86 yr old WWII veteran speaks about gay marriage

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

It's reinforcement is through the abnormality of homosexuality.

We can or cannot survive (or would it be more or less difficult?) if gay marriage is allowed?

Quote

It effects a minority people.

Perhaps you have said before (too lengthy of a thread filled with irrelevance for me to read in its entirety), your statement sounds as if you submit one is born gay. Yes?

It seems there is no conclusive proof why people are gay it's more likely people are born gay.

'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

That doesn't matter; it's always been wrong in my agrument, because it is wrong. It's the supporters of gay marriage who are being irrational.

Are you really that stupid?

You admit that you're opposition to gay marriage has absolutely nothing to do with any actual reasons that you can explain, it's simply down top your prejudice against it (it feels wrong) and yet you think it's other people who are being irrational? That's mental.

Indeed. And I've several reasons that I've posted earlier. Seems like you weren't paying attention. You were earlier asking for points I've already made.

Quote

If somebodies method of arguing upsets you so much, perhaps you'd be better off doing something else.

Your method of argument doesn't upset me. I fucking love it, it makes it so damn easy to prove you wrong at every turn.

[vortexring 0]

Quote

>My biggest issue is that I'm against gay marriage.

Right. And from what you've said so far, it's because you think it's just plain wrong. Not because society will be harmed by it, because you've said that you still wouldn't support it if it was shown to help straight marriages survive.

How odd. Where did I say that?

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

Why should it be changed so that it'll be easier for incestual people to marry?

Why would gay marriage make incest easier?

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[vortexring 0]

It would make incestuous marriage easier. As it would equally make polygamous marriage easier.

'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]

>Sure. But one is wrong and one isn't.

By your morality, yes. By their morality, interracial marriage is wrong.

>Marriage is an institution; why should it be changed to it's detriment?

The same reason it was changed in 1967. Most of the US opposed that, and most of the US thought that the change would be to its detriment.

A statement by Mildred Loving:

===========
Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.
============

From her perspective, the people trying to keep her from marrying the person she loved had exactly the same attitude that you had - it was just plain wrong.

>Why should it be changed so that it'll be easier for incestual people
>to marry?

Why do you support marriage rights for rapists? (yes, that's just as dumb a question)

>Would you go to a womens only gym and insist it's your human right to
>become a member?

Nope. I'd go to the just-as-good gym next door.

If the United States Government said that I couldn't go to a gym just as good - that I could only go to an 'exercise facility' that could not, by law, include the same stuff - then you can bet your ass I'd insist it's my right to go to a gym.

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

It would make incestuous marriage easier. As it would equally make polygamous marriage easier.

From where do you reference such a conclusion?

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[vortexring 0]

Quote

>Sure. But one is wrong and one isn't.

By your morality, yes. By their morality, interracial marriage is wrong.

>Marriage is an institution; why should it be changed to it's detriment?

The same reason it was changed in 1967. Most of the US opposed that, and most of the US thought that the change would be to its detriment.

What makes you so certain gay marriage won't have a detrimental effect on marriage. Studies indicate the opposite.

[jonmurrell 0]

Quote

I'm reasonably tolerant of gay people. The can't help the fact they're attracted to the same sex, so why repress it? But the marriage of gay people is wrong.

Sounds a lot like the Louisianna Justice of the Peace a while back... "I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way."

Earl Warren said something about that and this:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

edit to add: I love that you just used a Mildred Loving quote. I just gave you the Loving v Virginia ruling

This isn't flying, its falling with style.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Sure. But one is wrong and one isn't.

By your morality, yes. By their morality, interracial marriage is wrong.

>Marriage is an institution; why should it be changed to it's detriment?

The same reason it was changed in 1967. Most of the US opposed that, and most of the US thought that the change would be to its detriment.

A statement by Mildred Loving:

===========
Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.
============

From her perspective, the people trying to keep her from marrying the person she loved had exactly the same attitude that you had - it was just plain wrong.

>Why should it be changed so that it'll be easier for incestual people
>to marry?

Why do you support marriage rights for rapists? (yes, that's just as dumb a question)

>Would you go to a womens only gym and insist it's your human right to
>become a member?

Nope. I'd go to the just-as-good gym next door.

If the United States Government said that I couldn't go to a gym just as good - that I could only go to an 'exercise facility' that could not, by law, include the same stuff - then you can bet your ass I'd insist it's my right to go to a gym.

Shit Bill, he has NEVER talked of the morality. He has made his position VERY clear and it is NOT any in the context of your replies to him. WHY? Cause you can not debate him on that level.

