Posts: 9274
-
Karma: 10,648
jarossamdb7: I wanted to say that I agree with you, and I don't like the fact that politics are becoming increasingly polarized.
As for the other gentleman, here's my response:
'First, being against gay marriage does NOT make you 'anti-gay' Many gay people themselves do NOT want to get married, as this limits sexual options, among other things. The cost to society will be huge in monetary terms as well, for benefits, taxes, medical care for these new couples. There are many things people do for sexual satisfaction, some people like to have sex with animals. Well, we cant discriminate, we better legalize marriage between humans and horses, cows, etc. WHAT BS!!!!'
First, I agree that being against gay marriage does not mean that you are anti-gay. However, the fact that you're in support of depriving a certain group of people a certain right SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE OF THEIR SEXUAL PREFERENCE tells me that you lack a more complete understanding of the issues here. True, many gay people may not want to get married (as many straight people may not want to get married), but the difference is, when those straight people decide that they DO want to get married, they're not BANNED BY LAW from doing so. And what the fuck are you talking about the cost to society for? Do you have any idea of HOW MANY people get married every day? Allowing gay marriage isn't going to overflow the system at all. What I'm most concerned about is the fact that you said that it will cost SOCIETY when we allow these homosexuals to have the tax breaks, benefits, and medical care changes involved in a marriage. I hope you realize how ridiculous and bigoted this argument is. You're saying, 'It will be expensive to give these people their rights, so we shouldn't give them to them.' That's bullshit, buddy. And I'm not even going to bother with your 'animal' comparison... are you even TRYING to suggest that two humans having sex with each other has anything, ANYTHING do to with a human having sex with a different species? That's one hell of a bigoted comparison.
'Second, gay marriage is NOT good for society. I'm not bashing gay people, but the family is the building block of sociey, and that means a traditional family, the way a family has been for thousands of years. This produces offspring, and earns money, adds order to society. Its a proven fact, go to any sociology text, GAY MARRIAGES LAST ON AVERAGE 35% LESS TIME THAN STRAIGHT. Divorce is already rampant in society, legalizing gay marriage will make divorce much more prevalent, negativly affecting millions of innocent children, costing society millions of dollars and further negativly affecting society.'
First off, I want you to tell me specifically what sociology text I can look at to find your results. Secondly, don't assume that the current family unit is the way families have been 'for thousands of years'... ever heard of polygamy? Third, how is a homosexual family unit any different than a 'traditional family unit' when it comes to stability and productivity? I flat-out don't believe your statement that gay marriages don't last as long as straight ones; and even if that WERE the case, you know as well as I do that in proportion, break-ups between straight couples are infinitely bigger societal problems when it comes to 'negativly affecting millions of innocent children, costing society millions of dollars and further negativly affecting society.' Your claim that legalizing gay marriage will increase divorce is true; the more marriages you allow of any kind, the more divorces there will be- that's simple. But claiming that gay marriage will make divorce 'much more prevalent'? What? Amongst whom? Everyone will start divorcing each other in massive numbers now that they're finally allowed to get married? Unfounded and ridiculous.
Third, on a slightly different issue, sexual promiscuity, gay or straight, is bad for society. Read any history text. Every single nation that gave up high standards of morality and accepted a sexually promiscous lifestyle degenerated into a less ordered society, eventually collapsing from within. DO THE RESEARCH! Read about the morals in ancient Rome at about 100 AD, the 'bread and circuses', the immorality, and finally the collapse of Rome. And again, go to any sociology text, gay people are more promiscuous than straight, on average have more partners. This is bad for society.
Marriage is a union between two people. That's not promiscuity; that's marriage. Gay marriage, if anything, would DECREASE promiscuity. You're arguing my point here. Allowing gay marriage is not 'giving up higher standards of morality.' Morality is a sticky word to throw around, but a gay union is in no way implicitly 'more immoral' than a straight one. You tell me to DO THE RESEARCH! I tell you to READ WHAT YOU'RE SAYING!!! YOU'RE SAYING THAT MARRIAGE IS SOMEHOW GOING TO INCREASE SEXUAL PROMISCUITY!
'Finally, there are a set of values that have been in place in the USA for the last 300 years. These valus have made the US the strongest and most prosperous country in the world. Why mess with a good thing? Why this push to get rid of any vestige of morality and traditional living in the name of political correctness?? It does not make sense to me.'
These are the values that have made America strong and prosperous: Individual rights. Compassion. Respect. Liberty. Freedom. Democracy. They all sound pretty good, don't they? The strict Christian morality structure and 'traditional living' didn't build America, Americans did. Black and white Americans, gay and straight Americans, every kind of American you can imagine.
'The American way is one of tolerance towards all, and this I fully agree with. But theres a difference between tolerance and wholehearted embracing of something. And in a stange kind of dichotomy, there is less tolerance now. George W is being criticized vehmently for his faith. Wheres the tolerance, all you left wing human rights activists? If you made a movie criticizing the personal life of a gay candiate, youd be guilty of dicrimination. But becuse hes a straight white traditional male, bring on the scorn. Of course hes made mistakes, I dont ageree with his policies at all, but at least hes standing up for what he belives in.'
I have never criticized George W. Bush for his faith. The point where I begin to take issues with any faith is when those 'religious' beliefs start to encroach on the rights of other people. I don't want to turn this into a religious argument, but Christian faith and Christian morals are two different things. I frown upon any attempt to deprive people of their rights through religious license. I don't criticize George W. Bush because of his religion, I criticize the decisions he makes running MY country in the name of HIS religion. It's called the separation of church and state.
'I want to end with a quote from kamikaze.
'but I can't believe that we're still such a backwards people that a political candidate can't stand up for something he knows is right, for fear of not getting elected'
George W has stood up for what he belives in, and been crucified for it in the media. Many other traditional candidates have had to go againt waht they belived in in order to get elected. Remember that tolerance is a two way street, dotn be hypocritical about it!'
I never said anything about George W. Bush in my original post, and never intended that he'd enter the discussion. As far as tolerance, I tolerate anyone's and everyone's religion and anyone and everyone's beliefs, and I don't consider myself hypocritical in any way when I say I will tolerate someone's religious beliefs ONLY THE THE POINT WHERE THOSE BELIEFS START FUCKING UP HUMAN RIGHTS. I don't give a damn whether George W. Bush takes communion or lights a chalice or kneels five times a day facing Mecca. I give a damn when he (and, apparently Kerry/Edwards too) uses those religious beliefs to discriminate against American citizens. That's not hypocrisy, that's ME standing up for my beliefs.
Wayne: 'I don't own a gun, let alone many guns that would necessitate the use of a rack. What am I going to do... with a gun rack?'
Wayne: 'I don't own a gun, let alone many guns that would necessitate the use of a rack. What am I going to do... with a gun rack?'
