Recent posts by MaTTyTL on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

What is Marriage?

The state regulates marriage and dispenses benefits for a reason. By understanding this reason we can therefore infer what relationships may be justly excluded from marriage and whether or not anyone’s rights are denied.

A common good is something with an objective core, which inherently serves the well being and good of humanity. Common goods cannot be changed; rather they can only be distorted from their objectively good nature. For example, friendship is a common good. Let’s say that the objective core of friendship dictates that all friendships require selflessness and love between the two friends. If someone thought friendship was about using another individual in order to further their own motives, then that someone would be universally wrong. That person didn’t change the definition of friendship; rather they distorted friendship from its objective nature which inherently promotes the well being of others.

In the same, revisionists try to distort marriage from its objective nature, from what marriage is.
So this raises the question; what is marriage?

A common answer would be that “Marriage is the lifelong union of two persons who love each other.” 1 Love is essential to the marital relationship but it is not enough in order to gain legal recognition from the government. There are many kinds of social relationships that involve love. For example, friendships involve love. Why then would the government not recognize friendships? Since the government promotes marriage, then marriage must possess some kind of public good. In other words, it must inherently positively affect the well being of others. Love is a private matter, for love essentially only involves the people within the relationship. Since we have already established that the government recognizes marriage for its public means, and love is a private matter, then there must be a public part of marriage inherent to the union between those entering into the marriage.
Here we run into a wall with the accepted definition at hand. The definition does not provide us an adequate base of what the public means of marriage is, or why the government would be interested in marriage if love is essentially a private matter. Instead, I will provide a new definition of marriage. “Marriage is a comprehensive union with a special link to children.” 2 “It is a private union with a public purpose. Private in that comprehensive union exemplifies the love of the spouses. Public in that their comprehensive union is directed toward a purpose beyond the love of the spouses: children.”3

The marital relationship is comprehensive in the sense that it is unlike any other relationship. Marriage is where the individuals within the relationship are joined together by the very aspect of their humanity. “Consider the various parts of a plane – the engines, wings, and avionics. What unites all of these parts together into a single whole is their coordination toward a common end: flight.”3 The unity inherent among married couples is that when they come together by nature of their sexuality, they may achieve an ends that could not have been achieved alone. This unity is the coming together in order to strive towards a common goal. This end of the means is procreation. Children produced are reflective to the union at hand. The nature of this comprehensive union is that it can only be completed by a man and a woman. No other relationship can strive towards this comprehensiveness, for there is no biological unity which strives towards and end that the individuals within the relationship could not complete on their own. Artificial reproductive technology is therefore irrelevant, because the relationship still lacks the intrinsic means to children.

The public good that government is interested in is this intrinsic link to children. “Marriage produces and cultivates the development of future citizens within a family unit held together by norms of fidelity, monogamy, exclusivity, and permanence. The flourishing of children is directly connected with the public good.” 3 The state provides benefits to married couples because the state recognizes this public good, and therefore wants to promote it. By giving marriage legal recognition it promotes a certain stability among married couples. Marriage is orientated towards child well being and is linked to procreation like no other relationship.

Infertile Couples

Whether or not a heterosexual couple has children is irrelevant. The government is interested in the comprehensive relationship heterosexuals pursue, and not the means to the end of that relationship. Infertile couples are still able to engage into the sexual act that comprehensively unites them together. In this way infertile couples are still of a procreative type even if procreation cannot be achieved. The government still recognizes marriage between infertile heterosexual couples in order to promote what marriage actually is, and not just focus on the conclusion of that comprehensive relationship.

1 John Corvino, “The Case for Same-Sex Marriage” in Gallagher and Corvino (eds), Debating Same-Sex Marriage (OUP: 2012)
2 2. Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, “What is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34:1 (2010)
3 Tim Hsaio on gay marriage

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by MaTTyTL:
We get tired of repeating ourselves and being insulted especially with the knowledge all the gay marriage advocates are never going to change their minds on the issue.

Ironic, because that’s exactly how both sides feel about each other.

Ironic indeed, but in the end only one side can be the correct side.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

Originally posted by jhco50:

We tire of listening to those who are bigots. Just because people who believe differently got tired of listening to the whining and quit posting, the gay lovers continued on a few pages and declared themselves the winners. It’s sad really.

I’m not going to go as far as to say the other side is bigotry, but what jhco said IS true in a nutshell. We get tired of repeating ourselves and being insulted especially with the knowledge all the gay marriage advocates are never going to change their minds on the issue. Oh and I was just poking my head into the topic for the first time in a bit.

 
Flag Post

Topic: The Arts / I wrote a soooong! All live, all Youtube.

Feed back would be appreciated. :)

 
Flag Post

Topic: The Arts / I wrote a soooong! All live, all Youtube.

Hey guys! I would appreciate it if you took a look at a song I wrote!
I guarantee you all will be impressed and I really hope you all like it!
I also have another video of me playing the intro to MK Ultra by Muse on the piano but it’s a little choppy :/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovI21mt2a3Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ova5-remvw

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

@Vikatae

Point taken on the unnatural procreation among homosexuals. However, really the main objective is the proper raising of children through society.

You might want to take a look on the point I made about the biasness that have come from the studies on homosexual parenting.