You keep bringing up the example of mixed race marriage and the past. He clearly stated that was reversed in court because it was not against the nature of a marriage between and man and a woman. He agreed with that court ruling because of this. Why do you choose to ignore his points and yet again try and twist it?

Damned dishonest of you IMO

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

Indeed. And I've several reasons that I've posted earlier. Seems like you weren't paying attention.

Reasons that were thoroughly refuted. It's your own selective memory that's up the spout.

Quote

I see little effort in your reasoning for gay marriage, other than assertions such as what harm will it do?

I don't need any other reasoning than that. If you don't understand that then you don't have the first clue how a free society should function. Unlike you, I believe in freedom. Unlike you, I like things to be allowed unless there is good reason for them not to be. Unlike you I don't just want carte blanche to impose my will upon others because they might otherwise do things that make me feel a bit funny.

Quote

As opposed to dropping it in when you become emotional, snide and rude? I'd rather discuss the issue without emotion, without effort to make somebody look stupid.

Who in the world do you think you're fooling? Were you not being emotional when you told Kallend to get fucked? Was that not a little rude? What about all the other people you've sworn at or insulted in this thread? What about all your snide jabs about being 'emotional'? Don't try and turn around and give yourself a fucking halo here boyo, it wouldn't fit you.

In fact, since there wasn't one single on-topic remark in that whole post of yours, I'll assume that you've completely given up trying to defend the indefensible and have resorted simply to flinging mud in an attempt to cover up an ignominious withdrawal.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[labrys 0]

Quote

How do you feel about evolution? Isn't that ultimately the normalization of the abnormal? Be it genetic or social it's evolution that leads to survival of a species.

One could argue that "normal" animal procreation doesn't usually involve pairing / mating for life. Far fewer animals do it than humans. Humans started forcing permanent pairing as a means to keep land ownership and wealth flowing along lines of inheritance in most cultures.

When we started doing that it was abnormal behavior. We've done it for so long now that it's normal. We made it a legal device influenced by our government at some point. The current state of the evolution of marriage is that one of the last groups of people to whom the institution is denied want the same legal protection of property that the government affords others.

Get government out of the marriage business and this isn't an issue any more. It's not gay marriage (paring / mating) that's abnormal, it's government intervention in pairing / mating that's abnormal.

Hello?

***

Owned by Remi #?

[jonmurrell 0]

Quote

You keep bringing up the example of mixed race marriage and the past. He clearly stated that was reversed in court because it was not against the nature of a marriage between and man and a woman. He agreed with that court ruling because of this.

Past? I bet most of you are old enough to remember then. For those of us born later than the 'past' the "nature" of marriage was for the clean whites to marry among each other and likewise with the non-whites. Now the "nature" of marriage is

What used to be (and still is in places), "I'm not racist, but..." is now "I'm not prejudiced, BUT..."

Will history view you to be the equivalent of those 60's Jim-Crow enforcers forty or fifty years from now?

...not that bill can't answer, but that was too easy and I'm back to lurking...

This isn't flying, its falling with style.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

You keep bringing up the example of mixed race marriage and the past. He clearly stated that was reversed in court because it was not against the nature of a marriage between and man and a woman. He agreed with that court ruling because of this.

Past? I bet most of you are old enough to remember then. For those of us born later than the 'past' the "nature" of marriage was for the clean whites to marry among each other and likewise with the non-whites. Now the "nature" of marriage is

What used to be (and still is in places), "I'm not racist, but..." is now "I'm not prejudiced, BUT..."

Will history view you to be the equivalent of those 60's Jim-Crow enforcers forty or fifty years from now?

...not that bill can't answer, but that was too easy and I'm back to lurking...

I dont really care how history views me or anybody or anything for that matter. I have a view and opinion based on principle, not race, sexual orientation or anything else. The only bigoted view I could have would be again nose in the air liberal who push political correctness for force silence on those with whom they disagree. Talk about a crime

Glad it was easy for you

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

It's reinforcement is through the abnormality of homosexuality. It effects a minority people. Which is good. I also wish it to remain so.

abnormality? How long does homosexuality have to exist to be considered 'normal'?

Sophocles wrote plays in Greece in 400 BC that had homosexual characters. So I would argue that homosexuality IS 'normal', it has been around since the dawn of civilized man.

So then your argument might be that it is 'abnormal' because it is a 'minority', which it is. But that means, blacks are 'abnormal', people with schizophrenia are 'abnormal', people who enjoy bird-watching are 'abnormal', simply because they exist in a minority withinin society. But they are not considered 'abnormal' except by a radical few in society and we openly accept them as part of 'normal everyday society.

