How come none of the right-wing predictions about gay marriage came true?

[about_average]

Good luck getting benefits for your same-sex spouse in 29 states and from the US Government.

That was my point about laws in those states violating the US Constitution if the couple is legally married in even a single state.

 

[Beco]

How come nothing they said about gay marriage came true? Zilch, zero of their doomsday predictions have come to pass. Why not?

What were "they" saying about gay marriage??

 

[about_average]

The funny this about the advocates of a permissive society is that they are almost always collectivists, those who want a strong central government to manage and control society.

LMAO.
Your thought process is so twisted I can't even imagine how you find your way out of bed in the morning.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v171/lugnuts/blog_references/poiuyt_Mad93.jpg?t=1241849474

You are the one who favors a "strong central government to manage and control society" in order to protect you from the evil same sex marriages.

What were "they" saying about gay marriage??

See post #5.

 

[moman75]

LMAO.
Your thought process is so twisted I can't even imagine how you find your way out of bed in the morning.

You are the one who favors a "strong central government to manage and control society" in order to protect you from the evil same sex marriages.

See post #5.

You seem to be the screwball...your argument makes no sense!

 

[kbate]

lmao. I won a bet.


I bet that Amicus would be the first to bring up Bestial marriage as an argument against homosexual marriage.

I won dinner at my choice of restaurant on Friday.

 

[richard_daily]

That was my point about laws in those states violating the US Constitution if the couple is legally married in even a single state.

It's taking him a while to comprehend what you said... cut him some slack... he's kind of an idiot.

 

[richard_daily]

lmao. I won a bet.


I bet that Amicus would be the first to bring up Bestial marriage as an argument against homosexual marriage.

I won dinner at my choice of restaurant on Friday.

Who's taking you?

 

[about_average]

You seem to be the screwball...your argument makes no sense!

Ummm..he wants laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
How is that not stronger central government when the alternative is no law.

 

[mercury14]

See how this shit goes? My "position" is nothing of the sort!

Tell us your position.

 

[garbage can]

How come nothing they said about gay marriage came true? Zilch, zero of their doomsday predictions have come to pass. Why not?

Uhmm, what was said

 

[amicus]

What a surprise, you're making things up. Maybe that should be a wake up call that you're basing your beliefs on this on pure racism and hatred and not facts.

•The divorce or dissolution rate for same-sex and opposite-sex couples remains about the same, about 2% of couples per year in any state that has marriage or civil union registrations.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-07-10-gay-marriage-same-sex-couples-New-York-law_n.htm

I'm honestly offended that you would knowingly lie to support your ignorance.

~~~

Lawyers, too, are expecting a bonanza -- from gay divorce.

"Other than a divorce attorney, no one goes to a wedding hoping the marriage will fail," quipped Manhattan divorce attorney Daniel Clement.

And a gay marriage is no different. Lost in the euphoria of the historic passage of New York's same-sex marriage bill is the inevitability of bitter break-ups.

There will be support claims to resolve, property to divide and custody issues to settle, as with any other divorce.





"The same issues present themselves with same-sex couples: How do we split assets? What do we do with the children?" Clement said. "The law doesn't change merely because you have same-sex partners."

Mere months after Massachusetts passed its same-sex marriage bill in 2004, gay couples began filing for divorce -- sometimes having to use outdated forms that still listed "husband" and "wife."

Fact is, gay divorce has been going on here for years since New York courts recognize marriages performed elsewhere.

Officials predict that about 21,000 gay and lesbian couples will wed in New York in the law's first three years. If the state's current divorce rate of 8.4 percent holds, about 1,800 of those marriages will not survive.

leonard.greene@nypost.com


Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/divorce_lawyers_cheering_too_Gy9OpZfKySYn4pLWPUFwBJ#ixzz1RwZweWIa

Not that it matters, but I heard a news item that Gay divorce was on the rise, then found pages and pages of articles denying the assertion.

Not that I am the least bit influenced by the claims that the media, in general, is Liberal, I mean, hey, you got rid of Beck, right ?

ami

 

[amicus]

lmao. I won a bet.


I bet that Amicus would be the first to bring up Bestial marriage as an argument against homosexual marriage.

I won dinner at my choice of restaurant on Friday.

