American Association of Pediatrics has concluded that children raised in households with gay parents are not less adjusted as their peers.

Beyond that, one does not have to have children to become married. You can prove me wrong by simply pointing me to the law that invalidates a marriage that doesn't produce offspring or a law that prohibits infertile couples from marrying. This old, bring the nameless/faceless/numberless fictional children into the argument and pose like you are here on their behalf is hardly impressive.

I could care less if you don't support gays, but if you want it to be illegal, make a legal argument.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

My concern re preservation of the traditional definition of marriage has nothing at all to do with gays and if you'll read what I've said you'll see that. And it also does not deal with the invariable exception, anomaly, or anecdotal scenarios. The fact is, those communities in which the traditional nuclear family is the norm do on average enjoy much greater prosperity, better schools, less crime, and the kids on average do better with fewer school drop outs and get into less trouble. It is for that reason that I support the traditional marriage. The fact that all marriages aren't good or that all marriages do not produce children changes those facts not at all nor does preserving the traditional marriage diminish those who cannot or choose not to marry. But if you think gay people along with heterosexual people do not benefit from stable prosperous communities, good schools, and less crime and/or if you think gay kids don't benefit from having a loving mom and dad in the home, then I simply don't know what else to say to you.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I have seen the nuclear family eroded to the point that more children do not enjoy a traditional mom/pop/kids family than do along with increase in child poverty, crime, erosion of education, and various other uglies that I think have been a result of that. Perhaps you will understand why I do not embrace or endorse the change you want as I believe it will only exacerbate and increase those same uglies.

You believe that allowing gays to get married will lead to an increase in child poverty, crime, erosion of education and various other uglies?

Interesting.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Not supporting non-nuclear-families is still far from recognizing non-nuclear-families right to form.

You may believe that it is the best, but that is a decision for you to make in regards to your family. What you are supporting is not a traditional view of marriage as much as the prevention of any other definitions (non-nuclear) from being recognized.

Do you claim that you know better for other's families than they know for themselves? What makes you so special?

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

But if you actually read what I wrote, you will see that I do support non-nuclear families. Try reading what I wrote before criticizing what I think or presume to know about others please.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

So you support non-nuclear families, even though you think that the increase of non-nuclear families has resulted in an increase in child poverty, crime, erosion of education, and various other uglies?

1 Reply

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I have seen the nuclear family eroded to the point that more children do not enjoy a traditional mom/pop/kids family than do along with increase in child poverty, crime, erosion of education, and various other uglies that I think have been a result of that. Perhaps you will understand why I do not embrace or endorse the change you want as I believe it will only exacerbate and increase those same uglies.

You believe that allowing gays to get married will lead to an increase in child poverty, crime, erosion of education and various other uglies?

Interesting.

I did not say that. What I said was that further weakening and erosion of the traditional nuclear family will lead to an increase in child poverty, crime, erosion of education and various other uglies. The reason I believe that is that erosion of the traditional nuclear family has already produced exactly such results. And I believe redefining marriage will have that effect for the reasons I have already stated and are available for your perusal.

Rebut that if you will. But please don't rewrite what I wrote or, as some are wont to do, draw judgmental personal conclusions from the rewrite.

0 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

So you support non-nuclear families, even though you think that the increase of non-nuclear families has resulted in an increase in child poverty, crime, erosion of education, and various other uglies?

Of course. Again if you read what I wrote instead of making it up as you go along, you will see that I know of and appreciate gay parents who are great parents and single parents who do a good job against the odds and raise good kids. Loving and competent parents in all circumstances are preferable to bouncing kids around to foster homes or leaving them in unacceptable environments. But none of that changes the fact that on average the traditional nuclear family provides stability and good influence on both the child and the community and I don't want to mess with that.

1 Reply

@old europe,

Actually, I think the reality is that the average level of education and income among gays who choose to partner and then parent is probably higher than that of the average heterosexual couple.

Anecdotally, I've also noticed and would hazard to put forth that because these parents have made an alternative choice, and they're aware this may well affect their childrens' day to day lives in their schools and community, if anything, there's an increased diligence in making sure the children receive the emotional support a nuclear family can provide.

