Jump to content

  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to comment and join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. If you become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

IGNORED

SCOTUS: Same Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide

the dude abides
 Share

Recommended Posts

juansavage1 Just Drafted

juansavage1

Posted
Posted (edited)

It still boggles my mind that some people, presumably mainly for religious reasons, care about gay marriage. It is such a non-issue. Who cares? There are so many more important issues - poverty, violence, over-population, climate change, energy, etc.

You don't care about marriage, right? So, you would support a candidate who wants to return marriage to man-woman, right?

 

I wish the people who spent a decade changing marriage didn't cause this rift in society either, but they didn't stop until they transformed the institution. 

Edited by Juan Savage
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 824
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Spirit
Spirit

A good day for divorce attorneys.    A bad day for cake makers. 

Brandon
Brandon

If a dude can handle more than one chick nagging, not folding his laundry, or forgetting to pay the bills on time because the Kardashians are on Then God bless

Adam
Adam

Don't sell yourself short. You're a tremendous homo

Angelsjunky Hall of Fame

Angelsjunky

Posted
Posted

I don't want to start this again, but: 

 

How it impacts me: 

 

I am part of the culture. When the culture moves from relationships based on biological reality and purpose to one based on emotion and benefits (benefits that used to serve a purpose), it becomes harder to impart those values on one's children, etc. It also becomes harder or illegal to hold traditional beliefs in marriage. 

 

How it impacts my society: 

 

We've seen that non-traditional attitudes towards marriage result in, surprise, less marriage. People who hold the view that marriage is just another level of boyfriend or for medical benefits are less keen on marrying. We now have whole societies that are in what people are calling  "post-marriage." This has a profound impact on children and society. 

 

To counter this, I see NO benefit whatsoever to society for letting people of the same sex "marry."

 

I answered the question. Now, a question for you and I hope you answer the question as directly as I did: 

 

How does multiple partner marriage, transhuman marriage, and inanimate object marriage affect you or society? 

 

Huh? What do you any of those things have to do with gay marriage? By the way, I don't have a problem with multiple partner marriage, as long as it is among consensual adults. What is "transhuman marriage?"

 

Anyhow, so basically you're saying you don't like gay marriage because you don't want your children to like gay marriage either, and when society condones gay marriage it is harder for you to pass along your dislike of gay marriage. What you don't explain is how so-called "post-marriage" is bad for children and society.

 

You don't care about marriage, right? So, you would support a candidate who wants to return marriage to man-woman, right?

 

I wish the people who spent a decade changing marriage didn't cause this rift in society either, but they didn't stop until they transformed the institution. 

 

I am married, Juan. I would not support a candidate who wants to return to man-woman marriage because I believe strongly in equal rights for all citizens. I don't see anything wrong with homosexuality or gay marriage, so have no issue with it. What I have an issue with is when people don't want the same rights they enjoy extended to particular groups because they are biased or bigoted against that group.

 

And yes, there is a rift - a cultural divide. But here's the thing. For the most part, those on the "progressive" side aren't telling those on the "traditional" side how they can live their lives, what rights and privileges are and are not extended to them. But the opposite is not the case. "Traditionals" are telling "progressives," at least in some instances, how they can and cannot live, what rights and privileges they can and cannot have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
red321 Just Drafted

red321

Posted
Posted

How does multiple partner marriage, transhuman marriage, and inanimate object marriage affect you or society? 

 

 

I think it's telling that Juan equates homosexuals with animals, inanimate objects, and "transhumans"...whatever the hell that means. The discussion isn't about a man/woman marrying a table, or a dog, it's about two loving consenting adults participating in the institution of marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
juansavage1 Just Drafted

juansavage1

Posted
Posted

Huh? What do you any of those things have to do with gay marriage? By the way, I don't have a problem with multiple partner marriage, as long as it is among consensual adults. What is "transhuman marriage?".

 

 

I am married, Juan. I would not support a candidate who wants to return to man-woman marriage because I believe strongly in equal rights for all citizens. I don't see anything wrong with homosexuality or gay marriage, so have no issue with it. What I have an issue with is when people don't want the same rights they enjoy extended to particular groups because they are biased or bigoted against that group.