~~~

I think you lie, but that I am always in your mind...heh

The point you purposefully avoid is the question concerning if marriage is not defined as between a man and a woman, then what is the definition?

Are there limits? If so what and determined by whom?

Even you should get that? (well, maybe not you)



ami

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Not that I am the least bit influenced by the claims that the media, in general, is Liberal, I mean, hey, you got rid of Beck, right ?

ami

Wait...Fox News (the progressive, gay-loving media conglomerate that employed Beck for oh-so-many years and then graciously shitcanned him for no reason) is liberal?



Holy shit...is that...snow I see falling from the sky in July?

 

[kbate]

~~~

I think you lie, but that I am always in your mind...heh

The point you purposefully avoid is the question concerning if marriage is not defined as between a man and a woman, then what is the definition?

Are there limits? If so what and determined by whom?

Even you should get that? (well, maybe not you)



ami

Nope. No lie. It is inevitable. In any running thread about homosexual marriage - someone will bring up "may as well marry your pet".

Perhaps, since Homosexuals are HUMAN beings (not that you'd agree there either) - freedom of choice, right to enter a contract and ability to freely execute a contract - are the determining factors (just as with heterosexual marriage - both parties must agree (although again, I doubt you feel this is the best system and would prefer arranged marriages with mandatory female acceptance).

Why is the definition of marriage "Between One man and One woman?" Why not between two consenting adults? What is lost to you if I marry a woman (other than one fewer possible victim for your 5th divorce).

What is it you fear if two men or two women marry? What is the actual or objective damage? Not some esoteric bullshite (such as may as well allow bestial marriage), but actual provable harms to society.

List them, prove them or shut the fuck up and call someone else a collectivist.

 

[about_average]

Not that it matters, but I heard a news item that Gay divorce was on the rise

You're right, for once, it doesn't matter.

I'm really trying to get a handle on why you can't recognize such a simple concept.
If there is an increase in gay marriage there will also be an increase in gay divorce.
I don't expect same sex marriages to be more stable than opposite sex marriages. I'd be very surprised if anyone does.

 

[mercury14]

With the lamentable Death of God, and the rejection of Judeau Christian morality as a guide to life, the Bohemian collectivists, hedonists and other ne'er do well's, have gone from pillar to post trying to justify anything and everything they do as, 'okay by me', in the vernacular.

Not everyone believes in God, or your God. Hindus, Muslims, Wiccans, Scientologists, Agnostics, and Athiests are perfectly entitled to marriage. And you're not entitled to force your Judeo-Christian view of marriage upon them.

For all of human history there has been a family structure in any given society.

And we have two-mom family structures too. And craploads of one-parent families.

In modern western industrialized societies, fast becoming jaded and egocentric, the birth rate has fallen below the replacement rate of two children per woman; one might, just for the hell of it, ask why that is?

How is this relevant? Are you blaming homosexuals?

If there are no moral absolutes, then everything is acceptable and by consequence, nothing is valued.

What if my moral absolutes are different than yours? Where do you get off believing that you're special enough that your moral absolutes trump all others and can restrict other people's freedoms?

If one does not value human life, aka abortion, and one does not value the institution of marriage as it applies to a man and a woman and the family structure, then what do you value....and why?

False link on your part. People can easily be pro-life and pro gay marriage. The two issues have nothing to do with one another.

JBJ was correct in pointing out that if same sex marriage is accepted, then why not marriage with multiple partners, why not marriage with an animal, or several, of your choice?

This is the exact same argument racists used to argue against interracial marriage. "If we let people marry blacks, why not let people marry swine?"

What you refuse to understand is that homosexuality is an innate state of being. On the contrary, people who want to marry cattle are not innate cattle-oriented people. That's a behavior - same with polygamous individuals. Nobody is born only able to be polygamous. Therefore you're taking two completely different things and are trying to say they're alike. Your thinking here uses simply horrendous logic.

The funny this about the advocates of a permissive society is that they are almost always collectivists, those who want a strong central government to manage and control society.

Patently false. Ever hear of libertarianism? And how advocating for government to stay the hell out of our most intimate personal lives equals collectivism I'll never know.

Wanna explain all that to me?

Done. Feel free to ask more questions.

 

[mercury14]

The point you purposefully avoid is the question concerning if marriage is not defined as between a man and a woman, then what is the definition?

How about defining it in terms of commitment?

 

[amicus]

Nope. No lie. It is inevitable. In any running thread about homosexual marriage - someone will bring up "may as well marry your pet".

Perhaps, since Homosexuals are HUMAN beings (not that you'd agree there either) - freedom of choice, right to enter a contract and ability to freely execute a contract - are be the determining factors (just as with heterosexual marriage - both parties must agree (although again, I doubt you feel this is the best system and would prefer arranged marriages with mandatory female acceptance).

Why is the definition of marriage "Between One man and One woman?" Why not between two consenting adults? What is lost to you if I marry a woman (other than one fewer possible victim for your 5th divorce).

What is it you fear if two men or two women marry? What is the actual or objective damage? Not some esoteric bullshite (such as may as well allow bestial marriage), but actual provable harms to society.

List them, prove them or shut the fuck up and call someone else a collectivist.