Here are a couple studies:

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ResearchReviewHomosexualParenting.pdf
http://www.allaboutlove.org/children-of-homosexuals-faq.htm
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2004/apr/04040610

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

What YOU ARE FAILING TO UNDERSTAND is that it is you who is causing the circularity of a “fold-back-upon-itself” form of discussion where, when ppl challenge your position, all you do is respond by merely repeating the same initial position (fold-back).

Entirely false, I completely understand the position all of you are coming from. TYou all are just so daft and disrespect me so much you won’t even read what I have to say and comprehend it. You go reading it already thinking it is bullshit and that’s what makes you all arrogant assholes. I HAVE to fold back on my position because the points you all bring up HAVE ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED earlier in my opening argument.

As for your bigotry statement, well it was just sad. It really was. It makes me feel bad for you that you re so close-minded to what is right. So arrogant to learn when the answer is right in front of your face. You, out of all the people in this forum, make me sick.

I show no hatred towards gays. I want you to prove to me, right now, that I hate gays. Oh guess what? You can’t. And you never will. Why? Because it’s not true. It never will be true. Saying I hate gays is your final, sad argument to give when everything fails because I refuted all of your arguments and you have nothing left. Only your own arrogance allows you to continue believing what you do. I don’t know how Jhco stands you all. As soon as this little discussion between us is over I’m leaving once again because I CANNOT STAND you all. There is no civilization whatsoever among you all. At least where I debate people actually respect each other’s opinions and are looking to learn. There is none of that here.

You all should feel ashamed of yourself. I am namely talking about Tenco and KKK here.

I also want you to know, that yes, I did give it serious thinking. In fact, only a year ago I had no idea where I stood on gay marriage. At the time, I actually leaned on supporting it. I looked into it, I got opinions from my friends (most supported gay marriage), family (against gay marriage) I looked online I got all of the possible information I could from both sides until I could truly form my own opinion on it, and this is it.

…then it follows, as ExemplaryReturns said, that infertile couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry.

Actually I made a little typo. I have already stated this earlier a LOT of times so I’m not changing what I said in response to you.

It actually goes like this:

Truly, the proper raising of children to continue society is what marriage is about. This raising of children is generally done through procreation though. procreation is preferable because it replaces those who are dying out. Adoption works as an alternative for infertile couples since they cannot procreate themselves but they can raise children properly.

Homosexuals cannot procreate (with eachother) nor can they raise children properly through the studies shown earlier.

I would like to point out that the above statement is based on the assumption that homosexuals are not nearly as good of parents as homosexuals.

The reason I say this is that there have been (biased in my opinion) studies showing homosexuals are just as good as heterosexuals and studies showing that homosexuals are not nearly as good as heterosexuals at raising children.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

Originally posted by ExemplaryReturns:

I think that marriage should only be for making babies.

People should be forcefully married if they get pregnant. Infertile couples shouldnt be able to get married. When a couple becomes too old to make babies, they should be forced to divorce.

MARRIAGE IS ONLY FOR MAKING BABIES AND NOTHING ELSE!!!!

Lulztroll

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

@EPR89

It is a legal contract between two people adult consenting people. That’s all there is to it.
You cannot use something that is not required for it and say that this it what it’s there for.

I wasn’t asking for the definition of marriage. I was asking why you think people get married. I was asking you what exactly the “point” of marriage was.

In that case they are not scientific studies and you can just throw them out of the window.

Basically. Only one side is correct. And it’s the side who decided they actually wanted to do legitimate research on the subject for scientific knowledge and not the side who researched it with their own biasness in order to push along their own political agenda. I think my party does the legitimate research, and your probably think your party does the legitimate research, therefore we have hit a wall we will never pass.

My points are under the assumption that scientific studies showing that homosexuals are not as good parents as heterosexuals is true.

There is no procreation argument.

Oh really?

Marriage and Procreation

What makes marriage what it is? What makes marriage special so that it should only be obtained by man and woman together? I can answer that with one word. Procreation. Normally the argument in support of gay marriage goes along the lines of, “Oh well they really love each other so they should get married!” If marriage was about the emotional connection then why wouldn’t the two people simply stay as girlfriend and boyfriend? There is no point in recognizing a relationship that is only out of love. Obviously, only man and woman can procreate. Without procreation a society could not continue to live or thrive. The reason the man and woman get the marriage benefits is because they are doing society a “favor” per say by procreating and allowing the society to live. This is something homosexuals simply cannot do. Procreation is at the base of marriage; it is the main reason marriage exists. This fits the traditional view of marriage, which is between man and woman. Gay marriage gives absolutely no value to society at all as a whole.

That is exactly what I said one page before.

Procreation is related to marriage because procreation is at the center of marriage.

The FRC?
Another one of those Christian lobbyist groups.
This is their statement on homosexuality, right from their website:
“It is by definition unnatural”
Am I to believe that these people are willing or able to conduct objective research on the topic if they use unscientific definitions right from the start?

There is indeed an argument about how homosexuality is against Natural Law but I don’t feel like explaining it because if you all can’t even understand the procreation argument you won’t stand a chance at understanding the Natural Law argument. Anyways, I’m getting enough responses as is. I would be overwhelmed by you all if I brought up another point.

Oh, and their use of unnatural = Natural Law by the way.

That’s a bunch of descriptive indicators about homosexual relationships.
It says nothing about the effects on children brought up in homosexual relationships.

It also compare traditional marriages with homosexual relationships and not heterosexual relationships with homosexual relationships.
Something like this should not happen in a properly planned study.