 

And yes, there is a rift - a cultural divide. But here's the thing. For the most part, those on the "progressive" side aren't telling those on the "traditional" side how they can live their lives, what rights and privileges are and are not extended to them. But the opposite is not the case. "Traditionals" are telling "progressives," at least in some instances, how they can and cannot live, what rights and privileges they can and cannot have.

So, then it's an important issue for you. You're criticizing people for caring about the issue and then disqualify people who disagree with you. 

 

I asked how any rule for marriage would affect you or society. You answered with you're OK with this, but, assumedly not with something else. Why have any rules at all? What is the purpose of allowing this grouping to marry, but not that grouping? Once you have a rule, you exclude. According to you, exclusion is bigotry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
juansavage1 Just Drafted

juansavage1

Posted
Posted (edited)

How does multiple partner marriage, transhuman marriage, and inanimate object marriage affect you or society? 

 

 

I think it's telling that Juan equates homosexuals with animals, inanimate objects, and "transhumans"...whatever the hell that means. The discussion isn't about a man/woman marrying a table, or a dog, it's about two loving consenting adults participating in the institution of marriage.

Can you answer the question? When I'm discussing something seriously, I answer every question. 

Edited by Juan Savage
Link to comment
Share on other sites
juansavage1 Just Drafted

juansavage1

Posted
Posted (edited)

Yes, I am. You didn't answer, but you said you didn't want to equate two distinct, but equally sincere loves.

Why would doing so harm you or society?

How do you know your distinction isn't just irrational bigotry?

You are not discussing the issue seriously when you compare two loving consenting adults to inanimate objects, animals, and transhumans.

Edited by Juan Savage
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RallyMo Hall of Fame

RallyMo

Posted
Posted

Another thing I learned about leftists is that they can't support people who cheat on their spouses. So:

Leftists hate:

1. Generalizations.

2. Assuming.

3. Breaking the law, no matter how unjust it seems.

4. People who cheat on their spouse.

The good old "take a shot about people making generalizations while simultaneously making generalizations" plan of attack. Solid strategy, Kasparov.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
juansavage1 Just Drafted

juansavage1

Posted
Posted

The good old "take a shot about people making generalizations while simultaneously making generalizations" plan of attack. Solid strategy, Kasparov.

Not quite. The question isn't whether to use generalizations or whether to assume. The question is whether the generalizations and assumptions are useful and/or valid. I was actually making fun of people who think you can discuss any aspect of society without generalizations. Assumptions as well, can be divided into good and bad ones. If I see a man walking into a titty bar, I assume he likes titties and not just that he's very thirsty. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
juansavage1 Just Drafted

juansavage1

Posted
Posted (edited)

Let me leave this discussion with this hypothetical. 

 

MT Angels fan and I are sent to colonize two different planets. MT doesn't want to be a bigot so he picks the 1000 people, regardless of sex, and tells them that they can marry anybody or however many people they want. 

 

I select 500 women and 500 men (like on Moonraker). I further encourage men and women to marry by privileging relationships between men and women. 

 

Fast forward two thousand years. 

Edited by Juan Savage
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tank Hall of Fame

Tank

Posted
Posted

Overpopulation isn't a problem. I suppose it's easy to say that people with problems wouldn't have problems if they didn't exist, but the cause of their problems isn't overpopulation, it's most often the political situation. 

 

Second, in the rich world, of which we are a part, the problem is decreasing population. It's the cause of the retirement system and immigration problems in Europe and is one of the main reasons Japan is declining economically. It's also a looming problem for China, Korea, etc. This is a problem the governments have recognized and why they've encouraged larger families. 

 

http://theweek.com/articles/453219/everything-need-know-about-japans-population-crisis

 

haven't done an exhaustive search, but just a quick look at growing number of retiring baby boomers in this country and their impact on social security is something we should all be concerned about.

 

https://www.nasi.org/learn/socialsecurity/boomers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...