~~~

You inched just a little bit closer to a rational thought with the bolded question above, congratulations.

Perhaps if you attempted to answer your own question, you might edge towards understanding of why it has always been that way, eh?

amicus

 

[mercury14]

~~~

You inched just a little bit closer to a rational thought with the bolded question above, congratulations.

Meanwhile rational thought continues to elude you completely.

 

[Beco]

Gay marriage gives people more choices....thats a good thing

 

[mercury14]

Gay marriage gives people more choices....thats a good thing

What if your position violates Amicus' "moral absolutes" idea?

 

[Ishmael]

Nope. No lie. It is inevitable. In any running thread about homosexual marriage - someone will bring up "may as well marry your pet".

Perhaps, since Homosexuals are HUMAN beings (not that you'd agree there either) - freedom of choice, right to enter a contract and ability to freely execute a contract - are be the determining factors (just as with heterosexual marriage - both parties must agree (although again, I doubt you feel this is the best system and would prefer arranged marriages with mandatory female acceptance).

Why is the definition of marriage "Between One man and One woman?" Why not between two consenting adults? What is lost to you if I marry a woman (other than one fewer possible victim for your 5th divorce).

What is it you fear if two men or two women marry? What is the actual or objective damage? Not some esoteric bullshite (such as may as well allow bestial marriage), but actual provable harms to society.

List them, prove them or shut the fuck up and call someone else a collectivist.

Actually the noises are being made from other quarters even as we speak here. The Polygamy folks are feeling left out and are marshaling forces and finances to make a legal challenge, a challenge based on the same arguments as the gay community.

It is not unreasonable to anticipate that at some point in the future the same play will be made by the incest crowd, and based on the same arguments

An entire Pandora's Box is being opened by this debate.

The question is how can you embrace one set of permutations of human relationships and not others? And if you can draw the line then that implies that that line is movable, arbitrary, and subject to social mores.

Once you take what is historically a religious sacrament and turn it into a political football there is no end to the political and legal wranglings that will ensue. Ironically the first recorded issuance of 'marriage licenses' in the US can be traced back to Nebraska during the great Mormon migration to Utah. It was enacted to force those pesky polygamists out of the county. Based on that historical item it would seem that the polygamists have a stronger argument regarding discrimination than the gay community.

Me? I'd favor the government getting out of the marriage business altogether. Issue 'Partnership Contracts' that, when signed, have essentially the same effect as what is currently called a 'marriage license' and do away with the term 'marriage' altogether. If someone wants a marriage ceremony just go to whoever is willing to perform said ceremony to the participants satisfaction and get a nice little diploma looking form that you can frame and hang on the wall. And if you want to dissolve the partnership, just go to a business attorney.

Ishmael

 

[about_average]

Actually the noises are being made from other quarters even as we speak here. The Polygamy folks are feeling left out and are marshaling forces and finances to make a legal challenge, a challenge based on the same arguments as the gay community.

And what business is it of mine if 3 women want to marry one man, or 3 men marry one woman, or 3 men and 3 women all marry each other?
Exactly none.

 

[amicus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by amicus
With the lamentable Death of God, and the rejection of Judeau Christian morality as a guide to life, the Bohemian collectivists, hedonists and other ne'er do well's, have gone from pillar to post trying to justify anything and everything they do as, 'okay by me', in the vernacular.