Oops, that’s a different study I had posted. I guess I had posted 3 studies on homosexuals. Here is the correct one:

http://www.allaboutlove.org/children-of-homosexuals-faq.htm

@FlabbyWoofWoof

1. None of what history says happened during marriage is relevant to what marriage is about.
2. Look at my procreation argument
3. Look at my biasness among scientific studies point

@Tenco1

How is that a bias?

I’m going to explain this very simply.

1. (most) Gays support gay marriage
2. They support Gay marriage because they are gay.
3. Their biasness for gay marriage comes from being gay.

Not that hard to understand.

Well that’s a pickle, because I don’t want to read your shit, and even if I did, I still don’t think I’d understand what you’re talking about.

Wow, what a typical arrogant asshole you are. I read all of your posts and I try to understand the points you all make. Why would you even bother responding to what I say when you automatically assume what I am saying is “shit” and you totally disregard it? Maybe if you had an ounce of logic in your mind you could comprehend my points.

Which is why you bring up B.S like how they’re “worse” parents, or how marriage is “just for procreation.”

It’s obviously not B.S if I know my side is the right one. Perhaps you shouldn’t let your own arrogance drown you and actually open your mind to something for once.

And now I’m questioning your sanity, or your seriousness, because I can also say that I can “predict” what people will say, that means jack all to how well I know an issue.

I was simply stating that I know the typical gay marriage advocate response to someone who is against gay marriage. I wasn’t stating that I am the master of knowledge nor was I stating I was some seer that could predict the future.

For poor reasons.

Thank you for you extremely biased, arrogant opinion.

Because I’m not a fan of rap music and because they don’t, I’ve said why.

I have explained my position and I am telling you that I know where you are coming from. Now I am taking a step forward into the point. It is you who is not understanding.

Then say what I’m saying

You are saying that homosexuals are denied their rights because they cannot be with the person they truly love but heterosexuals can.

I already explained why this is not true.

Only heterosexuals can marry because marriage is only for heterosexuals. Actually even that isn’t necessarily true. A homosexual can marry someone of the opposite sex if they want to!

Take away all things you know about gay marriage. Take away any biasness you may have. Forget everything about sexual orientation. Now tell me if the below gives the exact same thing to homosexuals as it does to heterosexuals.

1. Homosexuals cannot marry someone of the same sex
2. Heterosexuals cannot marry someone of the same sex
3. Homosexuals can marry someone of the opposite sex
4. Heterosexuals can marry someone of the opposite sex
5. Other than that they both share the exact same rights given by the constitution, amendments ect.
6. Therefore homosexuals and heterosexuals have the same rights.

If you did it correctly then you can see that they have the SAME RIGHTS.

You’re still spouting both that procreation is the most important factor in marriage and that homosexuals are worse parents than heterosexuals; you’re wrong. It’s been proven over and over that procreation isn’t all-important to marriage. It’s also been proven that your “studies” are complete bull, and there’s no reason to think that heterosexual couples are somehow automatically better than homosexual couples.

Procreation IS the most important factor in marriage. If it wasn’t then there would be NO POINT IN GETTING MARRIED. As for your points on the studies read a statement I made above somewhere explaining biasness among studies.

Again, it’s about procreation in TYPE, NOT EFFECT. This means it is IRRELEVANT whether the couple chooses do have children or raise children. As long AS IT IS POSSIBLE that they may raise children PROPERLY in order to BENEFIT society then any marriage among heterosexuals IS GOOD. Assuming studies are true that heterosexuals are better parents than homosexuals then HOMOSEXUALS CANNOT RAISE CHILDREN PROPERLY SO THEY CANNOT HELP SOCIETY IN ANY WAY. THEREFORE THEY DO NOT DESERVE THE BENEFITS OF MARRIAGE THAT HETEROSEXUALS GET. In addition to all of this, gay marriage would confuse the main objective of marriage which is the raising of children properly for society. THIS CAN BE DONE THROUGH PROCREATION, BUT ISN’T NECESSARY. ADOPTION WORKS TOO, AS LONG AS YOU CAN RAISE CHILDREN PROPERLY. WHICH AGAIN, HOMOSEXUALS CANNOT DO.

I put in caps the important stuff since I have been forced to repeat myself every single time I respond to one you.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

Well seeing that as of now I am the only person against gay marriage in this discussion, I will try to sum up an answer to all of your responses.
@Tenco1

Well, I assume that he means that it would be troublesome if the two wanted to have a child of their own and not have to use a surrogate. Or maybe he’s copying MaTTyTl’s point about how homosexual parents somehow are “worse” at raising kids, but that would be stupid.

Are you serious? In my arguments earlier I listed two studies proving that homosexuals cannot raise children nearly as well as heterosexuals.

What biases?

The bias that gays deserve to be married. That bias comes from themselves being gay. This doesn’t apply to all homosexuals of course, I have met a few who are against gay marriage. It’s just very, very rare.

What “special rights?” Being able to legally marry your significant other?

Special rights in the sense that they want to get married when they don’t deserve to get married.

Why wouldn’t it be? Because your family/church/quacks, who’ve you’ve admitted to being the only ones to tell you about homosexuality, told you to think it’s icky?

If you read my previous arguments you would know why it wouldn’t be. Also, I already know both sides of the gay marriage argument quite well. If I didn’t I wouldn’t be able to predict everyone’s responses to what I say. I simply agree that gay marriage should be illegal.

