Gay marriage will destabilise family life

[craked5]

The reason is it effects everyone, not just homosexuals.

Which is why people refuse this argument. It doesn't. In which way does it affect anyone but the gays?

So then, explain to me how enacting a law that affects all Americans and American residents, most being tax payers, and changing constitutional law DOES NOT affect everyone? I already explained how it effects everyone else, you simply just keep pretending like it is not a fact trying to bait me into some tertiary argument about gay marriage which I have no interest in. People have a right to object because government effects everyone, and people have a right to have a say in what their government does regardless of their sexuality, without being harassed and designated bigots simply for disagreeing. It is very simple. I am not arguing for or against it, just that people have legitimate reason to protest that doesn't involve prejudice.

Again you're wrong. They have a legitimate right. Not a legitimate reason.
Right: because it goes through the government official wya, which means they have the right to express their opinions and ask for the government to take it into account
No reason: Because it will not affect them in any way. By this I mean: it will not touch their freedom in any way, will not cost them anything, will not harm them in any way. It will have 0 effect on their life. unless they're gays of course, and in this case they'll be granted more freedom that's all.

If you go this way, even the fact that gay relationships are made illegal isn't bad in itself as it's also regulated by the government.

No. That doesn't make any sense at all. You don't need permission from the government to be gay. Gayness is not taxed either. You have no logic in this position.

Well you needed one only a few decades ago, and they didn't give it out. Being gay was illegal only few decades ago.

Your argument there still has zero logic. Sodomy (not homosexuality) may have been illegal in the past in the US, but that doesn't have anything to do with your supposed argument. You are simply trying once again to recast this argument under the subject of bigotry because that is the easiest way to marginalize people whom you do not agree with.

Indeed sodomy was illegal. thanks for the (useless) precision.
And I don't see where you don't understand me. Your words were : "You don't need permission from the government to be gay" I corrected you by saying you no longer need permission to be gay. That's all.
My supposed argument is that legal/illegal characteristic of everything (including homosexuality) has to go through the government approval. Government decides if such thing is legal or illegal. As you said earlier that any law concerns all Americans which means all Americans has every right to agree or disagree with every law, it means you support the right for Americans to ban homosexuality if they want to. I might be wrong of course, but that's what I understood from your arguments. And please don't go insulting me again or yelling at possible "strawman argument" if I misunderstood your arguments just say it.

[1714138148]

1714138148

[1714138148]

1714138148

[1714138148]

1714138148

[TECSHARE]

Sure, "more freedom". More freedom to be regulated. More government regulation is EVERYONE'S concern. I will give you ONE EXAMPLE since you are so willfully ignorant and can't get past your own cognitive dissonance. A heterosexual couple have a child. That child is gay. The heterosexual parents are now directly effected by regulation of gay marriage via their child. Once more, this one single example is besides the point and again just a tertiary argument I will spend no more time arguing about.

I should point out by the way I am opposed to government being involved in marriage at all for anyone.


As far as your rambling about homosexuality being illegal, homosexuality wasn't illegal in the US sodomy was, for heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. What you are describing is DEREGULATION of private personal activities, not creating MORE regulation, so again your argument has no logical basis as my entire argument is that increased government regulation is not desirable, and thus it is a legitimate reason for anyone residing here to protest gay marriage.

[popcorn1]

Considering the amount of vulgarity you're spitting it might be a possibility yeah.

You're only yelling and insulting. You give few if no logical arguments.

You just abuse the Caps Lock of your keyboard and the emojis that's all.

Better than talking all nice .When really your being horrible little cunts OK.
People like you STAB YOU IN THE BACK..be all nice but really your rats.. SO GO DIE CUNT
Also with a brain like yours waste of space ..Don't believe in Darwin   D :Dumb shits

And also the question being asked is a total lie and a fuckin Insult to gay people SO FUCK OFF

You're... Terrifying...

Truly if people like you are usual in USA I understand why they're all talking about "politically correct" legion.

Why are you yelling like this? Why are you insulting us? They both said they were for gay marriage why the fuck are you insulting them like this?

