Thread: Prop 8 overturned : Bio devastated....

Why do people always say it "destroys the sanctity of marriage"?

Will 2 gays getting married in another state, really change your marriage that much??

K.

Originally Posted by PainandGain

Why do people always say it "destroys the sanctity of marriage"?

Will 2 gays getting married in another state, really change your marriage that much??

K.

the US laughes @ the sanctity of marriage when tv shows like "Who Want's to Marry a Millionaire", "The Bachelor", etc. all basically make a mockery of marriage.

Originally Posted by LAM

the US laughes @ the sanctity of marriage when tv shows like "Who Want's to Marry a Millionaire", "The Bachelor", etc. all basically make a mockery of marriage.

so that is a reason to further erode it?

Originally Posted by bio-chem

so that is a reason to further erode it?

The legal right to marry for love does not erode the sanctity of marriage. Quite the contrary: it reaffirms it.

Originally Posted by bio-chem

so that is a reason to further erode it?

erode it by "your" standards....if this is the game you want to play then we would also have to make other changes to improve "society". since the 70's family values have declined and there was a shift in social metrics which made being a single mother acceptable. the research over the past 40 years shows that children from families of divorce, single mothers and especially children from high school drop out teen mothers in poverty do not fair well in society when compared to children from two parent relationships and marriages. every time a teen girl drops out of high school and has a baby it costs the US taxpayers a minimum of 2.5 million. this being the case since gays getting married will help to erode society what do you propose to stop the above problem?

Dan Quayle Was Right


this research has been backed by people such as

Sara S. McLanahan - RESEARCH

Originally Posted by LAM

erode it by "your" standards....if this is the game you want to play then we would also have to make other changes to improve "society". since the 70's family values have declined and there was a shift in social metrics which made being a single mother acceptable. the research over the past 40 years shows that children from families of divorce, single mothers and especially children from high school drop out teen mothers in poverty do not fair well in society when compared to children from two parent relationships and marriages. every time a teen girl drops out of high school and has a baby it costs the US taxpayers a minimum of 2.5 million. this being the case since gays getting married will help to erode society what do you propose to stop the above problem?

Dan Quayle Was Right


this research has been backed by people such as

Sara S. McLanahan - RESEARCH

MY standards? my standards, the standards of 35+ states in the union, the standards of California, and the standards of the majority of Americans. If you want to play that game.

And let me just clarify? you argue that we should allow gay marriage because there is a negative cost to society as the traditional family breaks down? I've heard some crazy lines of reasoning here at IM, but my friend this one may be my favorite.

As far as what I propose to do to stop the above problem is easy. I propose nothing. I'm not a politician. proposing ideas accomplishes little. What I am doing however is understanding my circle of influence. I'm giving of my time, money, and energy to organizations and individuals to improve those bad situations so they don't become a statistic.

Originally Posted by Built

The legal right to marry for love does not erode the sanctity of marriage. Quite the contrary: it reaffirms it.

that might be the one point out there in favor of this whole messed up social problem in my mind. I really wish it could be viewed that easily, that black and white.

Originally Posted by bio-chem

MY standards? my standards, the standards of 35+ states in the union, the standards of California, and the standards of the majority of Americans. If you want to play that game.

And let me just clarify? you argue that we should allow gay marriage because there is a negative cost to society as the traditional family breaks down? I've heard some crazy lines of reasoning here at IM, but my friend this one may be my favorite.

As far as what I propose to do to stop the above problem is easy. I propose nothing. I'm not a politician. proposing ideas accomplishes little. What I am doing however is understanding my circle of influence. I'm giving of my time, money, and energy to organizations and individuals to improve those bad situations so they don't become a statistic.

public opinion on topics change...in the 1960's Pew did a poll on interracial marriage and back then 70% of the population was against it. today the approval of it at is 77%.

it is discrimination plane and simple...frame it which ever way pleases you

Originally Posted by LAM

public opinion on topics change...in the 1960's Pew did a poll on interracial marriage and back then 70% of the population was against it. today the approval of it at is 77%.

it is discrimination plane and simple...frame it which ever way pleases you

I love how that example is thrown around. what a joke. being gay is not the same as black, or brown, or yellow, or green. what a ridiculous example.

Originally Posted by bio-chem

I love how that example is thrown around. what a joke. being gay is not the same as black, or brown, or yellow, or green. what a ridiculous example.

apparently you just can't come to terms with yourself that you have no problems discriminating against a group because they are different than you. You must be a Rand Paul supporter.

