Utah judge removes lesbian couple's foster child, saying she'll be better off with heterosexuals

[mtangelsfan]

In my opinion, you are unable to present a reasonable case against gay marriage, or why adhering to "traditional values" Is more important than equal rights.

 

Really not a fair critique since nothing presented to you would be a reasonable case against gay marriage.

[nate]

I hate traditional marriage.  I think love is awful and hope nobody ever finds it.

[juansavage1]

Juan, I don't think anyone hates heterosexual marriage. It may be, though, that some aren't as attached to it as the bedrock of our civilization, that marriage should reflect the changing times, which are more inclusive of gays.

 

In my opinion, you are unable to present a reasonable case against gay marriage, or why adhering to "traditional values" Is more important than equal rights.

Thanks for the civilized response. I tried. 

 

I don't think letting a very few people officially participate in what must now become public support for an emotional state is worth destroying the bedrock of civilization. 

[juansavage1]

In my opinion, you are unable to present a reasonable case against gay marriage, or why adhering to "traditional values" Is more important than equal rights.

 

Really not a fair critique since nothing presented to you would be a reasonable case against gay marriage.

That's right. Because the most reasonable argument for anything is, "how would it affect your marriage?" unless it's something you don't like and then that question doesn't matter. 

[Angelsjunky]

In my opinion, you are unable to present a reasonable case against gay marriage, or why adhering to "traditional values" Is more important than equal rights.

 

Really not a fair critique since nothing presented to you would be a reasonable case against gay marriage.

 

How do you know that? Because 1) You think I'm unable to change my opinion or 2) the case against gay marriage doesn't hold up to scrutiny?

 

I'm guessing the former, but it is simply not true as I generally don't hold onto my opinions too tightly and am always looking for reasons to change them. The evolution of ideas is very important to me, more important than being "right."

 

So I'm open to a good argument against gay marriage. I just haven't seen one. I'm guessing also you are thinking I won't change my view because 99% of arguments against gay marriage are based in religion and you think I'm anti-religion. Yes?

 

Thanks for the civilized response. I tried. 

 

I don't think letting a very few people officially participate in what must now become public support for an emotional state is worth destroying the bedrock of civilization. 

 

And how is this not a hyperbolic statement, one that is emotional in nature? It is problematic on two levels - one, this assertion that marriage is the bedrock of civilization. Two, that gay marriage somehow destroys it. 

 

By the way, you never addressed the point I made - that if marriage is about procreation, should straight couples be mandated to procreate? If not why are they deserving of being married?

 

Here's another: Who's marriage is more valid in your mind, a straight couple that doesn't procreate or a gay couple that adopts?

[Angelsjunky]

p.s. According to this Wikipedia page there are over nine million LGBT people in the US and about 650,00 gay households...that's hardly an insignificant number.

[Glen]

One gay homo marriage = 10 good straight marriages destroyed. Fact.

Most people will be afraid to share this.

[Jay]

p.s. According to this Wikipedia page there are over nine million LGBT people in the US and about 650,00 gay households...that's hardly an insignificant number.

 

if you take off the BT then how many are there?

[Angelsjunky]

if you take off the BT then how many are there?

 

Don't know.

[juansavage1]

How do you know that? Because 1) You think I'm unable to change my opinion or 2) the case against gay marriage doesn't hold up to scrutiny?

 

I'm guessing the former, but it is simply not true as I generally don't hold onto my opinions too tightly and am always looking for reasons to change them. The evolution of ideas is very important to me, more important than being "right."

 

So I'm open to a good argument against gay marriage. I just haven't seen one. I'm guessing also you are thinking I won't change my view because 99% of arguments against gay marriage are based in religion and you think I'm anti-religion. Yes?

 

 

And how is this not a hyperbolic statement, one that is emotional in nature? It is problematic on two levels - one, this assertion that marriage is the bedrock of civilization. Two, that gay marriage somehow destroys it. 

 

By the way, you never addressed the point I made - that if marriage is about procreation, should straight couples be mandated to procreate? If not why are they deserving of being married?

 

Here's another: Who's marriage is more valid in your mind, a straight couple that doesn't procreate or a gay couple that adopts?

I'll respond to all nice questions until they're gone. 

 

Marriage is the bedrock of civilization: 

 

1. If society can rely on two people to provide care for each other and care for their children, at least for the first 18 years of the child's life, and if children, in turn, can assist their parents later in life, society is much much more self-sufficient and would require much less state intervention (big turn off for leftists). Parents would provide better care than the state and children would ideally receive the talents of both mother and father, as women would benefit from the presence of men and vice-versa. 

 

"Destroys marriage"

 

2. Gay marriage turns the true purpose of marriage into something else. It's life not requiring certain subjects in school "destroys" the purpose and meaning of a liberal arts education. 

 

"Children"

 

3. Some history and background: You may not know that traditional Christian marriage vows require people to accept children into their lives. Not consummating (what would that be for two dudes?) marriage has traditionally been enough to annul a marriage, in both secular and religious law. You also may not know that birth control used to be illegal. So, men for a long time have thought it strange or against the purpose of marriage not to have children. 

