Texas GOP party platform: You can pray the gay away!

[charby]

Oh, and to answer your question I'd treat it the same way as if one of my straight children wanted to live with a person of the opposite gender outside of marriage.

...and how is that?

[Marnoot]

It is only a false dilemma because you don't want to answer it. People don't want to appear as a-hole parent or back peddle on their feelings towards gay people.

No, it's a false dilemma because you're presenting a binary choice when the reality is that there are many more choices than that. One can maintain a fine relationship with a loved-one while disapproving of some of their lifestyle choices. My wife and I both have siblings who live lives filled with choices we don't approve of or agree with. Yet we all still manage to maintain good relationships with them and all enjoy each other's company when we get together. Something your false dilemma doesn't allow for.

I think you read too much into that. You could opine back with something in between those extremes. To support someone could be as simple as buying them lunch once or as complicated as providing them with all their basic needs and luxury items.

You posited a situation where one's child wants to marry someone of the same sex, then asked if one would support said child. The implication is that you're asking if they would support the marriage itself, not buy them a burger.

[charby]

You posited a situation where one's child wants to marry someone of the same sex, then asked if one would support said child. The implication is that you're asking if they would support the marriage itself, not buy them a burger.

Y'all read way too much into things.

[fifth_column]

How does your theory account for all of the anti-gay marriage initiatives that have been passed by popular vote and then struck down by activist judges?

I'd say that our country is not supposed to be run by mob rule.

[Ron]

I'd say that our country is not supposed to be run by mob rule.

Instead it is run by our "enlightened" elite oligarchy.

[Balog]

I'd say that our country is not supposed to be run by mob rule.

Nice evasion, but I posed that question because you posited that "the culture" ie the mob had changed its mind about redefining marriage and the .gov was just following along. So, how do you square your contention that "the culture" has changed to accept the redefinition of marriage, with the fact that in many areas the voters ahve chosen to enact bans against that redefinition?

Y'all read way too much into things.

Come on, you're straight trolling now. You know exactly what "support" means in the context you used it, and you're trying to play petty games with definitions to avoid getting called on it.

...and how is that?

Love them, maintain the relationship, while letting them know that what they're doing is wrong.

[charby]

Come on, you're straight trolling now. You know exactly what "support" means in the context you used it, and you're trying to play petty games with definitions to avoid getting called on it.

Actually I'm not, just wanting people to think a bit.

[Balog]

Actually I'm not, just wanting people to think a bit.

Think about what? If they'd be willing to buy a hamburger for their child if they did something you don't approve of?

I suppose if you buy the silly lie that anyone opposed to redefining marriage is just a closet WBC member burning with vitriolic hatred of gays then that's a real thought provoking question. Since that's a silly and insulting strawman that exists only in your imagination, I'm gonna go ahead and keep on with the dismissing it.

[charby]

Think about what? If they'd be willing to buy a hamburger for their child if they did something you don't approve of?

I suppose if you buy the silly lie that anyone opposed to redefining marriage is just a closet WBC member burning with vitriolic hatred of gays then that's a real thought provoking question. Since that's a silly and insulting strawman that exists only in your imagination, I'm gonna go ahead and keep on with the dismissing it.

Enjoy the weekend.

[Perd Hapley]

I just want to know why the misbehaving children problem is only posed to religious folk. That's why I asked what religion has to do with it. There's no reason to think that non-religious folk won't object to their children gay-marrying.

[BlueStarLizzard]

I want to do a, well not a poll, but I guess a survey, APS wide.

I want to see the numbers for age and religious affilation for those who oppose gay marriage.

As for majority, I'm guessing the younger generations either don't care or support gay marriage and as soon as the older set dies out, it will happen, without a fuss. Which is why I say just cave to the ineventable and you can spend the rest of your time grumbling about "kids these days".