Actually, people are being denied something, homosexuals cannot legally marry the person they love, heterosexuals can; that’s the big injustice in this country that people are trying to fight for.

NO. They are not being denied anything. Why is it so hard for you all to rap your head around the concept that we all have equal rights? And before you tell me to try to understand what you are saying, I already 100% (seriously) understand what you are saying. I am trying to bring the point further than that.

They LITERALLY have the exact same rights. We would also have the exact same rights if gay marriage were legalized, because then heterosexuals could marry someone of the same-sex just like homosexuals. What I am saying is that the line of where our rights extend needs to stop somewhere. Logically it should stop at man and woman because they can raise children properly to keep the ongoing survival of society.

Read my procreation argument in order to understand why the line should be drawn at man and woman.

@EPR89

I’m sorry, but as long as procreation is not a requirement you have no point.
Legal marriage is a legal bond and that’s it.

My point has already been made and you haven’t refuted it. If you can’t understand what i am trying to say than I really can’t help you.

I want you to tell me something. What is marriage about? Why do people get married? I am going to guess that you answer will be along the lines of, “It is a point where a couple decides they are ready to be truly dedicated to each other.” The thing is, you can do that without marriage. Marriage has a deeper aspect to it, and that aspect is explained through the procreation argument.

A special thing… See, this is exactly the issue with your reasoning. You don’t base your arguments on evidence or facts

Stop right there. I have already shown facts through the two studies I gave.
Sometimes arguments aren’t about facts. They are about logic and reasoning. You need that to truly understand. The problem with Liberal Democrats in this world is that they disregard logic and only focus on facts. Facts, facts, facts. But the most important things in this world can’t be proven by facts. That’s why we were given logic. To help us get through those things. Again, what I am saying right here will only be seen through with logic. I plainly predict you all will simply tell me this is my own false opinion ect. ect. ect. I can’t help you if you can’t see reasoning.

I like facts just as much as you guys do, but I like logic and reasoning even more.

“In the past marriage was also not primarily there in order to provide children with ideal conditions, but rather to provide women with a social security. And the really important difference is that this effect can actually be proven. In the past women who could not find a husband to support them had a really tough time getting by.”

In addition to this though, was that they would have children (generally a relatively large amount) in order to help them with work that needed to be done, whether through a job, or simple chores. Because of the advancement in technology people have been seeing a less and less need for children and have also not had as many because they began to turn into more of a financial “burden” then they did as a helpful worker. However, this is still one large need for children, allowing the world to continue to live.

Marriage is special because the objective of marriage which is at the heart, can only be taken on by heterosexual couples. Allowing gay marriage muddies this objective and changes the definition of marriage to mean nothing. To mean no more than an emotional connection between two people.

Show us some evidence that suggests that homosexuality are unable to do that or that they will ruin society.

Two studies have already been given. Homosexuals do not ruin society. I am saying gay marriage muddies the what marriage is about and it loses it’s meaning.

Homosexuals can adopt children who would otherwise never find a family.

In both of my studies it has shown that homosexual parents cannot raise children nearly as well as heterosexual couples. I posted the second study just in case you didn’t find the first study as unbiased as you would have liked it to.

I’m going to note a problem that goes with these scientific studies. This goes for Republicans and Democrats.

When taking these studies, they have a pre-biasness in mind. They are either trying to prove

a) Homsoexuals can raise children as well as heterosexuals or
b) Heterosexuals raise children better than homosexuals.

Because of that goal already in mind they will have a biasness to make their study reflect on what they think. This is why there are studies that show homosexuals can raise children just as well, and there are studies showing heterosexuals are better.

This is why I chose a study from the Family Research Council which gives legitimate studies on ALL KINDS of health issues in all kinds of situations.

Their main home page can be found here:

http://www.frc.org/

and a summary of the study can be found here:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2004/apr/04040610

@EPR89

But why limit them that way when there is no justification?

Justification is found in the procreation argument I gave earlier.

Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:

And I’d like to repeat this once again in reply to your

At the heart of marriage is is procreation.

statement, and I am asumming you mean traditionally. I’m pretty confident that if you look into the history of marriage, it was also mainly an economic agreement between families. But lets forget that and assume that main historical purpose of marriage was procreation…should we then have to keep the historical roles of husband and wife then? Should the wife have to stay home and just keep house? Should we go furthur into tradition and say that woman should remain inferior because they’ve always been thought of that way? If you want to keep discrimination based on tradition in one field, then why not in another?
The great thing about humanity in general is our ability to see inequality and injustices and eventually right their wrongs…regardless of ‘tradition’.
Lets not forget either that marriages were traditionally ‘arranged marriages’…would you be happy to reinstall that tradition?

Through history procreation has always been at the heart of marriage, even if that wasn’t the reason they themselves were getting married. Anyways, nearly all of your points are irrelevant because they have to do with the traditions related to marriage, not the tradition that is marriage itself. For example, you talk about how the wife should stay at home and keep the house. We can see that this is something that is related to traditional marriage, But it has nothing to do with the meaning of marriage.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:
To think that homosexuals have any less rights than heterosexuals is complete balderdash.
We can see how homosexuals have the exact same rights as heterosexuals below:
1. Homosexuals cannot marry someone of the same sex
2. Heterosexuals cannot marry someone of the same sex
3. Homosexuals can marry someone of the opposite sex
4. Heterosexuals can marry someone of the opposite sex

This is one of the biggest facepalms. Heterosexuals are allowed to marry someone of their own sexual orientation but homosexuals are not. Homosexuals have less rights. Sigh. Is this guy being serious or just trolling?

