vortexring

It's not coherent, it completely contradicts most of what you've previously written. Well, isn't that a shame? I'm still against gay marriage. Further to that, I've identified a point where, through excessive wine consumption, I have felt it necessary to make a more coherent viewpoint. You, of all people, should appreciate that. This is my honest viewpoint. Why does it always make you so angry and wasp-ish? Why does a person with a different point of view make you so angry? It sometimes cracks me up with laughter, but that isn't my intention. So fucking what it's not called marriage? How does that affect anything if the two are functionally identical? Fucking functionally is the key word. There's your answer. Straight people and gay people are different, hence a marriage and a civil union. How does it undermine the institution of marriage? Through the simple reason marriage has always been for a husband and wife. If they chose, and traditionally most would, that they'd have children, there now existed a solid foundation for the rearing of the children. By allowing gay marriage, the reasoning for doing so equally applies to incestuous couples, and polygamists. This is undermining. But then, you're probably all for that, eh? It's not in regards to an individual straight couples marriage; it's in regards to marriage itself, with future social implications. Hah! Since when did this become about benefits for you? Don't even pretend that's an element of your argument, it's not something you've even mentioned so far. As mentioned earlier - I'm sober at this point and I have indeed questioned why I'm against gay marriage. So as I question my beliefs I'll no doubt come up with other reasons to support them. And the more I give it consideration, the more I'm against gay marriage. Getting angrier? No it doesn't. A 'normal' straight couple's marriage will remain exactly the same as it otherwise would have been, regardless of who else is getting married. As previously mentioned I'm not referring simply to an individual couple. I already answered this for you. Here's a similiar answer, worded differently for you; children and society. We already live in times where numerous social problems are blamed on the breakdown of the marriage. By gay marriage undermining marriage; and also opening the doors to incestuous marriage and polygamy, which will further undermine marriage, the increasing frequency of marriage breakdown can be expected to increase. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp?pg=1 I tried that on some ants but have yet to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion . . . Who knows? Less undermining of the institution of marriage? Have you conclusive answers? Now, could you now take the effort to explain why you're so for gay marriage? It seems very evident you are. Just don't let your answer be because it won't cause any harm, as you've mentioned earlier. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Not speaking of an individual marriage: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp?pg=1 ''MARRIAGE IS SLOWLY DYING IN SCANDINAVIA. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern--including gay marriage--is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has." Nice to hear that supporters of gay marriage also supportive of incestuous marriage though. . . I have to fucking laugh everytime I hear the institution of marriage... or the sanctity of marriage.. If its so fucking sanctified and institutional why is the divorce rate at like 60% overall??? And child support so high when daddy walks away and will no longer take responsibility. Social and cultural issues cause that; not marriage itself. You identify an area of what's wrong; marriage breakdown. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Have a look at Scandinavia. Haven't they been doing it for a bit longer too . . . ? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

If this brother and sister are two consenting adults, then sure. Is incest healthy (mentally) for those involved? Probably not, therefore separating it from gay marriage. Why wouldn't it be mentally 'healthy'? Where does the seperation come into it? Is two people of the same sex living in an institution of husband and wife mentally 'healthy' as you put it? It's abnormal. It weakens the institution of marriage which in itself has numerous social problems attached. Are you actually suggesting that the mental health of those in incestuous relationships is equivalent to that of homosexual relationships? This is completely asinine. Yes it would be rather stupid to make the two equivalent, yet the relation of both weakening the institution of marriage remains. I still think a same sex couple living in an institution of husband and wife would be unhealthy though. Not just for the individuals but for the social implications too. I wasn't suggesting that - I was simply making a theoretical statement. Okay, so now you don't want to change the provisions under civil unions, which means you don't actually support equal rights? Did I ever say I wanted to change the provisions? That's an assumption you've been contiually harping on about. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Not speaking of an individual marriage: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp?pg=1 ''MARRIAGE IS SLOWLY DYING IN SCANDINAVIA. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern--including gay marriage--is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has." Nice to hear that supporters of gay marriage also supportive of incestuous marriage though. . . 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

If this brother and sister are two consenting adults, then sure. Is incest healthy (mentally) for those involved? Probably not, therefore separating it from gay marriage. Why wouldn't it be mentally 'healthy'? Where does the seperation come into it? Is two people of the same sex living in an institution of husband and wife mentally 'healthy' as you put it? It's abnormal. It weakens the institution of marriage which in itself has numerous social problems attached. I wasn't suggesting that - I was simply making a theoretical statement. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