Originally Posted by LAM

apparently you just can't come to terms with yourself that you have no problems discriminating against a group because they are different than you. You must be a Rand Paul supporter.

well thats quite the stupid blanket statement you just made there. you've obviously not been reading my posts in this thread or any of the ones with similar topics. I can see that this issue hits very close to home for you and as such you have blinded yourself to anything that might be considered contrary to your opinion. I hope you have fun with that.

until you brought up his name I had no idea who rand paul was. I don't follow kentucky senatorial nominees very closely. having done about 5 minutes of research on the guy through google I will say this. I agree with about 75-80% of his stated (wikipedia) positions. don't agree so much on abortion or cloning but agree with gun control, energy, health care, and legalization of marijuana. I think that his comment on civil liberties was stupid politically, but I also think the opposition blew it out of proportion because he didn't really answer the question.

Originally Posted by bio-chem

well thats quite the stupid blanket statement you just made there. you've obviously not been reading my posts in this thread or any of the ones with similar topics. I can see that this issue hits very close to home for you and as such you have blinded yourself to anything that might be considered contrary to your opinion. I hope you have fun with that.

until you brought up his name I had no idea who rand paul was. I don't follow kentucky senatorial nominees very closely. having done about 5 minutes of research on the guy through google I will say this. I agree with about 75-80% of his stated (wikipedia) positions. don't agree so much on abortion or cloning but agree with gun control, energy, health care, and legalization of marijuana. I think that his comment on civil liberties was stupid politically, but I also think the opposition blew it out of proportion because he didn't really answer the question.

it doesn't hit home to me at all I find it comical when people try to disguise discrimination which is basically one person saying I am better than another because of this reason or that. by voicing your opinion on not allowing gays to marry you are making a statement that they are of less value. in essence you are saying that heterosexuals are better than homosexuals.

if this is not the case then please show using a mathematical equation how a marriage between a homosexual couple is of less value than that of a heterosexual couple. the ONLY 2 ways this can be done is if the value of the constant for either a gay man or woman is less than the value of the constant used for that of a heterosexual woman or man. or the value of the constant used for gay marriage is less than the constant used for that of the heterosexual couple. either way this is forming an opinion and not a decision based on logic.

Originally Posted by LAM

it doesn't hit home to me at all I find it comical when people try to disguise discrimination which is basically one person saying I am better than another because of this reason or that. by voicing your opinion on not allowing gays to marry you are making a statement that they are of less value. in essence you are saying that heterosexuals are better than homosexuals.

if this is not the case then please show using a mathematical equation how a marriage between a homosexual couple is of less value than that of a heterosexual couple. the ONLY 2 ways this can be done is if the value of the constant for either a gay man or woman is less than the value of the constant used for that of a heterosexual woman or man. or the value of the constant used for gay marriage is less than the constant used for that of the heterosexual couple. either way this is forming an opinion and not a decision based on logic.

Would have to agree here. The entire debate is based on personal opinions about guys and family. You can't apply any kind of real logic to the debate. Christians complain that it violates the sanctity of marriage. White supremacist said the same thing about interracial marriages a few decades. Elitist said the same thing about marrying someone outside of your social class centuries ago. Times change, but discrimination prevails. The only explanation for discrimination is the belief that you are better than someone else, and hence deserve rights that they do not.

Originally Posted by LAM

it doesn't hit home to me at all I find it comical when people try to disguise discrimination which is basically one person saying I am better than another because of this reason or that. by voicing your opinion on not allowing gays to marry you are making a statement that they are of less value. in essence you are saying that heterosexuals are better than homosexuals.

if this is not the case then please show using a mathematical equation how a marriage between a homosexual couple is of less value than that of a heterosexual couple. the ONLY 2 ways this can be done is if the value of the constant for either a gay man or woman is less than the value of the constant used for that of a heterosexual woman or man. or the value of the constant used for gay marriage is less than the constant used for that of the heterosexual couple. either way this is forming an opinion and not a decision based on logic.

dude, you have really lost it. you want me to come up with a mathematical equation for the societal value of an individual? based upon your criteria of logic? fascist. Wouldn't it be so easy if the greatest social question of my generation could be answered by a simple mathematical equation? I do find irony in the fact that it has been you who posted the monetary cost to society of the breakdown of the family.