I figured someone would confuse this. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with rights. We can all marry someone of the opposite sex regardless of sexual orientation. There fore we have the same rights and no one is denied anything.

I said that the best way to understand this is to completely forget about sexual orientation and just look at the rights themselves. They are all equal.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

NO…your point is not valid.
It is merely highly subjective.

Highly subjective how? What did you think marriage was about? It’s obviously not about the emotional connection between two people, otherwise anyone could get married to anything granted it didn’t cause economic problems (polygamy). It’s about the ability to allow a particular society to thrive, and continue to live. Obviously someone has to replace us when we all die. Examples of countries who are struggling with allowing their society to thrive would be Italy (1) and Spain (2) because of how low their birth-rates are. Granted, the reason for the low birth-rates are generally attributed to the economy. You need to properly raise children to allow society to live. Homosexuals cannot do this, therefore they should not be able to get married nor receive the benefits of marriage.

Again, while the sheer numbers of divorces where children are involved pretty much invalidates this OPINON (as opposed to FACT) of yours.

Irrelevant. This is about gay marriage not how well heterosexuals can raise children. Obviously there is a problem with how heterosexuals are raising their children these days but that is highly subjective, because no matter what heterosexuals have the ability to raise their children properly for society without giving their children mental or psychological problems.

If it is so “special”, why do so many of them end up in divorce…often leaving kids to have to deal w/ the mess? AND, so very often….we have single mothers having to raise those kids ALL ON THEIR OWN because of “deadbeat” fathers. There are a lot of things in life that are “special” and they aren’t necessarily deemed so by all ppl. One thing that should be special for all ppl is that Constitutional Rights are observed.

Special in the sense that not everyone can do it. Again, divorce is irrelevant as seen in my above explanation.
Obviously people need to be more careful on who they choose to marry, but that has nothing to do with gay marriage.

Well, good for YOU.
But, bad for those whose Constitutional Rights are trampled by your opinion.

I thought someone would eventually bring this up.

To think that homosexuals have any less rights than heterosexuals is complete balderdash.
We can see how homosexuals have the exact same rights as heterosexuals below:
1. Homosexuals cannot marry someone of the same sex
2. Heterosexuals cannot marry someone of the same sex
3. Homosexuals can marry someone of the opposite sex
4. Heterosexuals can marry someone of the opposite sex
5. Other than that they both share the exact same rights given by the constitution, amendments ect.
6. Therefore homosexuals and heterosexuals have the same rights.

Sometimes it’s hard to understand, but imagine that you completely forget about sexual orientation. You can then realize that we do indeed have the same rights.

Bullshit.
As I pointed out in the “Black Issues” thread, SLAVERY (in its many forms going back well before 1 A.D., Romans being a great example), _had been for a long time, it worked out best for a long time, and would (should?) work for a long time. BTW, it somewhat is working today in the U.S. We Americans are enslaved by our greed & our willingness to create huge personal debt in order to have material things.

Slavery is not gay marriage. gay marriage being illegal is justified by what marriage is about in the heart. Slavery
was never justified and DIRECTLY walked upon our constitutional rights.

That last part wasn’t relevant to the discussion.

NO.
Not ENTIRELY false?
LOL
That is the beauty of a good lie.
Include just enough truth to suck in the gulible & woo in those who are searching for something to support their biases.

Just because it was conducted by that man does not mean his study is fallacious. In addition, more than one study has shown similar results, just not as specific.

“homosexual couples provide a far less safe and stable environment for children. They note that violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples, and homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages, with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years. Homosexuals are also more likely than heterosexuals to experience mental illness, substance abuse, suicidal tendencies, and shortened life spans. They conclude, “Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science.”

Yet even if one could cite cases of homosexuals living long, healthy, monogamous lives and providing well for children, the research shows that such people are the exception rather than the rule, and laws must be based on what usually happens, not exceptions.

For example, we should not stop warning people about the dangers of smoking just because some smokers outlive non-smokers. Nor should we stop warning people about the dangers of homosexual behavior or parenting just because some homosexuals outlive heterosexuals or parent better. (If we’re not going to warn them, at the very least, we ought not to endorse homosexual behavior through government-backed same-sex marriage.)"

http://www.allaboutlove.org/children-of-homosexuals-faq.htm

Very well explained if I may say so myself.

Did ya perhaps mean to say: I don’t see why single parents shouldn’t raise their own kids?

My apology, that was indeed what I meant to say.

CAN BE?
Try USUSALLY IS.
Many (esp. younger) kids actually blame themselves for the breakup.
Plus, do you not know how often divorce happens in America?

I am well aware of the divorce rates in America. What I’ve been trying to say is that divorce won’t always happen and is irrelevant to the marriage itself. It happens, but divorce exists outside of this topic. In addition, studies have shown that personal relationships breaking up between heterosexuals and homosexuals are nearly the same, with a way higher percentage from homosexual males.

“Author Timothy J. Dailey, Ph.D., reveals that “‘committed’ homosexual relationships are radically different from married couples in several key respects: the duration of the relationship; monogamy v. promiscuity; relationship commitment; number of children being raised; health risks; and the rates of intimate partner violence.””