 

Now, most people probably wouldn't be for some of those policies today. It's not necessary. I think since the vast majority of opposite sex couples will have children, even some who don't think they'd ever want any, society can assume that children would just happen in most cases, and that it wouldn't be worth it to punish people who frustrate that purpose.

 

Remember, children are possible in almost all opposite-sex pairings while always impossible in same sex pairings. 

Edited November 19, 2015 by Juan Savage

[Blarg]

Honestly, as far as the state is concerned, marriage is an accounting action which defines tax liability and property ownership.

For businesses it is about benefits liability.

For the religion it is about moral code and how they interpret it based upon their own dogma.

For individuals it is primarily about an emotional bond.

Now begin the argument as to who really has the responsibility to decide.

Taxes

Benefits

Dogma

Love

FIGHT!

Edited November 19, 2015 by notti

[Blarg]

Marriage is not the bedrock of any society, economic stability is.

[juansavage1]

Remember that no society, secular or religious, Buddhist or Animist, has seen the logic of opposite-sex marriage until now. North Korea and China don't have gay marriage. 

 

My non-religious argument would simply be a few questions: Why should the state be involved in marriage? To what end? How does marriage make for a better society? and What's best for children? What's better for women and men?

 

My natural law argument would be these questions: Why are half of people women and the other half men? How many people does it take to continue life? How many parents does every person on earth have?

 

 

How do you know that? Because 1) You think I'm unable to change my opinion or 2) the case against gay marriage doesn't hold up to scrutiny?
 

I'm guessing the former, but it is simply not true as I generally don't hold onto my opinions too tightly and am always looking for reasons to change them. The evolution of ideas is very important to me, more important than being "right."

 

So I'm open to a good argument against gay marriage. I just haven't seen one. I'm guessing also you are thinking I won't change my view because 99% of arguments against gay marriage are based in religion and you think I'm anti-religion. Yes?

 

 

And how is this not a hyperbolic statement, one that is emotional in nature? It is problematic on two levels - one, this assertion that marriage is the bedrock of civilization. Two, that gay marriage somehow destroys it. 

 

By the way, you never addressed the point I made - that if marriage is about procreation, should straight couples be mandated to procreate? If not why are they deserving of being married?

 

Here's another: Who's marriage is more valid in your mind, a straight couple that doesn't procreate or a gay couple that adopts?

[juansavage1]

Honestly, as far as the state is concerned, marriage is an accounting action which defines tax liability and property ownership.

For businesses it is about benefits liability.

For the religion it is about moral code and how they interpret it based upon their own dogma.

For individuals it is primarily about an emotional bond.

Now begin the argument as to who really has the responsibility to decide.

Taxes

Benefits

Dogma

Love

FIGHT!

That's a way of looking at things. See, we can be honest without being mean. 

[Angelsjunky]

Juan, a lot of our disagreement boils down to "traditional" vs. "post-traditional." You believe that certain (religious) traditions should be upheld while I don't. Or, at least, I believe they should be questioned and flexible to the times and changing cultural values.

 

I'll respond to all nice questions until they're gone. 

 

Marriage is the bedrock of civilization: 

 

1. If society can rely on two people to provide care for each other and care for their children, at least for the first 18 years of the child's life, and if children, in turn, can assist their parents later in life, society is much much more self-sufficient and would require much less state intervention (big turn off for leftists). Parents would provide better care than the state and children would ideally receive the talents of both mother and father, as women would benefit from the presence of men and vice-versa. 

 

"Destroys marriage"

 

2. Gay marriage turns the true purpose of marriage into something else. It's life not requiring certain subjects in school "destroys" the purpose and meaning of a liberal arts education. 

 

"Children"

 

3. Some history and background: You may not know that traditional Christian marriage vows require people to accept children into their lives. Not consummating (what would that be for two dudes?) marriage has traditionally been enough to annul a marriage, in both secular and religious law. You also may not know that birth control used to be illegal. So, men for a long time have thought it strange or against the purpose of marriage not to have children. 

 

Now, most people probably wouldn't be for some of those policies today. It's not necessary. I think since the vast majority of opposite sex couples will have children, even some who don't think they'd ever want any, society can assume that children would just happen in most cases, and that it wouldn't be worth it to punish people who frustrate that purpose.

 

Remember, children are possible in almost all opposite-sex pairings while always impossible in same sex pairings. 

 

1. Sounds like a good idea, in principle, but it doesn't always work out that way.

 

2. Again, you talk about some supposed "true purpose" of marriage, as if this is written in stone. Juan, the purpose of marriage is defined by the specific culture. As cultures change, so too will the purpose of marriage. You seem to have this static ideal of a "true society," when in truth there are so many variations and possibilities. Why must human life adhere to one rigid standard? Or to put it religiously, does not God love diversity?

 

3. This is just a bit creepy. Anyhow, you really should include adoption because it means that same-sex couples can have the unwanted (or unable-to-care-for) children of man-woman couples.

 

Remember that no society, secular or religious, Buddhist or Animist, has seen the logic of opposite-sex marriage until now. North Korea and China don't have gay marriage. 

