So, if we call it the "homosexual marriage game", and refer to both games as marriage, how does that affect the kids with the steelies?
The costs of gay marriage
- Thread starter The Thriller
- Start date
So, if we call it the "homosexual marriage game", and refer to both games as marriage, how does that affect the kids with the steelies?
It is fitting that you find humor in mocking the values of others.
I accept that you believe there is no equivalence. However, since every argument currently used opposing homosexual marriage was identical in form to an argument that was used to opposed interracial marriage, you will understand that I find your belief unsupported by your own arguments. Also, it is factually correct to call you a bigot for your stance, even if you are uncomfortable with that label.
Wanted to go off but you standing on your own words is more damning than anything I can say.
In my case, it's because there is almost never an equal relationship between siblings, and certainly not between parent and child, uncle and niece, etc., as well as because of the extra difficulties society often faces in caring for the children of such unions.
These taboos have always been the norm in society, whether openly recognized or not.
These taboos have never been the norm in society.
Edit: except for infanticide, which has been the norm in some societies. My apologies.
Last edited:
If you compared the group of children whose parents have a homosexual affair while married, to the group of children whose parents had not, would you expect those children to have identical outcomes in the aggregate? I suspect not. If my suspicion is correct, why should the aggregate results be the same when there was a homosexual affair?
What is your argument that recognizing homosexual marriage alters those chances in any way?
Do you really think you can predict how the LDS church will react 50 years from now? If you go back to the 1930s and tell the LDS members then they will have black priests in the next 40 years, will some of them tell you that you don't understand the LDS church?
Exactly. They both offered commercial, public services. Did you intend to agree with me, or was that an accident?
Just general skepticism. However, I looked it up. It seems the owners of the studio were quite upfront about saying they don't serve lesbian couples.
I don't think landlords should be permitted to without rental property based on religion, that employers should be permitted to withhold employment based on race, or that photographers should be permitted to withhold services based on sexual orientation. Do you think all three should be permitted?
When you make a relevant point, it won't be missed. As long as your points continue to be irrelevant, they will be ignored.
How did they know this?
I recognize when two logical arguments have the same basic form. It's not my fault if you don't.
I didn't mock a value, I mocked a category error. Natural law, tradition, and religion are, by their very nature of relying on received wisdom, opposed to reason, intellectual curiosity, and free inquiry, which rely on being willing to defy received wisdom. This is regardless of whether the particular value espoused by the natural law/tradition/religion is one with which I would agree or disagree.
Hartsock
Banned
Google.
If saying that the status of being a bigot can be factually determined, and has been done in this particular case, are sufficient to damn me, than I am happy to be damned.
Can you show the Google result they would have seen before they sued Elane Photography?
This is funny as you have yet to do anything beside promote the victim mentality and play word games in an attempt to find fault. Perhaps you should follow your own advice.
our literature is replete, across hundreds of years of development, with references where the meaning of the term "marriage" has denoted a union of distinctly different things, as different as a man and a woman in some striking way. You liberals and other agenda pushers are being intellectually dishonest in trying to blur the fact of hetersexual marriage being a distinctly different thing than homosexual perversions of the natural relation, and are in many significant ways different form the natural sexual function that is productive in nature, and that has been the fact of nature from the beginning of time. Our natures as men and women are in fact distinctly different.
The game of marbles has suffered the lost of some of it's original sense because we found out that glass and steel can be used in the "game". We don't make different games called "glassies" or "steelies" and in fact do use these kinds of marbles in the same play, but in the minds of the players they are accepted even though the players place significantly different values on the various kinds of "marbles", sometimes using that general term when speaking of the more exceptional alternatives. The point is, they all can be "shot" the same way, and depend on comparable skill in their use. I could probably graphically describe how homosexual relations are not "sexual" in some significant ways, along the lines of what goes where and how. Maybe you could just believe me, it's definitely not the same game. No matter what you call it.
using rocks and sling shots would not be the same game as "marbles" for all the same reasons.
It is just intellectually dishonest to try to say otherwise. Period.
Do people have rights. Yes. Should people have different rights based on personal choices in their private lives? No.
I am saying that strategy of seeking a new legal equivalence and meaning for different lifestyles is harmed by the attempt to degrade the meaning of heterosexual marriage and devalue the positives that correctly belong in that context. Society and law are justified for placing reasonable values and legal standing for heterosexual marriage because of it's unique power of natural procreation and the circumstances following from that in regard to child rearing and welfare.
should gay coupes be "allowed" to raise children? should single parents be allowed to raise children? I don't believe in government making those choices or regulating those personal choices out of existence, and I think what people do financially in personal relations should also be out of the government's meddlesome hands as well.