“While almost 58 percent of married heterosexuals were still married after 20 years, a survey of same-sex couples found that “only 15 percent describe their current relationship as having lasted twelve years or longer, with five percent lasting more than twenty years.” Also, a Netherlands study related that the ‘duration of steady partnerships’ was typically no more than 1.5 years.”

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2004/apr/04040610

I want to see some stats on the numbers of single parents versus those of Gay parents. Pulling something out of a bigoted ass really doesn’t mean much here on this forum.

Take a look at some of the studies I have already posted.

Another nice hugely biased opinion.
Do ya care to cite some independant, unbiased studies on this?

Take a look at some of the studies I have already posted.

Do YOU not realize that I made my comment EXACTLY becuse it is YOU who has the _pointless, baseless, heavily opinionated thinking?

I want you to prove to me, that I am the wrong one here. Are you not aware of your own possible ignorance? Think to yourself, what if I WAS right. Then you would be a foolish, ignorant, a-hole, who insults people when they don’t agree with you. Pull your head out of you ass and actually open your mind. Now I remember why I left the Serious Discussion and actual joined a debate site. It’s because this whole forum is filled with arrogant Liberal arses that insult when you don’t agree with them.

I hope ya’re INCLUDING Gays (etc.) in all of this.

Of course I am. They are Americans and they are people too. Maybe if they got out of their own biasness and want for special rights then they would realize that gay marriage is not what’s best for our country.

The rest there is no need to respond to because

1. I already explained earlier in the discussion and
2. there was no need to respond to your opinion.

“The way we go about trying to make America is simply different.”

I use this above statement right here to help me tolerate Liberal Democrats. Why don’t you try to do the same for Republicans.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

@EPR89 …I really need to figure out this whole quote thing. facepalm

“Wrong.
Procreation is not required for marriage. This makes your point invalid.”

Wrong. Marriage is about procreation in type, not effect. As long as there is a possibility that the two can procreate or even raise children properly for society (this goes for infertile couples) then my point is still valid. At the heart of marriage is is procreation. I’m not saying ALL of marriage is about it. Think of more as a “main-objective” per say.

“You are confusing religious and legal marriage.
Religious marriage can have something like sanctity. Of course that sanctity differs from religion to religion. Which one to pick…
Legal marriage has not.

As it stands, legal marriage is a legal bond between two persons who are of age and willing to enter that bond with the other person. Because of that I see absolutely no problem with stuff like multiple spouses.
If you limit what people can legally do, you need to be able to support that with an argument. I don’t see that happening in the gay marriage debate."

Well I just so apologize for my incorrect word-usage. My point is is that marriage is a special thing, I don’t want it muddied up by something that doesn’t belong there. “legal marriage is a legal bond between two persons who are of age and willing to enter that bond with the other person.” …under the assumption that these people can help society by allowing it to continue to survive, i.e procreation/raising of children properly. That’s how it had been for a long time, that’s how it has worked out best for a long time, and that’s how it should be for a long time.

“That study was conducted by George Alan Rekers, a Baptist minister and someone involved in that whole “curing homosexuality” thing by using aversive therapy, when he has no evidence to prove that homosexuality is a psychological disorder that can be treated that way… Just throwing that out there.”

Point taken, and the point is fair. That still does not mean his study is fallacious.

“By the way, does this mean that single parents should also not be allowed to raise kids?
In case of a divorce, should boys always be given to the father, girls to the mother?
What are the statistics on them?”

I wouldn’t see why single parents should raise their OWN kids. I mean, divorce happens and it can be psychologically affecting to a child, but the chances of all this happening are far lower than gay parents themselves. We already know that homosexual parents cannot raise children as well as heterosexual couples. In addition, being a single mother is something that will only happen sometimes that can affect a child. Raising a child in a homosexual environment will affect them most of the time.

They aren’t raised in a homosexual environment. This could actually be enough of a difference to cause the above mentioned things. Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if a few of those things did happen to the children of single parents, but i do not see the relevancy to this discussion.

@KKK

Thank you for your pointless, baseless, heavily opinionated, thought to add to this debate. I found it foul, un-called for, and unintelligent. If your going to contribute to the debate don’t just go throwing pointless insults at people. I shouldn’t have to tell you to grow-up and be mature during this discussion.

Also:

1. It wasn’t hateful, and
2. It had nothing to do with religion

I want you all to remember that we are both Americans trying to work for the better of our lives and the lives of the people in the future. We aren’t enemies. The way we go about trying to make America is simply different.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

I would like to note I have not read any previous comments in this topic for quite a while (more than a few months)

Let’s begin with my points.

Marriage and Procreation

What makes marriage what it is? What makes marriage special so that it should only be obtained by man and woman together? I can answer that with one word. Procreation. Normally the argument in support of gay marriage goes along the lines of, “Oh well they really love each other so they should get married!” If marriage was about the emotional connection then why wouldn’t the two people simply stay as girlfriend and boyfriend? There is no point in recognizing a relationship that is only out of love. Obviously, only man and woman can procreate. Without procreation a society could not continue to live or thrive. The reason the man and woman get the marriage benefits is because they are doing society a “favor” per say by procreating and allowing the society to live. This is something homosexuals simply cannot do. Procreation is at the base of marriage; it is the main reason marriage exists. This fits the traditional view of marriage, which is between man and woman. Gay marriage gives absolutely no value to society at all as a whole.

