David Koch

[paperburn1]

I can remember a time when a Asian man could not marry a white woman. a black woman could not marry a white man ; it was against the law .
Times are changing , for better or worse I do not know, but they are changing.....

[Stubby]

Nice concession speech, Mitt.

You're kidding yourself. The topic is simple. Marriage is between one man and one woman. Dopes like you press for definitions and when you don't get what you want to pick apart, you complain and press for another. It doesn't matter if you call it "authentic" or "traditional" or whatever. It is between one man and one woman. It is not between a pair of men or a pair of women and these do not afford society the same benefits of their hard work.

Now I've said it three or four times and still you're acting like a whiney little asshole, looking for a debate. There is no debate. There is just the statement. Marriages get a tax credit because they support society. Homosexual unions do not support society. They do not yield children and they are not normal. They are by any working definition, "abnormal" throughout all human history. That doesn't mean homosexuals should be persecuted in any way. they should not. But they certainly do not qualify for the same sort of tax credit as married couples.

First you lost, you stomped your feet and left the room.
Second you lost, because your only defense is name calling when pressed for evidence of your assertions.
Third you lose although you finally say in writing that an 'authentic marriage' or 'traditional marriage' is man/woman. If only you had provided evidence (instead of just asserting) to prove why such marriages merit the word 'authentic' and others don't. If fact you have made many assertions without proof. One of your trademarks or i should say modus operandi.

Starting to think you are closer to D's insanity than i thought.

[TDPerk]

"You're such a deluded asshole."

Says the guy who's sure any UFO that can't be explained yet can only evidence of aliens and warp drive technologies.

And he's right, marriage licenses began to be issued by government primarily in this so it could refrain from issuing them to mixed race couples.

[GIThruster]

. . .you lost, because your only defense is name calling when pressed for evidence of your assertions.

You didn't press me for evidence. If you had asked for evidence I would have laughed at you. You pressed me for a definition so you could argue about a point you wanted to make but never made. There is no dispute here. Facts are facts. Marriage is between a man and a woman. There are no exceptions.

Still you haven't noticed all you're doing is arguing with yourself?

[Stubby]

. . .you lost, because your only defense is name calling when pressed for evidence of your assertions.

You didn't press me for evidence. If you had asked for evidence I would have laughed at you. You pressed me for a definition so you could argue about a point you wanted to make but never made. There is no dispute here. Facts are facts. Marriage is between a man and a woman. There are no exceptions.

Still you haven't noticed all you're doing is arguing with yourself?

And yet yet here I am quoting another reply from you.
I don't want to put words in your mouth so I keep asking for definitions so we can discuss apples and apples. You won't even tell us what kind of apples. The only thing we get from you is that 'my apples are better and fock you for not believing me.'

You like making assertions you can't or won't backup. Happens in many threads. You are extremely insulting and discourteous to opposing view points.

WOAHWA
I just noticed, as I was going through your posts:

when for the first 6,000 years of human history we have not.

The only way you could possibly say this is to believe the earth is 6000 years old. I really hope you misspoke and meant '6000 years of recorded history', otherwise you are not a rational person. Human history goes back a lot further back than that and that is a fact. Be that as it may, I also strongly dispute the assertion that same sex marriages were never acceptable in recorded history. I think you will find that the antipathy towards same sex marriages started with the bible and the rise of christianity .

Ok back on topic

This is what we know of your position:

A marriage should be stable. Agreed it is much preferable. But I don't believe we would agree on what stable means. I strongly suspect that in your world the woman is bare foot, pregnant and in the kitchen while the man has the job and provides for the family and they all go to church on Sunday.

Parents are role models. Agreed, they can be good and/or bad.

Facts are facts. Agreed

A marriage should only be man/woman because that is 'authentic'. I will say it here because you seem afraid to: authentic means : the bible says so. What the hell are you going to do in your country of religious freedom when homosexuals start up the Church of the Anal Crusaders or the Church of Lesbos and perform marriages? If Joe Smith, con man extraordinaire, can do it, I am sure they can too.

A man/woman marriage is the future of the US. I guess homosexual marriage will destroy the US then?

A man/woman pair are the only positive role models for children. Many man/woman pairs are horrible role models and yet they are 'authentic'.

Children care. I think children worry about being loved not who loves them

Homosexual marriages are not normal. I guess normal means authentic, right? Strange we still don't have you definition for either word.

Homosexual marriage yield no children. Not true, many same sex couples have children. It is true that the parents are not both biologically linked to the children but neither are step parents. I guess people should not be allowed to remarry.

[GIThruster]

when for the first 6,000 years of human history we have not.

The only way you could possibly say this is to believe the earth is 6000 years old. I really hope you misspoke and meant '6000 years of recorded history', otherwise you are not a rational person. Human history goes back a lot further back than that and that is a fact.

Historieans use the term "history" to refer only to the last 6,000 years because that is as far back as historical records extend. Historians prefer to refer to the period more than 6,000 years ago as "prehistory". I suggest you get your "facts" straight.

There may be some small instances of homosexual unions being officially accepted as "marriages". In 6,000 years of history and so many thousands of vastly different human cultures, it would be odd if such a thing never occurred. There is a tribe in Irian Jaya who is famous because when they first heard the story of Christ, they thought Judas was the hero. That tribe of head hunters valued betrayal above all other qualities. From this observation, only fools will then assert that everything is relative and even betrayal is a virtue. It is not, and the incidence of institutionalized betrayal in headhunting has nothing to say about the morality or utility of betrayal.