And should we also allow siblings to marry? People with multiple lovers; should they also be allowed to marry? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Hang on a minute, what's happened to every single previous argument you've made? I'd imagine you'd find them still there. What I have done is provided what's hopefully a more coherent point of view. By the simple fact it isn't called marriage. I figured you'd understand that yourself. Gay marriage validates homosexuality (the abnormal)and undermines the institution of marriage. If gay people feel they're discriminated against, as Bill points out, aren't single people equally discriminated against by the benefits granted to married couples? People who wish to live with multiple lovers are also discriminated against, as are people who wish to marry their siblings. Allowing marriage for all these people spells the end of marriage. It invalidates it. I strongly relate marriage to parenthood. Most married couples have children. Marriage is an institution that is normally rather necessary to the well being of children. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I've said what I've said. Could you answer the question I asked you earlier please: Does an infertile brother have the human right to marry his sister? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Out of curiosity, any gay christians here? That must be fairly difficult I'd imagine, being gay and christian. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Interracial marriages aren't abnormal! Gay marriage legitimizes the abnormal. Civil unions giving gay couples equal rights as straight couples demonstrates tolerance of a natural yet abnormal sexuality; this in itself justifies the reason to not call it marriage. Homosexuality is abnormal. If we allow gay marriage, shouldn't we also allow infertile brothers to marry their sisters? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

You know I wouldn't so why do you ask? The two aren't related as explained earlier. Does an infertile brother have the human right to marry his sister? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Sure, there are differences around the world but I'm describing a civil union that allows gay and lesbain couples the same rights as straight couples. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

As equally absurd as gay marriage? I find that mind boggling. We can't they accept a civil union? It gives them the rights they desire. What more do they want? Does an infertile brother have the human right to marry his sister? Why not? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Well, let's not get into the religious side to it then! If civil unions give gay couples equal rights as marriage does to hetro couples, why get upset about it? Just as both couples are different; the names of officially recognising the permanency of their relationship is different. Whatever nest? Gay couples insisting to their adopted children they be referred to as mum and dad? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Which they can achieve through a civil union. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Yes, yes Jakee; now run along . . . 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Why? What's wrong with the abnormal? it's not hurting anyone. Normalization of the abnormal not hurting anyone...? But you've said that it is the design of genitalia, and therefore the act of homosexual sex itself, which is abnormal, but you've also said that you're not against gay sex, only gay marriage. Your argument isn't even internally consistent. The consistency comes from a desire to avoid the normalization of the abnormal. Putting oneself in extreme danger for no material reward isn't normal either. Ban skydiving! It's perfectly normal for people to participate in exciting activities where there is also an element of risk. Naturally enough, the level of excitement and risk the individual desires will vary; but it doesn't make such actions abnormal. It's very normal. Where the abnormality lies may be the activity chosen. Should efforts be made to normalise such varied activities if they don't harm anybody? Why make efforts to normalise the abnormal in the first place? Your argument of asking what's wrong with the abnormal and therefore normalising it is logically flawed. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Well, arguably most things that occur on this planet are natural, but are they always normal? The reference to reproductive organs isn't necessarily one of reproduction. It's what makes us male and female. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Then we disagree Bill. As stated earlier, there isn't anything abnormal with interracial marriage. That people once believed it to be abnormal is neither here nor there. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Well, why don't you explain your interpretation of the word normal for me? I've a recent reply on this page to Bill, several posts above this one, where I've made my viewpoint as clear as I can. Which part of it don't you understand? My meaning of the word normal? It's just your normal meaning of the word normal.

Yeah, but there wasn't anything abnormal with interracial marriages in the first place. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

My argument is that I'm against the normalization of the abnormal. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

It's the normalization of the abnormal that's 'wrong'. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Ah, the joy of looking back at ones posts made during a period of excessive cabernet sauvignon consumption. . . I'll try and explain why I don't believe in gay marriages a bit better: As human beings we're born with reproductive organs. As in mechanical items, you've the male and female connections. This is normal, it's how they were designed to be used. So with our reproductive organs, we've the opposite sex. We, as a species, are normally attracted to members of the opposite sex, and it's how we continue as a species. All very normal. Homosexuality, and homosexual sex is therefore abnormal. Gay marriage is akin to normalising something that's abnormal, hence why I reject the concept. I've nothing against gay people, neither do I believe homosexuality to be unnatural. To do believe it to be against the norm though - so I therefore don't believe in a same sex marriage. It's the normalization of the abnormal that concerns me. Perhaps the real crux to this issue is marriage in itself. If we're considering religious marriages then there's another can of worms to be discussed. So to conclude, my issue with gay marriage is that it is abnormal. As simple as that. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'