And Fistful, isn't marriage about vowing before God (or whatever) to spend the rest of your life, good and bad, with someone you love? A contract that is the beginning for a new family (and, no, I don't want to hear it about gay people not having kids. Kids do not make a family unit and gay people have plenty of ways to have kids anyway)? To have and to hold and yadda yadda yadda?
Because all that doesn'r have anything to do with gender.

I keep hearing all this talk from ya'll about how it's got nothing to do with religion, but the ones with religious objection seem to be the vast majority of those who oppose it.

[BlueStarLizzard]

I just want to know why the misbehaving children problem is only posed to religious folk. That's why I asked what religion has to do with it. There's no reason to think that non-religious folk won't object to their children gay-marrying.

Yes there is, because so far I havn't seen numbers for non religous folk who oppose gay marriage. From what I can tell, this thread seems to be split mostly Christian against and Christian, atheist/agnositic and alternitive for.

[Balog]

As for majority, I'm guessing the younger generations either don't care or support gay marriage socialism and as soon as the older set dies out, it will happen, without a fuss. Which is why I say just cave to the ineventable and you can spend the rest of your time grumbling about "kids these days".

FTFY

And Fistful, isn't marriage about vowing before God (or whatever) to spend the rest of your life, good and bad, with someone you love? A contract that is the beginning for a new family (and, no, I don't want to hear it about gay people not having kids. Kids do not make a family unit and gay people have plenty of ways to have kids anyway)? To have and to hold and yadda yadda yadda?
Because all that doesn'r have anything to do with gender.

None of that has to do with the .gov forcing others to recognize those relationships either, so...

I keep hearing all this talk from ya'll about how it's got nothing to do with religion, but the ones with religious objection seem to be the vast majority of those who oppose it.

Going by party affiliation and religion within that, the vast majority of those opposed to gun control, the welfare state etc are religious. So what?

[fifth_column]

Nice evasion, but I posed that question because you posited that "the culture" ie the mob had changed its mind about redefining marriage and the .gov was just following along. So, how do you square your contention that "the culture" has changed to accept the redefinition of marriage, with the fact that in many areas the voters ahve chosen to enact bans against that redefinition?

I don't think there's a single culture in the US.  I think that the reason resolutions to redefine marriage as "one man and one woman" are passed is because those in the cultures that are accepting of same sex marriage don't vote.

[BlueStarLizzard]

FTFY

None of that has to do with the .gov forcing others to recognize those relationships either, so...

Going by party affiliation and religion within that, the vast majority of those opposed to gun control, the welfare state etc are religious. So what?

Why do you think I'll be distracted by your effort to avoid answering my question and get all butt hurt over stuff we arn't talking about?

You want to push for no more socialism, they you should jump on board my "no marriage" train. Otherwise, man up and smell the roses in the gay wedding boquet.

[KD5NRH]

Isn't there already laws about close relatives wanting to marry?

Why are those more reasonable than any other laws restricting who can marry who?

[charby]

Why are those more reasonable than any other laws restricting who can marry who?

Probably enacted to have a criminal action against a parent who may over power "authoritatively" a child to perform sexual relations, even as an adult.

Biology 101: Because if there is a heterosexual* relation, then you could have the bad results of inbreeding where a particular undesirable (heath reasons, not ethic/etc) genetic trait is expressed at a greater frequency because both parties may/probably have the undesirable trait.


*could be homosexual and no reproduction occurs but one should not discriminate against one form of relationship against another.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Why are those more reasonable than any other laws restricting who can marry who?

Charby said it, but it deserves to be said again. Inbreeding leads to unhealthy stock.

Dog breeders do line breeding and it's complicated and involves more knowledge of genetics then the type of people who fall for their cousins generally have.

Look at the British royal family. William's marriage to Kate was a good thing, genitically speaking. That old Hanovarian line needed fresh blood. Victoria and Albert were really not a great match, and they spread it around to half of Europes Royal houses before they were said and done.

Besides, I'm pretty sure incest is a crime in of itself in at least most places. Plus, it seems most cases involve either boy/girl pairings or abusive situations, so I'd leave it on the books.