I have to say that when I was working in adoption, though I have absolutely no homophobic thoughts at all - I was always a little sad when a female child was adopted by two men. It was incidental to me that they were gay - even if they'd just been brothers adopting these little girls, my first, initial gut feeling was negative...why? Not because they were gay- not at all. It was because I know how much I valued my mother in my life and it made me sad that these little girls would never have a mother.

And I still believe and feel that - no matter how many times I see a successful adoption by a same sex couple- I always have this little pang for that child (especially if it's a boy being adopted by two women or a girl being adopted by two men). But I have to admit, that pang always goes away pretty quickly when I see how happy these kids are in what usually turn out to be pretty exceptional homes.

I think it's alright to say that someone believes a marriage should be between a man and a woman if that's what s/he believes.
And I don't think it means that person hates gay people.
I think it's alright to say that someone believes that ideally a child should have a mother and a father - and it doesn't mean they hate gay people.
It doesn't mean they hate single mothers or single fathers either.
It doesn't mean they hate anyone.
They're just stating what they believe is the ideal.
But I also think if we want the ideal for all children, we should do a better job of finding some way to provide it.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

old europe wrote:

So you support non-nuclear families, even though you think that the increase of non-nuclear families has resulted in an increase in child poverty, crime, erosion of education, and various other uglies?

Of course. Again if you read what I wrote instead of making it up as you go along, you will see that I know of and appreciate gay parents who are great parents and single parents who do a good job against the odds and raise good kids. Loving and competent parents in all circumstances are preferable to bouncing kids around to foster homes or leaving them in unacceptable environments. But none of that changes the fact that on average the traditional nuclear family provides stability and good influence on both the child and the community and I don't want to mess with that.

Well, I see why one would support e.g. a single mom, even if one thinks that it would be preferable if the child had both parents.

I can also see that one would argue that having a family with two parents is a good environment for children to grow up in.

However, you argue that allowing gays to get married would "mess" with the institution of traditional nuclear families. I cannot see how that would be the case. Would allowing gays to get married lead to more divorces between heterosexual parents? Would allowing gays to get married lead to more abuse of children of heterosexual parents? Would it lead to more abusive relationships, to more single moms, to more children given up for adoption or ending up in foster care?

How, exactly, would allowing gays to get married mess with the institution of heterosexual marriage? I just can't really imagine how that could possibly happen...

1 Reply

@old europe,

I have argued that changing the definition of traditional marriage will make it something very different from what it is. I believe that will further weaken the institution of traditional marriage yes. Dispute that if you can, but until somebody can give a reasoned, rational, and non-personally insulting argument to the contrary, I will not be changing my opinion about that.

2 Replies

I have read what you write, but your views are yet to be reconciled. It's self-contradictory-circle-talk.

You post something.
It's inference is argued.
You post that you didn't say "that."
The inference remains.

This is a lame way out of being accountable for what you say, nothing more. If gays marrying isn't going to lead to all the "bad" stuff, just admit that and understand that it is a major concession you must make in the dialog about gay rights etc.

I don't think you need to roll out a red carpet for gays, just don't yank the rug out from under them. You are entitled to your opinion on gays, but if you think they should not have the rights you enjoy, you'd better come equipped with more than your opinion.

What makes your incite so special?

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I have argued that changing the definition of traditional marriage will make it something very different from what it is. I believe that will further weaken the institution of traditional marriage yes. Dispute that if you can, but until somebody can give a reasoned, rational, and non-personally insulting argument to the contrary, I will not be changing my opinion about that.

Well for starters...

If I marry someone and our relationship is the status quo, then another couple gets married (not status quo), how did my relationship change at all? How did our status change at all? This already happens right now. Why can't people be responsible for their own relationships?

If I marry someone and it falls apart, do I get to blame the collapse of the institution of marriage? Perhaps it's her or my fault, not the "institution." What is the "institution," and where does it draw it's authority from? It's nothing--just a phrase.

I need your argument to be reasoned, and rational. The institution of marriage is not under attack--not threatened.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I have argued that changing the definition of traditional marriage will make it something very different from what it is.

I don't disagree with your statement. However, changing the definition of marriage to not only allow heterosexual partners to get married, but also allow gays to enjoy the same rights within the same framework of a "marriage", would change the definition of traditional marriage only insofar as it would grant the same rights to more people.