GOOD. Same person who said how can gays bring a child up better you could not see it being possible..Well i proved you wrong
It's not a debate it's a FUCKIN INSULT ..So go and fuck yourself..
All i see on this thread is gays are to blame for..paedophiles. destabilised families  worse than animals molestation spoiling movies..ANYTHING ELSE YOU STUPID FUCKERS WANT TO ADD..

And you wonder why I am swearing because it's insults not a debate THICK SHIT..
And then you cheeky shit had the cheek to say that someone on here was the only 1 with the right answer..FUCK OFF PRICK ..The whole question being asked is an insult to gay people so fuck you

[TECSHARE]

Pay no attention to the civilized debate behind the curtain. Cognitive dissonance at its best.

[popcorn1]

Pay no attention to the civilized debate behind the curtain. Cognitive dissonance at its best.

It's not a debate.It's a wrong statement..So keep up your quest for no rules with rules

[TECSHARE]

Pay no attention to the civilized debate behind the curtain. Cognitive dissonance at its best.

It's not a debate.It's a wrong statement..So keep up your quest for no rules with rules

I'm surprised people want to even argue against homosexual relationships.  It is not my business what people do in their bedrooms.  

Would they complain that Asians like to have more oral than Blacks (just an example, I'm not sure if it is true)?  Why people even think about what gay people do in their bedrooms?  Why they have interest in it?  Closet gays themselves? Jealous?

Never understood that logic.  

It really does not matter if kids are raised by a man and a women or two women, two men, or three men and five women.  What is the difference?  If parents love their kids, they will provide for them, show them love and teach them how to be good human beings.

I agree with you 100%, it is nobody's business, even the government's. I never argued against homosexual relationships. I stated that people are demanding increased regulation via the government, as a result it effects everyone subject to that government regardless of your sexuality, therefore merely objecting to it does not make one a homophobe or a bigot. The idea that it doesn't effect anyone else is a myth designed to mask the fact that this makes people less free, not more free, exploiting the LGBT movement to do so. This directly involves the government and gives them more power, control, and authority over gay marriage when the government shouldn't be involved in any kind of marriage at all.

[craked5]

Sure, "more freedom". More freedom to be regulated. More government regulation is EVERYONE'S concern. I will give you ONE EXAMPLE since you are so willfully ignorant and can't get past your own cognitive dissonance. A heterosexual couple have a child. That child is gay. The heterosexual parents are now directly effected by regulation of gay marriage via their child. Once more, this one single example is besides the point and again just a tertiary argument I will spend no more time arguing about.

I should point out by the way I am opposed to government being involved in marriage at all for anyone.


As far as your rambling about homosexuality being illegal, homosexuality wasn't illegal in the US sodomy was, for heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. What you are describing is DEREGULATION of private personal activities, not creating MORE regulation, so again your argument has no logical basis as my entire argument is that increased government regulation is not desirable, and thus it is a legitimate reason for anyone residing here to protest gay marriage.

Incredible how you can't simply politely expose your point of view... You seem to have to be rude...

Anyway. Your argument is a complete nonsense because the notion of mariage itself is linked to government. Being married means to be recognized as a couple in the eye of the state: marriage (oxford dictionary)-The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship:. If you don't want to be regulated by government don't marry at the city hall! Only marry at the church!

You just refuse to grant more freedom to others. Simply because you don't want to be involved in any official thing doesn't mean others don't want either. Legitimate gay marriage doesn't increase state regulation! It only gives the right to homosexuals to be regulated by the gov if they want.

[craked5]

I agree with you 100%, it is nobody's business, even the government's. I never argued against homosexual relationships. I stated that people are demanding increased regulation via the government, as a result it effects everyone subject to that government regardless of your sexuality, therefore merely objecting to it does not make one a homophobe or a bigot. The idea that it doesn't effect anyone else is a myth designed to mask the fact that this makes people less free, not more free, exploiting the LGBT movement to do so. This directly involves the government and gives them more power, control, and authority over gay marriage when the government shouldn't be involved in any kind of marriage at all.

Again you're wrong simply because marriage is linked to government. It's an official recognition of being a couple. If it doesn't involve government, it's not a marriage, it's something else. That's what we call definition of words.