So it is with homosexual unions. They serve the utility in that a small percent of people want to be involved in those sorts of unions, and I for one see nothing to stop them. However, teaching children this is "normal" when it is anything but normal, pretending such unions have value to the culture at large when there is no evidence for this, or trying to authenticate such unions by granting the term "marriage" to them are all hopelessly confused acts that heterosexuals are going to continue to object to.

Furthermore, when you castigate those who are normal as hateful, or bigoted because they don't want to see abnormal behavior presented as normal behavior, you reinforce the culture war we have over these issues. People who do this are likely to cause more violence and a return to "gay bashing" and other sorts of violent reaction to gay rights. The gay bashing of the 70's was after all a reaction to the "in your face" gay pride movement of the 70's. We've all hopefully learned far better since.

[Stubby]

That is why I added 'recorded' to your statement in order to clarify your statement.

6000 years is often quoted by certain people as being the age for the Earth, which flies in the face of geologic and cosmological observations. If you fell into the 47% of Americans who believe the Earth is 6000-10000 years old, then your rationality would be suspect.

As for 'small instances', you need to research a some more. Some pretty important people throughout history were gay. Homosexuality was not a problem until the old testament.

I don't think teaching that gay marriage is abnormal is right either. It just is.
You assert that a marriage must have value to the culture at large.
What value does a man/woman marriage have that a man/man or woman/woman marriage not have? The only difference between homo and hetero is the type of genitalia used in pleasurable acts.

[GIThruster]

6000 years is often quoted by certain people as being the age for the Earth, which flies in the face of geologic and cosmological observations. If you fell into the 47% of Americans who believe the Earth is 6000-10000 years old, then your rationality would be suspect.

I'm very surprised to hear 47% of all Americans believe the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old. I'm curious where you got that figure.

As for 'small instances', you need to research a some more. Some pretty important people throughout history were gay. Homosexuality was not a problem until the old testament.

You mean misanthropes like Nero no doubt. Is that who you're defending? Should we be burning Christians at public pyres and fiddling while Rome burns too? Is that your recommendation for a "kinder gentler world"?

I don't think teaching that gay marriage is abnormal is right either. It just is.

So what is the standard for 98% is not normal, and what is the habit of those <2% is not abnormal? See, this is why dickering over definitions is pointless distraction. You say toma'to, I say tomato. Real discussion doesn't include precising definitions without a purpose and your purpose does not seem to be to note the way life really works. You are perfectly in accord with this idea that 98% of the planet needs to accomodate themselves to the behavior of the few, and once one goes down that road, you can make all these same arguments for things like beastiality. I'm not likening homosexuals to those who practice such things. I'm merely noting that your argument leads necessarily to that conclusion. it therefore easily reduces to absurd, unless you want to argue for beastiality as well.

You assert that a marriage must have value to the culture at large.

I never asserted that. I merely noted that the tax credits for married couples are based on that distinction. Stop putting words in my mouth.

What value does a man/woman marriage have that a man/man or woman/woman marriage not have?

I've already answered that question. Traditional marriages between one man and one woman provide role models of both male and female types. Homosexual unions and single parents cannot provide that to their children.

Just how many times will you ask the same questions and pretend I haven't answered them?

[Stubby]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolut ... esign.aspx

which is why i try very hard NOT to put words in your mouth and to define exactly what we are talking about. Half of Americans make decisions based on feelings instead of evidence.

[GIThruster]

Well that is surprising, but you have misrepresented the data. The "young Earth" view that the entire planet is about 6,000 years old is the old "Creationist" view. This survey did not look at that question. 100% of the people here could believe the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and yet also believe mankind was specifically created 6-10,000 years ago. You'd then be lost dickering over the details as to what constitutes creation--for instance if it means mankind's genome was altered. I'd encourage you to not conflate the two different positions. I'm sure the "young Earth" position is much rarer than the position that people were specially created.

But in any case, it is a very surprising study.

[Stubby]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148427/say-b ... rally.aspx

so perhaps you are right

30% believe the bible to be literally true i.e. earth 6000-10000 years old
based on counting generations.

it gets more interesting when you look rep vs dems
old versus young
church versus non church

[Stubby]

LOL
This thread has ventured far from pot.

http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/5143890.html

The US is becoming a Christian theocracy.

[Stubby]

Getting back on topic of our chat

Your final answer to the gay marriage question is that a hetero marriage solely provides positive role models for children?

Because I am wondering how you are determining what constitutes a 'positive' role model and also why gay marriages can't provide whatever 'that' happens to be.

[GIThruster]

I have given you several answers. You're merely ignoring those you don't like and mischaracterizing those you want to respond to.

It sounds like you're building up to some convoluted argument about how men can be good female role models, and women can be good male role models. I have to tell you, I have no interest or patience for such a crazy explanation.

Seriously Stubby, I see no end to this. You're continuing to misquote and mischaracterize me at each turn. You're never contented with the answers given you, even when they are direct and clear. You appear at every turn to have no interest in understanding my position, but rather that you think somehow you're going to change my mind? Each time you mischaracterize my position, you do so deliberately, which says to me there can be nothing gained in continuing this. You lack the requisite honesty for any serious discussion. I'm sure you feel you're very clever, but you appear to me to just be twisted.

[kcdodd]

I don't quite agree with MSimon. Now, it seems many issues with marriage could be established by private legal documents. But this has not historically worked in terms of gay rights. AKA, spouses being able to visit in the hospital, extended family leveraging against spouses against the will of the deceased, etc. And what if we are imperfect and don't file all the right contracts to make x happen in the case of y. Are we just screwed? It seems the tradition of marriage leads to clear backup plans that can really only be worked out by some legal backing. That is beside the issues of tax breaks etc.