Foxfyre wrote:

I believe that will further weaken the institution of traditional marriage yes.

How would that happen? That's the core thesis of your whole argument, but you don't explain why you think that would happen.

Foxfyre wrote:

Dispute that if you can, but until somebody can give a reasoned, rational, and non-personally insulting argument to the contrary, I will not be changing my opinion about that.

As long as you don't give an explanation as to how allowing gays to get married would weaken the institution of marriage between heterosexual partners, that's really hard to do.

However, I would probably argue that allowing gays to get married would not be any more detrimental to the institution of marriage than abandoning anti-miscegenation laws was.

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Do some of you drink a special water that makes you incapable of seeing what is written? I have no problem whatsoever with people who happen to be gay. My opinion of gays is that they are people like all other people, some good, some bad, some intelligent, some stupid, some brilliant, some good company, some boring company, etc. etc. etc.

I don't present my 'insight' as any more 'special' than anybody else. I offer my opinion and rational as everybody else does. I certainly do have the ability to argue my opinion based on a rationale, however, and don't need to be personally insulting to others or put you down in order to express it.

How about addressing the argument instead of me and see how that works out?

1 Reply

OE writes

Quote:

How would that happen? That's the core thesis of your whole argument, but you don't explain why you think that would happen.

Yes I have. When you make something different that it was, what was no longer exists. I have lived a rather long life now and have seen too many miserable results of good intentions producing unintended terrible consequences. Diminishing and devaluing traditional marriage and the nuclear family has certainly produced miserable results so far, and I am not willing to risk promoting and accelerating more of the same. You certainly are entitled to your own point of view and promoting whatever you wish to promote.

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

If I marry someone and our relationship is the status quo, then another couple gets married (not status quo), how did my relationship change at all? How did our status change at all? This already happens right now. Why can't people be responsible for their own relationships?

we can make up what ever labels we want for our selves and our relationship, but those labels only have any meaning outside of ourselves if the meanings are commonly understood. Likewise, when we take a label with a definition that is commonly understood in the collective and apply it to ourselves then our identity becomes in part that label....change the meaning of the label and you change the identity of each person who claims that label as their own.

You have very clearly shown in many threads that you have no understanding of the link between the individual and the collective, that for you we are all a bunch of self contained and self determining individuals running around, so I don't expect you to understand.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Diminishing and devaluing traditional marriage and the nuclear family has certainly produced miserable results so far,

this doesn't make a lot of sense as the nuclear family is such a recent phenom. I do understand that it's what is familiar to you, as you're in one of the first and only generations to have lived as a nuclear family. Nuclear family and traditional marriage don't belong in the same argument.

It's difficult not to argue for what one is familiar with, but sometimes you need to look at what it is you are actually advocating.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Do some of you drink a special water that makes you incapable of seeing what is written? I have no problem whatsoever with people who happen to be gay. My opinion of gays is that they are people like all other people, some good, some bad, some intelligent, some stupid, some brilliant, some good company, some boring company, etc. etc. etc.

Yep, homosexuals are just like us, only with less rights.

Foxfyre wrote:

I don't present my 'insight' as any more 'special' than anybody else. I offer my opinion and rational as everybody else does. I certainly do have the ability to argue my opinion based on a rationale, however, and don't need to be personally insulting to others or put you down in order to express it.

You have yet to offer a rationale. Food for thought fox: You posts are pretty insulting when they ignore direct questions and refuse to abide by the same rules I'm expected to meet. You don't get a prize for politeness.

Foxfyre wrote:

How about addressing the argument instead of me and see how that works out?

Better yet, I can tell you how it works out.

1) You post something.
2) It's merits are discussed.
3) Any points that hurt your argument you claim are irrelevant/unrelated or that you never said such and such.
4) You demand other to defend their view.
5) They post it. Support it with evidence.
6) You criticize the source of their evidence.
7) You're asked to defend your position.
8) You insist you have.
9) Others ask where?
10) You insist you're being picked on.
rinse repeat

Either submit your support for your view, or learn what topics you're not really qualified to argue about. So far, with what you presented, you have an opinion, and further insist (but never share) it's rationale or material to support it.

T
K
O

0 Replies

God Hates You.......

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know