You seem to have incredible problems with government... But would you care to explain me how people get more regulated by notifying the state they live with someone? I mean nobody forces you to do so, you chose to get married or not, you don't have to get married in order to go together to the church and get married (though the word is here misused) in front of god if you want.

Marriage is total freedom. The freedom to give up parts of your freedom and to officially claim a relationship. But it's in no way mandatory.

Freedom means you also have the freedom to give up this freedom. Simple logic man.

[valta4065]

Pay no attention to the civilized debate behind the curtain. Cognitive dissonance at its best.

It's not a debate.It's a wrong statement..So keep up your quest for no rules with rules

I'm surprised people want to even argue against homosexual relationships.  It is not my business what people do in their bedrooms.  

Would they complain that Asians like to have more oral than Blacks (just an example, I'm not sure if it is true)?  Why people even think about what gay people do in their bedrooms?  Why they have interest in it?  Closet gays themselves? Jealous?

Never understood that logic.  

It really does not matter if kids are raised by a man and a women or two women, two men, or three men and five women.  What is the difference?  If parents love their kids, they will provide for them, show them love and teach them how to be good human beings.

I agree with you 100%, it is nobody's business, even the government's. I never argued against homosexual relationships. I stated that people are demanding increased regulation via the government, as a result it effects everyone subject to that government regardless of your sexuality, therefore merely objecting to it does not make one a homophobe or a bigot. The idea that it doesn't effect anyone else is a myth designed to mask the fact that this makes people less free, not more free, exploiting the LGBT movement to do so. This directly involves the government and gives them more power, control, and authority over gay marriage when the government shouldn't be involved in any kind of marriage at all.

Wrong. People are only asking for the right to chose if they want to be regulated by the government or not. Nothing more. they never asked for government regulation, only the possibility to be regulated by gov. because believe it or not, some people like both their country and their institutions 

[TECSHARE]

See the frothing rage people get into over the mere concept that people should have any say what their government imposes upon them? Anyone who protests is clearly a (insert marginalizing phrase or word here). I simply suggested that anyone under the rule of said government has a right to protest the changing of laws which directly effect them, but in your little myopic reactionary minds any such suggestion is equivalent to being anti-gay. You claim I have no argument, but your entire argument rests upon:
against gay marriage = closet gay/bigot/homophobe/jesus freak

I say it directly effects every resident of the nation (as all laws do), you reply "NO, BECAUSE HOMOPHOBIA!"
Reactionaries such as yourself sure do seem to take issue with people having an opposing opinion to them, or having a say in how one's own government is run for reactionaries.

[popcorn1]

Pay no attention to the civilized debate behind the curtain. Cognitive dissonance at its best.

It's not a debate.It's a wrong statement..So keep up your quest for no rules with rules

I'm surprised people want to even argue against homosexual relationships.  It is not my business what people do in their bedrooms.  

Would they complain that Asians like to have more oral than Blacks (just an example, I'm not sure if it is true)?  Why people even think about what gay people do in their bedrooms?  Why they have interest in it?  Closet gays themselves? Jealous?

Never understood that logic.  

It really does not matter if kids are raised by a man and a women or two women, two men, or three men and five women.  What is the difference?  If parents love their kids, they will provide for them, show them love and teach them how to be good human beings.

I love your thinking.And thanks for being a great human being..If only the whole planet was like you..Not asking for much but logic.
I do read what you always got to say and your logic is nice to see

SO THANKS..Some good thinkers some crazy thinkers

[popcorn1]

Sure, "more freedom". More freedom to be regulated. More government regulation is EVERYONE'S concern. I will give you ONE EXAMPLE since you are so willfully ignorant and can't get past your own cognitive dissonance. A heterosexual couple have a child. That child is gay. The heterosexual parents are now directly effected by regulation of gay marriage via their child. Once more, this one single example is besides the point and again just a tertiary argument I will spend no more time arguing about.

I should point out by the way I am opposed to government being involved in marriage at all for anyone.


As far as your rambling about homosexuality being illegal, homosexuality wasn't illegal in the US sodomy was, for heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. What you are describing is DEREGULATION of private personal activities, not creating MORE regulation, so again your argument has no logical basis as my entire argument is that increased government regulation is not desirable, and thus it is a legitimate reason for anyone residing here to protest gay marriage.

