86 yr old WWII veteran speaks about gay marriage

[Caitlin89 0]

I've reread your post-drunk explanation several times. You state that homosexuality is abnormal, yet natural at the same time. This is extremely confusing.

Still, you refer to reproduction here. Therefore, I'm not understanding this argument: It is okay for an infertile woman to marry a man, but not okay for two women to marry.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Well, why don't you explain your interpretation of the word normal for me?

This is what normal means to me. Does it have another meaning?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 2,998]

>It's the normalization of the abnormal that's 'wrong'.

Interracial marriages were once the very definition of 'abnormal.' There was a time when Star Trek was banned from several states because it showed a white man kissing a black woman. Fortunately we were smart enough to realize that "it feels wrong" should not equate to "we will ban it" - although it took a while.

[billvon 2,998]

>Yeah, but there wasn't anything abnormal with interracial marriages in
>the first place.

From a legal decision in Virginia:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

At the time, interracial marriages were EXTREMELY abnormal in every respect:

-frequency (they were almost unheard of)
-common decency (people did not discuss interracial relationships in polite company)
-religious (see above)
-legal (see above)

So your statement is entirely incorrect.

[jakee 1,498]

Quote

Homosexuality, and homosexual sex is therefore abnormal. Gay marriage is akin to normalising something that's abnormal, hence why I reject the concept.

Why? What's wrong with the abnormal? it's not hurting anyone.

Quote

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.

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.

Quote

So to conclude, my issue with gay marriage is that it is abnormal. As simple as that.

Putting oneself in extreme danger for no material reward isn't normal either. Ban skydiving!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[vortexring 0]

Quote

>Yeah, but there wasn't anything abnormal with interracial marriages in
>the first place.

From a legal decision in Virginia:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

At the time, interracial marriages were EXTREMELY abnormal in every respect:

-frequency (they were almost unheard of)
-common decency (people did not discuss interracial relationships in polite company)
-religious (see above)
-legal (see above)

So your statement is entirely incorrect.

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.'

[vortexring 0]

Quote

I've reread your post-drunk explanation several times. You state that homosexuality is abnormal, yet natural at the same time. This is extremely confusing.

Still, you refer to reproduction here. Therefore, I'm not understanding this argument: It is okay for an infertile woman to marry a man, but not okay for two women to marry.

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.'

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

Homosexuality, and homosexual sex is therefore abnormal. Gay marriage is akin to normalising something that's abnormal, hence why I reject the concept.

Why? What's wrong with the abnormal? it's not hurting anyone.

Normalization of the abnormal not hurting anyone...?

Quote

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.

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.

[jakee 1,498]

Quote

Normalization of the abnormal not hurting anyone...?

Of course not. Who on earth do you think it is hurting, and why?

Quote

The consistency comes from a desire to avoid the normalization of the abnormal.

#

No, it doesn't, because your application of that desire is completely inconsistent.

Quote

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?

Effort? What effort? Simply saying "Yes, you can do that if you want to" is an effort? You must be a very lazy man.

Quote

Your argument of asking what's wrong with the abnormal and therefore normalising it is logically flawed.

Honestly, I don't think you even know what that sentence is supposed to mean, I reckon you just thought it sounded impressive.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Ron 10]

Quote

Genuine question - what do you get in a marriage that you don't get in a civil union, except the use of an emotive word to describe it?

Religion.

And the Govt should not be in marriage at all IMO. They should stay out of people's lives as much as possible.

And you might ask why I am getting married... simple legal transfer of ownership... If I become a crater or drown in some cave, I want her to own everything without any BS.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Genuine question - what do you get in a marriage that you don't get in a civil union, except the use of an emotive word to describe it?

Religion.

And the Govt should not be in marriage at all IMO. They should stay out of people's lives as much as possible.

And you might ask why I am getting married... simple legal transfer of ownership... If I become a crater or drown in some cave, I want her to own everything without any BS.

That is a right that you have that I am sure most of the gay boys and girls would also like to have as members of this society.

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Honestly, I don't think you even know what that sentence is supposed to mean, I reckon you just thought it sounded impressive.

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.'

[Ron 10]

Quote

That is a right that you have that I am sure most of the gay boys and girls would also like to have as members of this society.

Did you see me say anything to the contrary?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[vortexring 0]

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.'

[jakee 1,498]

Quote

Quote

Honestly, I don't think you even know what that sentence is supposed to mean, I reckon you just thought it sounded impressive.

Yes, yes Jakee; now run along . . .

What's the matter, wont answer any of my points? Someone once told me that's rude.

Again, who on earth do you think 'normalisation of the abnormal' hurts, and why?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Amazon 7]

The problem is.... even people who have common law relationships call it a "marriage" its the word that the english speaking world understands for two adults who have made a commitment to each other no matter the path they took to get there. If people are just living together a bunch of the fucknugget talibanized fringe we have here still thinks of that as living in sin.

[vortexring 0]

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.'

[Amazon 7]

Quote

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?

Come on don't be daft.... they call both of them dad.. or mom. The other gender is reserved for the donor of the biological material.. if that person decides to be part of the extended family. Plenty of literature out there for how those families work.

[billvon 2,998]

>As stated earlier, there isn't anything abnormal with interracial marriage.

That's not what you said. You said "there wasn't anything abnormal with interracial marriages in the first place." That is completely untrue. Back then, a black man marrying a white woman would have been even more offensive, abnormal and unethical as two women marrying today.

Nowadays we see it as completely normal.

We will eventually get to the same place with gay marriage, and the people who oppose it will be seen in the same light as the Baptist minister who recently refused to marry an interracial couple - as a sad reminder of a darker age.

[Harmless 0]

I mostly try to stay out of the discussions on here... but after reading your whole argument from beginning to end I can't figure out which point you are make. You've changed your argument too many times, so I'll stick with your latest one.

"Normalizing the abnormal is wrong"

So we can agree that abnormal does not equal wrong?

Then I only have to address your concern of normalizing it.

Well set your fears aside my friend, for the act of legalizing gay marriage is in no way normalizing it.

If you like I can explain the difference for you.

"Damn you Gravity, you win again"

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

It appears as though your main, if not single argument against gay marriage lies in the fact that gay marriage does not adequately foster childbearing practices.

Nearly 8% of married women aged 18-44 (in the US alone) are completely infertile. This obviously does not account for the men. Are you suggesting that these people be denied marriage also?

My argument is that I'm against the normalization of the abnormal.

It's abnormal to be infertile.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DanG 1]

Quote

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.

Whoa! Back up. You're been arguing all along that pairing for life by same sex couples is abnormal and therefore wrong. Why would it be okay to you if they called it a "civil union" but not okay if they called it a "marriage"? I thought it was the fact that the life pairing is abnormal that made it wrong. Why do the words now matter?

- Dan G

[Caitlin89 0]

I've really tried to understand your POV, but it's completely mind boggling. Your argument is clearly absurd, not to mention based completely on intolerance.

[vortexring 0]

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.'

[billvon 2,998]

>We can't they accept a civil union?

Would you be OK with having only whites allowed to get married, and having "civil unions" available to all the other races? It gives them the rights they desire. What more do they want?