So what am I really saying? You argument is flawed, supported by no factual evidence and also fundamentally irrational. But you are entitled to your 'wrong' opinion.

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

So what's your point? We disregard the law? Man-made laws sure, but mother natures?

Since when is it our (or anyone's) job to enforce 'mother nature's laws'? Who gets to define what they are? We do not yet understand all of them,

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

it's more likely people are born gay.

It sounds as if you would be in favor of a system that assesses individual rights based on the traits one is born with.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[billvon 2,991]

>What makes you so certain gay marriage won't have a detrimental
>effect on marriage.

Because here in the US it has had a net positive effect.

>I don't. Rapists lose their rights by carrying out such acts.

Not after they are released. They are free to marry.

Let's take two cases. One 35 year old man is arrested and convicted of raping a 15 year old girl. He goes away for 20 years, then is released. He meets an 18 year old girl, dates her and gets married. They want to have kids.

Case 2 are two women, a pediatrician and a physical therapist. They have been together for 15 years. They are both law abiding and active in their community. The pediatrician very much wants children, but effectively cannot adopt without being married due to the laws in their state.

It is your judgment, as expressed on the gay marriage issue, that the rapist should be able to marry the 18 year old girl - that should be supported by the government in your ideal world. At the same time, it is your judgment that the two women should not be able to marry and raise children.

[billvon 2,991]

>Shit Bill, he has NEVER talked of the morality.

He has said several times that gay marriage is wrong and should be outlawed because it is wrong. Judgments of right and wrong are moral judgments.

>You keep bringing up the example of mixed race marriage and the past.

Those who refuse to learn from the past are destined to repeat it.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Shit Bill, he has NEVER talked of the morality.

He has said several times that gay marriage is wrong and should be outlawed because it is wrong. Judgments of right and wrong are moral judgments.

>You keep bringing up the example of mixed race marriage and the past.

Those who refuse to learn from the past are destined to repeat it.

No it is not. He explained it very well. His opinions are based on nature and society and how the two are related. You need to make it a moral argument or you have no point, which, in this case, you dont.

He stated, stopping mixed marriage was wrong and he explained why. Go back and read it again.

And you are correct in not learning from the past as you prove it very well here

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,991]

> His opinions are based on nature and society and how the two are related.

Yep. So were the arguments against interracial marriage. And they were just as valid.

> You need to make it a moral argument or you have no point, which, in
>this case, you dont.

Legal argument:

"Murder removes one of the most basic rights of another, the right to life. Therefore it must be illegal."

Moral argument:

"Gay marriage is wrong, and therefore must be illegal."

If you can't see the difference there, think on it a bit.

>He stated, stopping mixed marriage was wrong and he explained why.

Do you think stopping mixed marriage was wrong as well?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

His opinions are based on nature and society and how the two are related.

Since homosexuality is prevalent among other species in nature, either that's not what his arguments are based on or his arguments are based on a lack of understanding of sexuality and nature.

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

[rushmc 23]

Quote

> His opinions are based on nature and society and how the two are related.

Yep. So were the arguments against interracial marriage. And they were just as valid.

> You need to make it a moral argument or you have no point, which, in
>this case, you dont.

Legal argument:

"Murder removes one of the most basic rights of another, the right to life. Therefore it must be illegal."

Moral argument:

"Gay marriage is wrong, and therefore must be illegal."

If you can't see the difference there, think on it a bit.

>He stated, stopping mixed marriage was wrong and he explained why.

Do you think stopping mixed marriage was wrong as well?

No, the arguments against mixed race marriages were not and never were valid.

Stopping those marriages was wrong.

I have no problems with gays being seen as a legal couple with the same rights either. however, marriage is an institution that suppots providing and raising children within a society. While gays can raise them thier interactions can not provide them (children). The same can not be said for mixed race man and wormen marriages.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

His opinions are based on nature and society and how the two are related.

Since homosexuality is prevalent among other species in nature, either that's not what his arguments are based on or his arguments are based on a lack of understanding of sexuality and nature.

Seen vs prevalent is a bid difference. And again we have the liberal "you are not as smart as I am because you dont agree with me" argument. Not worth going into yet again........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,991]

>I have no problems with gays being seen as a legal couple with the
>same rights either.

OK cool.

> however, marriage is an institution that suppots providing and
> raising children within a society.

Do you think gays should have exactly the same rights as an infertile married couple? (i.e. adoption, inheritance, medical decisionmaking etc.)