Not everyone believes in God, or your God. Hindus, Muslims, Wiccans, Scientologists, Agnostics, and Athiests are perfectly entitled to marriage. And you're not entitled to force your Judeo-Christian view of marriage upon them.



Quote:
Originally Posted by amicus
For all of human history there has been a family structure in any given society.

And we have two-mom family structures too. And craploads of one-parent families.



Quote:
Originally Posted by amicus
In modern western industrialized societies, fast becoming jaded and egocentric, the birth rate has fallen below the replacement rate of two children per woman; one might, just for the hell of it, ask why that is?

How is this relevant? Are you blaming homosexuals?



Quote:
Originally Posted by amicus
If there are no moral absolutes, then everything is acceptable and by consequence, nothing is valued.

What if my moral absolutes are different than yours? Where do you get off believing that you're special enough that your moral absolutes trump all others and can restrict other people's freedoms?



Quote:
Originally Posted by amicus
If one does not value human life, aka abortion, and one does not value the institution of marriage as it applies to a man and a woman and the family structure, then what do you value....and why?

False link on your part. People can easily be pro-life and pro gay marriage. The two issues have nothing to do with one another.



Quote:
Originally Posted by amicus
JBJ was correct in pointing out that if same sex marriage is accepted, then why not marriage with multiple partners, why not marriage with an animal, or several, of your choice?

This is the exact same argument racists used to argue against interracial marriage. "If we let people marry blacks, why not let people marry swine?"

What you refuse to understand is that homosexuality is an innate state of being. On the contrary, people who want to marry cattle are not innate cattle-oriented people. That's a behavior - same with polygamous individuals. Nobody is born only able to be polygamous. Therefore you're taking two completely different things and are trying to say they're alike. Your thinking here uses simply horrendous logic.



Quote:
Originally Posted by amicus
The funny this about the advocates of a permissive society is that they are almost always collectivists, those who want a strong central government to manage and control society.

Patently false. Ever hear of libertarianism? And how advocating for government to stay the hell out of our most intimate personal lives equals collectivism I'll never know.



Quote:
Originally Posted by amicus
Wanna explain all that to me?

Done. Feel free to ask more questions.

~~~

Well...you did put some time into that...

Not everyone believes in God, or your God. Hindus, Muslims, Wiccans, Scientologists, Agnostics, and Athiests are perfectly entitled to marriage. And you're not entitled to force your Judeo-Christian view of marriage upon them.

You miss the point entirely. Religion was man's first attempt to understand human actions or a moral basis. Philosophy supplanted faith with reason and rationality in the sub categories of ethics and morals. The quest, even in religion, was always, to search for truth and "Thou Shalt Not Kill", is not a bad beginning even if it arises from faith. Rational men cannot exist without a faith or a philosophy that guides their actions, and it is the mind of man that insists upon knowing why he acts and if the action is a good or a bad one. Without a philosophy of life, the human mind rebels against meaningless actions and becomes dysfunctional. It is reality that imposes a code of conduct on men, not religion and not government. Marriage, between a man and a woman has purpose and intent, can be defined, explained and justified in almost any manner you wish. Marriage between two men or two women, cannot, which is why you continue to avoid defending the concepts and offer only criticism of those who do.

And we have two-mom family structures too. And craploads of one-parent families.

