Gingrich to gay man: Vote for Obama - Polidicks

[QUOTE=R3N3GADE;33867953] there's a number of arguments such as - marriage is a convention, by definition, between a man and a woman. opponents of gay marriage often use historical precedent to support this by saying gay marriage (not gay partnerships) have never existed. this argument does not rest on a hatred for homosexuals, nor an inherent "asshole"ishness. it is commonly used in conjunction with supporting civil partnerships for gay couples which are given the same legal status under secular law as a marriage, but not considered a marriage by definition. - religious reasoning - christianity, for instance, believes that christ defined marriage as being solely between a man and a woman. this is also not based on a hatred for gays, or on being evil. it is again a case of marriage having a definition. [/QUOTE] marriage having a "definition" isn't a sound argument against same-sex marriage because words don't define reality; linguistic convention shouldn't stand in the way of rights [QUOTE=R3N3GADE;33867953]- the above arguments are often supported by the "not just love" line. gay marriage proponents often suggest that for a marriage, "all you need is love". opponents may argue that if all you need is love, what is to stop a marriage between a man and a child, or a man and an animal, or multiple people. this is also based on logic, rather than on blind hatred. [/QUOTE] you're trying to make it sound like a slippery slope but the issue is actually wicked fucking simple. children and animals can't sign marriage contracts because they are not adults; who are legally capable of consent - and two people are not one person. legalizing same-sex marriage doesn't open the door for polygamy any more than legalizing [i]opposite-sex[/i] marriage does. [QUOTE=R3N3GADE;33867953]- gay marriage can also be opposed on grounds of its effect on children. opponents of gay marriage often also associate marriage as a social institution vital to producing children, as it would provide the most stable upbringing for a developing mind and body. they argue that there are potential ramifications for a same-sex couple therefore raising a child in terms of psychological development, and that insufficient evidence exists to prove that having two daddies and no mummy produces no adverse effects from having the dual gender influence of one mummy and one daddy.[/QUOTE] garbage. [url=http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx]Vast oceans of research have been done and they show that same-sex couples are no worse at raising children then opposite-sex couples.[/url] Not a single variable looked for in children raised by same-sex couples was anomalous. [QUOTE=R3N3GADE;33867953]there you go. there's arguments against gay marriage. none of them are based on bigotry[/QUOTE] but all of them are complete and utter bunk that any reasonable person would see through in a second, which leads me to believe that the people who argue these points have some other reason for arguing them (hint: smells like bigotry) [editline]23rd December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Lambeth;33868217]Amnesia[/QUOTE] also Space Madness

R3N3GADE is actually Bachmann

Honestly, at least he was civil and straight forward.

Isn't marriage a religious thing, most religions aren't necessarily kind by the book to homosexuals anyway.. why would you want to associate yourself with a anti-gay religious activity, what is the difference between BF/BF or GF/GF?

[QUOTE=R3N3GADE;33867953]look down. there's a number of arguments such as - marriage is a convention, by definition, between a man and a woman. opponents of gay marriage often use historical precedent to support this by saying gay marriage (not gay partnerships) have never existed. this argument does not rest on a hatred for homosexuals, nor an inherent "asshole"ishness. it is commonly used in conjunction with supporting civil partnerships for gay couples which are given the same legal status under secular law as a marriage, but not considered a marriage by definition. - religious reasoning - christianity, for instance, believes that christ defined marriage as being solely between a man and a woman. this is also not based on a hatred for gays, or on being evil. it is again a case of marriage having a definition. - the above arguments are often supported by the "not just love" line. gay marriage proponents often suggest that for a marriage, "all you need is love". opponents may argue that if all you need is love, what is to stop a marriage between a man and a child, or a man and an animal, or multiple people. this is also based on logic, rather than on blind hatred. - gay marriage can also be opposed on grounds of its effect on children. opponents of gay marriage often also associate marriage as a social institution vital to producing children, as it would provide the most stable upbringing for a developing mind and body. they argue that there are potential ramifications for a same-sex couple therefore raising a child in terms of psychological development, and that insufficient evidence exists to prove that having two daddies and no mummy produces no adverse effects from having the dual gender influence of one mummy and one daddy. there you go. there's arguments against gay marriage. none of them are based on bigotry, or being an asshole. feel free to disagree, but your disagreeing with them doesn't suddenly make opponents into evil people. e: the lack of empathy in facepunch is astounding. i often disagree with people on a range of issues. however, i don't consider them necessarily immoral for doing so. it's a common trick of the left to try and take the moral high ground when an issue is really quite complex, and that's sad. i suggest a number of you try developing your interpersonal skills, particularly in the area of empathy - it'll be quite a boon down the track, i assure you.[/QUOTE] Religion can't justify those things - After all, we're not all part of the same religion. In my beliefs, Jesus was actually a cactus, and was surprised to find that people couldn't figure that out. And he never actually said anything, he just stood there. People just [I]thought[/I] he said things about God and such. And it doesn't corrupt children's minds. The only reason to [I]possibly[/I] think that is if you are homophobic yourself. And what evidence is there that it [I]does[/I] result in adverse effects? Your case doesn't seem so strong either. Considering that your arguments are based off of your religion and just because you're homophobic, I'd say that it's [I][B]extremely[/B][/I] bigoted to think that.