Incredible how you can't simply politely expose your point of view... You seem to have to be rude...

Anyway. Your argument is a complete nonsense because the notion of mariage itself is linked to government. Being married means to be recognized as a couple in the eye of the state: marriage (oxford dictionary)-The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship:. If you don't want to be regulated by government don't marry at the city hall! Only marry at the church!

You just refuse to grant more freedom to others. Simply because you don't want to be involved in any official thing doesn't mean others don't want either. Legitimate gay marriage doesn't increase state regulation! It only gives the right to homosexuals to be regulated by the gov if they want.

well said

[popcorn1]

See the frothing rage people get into over the mere concept that people should have any say what their government imposes upon them? Anyone who protests is clearly a (insert marginalizing phrase or word here). I simply suggested that anyone under the rule of said government has a right to protest the changing of laws which directly effect them, but in your little myopic reactionary minds any such suggestion is equivalent to being anti-gay. You claim I have no argument, but your entire argument rests upon:
against gay marriage = closet gay/bigot/homophobe/jesus freak

I say it directly effects every resident of the nation (as all laws do), you reply "NO, BECAUSE HOMOPHOBIA!"
Reactionaries such as yourself sure do seem to take issue with people having an opposing opinion to them, or having a say in how one's own government is run for reactionaries.

Getting married is also about getting each others money.Its about being recognised as partners
by law..Then no problems when it comes to the will or house and so on.

[popcorn1]

See the frothing rage people get into over the mere concept that people should have any say what their government imposes upon them? Anyone who protests is clearly a (insert marginalizing phrase or word here). I simply suggested that anyone under the rule of said government has a right to protest the changing of laws which directly effect them, but in your little myopic reactionary minds any such suggestion is equivalent to being anti-gay. You claim I have no argument, but your entire argument rests upon:
against gay marriage = closet gay/bigot/homophobe/jesus freak

I say it directly effects every resident of the nation (as all laws do), you reply "NO, BECAUSE HOMOPHOBIA!"
Reactionaries such as yourself sure do seem to take issue with people having an opposing opinion to them, or having a say in how one's own government is run for reactionaries.

It's a statement like this statement.....Straight marriage will turn you into a mental thief and cause your family problems

Now tell me what's wrong with the statement I just made

It's the same sort of statement as Gay marriage will destabilise family life

[TECSHARE]

See the frothing rage people get into over the mere concept that people should have any say what their government imposes upon them? Anyone who protests is clearly a (insert marginalizing phrase or word here). I simply suggested that anyone under the rule of said government has a right to protest the changing of laws which directly effect them, but in your little myopic reactionary minds any such suggestion is equivalent to being anti-gay. You claim I have no argument, but your entire argument rests upon:
against gay marriage = closet gay/bigot/homophobe/jesus freak

I say it directly effects every resident of the nation (as all laws do), you reply "NO, BECAUSE HOMOPHOBIA!"
Reactionaries such as yourself sure do seem to take issue with people having an opposing opinion to them, or having a say in how one's own government is run for reactionaries.

It's a statement like this statement.....Straight marriage will turn you into a mental thief and cause your family problems

Now tell me what's wrong with the statement I just made

It's the same sort of statement as Gay marriage will destabilise family life

The only problem with your logic: I never made any of those statements.

[Swordsoffreedom]

Vote for Trump?
Something Something Rage Against Something Today then Tomorrow.
Trump: I'm doing a Samson here I ain't got time for this.

Independent View
Keep your wang out of my closet, do what you want in your own bedroom.
But for petes sake stop with all the rainbow parades and forcing it down society's throat at every opportunity with TV Ads, Late Night TV, Print Articles we got it shuddup.

Democrat View
Let it be let it be down smooth as a gin drink it up our liberal media encourages it, let it be its the law of the land this is the new family life and its not going away.

Outsider Looking In: Calls it the Mexican Viewpoint

Wow look at all the refugees coming into Europe Raping all those Boys in that Refugee Camp, this is what we need a new LGBT demographic leaving the Barbaric Middle East for friendlier lands and new marriage opportunities.
(By definition they fit into that category even if its because they treat women more like cattle uh oh identity crisis incoming.)

