Another "gay roommate" thread?

Student Lounge College Life
201

<p>"Actually… until very recently, marriage has been about getting a wife as property to her husband, using daughters in arranged marriages to benefit their families, with siring of kids (read: sons) being the other factor. "</p>

<p>In some cases this may be true. I do not agree with this line of thinking, so don’t accuse me of promoting it, but these marriages still did not preclude procreation, and benefitted our race in some way through reproduction. Why couldn’t men marry men to benefit a family? They can’t produce kids.</p>

<p>"And it was so much better when they just kinda shut up and stayed in bad marriages? In loveless marriages? I agree, divorce is not a good thing for a kid. But you’re advocating a “shut up, keep your head down, deal with it” attitude. "</p>

<p>WRONG…</p>

<p>The point is that when couples go into marriage with a selfish attitude, i.e. what can I get out of marriage, how will my partner please me in bed, with money etc. the marriages don’t work. In the case of sex for pleasure, this is the exact attitude of the couples, what can I get out of sex? </p>

<p>In the case of procreation, the couples are having sex with the intention to raise kids and work together for the good of their kids. Because these couples are less selfish, they are able to be happier in marriage because their interests are not conflicting. Their intention is to work together for the good of each other and their family, not themselves.</p>

<p>“The world is overpopulated – this is a problem how exactly?”</p>

<p>Is it overpopulated or just corrupt because of selfishness? Show me proof that it is overpopulated. Overpopulation isn’t fact.</p>

<p>Itach, I think this debate is over. All I am doing is showing how you are distorting and misrepresenting my arguments.</p>

<p>When you can’t argue with facts and logical reasoning anymore, then I don’t think you are going to be able to advance your point any farther.</p>

202

<p>Also… you’re shifting your argument between “Definition of marriage = 1 man + 1 woman” and “Marriage is for Procreation” and then criticizing raiderade when he corners you on one of the arguments by saying you mean the other. You mean both, so stick to both, okay? </p>

<p>FALSE </p>

<p>Definition and purpose of marriage are two different things. The purpose of marriage is procreation. The definition of marriage: 1 man 1 woman serves the purpose of recognizing the union of couples who CAN procreate. Any don’t use the Old people, sterile etc. arguments, I already showed why those are wrong.</p>

203

<p>[The</a> Impact of Overpopulation on our Planet](<a href=“http://webtech.kennesaw.edu/tbrown/overpopulation.htm]The”>http://webtech.kennesaw.edu/tbrown/overpopulation.htm)</p>

<p>I would love it if you could re state your argument in one post. If I am not mistaken, your argument is:

  • Marriage is 1 Man + 1 Woman because it has been
  • Marriage is for procreation </p>

<p>I have provided several, logical counterarguments to this.</p>

<p>You did not state why those arguments about sterility, etc are wrong. You just decided to ignore it because it is a “small group” and we can’t know if they are sterile. That doesn’t make it a good argument. The fact is that 1/3 of couples have trouble conceiving children. We also allow people who we know full well cannot have children to marry. I know you don’t like that these people marry, but they do which makes it true that marriage isn’t for procreation. I’m not sure how my argument is illogical.</p>

204

<p>

</p>

<p>…Que? </p>

<p>No, really… -flat What?-</p>

<p>You’re… joking, right? Look dude, I’ve been nice because you were homeschooled and brainwashed by your parents but… uhh… overpopulation has been fact for a long LOOONNNG time now. Why do you think China invented the One-Child policy that, while brilliant on paper resulted in all that female infantacide? Because they were burning through resources faster than they could produce them. Nobody seriously argues from a “the world is not overpopulated standpoint” anymore. </p>

<p>And another thing, I decided to go back and actually check out that article and noticed it’s from FreeRepublic. I’m gonna level with you here… FreeRepublic is not the kind of place you want to go for a source, no matter how professional or verbose it sounds. They’ve earned a nickname around the net as “Freepers” because the members are… what’s a polite word for “crazy?” These people giggled, and cheered, and celebrated because of the Earthquake in Japan, and the Tsunami, and everything. Because they were “Birth pangs” (w/e the hell that means) and surely “signs of the Rapture.” FreeRepublic is not, never has been, nor ever will be a legitimate source. I really should have stopped you quoting from it back on page 12, it’s just not the kind of place you want to quote from. You can do better.</p>

205

<p>^I agree with you but personally attacking someone (eg brainwashed by homeschooling) is not going to strengthen your argument imo.</p>

206

<p>Ugh, how many times do I have to counter the sterility argument? And you do know couples can have fertility treatments to enable them to have kids. Trouble conceiving does not preclude conceiving at all.</p>

<p>The marrying 40 and 50 year olds are largely a result of the whole point you are trying to make, marriage is for sexual pleasure. It just provides further evidence that your viewpoint only damages marriage.</p>

<p>And like I said, if marriage isn’t for procreation, then the government has no business whatsoever with dealing with marriage and sexual relationships.</p>

<p>If marriage is for sexual Pleasure, then why doesn’t the government also regulate dating relationships which involve sex for Pleasure?</p>