Government has a role in marriage, however that role should be limited

There is a limited role that the government can, and cannot do with marriage. Hopefully the government would never go as far as to legalize marriages based around pedophilia, bestiality, having multiple spouses, ect. In order to preserve the sanctity and meaning of marriage, the government must draw the line somewhere on who gets married. It logical to see that that line should be drawn at marriage between a man and a woman. Reasoning behind this can be seen in my procreation argument. Marriages between man and woman benefit society while not complicating society like having multiple spouses could do.

You will likely respond to my procreation argument with the adoption argument and the No Difference theory which I will respond to now.

Parenting among homosexuals

Obviously one of the most important things in society is the children and how they are raised. Children need to be raised well in order to keep the society moving forward without problems. Homosexuals cannot achieve the expectations set in raising children well, or even better than heterosexual parents and I will now explain why.
A study taken in July of 2012 proved that homosexual parents fail in all categories in being better than their heterosexual counterparts at parenting.
“Homosexually-behaving adults inherently suffer significantly and substantially higher rates of partner relationship breakups, psychological disorder, suicidal ideation, suicidal attempt, completed suicide, conduct disorder, and substance abuse; therefore, as a group, households with a resident homosexually-behaving adult are substantially less capable of providing the best psychologically stable and secure home environments needed by foster children.”(1)
A study taken from the Journal of Human sexuality (2) concludes the following:
1. The presence of a father reduces the chances that the child will participate in criminal activities and reduces the chances the child will take drugs.
2. Lesbian mothers make children more sexually active. Fathers help the child stay chaste.
3. “Boys need fathers to help form sexual identities, and need mothers in order to interact with the opposite sex.”
4. People have the best sex lives when raised by heterosexual parents.
5. Fathers help children with interaction among other people.
6. When going through puberty, the father teaches the son “how to be assertive and how to be a “man”.”

(1) http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ResearchReviewHomosexualParenting.pdf
(2) Journal of Human Sexuality by George Alan Rekers

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / How do I approach first time having sex

Originally posted by Mordius:
Originally posted by MaTTyTL:

I wouldn’t risk it unless you are truly prepared for the possibility that you might have a child.

I stated i have rubbers ready

Originally posted by MaTTyTL:

I wouldn’t risk it unless you are truly prepared for the possibility that you might have a child.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / How do I approach first time having sex

I wouldn’t risk it unless you are truly prepared for the possibility that you might have a child.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Your opinions of Abortion

@JohnnyBeGood

“So your okay if anyone that could use a part of your Body to keep living, just comes by and takes it?”

I honestly find this as a poor example to abortion. The woman has a responsibility of a fetus that is entirely dependent on the mother to live. So two things fetus example has over your random man taking your body part, Dependency and Responsibility. The man does not entirely depend on you to live, and he can very well think and do things himself. I think people should feel the responsibility to help the man but they do not HAVE to.

Also, sorry for the misunderstanding to some of you, when I stated “Right to life > Right over your own body” I was still under the subject of abortion. As in, in the case of abortion the right to life is more important than the right
over your body.

@Tenco1

“Especially when the woman (or both, like I keep mentioning, even though you seem to ignore it) is likely to die if she waits the whole nine months, right?

Am I misguided to think that that pro-life view is entirely sexist?"

I am going to presume that what you mean is in special cases where a woman will die because of the pregnancy. Well would prefer the woman to be selfless and continue to take the risk through pregnancy, that is one of the special cases where I would politically make it legal.

And no, pro-life is not sexist at all. I would still hold (and so would every other pro-lifer) the same beliefs even if men got pregnant and women didn’t. So yes, that is a misguided opinion.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Your opinions of Abortion

@TheBSG

“Why do you hate to say that a woman shouldn’t have to have a child if she was raped?”

Because I am against abortion in all cases religiously. But politically I would accept it to be legal in the case of rape.

“You really see clumps of non-sentient cells as living because of a few lines in your bible, don’t you?”

Actually I believe that abortion is too complex of a topic to have existed in the bible. :P However, the Bible does continually sate how sacred life is and that it should be respected in all forms. Anyways, women did have the same rights as men back then, that’s not God’s fault, that was just how society was back then.

“Also, you support social programs for the parents, and children of parents that didn’t want them, right?”

Yup! Of course, I can’t force them into such a thing. I can convince them to take the programs though!

@Tenco1

“so you think that the woman is of less value than something that at more than one point in time doesn’t look human, looks similar to most other complex animals during the early stages, and for all intents and purposes can’t do anything to help society as a whole.”

Yup! Human is human no matter what form. Life is life. Life is more important than what a woman wants, not needs.

@VikaTae

“One thing that does puzzle me Matt, is why you say the fetus’ rights trump the mothers in all cases except where the fetus came about through sexual assault. Why is that one case special, and why in that instance does the father’s actions prevent the developing fetus from having any rights when in all other instances you say they do have rights?”

The only reason I would ever consider things like rape ect. to continue to be legalized would be so I could grab at a middle ground for voters, and for a much larger majority of people to be happy. In a perfect world, I would have abortion completely illegal, but I know that won’t be happening anytime soon so i have to settle for a middle ground.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Your opinions of Abortion

Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by MaTTyTL:

Right to life > Right over your own body

Just an opinion.

I bring this up again, what about in situations where the life of the mother or both is threatened?