Yes, indeed we do, was that supposed to be educational? In times of war, drought, famine, natural or man made disasters, peope continue to survive in any way they can, including multiple marriages, and form of relationship that nurtures life. One can understand that. One cannot understand why, in bountiful times such as now, why the 'ideal' relationship of marriage between a man and a woman is being challenged. Every psychological and sociological text prior to 1973, and most after that date, offer studies that prove the ideal circumstances in which to raise and nurture a child is in traditional marriage. Man is naturally possessive and territorial and will act in his own behalf, his own best self interest; but man can also adapt to almost any situation by which he can survive. Even people in prisons manage to live, although they would not choose to be so limited or confined.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amicus
In modern western industrialized societies, fast becoming jaded and egocentric, the birth rate has fallen below the replacement rate of two children per woman; one might, just for the hell of it, ask why that is?

How is this relevant? Are you blaming homosexuals?

Thanks to the industrial revolution and the free market, along with human rights being defined as individual rights at about the time of our revolution, then of course emancipation and the feminist movement , we now live in a time unlike any other in human history. Traditionally, men were breadwinners and women stayed at home, raised the children and managed the household. I do not know what the future holds, do you? I surmise that the traditional roles for men and women have changed and that loss of gender identity may well be the cause of a lower birth rate and the rise of homosexuality. If heterosexual marriage and family are no longer the goals, what then is? I have a darling little short story, "A Harvest Moon", that is totally non political, but illustrative of a normative existence and well defined gender roles.

Originally Posted by amicus
If there are no moral absolutes, then everything is acceptable and by consequence, nothing is valued.

What if my moral absolutes are different than yours? Where do you get off believing that you're special enough that your moral absolutes trump all others and can restrict other people's freedoms?

Moral absolutes are not subjective; you cannot pick and choose, reality is the arbiter of that which is right and that which is wrong, based on that which is beneficial or 'good' for human life, and that which is not. Only in a free or relatively free society can you even ask such a question; in most of the world you obey or die. We have the freedom and the responsibility to choose an ethical and moral course for our lives, and the obligation to pass on what we have learned to those who follow in any way we can. No rights are being removed or restricted in the issue of same sex marriage; you want , no, demand, that society bestow upon you a special right for a special minority group, that you be accepted as normal, when you are not. I will ask you again to list the benefits of same sex marriage and justify the changes in our laws that you are pursuing.

Originally Posted by amicus
If one does not value human life, aka abortion, and one does not value the institution of marriage as it applies to a man and a woman and the family structure, then what do you value....and why?

False link on your part. People can easily be pro-life and pro gay marriage. The two issues have nothing to do with one another.

People can be anything they want to be, consistent or not. I asked you what you valued and you failed to answer.

What you refuse to understand is that homosexuality is an innate state of being.

There is no such thing as a 'gay' gene, homosexuality is not innate, no matter how many times you say it or believe in it. That being medical fact, the wider sociological question still begs to be answered; why are there homosexuals at about six percent of the population, if memory serves? Suppose it is all nurture, or part nurture and part abuse or neglect or a dozen other reasons that may corrupt the normative growth of a child? Perhaps it really is a sign of changing times wherein both male and female are so confused over their sexual identity that they just take the safe way out...same sex relationships without the male/female interplay?

Originally Posted by amicus
The funny thing about the advocates of a permissive society is that they are almost always collectivists, those who want a strong central government to manage and control society.

Patently false. Ever hear of libertarianism? And how advocating for government to stay the hell out of our most intimate personal lives equals collectivism I'll never know.

Yes, Libertarians are a strange, contradictory batch are they not? Almost everyone who Posts on the Liberal/Progressive agenda hold the same issues, proudly proclaim an affection for personal, social freedom, but are always advocating socialized medicine and care and nurturing by the nanny state. Libertarians are strange critters, no religion, in general, and a confused and contradictory value system that approves of taking an innocent life and yet refuses to defend freedom outside our borders....go figure...

well...thas enough fun for one sitting...I will close with another request to anyone willing, to actually set forth your principles and defend them, the opposite on the continual attack on my principles.

Thank you.

Amicus Veritas

 

[mercury14]

Quote fail

*eyes watering*