[roo_ster]

Probably enacted to have a criminal action against a parent who may over power "authoritatively" a child to perform sexual relations, even as an adult.

Biology 101: Because if there is a heterosexual* relation, then you could have the bad results of inbreeding where a particular undesirable (heath reasons, not ethic/etc) genetic trait is expressed at a greater frequency because both parties may/probably have the undesirable trait.


*could be homosexual and no reproduction occurs but one should not discriminate against one form of relationship against another.

Why should a higher risk of health problems prevent parent child or first cousin marriage?  The same logic would call for outlawing homosexual relationships where the health risks are elevated relative to heterosexual relations.

[charby]

Why should a higher risk of health problems prevent parent child or first cousin marriage?  The same logic would call for outlawing homosexual relationships where the health risks are elevated relative to heterosexual relations.

1st question:
I never said I agreed or disagreed with close relatives reproducing. I gave my opinion on why society accepts that it shouldn't be down.

2nd question:
I don't see a greater sexual health risk between a monogamous homosexual relationship vs monogamous heterosexual relationship. Greater health sexual health risks occur when you start to have multiple partners, regardless of sexual orientation.


 

[BlueStarLizzard]

Why should a higher risk of health problems prevent parent child or first cousin marriage?  The same logic would call for outlawing homosexual relationships where the health risks are elevated relative to heterosexual relations.

I take it you've never had sex with a woman? Because, you know, we can get hurt down there during sex, and it's not exactly uncommen.

I would bet good money that more woman end up at the doctor due to a sex related UTI then gay men from rough anal sex.

If it's purely a question of health risk alone, hetrosexual woman risk more, and you don't even need to count anything more than pregnacy related risks to beat out everyone else.

So, that arguement was dead before you even typed it out, dude.

[Firethorn]

If it's so easy, please feel free to demonstrate real, non-theoretical or slippery slope damages that it causes.

Canada's long gun registration system ballooned in cost for effectively no benefit.  California and New York's confiscations. 

http://f.kulfoto.com/pic/0001/0028/tSSxA27560.jpg

Also not a counter-argument.  Especially with the Hobby-lobby ruling, it makes it much less likely that the slippery slope you fear(religious institutions forced to perform marriages against their beliefs) will occur.

[Balog]

Canada's long gun registration system ballooned in cost for effectively no benefit.  California and New York's confiscations. 

Also not a counter-argument.  Especially with the Hobby-lobby ruling, it makes it much less likely that the slippery slope you fear(religious institutions forced to perform marriages against their beliefs) will occur.

First thing isn't directly harmful anymore than anything else the .gov wastes money on. Last two are just proof that the slippery slope is a valid argument. Registration, in and of itself, does no direct harm.

Wasn't intended as a counter argument, it was intended to express my contempt for you. And feel free to tell the small businesses that have been sued into bankruptcy that there's no danger of negative consequences.

[Balog]

Why do you think I'll be distracted by your effort to avoid answering my question and get all butt hurt over stuff we arn't talking about?

What are you talking about? The part I quoted was a statement, not a question. Your argument is that gay marriage is inevitable based on your reading of social trends, so no one should fight it. I was pointing out that continued expansion of the .gov and further restrictions of rights are just as "inevitable" but we all still fight against them.

You want to push for no more socialism, they you should jump on board my "no marriage" train. Otherwise, man up and smell the roses in the gay wedding boquet.

That's a complete non-sequitor, and actually contrary to your position. If you wanted to argue that there should be no legal recognition of marriage I'd disagree but understand and sympathize with that position. But you're seeking to expand the scope and involvement of .gov in these relationships.

[KD5NRH]

Charby said it, but it deserves to be said again. Inbreeding leads to unhealthy stock.

Even still, that consequence rarely manifests in a single generation of inbreeding, and there are certainly easy ways to nullify it anyway.  (One or both already being sterile, or having themselves rendered permanently so.)  Thus, rather than a prohibition, a single, simple restriction could eliminate that argument entirely.