207

<p>"You’re… joking, right? Look dude, I’ve been nice because you were homeschooled and brainwashed by your parents "</p>

<p>Now you resort to insults. This debate is over and you are just proving that you can’t argue with facts anymore.</p>

208

<p>

</p>

<p>So your argument is “They’re man and woman so they’re able to procreate… even though they totally can’t, Jack A goes into Slot B so they…they CAN… but… they… they really can’t but… they’re man and woman so… so it’s okay” that argument was raised in the Prop 8 trial, it didn’t hold water.</p>

<p>Blankenhorn ALSO raised the argument that Polygamy was “One Man + One woman” at any time so basically it fit the definition (provided they never had a threesome or something, I dunno what he was trying to get at there, they decided he wasn’t an expert witness).</p>

<p>And… what raiderade said…SO much. I had NO idea why you were calling his argument invalid, I followed it perfectly. It wasn’t that complicated, really.</p>

<br>

<br>

<p>

</p>

<p>My mom’s 54, she’s yet to be married once, because she never found the right person. Dad was GONNA marry her but decided to be a horndog instead. Don’t you suggest that if she married it would be out of anything less than love for the person she fell in love with. Don’t you even.</p>

209

<p>

</p>

<p>But the government doesn’t require people with fertility problems to undergo expensive fertility treatments to have children. </p>

<p>What’s wrong with 40’s and 50’s getting married. What about a single mother with a 10 year old who wants a positive male role model in the house and in addition this woman loves this man – they want to spend their lives together. What’s so wrong with that?</p>

<p>The government has never regulated sexual pleasure so I don’t see why they should start now. The government, does, on the other hand, confer benefits (like insurance, hospital visitation, etc) to loving, consenting individuals. So I don’t see why that can’t extend to all consenting individuals.</p>

210

<p>Oh, and about the brainwashed thing. Well, actually I wasn’t brainwashed. By totally rejecting my parents opinions and not valuing them at all, I learned to think for myself pretty well.</p>

211

<p>^I’ll level with you, the reason I said that is your parents sounded Fundie and Fundie + Homeschool usually means teaching the earth is just 6000 years old, bizzare revisions of history, evolution is a lie, etc etc. Which would be some pretty nasty brainwashing if that is indeed what you were taught.</p>

212

<p>Like I said dude, I think for myself. You aren’t going to have a good handle on who I am from reading that thread, and I regret posting it. I know me and my life a lot better than you know me and my life so don’t comment on it. That would be like me attributing your sexuality to being raised by a single parent since I know those things about you from reading your posts on here, but I haven’t said anything like that.</p>

<p>I just felt like venting, and didn’t really need help with anything by posting that.</p>

213

<p>

</p>

<p>Wait…what? So, if marriage is for procreation, the government has a right to deal with marriage and sexual relationships? How does this make any sense, at all?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Marriage is not for sexual pleasure. It is not for greed. It is for LOVE. That is when you are supposed to marry.</p>

<p>So, say a man loves another man or a woman loves another woman. He/she is not sexually greedy…in fact, his/her entire focus is to please the other person…in every way possible. They are connected mentally, physically, spiritually, you name it–this is called love. I gather you’ve never felt this phenomenon in your life. IS THIS WRONG? Is it wrong to call THIS marriage, or is it wrong to call a man and a woman marrying for greed marriage?</p>

<p>Your arguments make no sense to me.</p>

214

<p>Actually, I explained myself quite well. Why should the government care whether people are in love or not? Love has nothing to do with the good of the nation. I don’t think the government has any “love” laws out there. You are thinking about the issue of marriage laws in too individualistic of a sense, not the benefit of marriage to society. The government is interested in the welfare of our nation.</p>

<p>Procreation does serve a purpose to society in a general sense by maintaining our population. Since the government is interested in maintaining our population (it certainly is necessary to keep our nation healthy) the government gives benefits to couples who marry to benefit and reward procreative relationships. Yes, there are cases where men and women can’t or won’t have kids, but they are in the minority, and screening and blocking their marriages is more expensive and troublesome than it is worth. So generally, couples are assumed to be having kids.</p>

<p>The government has only ever made laws about marriage for the good of society, not to deal with love lives.</p>

215

<p>Okay, I read your article.</p>

<p>Here is my critical analysis of it.</p>

<p>Close relatives (and by this I mean immediate family, first cousins, etc.) are biologically programmed not to desire each other sexually. The genes of two close relatives are too similar to permit a deep biological attraction. This is a scientific fact, and it has been a scientific fact for years. It makes perfect sense–and it is a way to protect the culture, because such children would be weaker, due to the lack of variations in genes over time.</p>

<p>However, the government banning such marriages is excessive–it is enough to have SOCIETY “ban” such marriages, because they are deemed “inferior” in biological ways.</p>

<p>In other words, such marriages are prevented, because they are harmful to society, not just ambivalent toward society…but again, I deem the governmental banning of such marriages to be wrong and excessive, imo. (And would like to additionally point out that this will not and cannot prevent sexual reproduction, just marriage…so…what’s the point of the government banning it, anyway?)</p>