[QUOTE=ripple3000;33868462]Isn't marriage a religious thing, most religions aren't necessarily kind by the book to homosexuals anyway.. why would you want to associate yourself with a anti-gay religious activity, what is the difference between BF/BF or GF/GF?[/QUOTE] You obviously know nothing about America

[QUOTE=SSBMX;33868492]You obviously know nothing about America[/QUOTE] Why would I want to know.. its a dying country with a corrupt government at its core.

[QUOTE=ripple3000;33868532]Why would I want to know.. its a dying country with a corrupt government at its core.[/QUOTE] Because you are making uninformed posts. Married couples get tax breaks and other legal benefits.

[QUOTE=SSBMX;33868559]Because you are making uninformed posts. Married couples get tax breaks and other legal benefits.[/QUOTE] Well thank you for informing me on the benefits of a paper saying two people are together.

Welcome to mother fucking America

I love how the only person trying to defend the bigot is a right winger clinging to religion. Stereotypes are creaming themselves tonight.

[QUOTE=ripple3000;33868579]Well thank you for informing me on the benefits of a paper saying two people are together.[/QUOTE] I feel like this is supposed to be an argument of some sort, but I keep getting thrown off by the fact that there's nothing of substance here, just vague snarkiness.

[QUOTE=LCBADs;33868638]I feel like this is supposed to be an argument of some sort, but I keep getting thrown off by the fact that there's nothing of substance here, just vague snarkiness.[/QUOTE] I don't think you should be benefited for being married.

[QUOTE=ripple3000;33868672]I don't think you should be benefited for being married.[/QUOTE] the benefits make raising children and running a family much easier. instead of having to create a number of individual contracts pertaining to sharing finances, gaining hospital visitation rights, etc. people can just get married and get all those benefits in a bundle.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;33869258]the benefits make raising children and running a family much easier. instead of having to create a number of individual contracts pertaining to sharing finances, gaining hospital visitation rights, etc. people can just get married and get all those benefits in a bundle.[/QUOTE] But being married does not automatically ensure children, especially in a gay marriage.

[QUOTE=ripple3000;33869272]But being married does not automatically ensure children, especially in a gay marriage.[/QUOTE] Fuck children, the population is too damn high.

[QUOTE=SSBMX;33869307]Fuck children, the population is too damn high.[/QUOTE] 29% of Earths surface is landmass, of that less then 0.1% of populated by humans.

I can make up statistics too.

[QUOTE=Nikota;33869371]I can make up statistics too.[/QUOTE] Are your attempting to say that I am incorrect? I state the truth.

If I were to attempt a yes or no question with no grounds of success or failure. I guess that I'm unintelligent. But yes.

[QUOTE=ripple3000;33869339]29% of Earths surface is landmass, of that less then 0.1% of populated by humans.[/QUOTE] Ever consider the fact that that land..i don't know....is fucking uninhabitable

[QUOTE=SSBMX;33869399]Ever consider the fact that that land..i don't know....is fucking uninhabitale[/QUOTE] or possibly is used for vital things like crops or sand.

[QUOTE=SSBMX;33869399]Ever consider the fact that that land..i don't know....is fucking uninhabitale[/QUOTE] Its not uninhabitable. Its undesirable, lets take Canada for example.

[QUOTE=ripple3000;33869416]Its not uninhabitable. Its undesirable, lets take Canada for example.[/QUOTE] Antartica.

[QUOTE=SSBMX;33869444]Antartica.[/QUOTE] There's oil there, not undesirable.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;33869463]There's oil there, not undesirable.[/QUOTE] :/ Undesirable by modern day consumer standards, colonialism is a passed age.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;33869463]There's oil there, not undesirable.[/QUOTE] Go live there and become an oil tycoon then

[QUOTE=ripple3000;33868462]Isn't marriage a religious thing, most religions aren't necessarily kind by the book to homosexuals anyway.. why would you want to associate yourself with a anti-gay religious activity, what is the difference between BF/BF or GF/GF?[/QUOTE] Marriage is a universal concept, in other words, being together forever. Shit, even animals do it... just look at swans. It's simply that the church has monopolized the word 'marriage' and they're afraid of losing power.

[QUOTE=Earthen;33869486]Marriage is a universal concept, in other words, being together forever. Shit, even animals do it... just look at swans. It's simply that the church has monopolized the word 'marriage' and they're afraid of losing power.[/QUOTE] It's funny. Since the divorce rate is so high that it's meaningless. [editline]24th December 2011[/editline] Keeps lawyers employed though.

Dem straigh couples divorce more