And I repeat “Well religiously I am against any and all forms of abortion, however politically I would be (I hate to say it) okay with it if it were legalized in only circumstances of rape ect.”

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Your opinions of Abortion

Right to life > Right over your own body

Just an opinion.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Your opinions of Abortion

@NaturalReject

Originally posted by NaturalReject:
Originally posted by MaTTyTL:

Lol, sperm is just a cell in the male body that has the potential to make life. It isn’t life itself. Sperm is not a fertilized, growing egg.

“Just a cell”? A sperm cell can grow into an adult human being. You don’t think that’s worth protecting?

Nah, a sperm cell can’t turn into life on it’s own and it only has the potential to become life when fertilizing a female egg.

@KKK

“Something tells me that I should greatly doubt that YOU have done this…..eh?”

I’m very aware of the positions Pro-Choice people take on the matter, and I know myself that I find them as sick, immoral positions. That’s all.

“NO.
You have a very closed mind that finds a good deal of comfort in “going-along-to-get-along”.
I find most ANYONE who deigns to say no on will ever be able to convince me to think otherwise is actually a whooooole lot more than “arrogant”.”

I told you, I’m pretty damn arrogant on this matter. :D However, we can’t act as if it is pure arrogance, I mean, I truly believe in what I, well, believe.

EVERYTHING you have put up as an argument AGAINST abortion is summarily being knocked down…….and, YOU aren’t able to admit it.”

Lol, okay, that’s really pushing it. I haven’t seen anyone here knock down my arguments. We are technically still in the process of debating mind you.

“If YOU don’t want an abortion…..don’t get one.
HOWEVER, YOU have absolutely NO RIGHT to usurp that right from anyone else.”

Well if you want to get technical, I can’t get an abortion seeing that I am male. However if I were female I would never give in to such a disgusting act. I believe the life of a baby is bit more important that the rights of the woman carrying it because it might be “tough” or make her life “harder”.

As for your typing, I am not forcing you to change. I value your opinion enough to want to read your post, it would just be easier to do it without all of your… emphasis.

“Ya know Matty, I’ve NEVER been a fan of “converting” ppl who have such strongly closed-mindedness.”

Funny, conservatives have the exact same problem with liberals.

@TheBSG

“You didn’t answer the part where the fetus should live on its own, since you haven’t shown why the mother bears responsibility to a fetus she didn’t intend to have.”

Mmmm, I couldn’t be absolutely sure on this, but the last time I checked a fetus cannot live on its own. It is dependent on it’s mother to live. If the mother takes out the fetus then she kills, basically an abortion.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Your opinions of Abortion

“Women who get pregnant have to have the kid because they were immoral enough to have sex without planning for the possibilities of the baby.”

Nooooo, they have to have the kid because it is life and is far too important to just be killed.
It also doesn’t matter if it has the potential to be a child, it is still human no matter what stage it is at.

Originally posted by NaturalReject:
Originally posted by MaTTyTL:

And yeah, a fertilized egg is life.

Why isn’t a sperm life?

Lol, sperm is just a cell in the male body that has the potential to make life. It isn’t life itself. Sperm is not a fertilized, growing egg.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Your opinions of Abortion

I got my beliefs on abortion from my religion, friends, and family. So what? I agree with it and I have considered the pro-choice position, but I am still against it.

“No, because at this time your not totally disregarding and trampling over the rights of the Mother as human being, instead of just seeing her as breading machine at best and someone receiving divine punishment for not adhering your set of morals at worst.”

I’m pretty sure a mother shouldn’t have authority over the Right To Life. And yeah, a fertilized egg is life. I don’t see how it lacking the characteristics of a born human makes it not a human.

I have moral walls that will never be broken down, and no one will ever be able to convince me to think otherwise. You can call me arrogant, I can be proud that I am strong in my own faith.

And for goodness sake KoolKarmaKid can you type without spelling everything how you would pronounce them and not putting caps on a bunch of words for emphasis? It would just make it easier to read.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Your opinions of Abortion

Well religiously I am against any and all forms of abortion, however politically I would be (I hate to say it) okay with it if it were legalized in only circumstances of rape ect.

I hate it when people say it is just a lump of cells as if it is of no importance. Yeah, it is just a lump of cells, so what? It’s life. When do you think life starts? At conception. It is pure logic and you would have to be mentally retarded not to understand that. So what if it hasn’t developed certain organs, or doesn’t have an established sex yet, it is human. It is a living, breathing being dependent on it’s mother. Why is it any less wrong to kill the baby when it has already been born? Because it has a brain? Because it can feel pain? So what, they are both human at different stages in life. It is equally immoral to kill a baby 2 years old as it is to kill one 2 weeks old. Age doesn’t matter, human is human.

I just can’t stand watching so many lives being destroyed just so someone can live an easier life, especially when that person brought their unplanned pregnancy upon themselves.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Your opinions of Abortion

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Nobody’s likely to go through abortions regularly. Its a rather undesirable procedure for the mother. It’s something she tries if she did not wish to be pregnant and all other methods of prevention she/they used have failed.

Funny you say that. About 50% of all women who have had an abortion get at least another one. Although to be fair, I can’t quite pinpoint your exact meaning of “regularly”.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

I’m against abortion. People need to be responsible and only have sexual intercourse with the intent of having a child. It is extremely irresponsible and selfish to put your own life and sexual pleasure over that of an unborn baby.