<p>Polygamy is not accepted in our culture, but it is accepted in other cultures, you will find. Polygamy is definitely not good for kids, as they would be raised in a culture of chaos, with few exceptions to such a rule. It also defies the concept of marriage as a monogamous joining of two individuals who love solely one another until they die. It has also been biologically proven that humans are <em>more</em> biologically monogamous than they are polygamous. In terms of marrying and raising a family, they are biologically programmed to do so with only two people! Yes, really, seriously. Look it up, you know, with actual scientific facts and everything.</p>

<p>Now, back to your earlier point about gays not having a drastically different situation from married straight couples–I disagree. This is called segregation. Their “marriages” (civil unions, IF that) are segregated, and they are, whether you, as a straight person, see it this way or not, “inferior” to other marriages. My question is, why not redefine marriage isntead of making this a huge argument over how marriages and civil unions are practically the same thing? If they really are practically the same thing, then there is no point in not redefining marriage…unless they really aren’t the same thing. Now, what do you say to that?</p>

216

<p>@Al - no I really shouldn’t keep bringing it up, it was important for you to tell that about yourself, you’ve been through a lot. I’m not tryin’ to be effed up, I’m just sayin’ that’s why I’m not being quite as brutal as I get with anti because I think what you’ve gone through kind of excuses your… not fully enlightened views on LGBTs, so I’m patiently explaining things and bringing facts into it without trying to get especially vicious about it. I don’t generally pull punches about this issue, to me LGBTs are deserving of the same rights straights get, simple, end of discussion, and anybody on the other side of the issue is either ignoring the facts, or too icked out by gay people to accept the truth. I’ve read the research, I’ve seen the stories, I know the facts, and like with many other issues, I really don’t see how other people, when presented with the facts, would still rather accept the lies as truth even though they cause patented harm to others. It boggles the mind to me</p>

217

<p>“you’ve been through a lot”</p>

<p>Listen dude. You are fighting with insults and assumptions about my life. You might be a psychology major, but you aren’t a mind reader, so stop.</p>

218

<p>Dude, I have no doubt you have failed to win this debate since you try to excuse me with insults and saying “I’ve been brainwashed” etc. I stuck with the facts, you ignore them and try to dismiss my arguments because of my “disadvantages.” </p>

<p>Anyone with an open mind can see you are desperate now and it is you who have been backed into a corner with no way out, so you fling insults to divert people’s attention from your failed logic.</p>

219

<p>^That… wasn’t really an insult -confused- that was a compliment more than anything a statement of facts, I was saying I sympathize… jeez. It was meant as a sort of peace offering. I don’t think you’re a genuinely bad person but -shrug- we’re getting off topic. </p>

<p>I wholeheartedly agree with ParadoxUnknown, if DPs and CUs are supposed to be “marriage except for the name” why not just confer the name “marriage” anyway, unless they’re supposed to be “seperate but equal” which has historically never worked, ever.</p>

<p>Edit: Alright, gloves off. I’VE failed to win the argument? That’s hillarious, I’ve countered everything you had to say logically and reasonably. You pretty much used one source the entire time, an article from FREE REPUBLIC which is one of the least credible sources out there. It’s worse than Hotair, credible sources flee from Free Republic. </p>

<p>Desperate? Backed into a corner? I’m not the one who kept shifting my argument every time I got checked by something. And again, except for the “brainwashed” comment, which I admitted was in poor taste and explained, I haven’t “insulted” you at all. I said your views on LGBT people are unenlightened, and they are. We wouldn’t be having this conversation at all if your views on LGBTs and marriage equality weren’t misinformed. </p>

<p>Here’s a test: Where did my logic fail? List out some of the times my logic failed. Because you know what I see? I see that YOUR logic failed and now you’re grasping to the few times I “insulted” you to divert attention away from the rest of my superior points and say “SEE, SEE? He’s insulting me, he’s wrong and I’m right haha!”</p>

220

<p>

</p>

<p>You have basically lost all credibility with me at this point, lol. Marriage is about love, according to a social definition. You’re right, the government doesn’t have any “love” laws, and it shouldn’t. However, it does have marriage laws, which involve love, so in effect, it can deny the right of one person to fully express their love for another person.</p>

<p>I am looking at this in an individualistic sense, because that’s how other people feel injustice, inferiority, and pain. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m going to include two basic assumptions in my argument, here:</p>

<ol>
<li>Marriage is not necessary for procreation. </li>
<li>A married couple is a better environment for raising children, usually.</li>
</ol>

<p>So if gay couples adopt kids, which they can do after marriage, how is this any different from “procreative relationships”? Do you not think that love between two parents is essential to raise well-balanced children? Do you think that a parody of a straight relationship by a gay person would be more beneficial than the same person adopting the kids of another couple with someone he/she truly loves?</p>

<p>And your argument that male and female influences are necessary to raise a child fails at the single parents factor. Should single parents be banned now, too?</p>