86 yr old WWII veteran speaks about gay marriage

[Caitlin89 0]

Quote

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?

You keep reiterating that a civil union provides gay men and lesbians with the same rights as marriage. This is simply untrue. Any basic amount of research will clearly state the many important differences.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

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?

You keep reiterating that a civil union provides gay men and lesbians with the same rights as marriage. This is simply untrue. Any basic amount of research will clearly state the many important differences.

details details... you dont actually expect research do you... that is not..... uh..... normal

[vortexring 0]

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.'

[vortexring 0]

Quote

>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?

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.'

[warpedskydiver 0]

Maybe in Arkansas or Wales!

[billvon 2,991]

>You know I wouldn't so why do you ask?

Because you were arguing that gays should be OK with civil unions, that it gives them exactlyt the same rights. Why shouldn't blacks be OK with it, then? Wouldn't you be OK with a civil union replacing your marriage?

[Harmless 0]

Quote

>You know I wouldn't so why do you ask?

Because you were arguing that gays should be OK with civil unions, that it gives them exactlyt the same rights. Why shouldn't blacks be OK with it, then? Wouldn't you be OK with a civil union replacing your marriage?

On that note I'd be happier if the government would only recognize civil unions instead of marriage...

"Damn you Gravity, you win again"

[billvon 2,991]

>On that note I'd be happier if the government would only recognize
>civil unions instead of marriage...

Assuming that the government did the 'legal' part of the marriage (civil union) and allowed churches/ministers to do the religious/ceremonial part (i.e. the marriage itself) I'd be fine with that.

[Harmless 0]

That is the dream we can wish for

"Damn you Gravity, you win again"

[Remster 30]

Quote

>On that note I'd be happier if the government would only recognize
>civil unions instead of marriage...

Assuming that the government did the 'legal' part of the marriage (civil union) and allowed churches/ministers to do the religious/ceremonial part (i.e. the marriage itself) I'd be fine with that.

Welcome to the Socialist Heaven that Quebec is!

Oh, and women cant change their names after marriage either (well, they can, but it becomes a formal name change thats not supported by any of the antiquated ownership rites that come with marriage).

Remster

[vortexring 0]

Quote

>You know I wouldn't so why do you ask?

Because you were arguing that gays should be OK with civil unions, that it gives them exactlyt the same rights. Why shouldn't blacks be OK with it, then? Wouldn't you be OK with a civil union replacing your marriage?

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.'

[vortexring 0]

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.'

[Caitlin89 0]

Quote

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.

So, are you saying that you want to redefine 'civil union' in order to make its rights equal with those of marriage?

[Remster 30]

Quote

Out of curiosity, any gay christians here? That must be fairly difficult I'd imagine, being gay and christian.

Being Christian is abnormal! I mean, the Romans had it right and rounded them up and fed them to the lions.

Remster

[jakee 1,490]

Quote

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.

Hang on a minute, what's happened to every single previous argument you've made?

What happens to a species when you introduce gay marriage that doesn't happen when you introduce gay civil unions?

How is a civil union which could be used for gay or straight couples and would entail all the same rights as a marriage not be 'normalising the abnormal' in the way that it would if you called it marriage?


And that one that you're still determined to ignore because you've no idea how to answer it; who gets hurt by 'normalising the abnormal' and why?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,991]

>Interracial marriages aren't abnormal!

As I've demonstrated several times, they were indeed the very definition of "abnormal." And some still agree - witness the Baptist minister who refuses to marry interracial couples.

But all that's aside the point. If civil unions give you exactly the same rights as marriage - why wouldn't you be OK with having a civil union instead of a marriage?

>If we allow gay marriage, shouldn't we also allow infertile brothers to
>marry their sisters?

Yes.

[vortexring 0]

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.'

[Caitlin89 0]

Quote

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?

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.

Now, could you answer mine? You say you want A civil union which would give gays the same marriage rights as heteros... Since the civil unions in this country currently do not provide equal rights, are you suggesting the definition be changed to include 1,100+ additional rights?

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

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.

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.

Quote

How is a civil union which could be used for gay or straight couples and would entail all the same rights as a marriage not be 'normalising the abnormal' in the way that it would if you called it marriage?

By the simple fact it isn't called marriage.

Quote

And that one that you're still determined to ignore because you've no idea how to answer it; who gets hurt by 'normalising the abnormal' and why?

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.'

[vortexring 0]

Quote

If civil unions give you exactly the same rights as marriage - why wouldn't you be OK with having a civil union instead of a marriage?

>If we allow gay marriage, shouldn't we also allow infertile brothers to
>marry their sisters?

Yes.

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.'

[billvon 2,991]

>Allowing marriage for all these people spells the end of marriage. It
>invalidates it.

There are tens of thousands of legally married couples here in California. No one's marriage was "invalidated" by that.

>I strongly relate marriage to parenthood.

Fine. Then get "parented" to someone, and let people who want to marry do that.

[billvon 2,991]

>And should we also allow siblings to marry?

Didn't you just ask that?

>People with multiple lovers; should they also be allowed to marry?

Yes.

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

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?

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.

Quote

Now, could you answer mine? You say you want A civil union which would give gays the same marriage rights as heteros... Since the civil unions in this country currently do not provide equal rights, are you suggesting the definition be changed to include 1,100+ additional rights?

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.'

[vortexring 0]

Quote

>Allowing marriage for all these people spells the end of marriage. It
>invalidates it.

There are tens of thousands of legally married couples here in California. No one's marriage was "invalidated" by that.

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.'

[Caitlin89 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

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?

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.

Quote

Now, could you answer mine? You say you want A civil union which would give gays the same marriage rights as heteros... Since the civil unions in this country currently do not provide equal rights, are you suggesting the definition be changed to include 1,100+ additional rights?

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?