Hurray For Equality everyone needs to be arrested equally.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/03/france-multiple-young-boys-brutally-raped-by-muslim-migrants-in-refugee-camp
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/austria/12144039/Iraqi-migrant-admits-raping-boy-in-Austrian-pool-after-having-too-much-sexual-energy.html

Sums its up for me.

[yugo23]

See the frothing rage people get into over the mere concept that people should have any say what their government imposes upon them? Anyone who protests is clearly a (insert marginalizing phrase or word here). I simply suggested that anyone under the rule of said government has a right to protest the changing of laws which directly effect them, but in your little myopic reactionary minds any such suggestion is equivalent to being anti-gay. You claim I have no argument, but your entire argument rests upon:
against gay marriage = closet gay/bigot/homophobe/jesus freak

I say it directly effects every resident of the nation (as all laws do), you reply "NO, BECAUSE HOMOPHOBIA!"
Reactionaries such as yourself sure do seem to take issue with people having an opposing opinion to them, or having a say in how one's own government is run for reactionaries.

False. Never said that. You just keep ignoring our arguments.

You're wrong on the definition of marriage itself. Marriage means regulation by government. It's in the definition of the word...

[Swordsoffreedom]

You're wrong on the definition of marriage itself. Marriage means regulation by government. It's in the definition of the word...

Intruding in

Marriage is a union between a man and a women is the traditional definition.
(Last decade or two definition changes make it a government intervention in the legal definition so both are accurate statements.)
Marriage means intrusion by (the Judiciary) to standardize a definition. (Per say not Government but I'm being nitpicky) Although the government does Impose that all of society by definition needs to accept it raucous opposition or not. Like banning booze in prohibition etc.

Either way I'm having a bit of fun in here Trumping it up a bit he-he

One of the main remaining debates are the rationale for economic benefit to legalizing it as a marriage by definition.

A state bestows numerous benefits on marriage that by its very nature and design promotes children and increasing the population, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, and is an evident interest of any State population = labor = growth.

That said the Supreme Court did just rule on an adoption case so that avenue is available but it still seems like an interesting footnote should you get tax discounts if you don't adopt but are by definition married, answer seems to be yes because traditional marriages do but recieve more with kids but I feel like its murky legally.

Especially if we start a priority system of adoption on who gets a kid first using minorities first logic.
Minorities as recognized based on a labor code could apply to an adoption process which seems unfair by standard definition to a traditional family who want to adopt.

In a sense it also depends on how people believe in a child being raised a traditional Yin Yang Approach aka balanced raising between a Male and Female, Yang Yang or Yin Yin and their definition of balance at this point aka the moral order and were not going to even get into polygamy combinations but I have a feeling that will come up in the future following this progressive logic line of what is the next cutting edge in the sexual revolution.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/the-us-supreme-court-refuses-to-adopt-an-alabama-ruling/472722/

--
To techshares point
Child says hes Gay
Parents intervene
Social Services appear take child away where before it was within the parents purview to intervene.

Yes it can destabilize a family life simply said.

[yugo23]

To techshares point
Child says hes Gay
Parents intervene
Social Services appear take child away where before it was within the parents purview to intervene.

Yes it can destabilize a family life simply said.

Where does the gay marriage appear in your reasoning?

[Swordsoffreedom]

To techshares point
Child says hes Gay
Parents intervene
Social Services appear take child away where before it was within the parents purview to intervene.

Yes it can destabilize a family life simply said.

Where does the gay marriage appear in your reasoning?

Hmm it doesn't yugo the OP was related to the Destabilize family Life aspect
I was referring to that part.
Semantics aside

If Gay Marriage was there it would be
Gay parents raise child
Child says he Gay
Hurray

Gay Parents Raise Child
Child says he Straight
or Acceptance

I guess that could still destabilize their relationship depending on if they want their adopted kid to be raised up like their parents and be gay.
(Deem that acceptable?)

In the end presume
Child says he straight
Gay parents intervene

Social Services appear (Is this discrimination if they take the kid away) Or in a parents right

Reverse the switch and see if your double standardizing or share the same rationale and reasoning.