 

My non-religious argument would simply be a few questions: Why should the state be involved in marriage? To what end? How does marriage make for a better society? and What's best for children? What's better for women and men?

 

My natural law argument would be these questions: Why are half of people women and the other half men? How many people does it take to continue life? How many parents does every person on earth have?

 

Your non-religious argument could be applied equally to gay and straight marriages. Why should the state be involved in marriage, gay or straight?

 

In response to your natural law argument, why must we follow what our biological reproductive nature dictates? Why can't we choose how to live our lives, who we are attracted to and love, and who we wish to enter into matrimony with? It isn't like there's a population problem, in fact the opposite.

[nate]

Not to mention at what point does our thoughts and feelings enter into natural law?

 

Lots of convenient and self serving assertions being thrown around.

[Blarg]

He really is the best Troll we've ever had. Plenty have come and gone (rip Bakunin) but I think we should keep him.

[juansavage1]

Juan, a lot of our disagreement boils down to "traditional" vs. "post-traditional." You believe that certain (religious) traditions should be upheld while I don't. Or, at least, I believe they should be questioned and flexible to the times and changing cultural values.

1. Sounds like a good idea, in principle, but it doesn't always work out that way.

2. Again, you talk about some supposed "true purpose" of marriage, as if this is written in stone. Juan, the purpose of marriage is defined by the specific culture. As cultures change, so too will the purpose of marriage. You seem to have this static ideal of a "true society," when in truth there are so many variations and possibilities. Why must human life adhere to one rigid standard? Or to put it religiously, does not God love diversity?

3. This is just a bit creepy. Anyhow, you really should include adoption because it means that same-sex couples can have the unwanted (or unable-to-care-for) children of man-woman couples.

Your non-religious argument could be applied equally to gay and straight marriages. Why should the state be involved in marriage, gay or straight?

In response to your natural law argument, why must we follow what our biological reproductive nature dictates? Why can't we choose how to live our lives, who we are attracted to and love, and who we wish to enter into matrimony with? It isn't like there's a population problem, in fact the opposite.

Some quick notes. I can reply in more detail if you find it interesting.

1. My definition of marriage is static. Other things in society aren't static. So some things are and some aren't.

2. I do not consider SSM an equality issue. Every adult could participate in marriage if they wanted to, provided they were conform to the rules. It would be like saying that bisexuals don't have equal rights because they can't marry two people.

3. Remember when the same people who now support SSM said that marriage is just a piece of paper? People could still be with the person they love without being married.

4. I don't think the profound changes in society are worth making the few homosexuals within a tiny minority of people feel nice.

[nate]

Why shouldn't people be allowed to marry two people?  As long as the marriages aren't forced then who the **** cares?

[Angelsjunky]

Juan, you're basically repeating yourself. That's OK, but we're at an impasse.

 

Anyhow, you and I define "marriage" differently. You see it as a social and legal commitment between a man and a woman: I see it as a social-legal commitment between two people. You see it as inviolable, I see it as adaptable.

 

And guess what? The Supreme Court agrees with me and not you, and that is unlikely to change. So you either continue grumbling about it, saying it is against "natural law" (which is, as nate implied, your own ideological construct) and "destroys the bedrock of civilization", or you accept that the world is a changing place and try to be open to why this change occurred.

[Angelsjunky]

He really is the best Troll we've ever had. Plenty have come and gone (rip Bakunin) but I think we should keep him.

 

I don't think he's a troll. A troll is someone whose MO is to stir shit up. He is no more of a troll than the rest of us who occasionally like to stir up shit. He says what he believes and believes what he says. As much as I disagree with much of what he says on a fundamental level, I respect the fact that he stands tall despite the shit he gets from everyone.

[Blarg]

You're the second best Troll but we should keep you anyway. Need some warm bodies in the depth chart.

;-)

[Angelsjunky]

Funny, I guess.

[juansavage1]

Yes. Very good. And, I was about to say the same thing about repeating myself and being at an impasse.

One correction: The 5 liberals on the supreme court agreed with you and the 4 conservatives agreed with me. Depending on three next president, we could see this, abortion as a right, or gun rights overturned.

Juan, you're basically repeating yourself. That's OK, but we're at an impasse.

Anyhow, you and I define "marriage" differently. You see it as a social and legal commitment between a man and a woman: I see it as a social-legal commitment between two people. You see it as inviolable, I see it as adaptable.

And guess what? The Supreme Court agrees with me and not you, and that is unlikely to change. So you either continue grumbling about it, saying it is against "natural law" (which is, as nate implied, your own ideological construct) and "destroys the bedrock of civilization", or you accept that the world is a changing place and try to be open to why this change occurred.

[the dude abides]

I don't think he's a troll. A troll is someone whose MO is to stir shit up. He is no more of a troll than the rest of us who occasionally like to stir up shit. He says what he believes and believes what he says. As much as I disagree with much of what he says on a fundamental level, I respect the fact that he stands tall despite the shit he gets from everyone.

Meh... he's a f*cking c*unt who made his way to my ignore list. That's quite an accomplishment, considering Justin, Nuggs, Deniz et al never ended up on my iggy list.

Edited November 20, 2015 by the dude abides