I will however give a counter example:

Women=Time * Money
Time=Money
Women=Money * Money = (Money)2
Money = Sqrt(Evil)
Women = (Sqrt(Evil))2
Women = Evil

I can find no flaw in the Logic of this mathematical equation, yet anyone who knows me, or has read my posts here knows that I find woman to be of the utmost importance of value and I hold them on a pedestal. easily above man. science can be used to prove almost anything. hence the global warming debate, among others. even suggesting it in this situation shows extreme ignorance on your part.

I could care less, more women for me :-P

Lessons from a Gay Marriage | Psychology Today

homosexual marriages seem to understand commitment better than heterosexuals. The divorce rate from homosexual couples in denmark is 17% vs 46% for heterosexuals. we don't have data in other countries who have not legalized gay marriages. From an epidiemiological standpoint, gay marriage seems to be more stable. That makes for good economic stability as well.

Yes, gays are not the same as being black, hispanic etc but they sure have the same opportunities for being victims of hate crimes as much as any other minority group.

look, i find lesbianism and male homosexuality repulsive,but they are humans, individuals who deserve the same civil liberties period. In some of the asian countries I lived in, my mother's marriage to my caucasian father is offensive. . But that is what I love about this country, we have every right to be offensive!

It's not like everyone is going to turn gay left and right when we allow gay marriage. Here is the question, what harm to our civil liberties would it be to allow gays to marry? They are consenting adults ( so no victimization like pedophilia),they can't procreate, well neither can sterile or hysterectomized women and men with kleinfelter syndrome. They now can visit their lovers when dying in the hospital without being turned away, they now can decide medical decision making without an estranged family member
stepping in, inheritance rights legally streamlined etc. etc. I believe the economist had a good article about but I have to find it.


and think about the economic revenue for wedding businesses, think about two flamers and how they would plan their weddings!

Originally Posted by bandaidwoman

homosexual marriages seem to understand commitment better than heterosexuals.

Of course they do...

The first gay divorce happened the day after they were made legal (the first time) in California.

Originally Posted by DOMS

Of course they do...

The first gay divorce happened the day after they were made legal (the first time) in California.

in medical science the power in epidemiology is based on its numbers, not those of the few outliers, to come to it's conclusions. Don't forget brittany spear's one day divorce as well.

Originally Posted by bandaidwoman

in medical science the power in epidemiology is based on its numbers, not those of the few outliers, to come to it's conclusions. Don't forget brittany spear's one day divorce as well.

Also keep in mind that gays have been saying that they're "just like regular people" and you trying to say that they're not.

Homophobe.

Looks like a 3 judge appeals panel did stay the 1 judge ruling that he didn't think could happen. It will be stayed until they can fully hear it and probably go to the supreme court to be heard. So everything is on hold again.

Originally Posted by bio-chem

dude, you have really lost it. you want me to come up with a mathematical equation for the societal value of an individual? based upon your criteria of logic? fascist. Wouldn't it be so easy if the greatest social question of my generation could be answered by a simple mathematical equation? I do find irony in the fact that it has been you who posted the monetary cost to society of the breakdown of the family.

I will however give a counter example:

Women=Time * Money
Time=Money
Women=Money * Money = (Money)2
Money = Sqrt(Evil)
Women = (Sqrt(Evil))2
Women = Evil

I can find no flaw in the Logic of this mathematical equation, yet anyone who knows me, or has read my posts here knows that I find woman to be of the utmost importance of value and I hold them on a pedestal. easily above man. science can be used to prove almost anything. hence the global warming debate, among others. even suggesting it in this situation shows extreme ignorance on your part.

the Federal government (namely the EPA) has a mathematical equation for the value of a human life.

I just find it hard to believe that in this day and age people would be so against gays betting married but a convicted murderer can get married while sitting on death row and people don't protest that. it's nice to see that you value the rights of murderers more than two people that desire to get married simply because of their sexual orientation. If you are religious and homosexuality goes against "your" belief system that is fine. but remember religions/belief systems are not based on logic.

Originally Posted by LAM

the Federal government (namely the EPA) has a mathematical equation for the value of a human life.

I just find it hard to believe that in this day and age people would be so against gays betting married but a convicted murderer can get married while sitting on death row and people don't protest that. it's nice to see that you value the rights of murderers more than two people that desire to get married simply because of their sexual orientation. If you are religious and homosexuality goes against "your" belief system that is fine. but remember religions/belief systems are not based on logic.

try not to assume. it makes you look less intelligent than you actually are

Originally Posted by bio-chem

I find woman to be of the utmost importance of value and I hold them on a pedestal. easily above man.

Please don't. It diminishes both of us when you do.