- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Gay Marriage
Posted on 11/26/24 at 8:51 am to RogerTheShrubber
Posted on 11/26/24 at 8:51 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Scientists have found that the psychological and social aspects of committed relationships between same-sex partners largely resemble those of heterosexual partnerships.
Those are the same "scientists" now telling you that children should be able to decide to cut off their dongs and sterilize themselves before the age of 10.
You'll forgive me if I don't believe anything they say.
This post was edited on 11/26/24 at 8:54 am
1
Posted on 11/26/24 at 8:52 am to OBReb6
quote:
in ways few could have foreseen
Speak for yourself.
We told you.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 8:52 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
And some dudes are only attracted to little kids. Others are only attracted to themselves (auto-sexual; not the same as masturbating to porn or as a substitute for sex with someone else). And some are zoophiles, who are sexually attracted to animals. Just because someone has a feeling, it doesn't mean that feeling represents a normal or mentally healthy impulse.
You’re equated two consenting adults that have feelings for each other with an adult who has feelings for children and animals who cannot freely give consent? I just want to make sure we are working off the same premise.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 8:52 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Scientists have found that
Muh TRustT thE ScIenCe!!!
The American Pediatrics Asspciation currently claims it is perfectly normal for a boy to become a girl
Posted on 11/26/24 at 8:54 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
Those are the same scientists now telling you that children should be able to decide to cut off their dongs
Weird. The scientific study I read did just the opposite.
quote:
The leader of the long-running study said that the drugs did not improve mental health in children with gender distress
Posted on 11/26/24 at 8:54 am to Snipe
quote:
This whole argument could be ended if we got the government out of the marriage business
Government originally got involved because Marriage was a net benefit to the community. It created children and healthy communities. This is not the case with gay marriage and an inversion to this original intent
Posted on 11/26/24 at 8:55 am to Flats
quote:
Attacking a straw man is simple.
Again, I'm not talking about changing anything regarding gay marriage. I'm talking about how and why it was forced upon the country and whether or not that's healthy.
Can you provide a justification for banning gay marriage that doesn't involve violating the rights of consenting individuals based on the moral beliefs of the majority?
Posted on 11/26/24 at 8:55 am to Dex Morgan
It can happen but it’s not a blatant perversion of the spirit of the law.
There is zero possibility that 2 men or 2 women can procreate together
There is zero possibility that 2 men or 2 women can procreate together
Posted on 11/26/24 at 8:56 am to Smeg
quote:
I really wish the LGBT movement could have been happy and satisfied with this once gay marriage passed
This was never going to happen. A society cannot accept just one lie, once the string is pulled, it all has to unravel. This mythical middle ground you long for does not, has not, and never will exist. We either belive in truth or we deny it. You can't just deny it some here, and accept it over here.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 8:57 am to SidewalkDawg
Bush, et al stepped in it with DOMA. Once DOMA was passed, marriage became officially incorporated into the federal sphere which indirectly opened the door to Obergefell. Before that marriage was something the states did and it was covered by interstate compact.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 8:58 am to BigPerm30
quote:
You’re equated
I haven't equated anything.
I've given examples in order to clarify and critique your logic.
Which is, "Well, people feel like doing something, they ought to be able to do it."
And before you go down the road of acting like we are consistent in saying that children cannot consent, y'all's "scientists" have pretty much blown that one up.
If a 10 year old can consent to genital removal and hormones that permanently alter their bodies for the rest of their lives, exactly why can't that same 10 year old consent to sexual contact with an adult?
Save the appeals to ridicule and pearl clutching, tell me why. The first one has far more permanent consequences than the second one.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 8:59 am to burger bearcat
quote:
Government originally got involved because Marriage was a net benefit to the community. It created children and healthy communities. This is not the case with gay marriage and an inversion to this original intent
Sure, however today it also serves as a means to provide stability and support for families. Gay couples, through adoption or other means, can raise children in loving, supportive environments, which contributes positively to society just as much as heterosexual marriages do.
Let's not pretend all hetero relationships are a net positive to society.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 9:00 am to SidewalkDawg
quote:
Can you provide a justification for banning gay marriage that doesn't involve violating the rights of consenting individuals based on the moral beliefs of the majority?
Can you provide a justification for banning slavery that didn't involve violating the rights of property owners in 1860 based on the moral beliefs of the majority?
Hint: When you base rights on the moral beliefs of the majority, you're screwed.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 9:02 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Weird. The scientific study I read did just the opposite.
I can quote non-mainstream opinions that support what I am saying about homosexuals.
Would you like me to?
You'll be convinced by it? It will move the needle for you?
Posted on 11/26/24 at 9:03 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
You're going to have to provide a link before I believe that a court would invalidate an otherwise solid will for basically no reason.
1- Courts invalidate wills all of the time.
Read #7. Families would argue that the relative was under “undue influence” by being seduced into the relationship:
LINK
2-No, I don’t have to provide proof, but I’ll oblige. From Wikipedia’s summary of the Obergfell decision:
quote:
The Court listed four distinct reasons … Fourth, and lastly, "marriage is a keystone of our social order," and "[t]here is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle"; consequently, preventing same-sex couples from marrying puts them at odds with society, denies them countless benefits of marriage, and introduces instability into their relationships for no justifiable reason.[125]
What could be included in the “countless benefits of marriage”? Maybe all of the financial ones?
You don’t have to believe me, but gay couples were forced to incorporate under LLCs to ensure the wealth property accumulated together would stay with the couple.
From Pew Research LINK:
quote:
They point out, for instance, that homosexual couples who have been together for years often find themselves without the basic rights and privileges that are currently enjoyed by heterosexual couples who legally marry — from the sharing of health and pension benefits to hospital visitation rights.
One of my very good friends was in a long term partnership before gay marriage was legal. His partner was older and died. They had to go to great lengths by forming an LLC and creating a trust to ensure my friend wouldn’t be kicked out of their home and disinherited. Doing this is much more expensive than creating a simple will or by getting married and having the property pass directly to my friend.
Why did they have to do that? Because they had seen many of their friends get disinherited even if they had a will. My friend’s partner wanted an airtight arrangement so my friend could not be disinherited after his partner’s death.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 9:04 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
The leader of the long-running study said that the drugs did not improve mental health in children with gender distress
Did the leader go on to declare that children shouldn't be able to undergo such treatment as a result of their findings?
If not, this is a non-sequitur.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 9:04 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
I can quote non-mainstream opinions that support what I am saying about homosexuals.
Your bias will take you to where you want it to take you.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 9:04 am to SidewalkDawg
quote:
Gay couples, through adoption
In a vacuum, all things being equal.
Which arrangement is better for a child to be raised in.
One with a mother and father. Or one with two fathers or two mothers?
Should one arrangement be prioritized over the other? Should these arrangements be deemed equal?
When it comes to adoption, should we place more emphasis on the well being of the child or the emotional feelings of the adults wanting to adopt?
This post was edited on 11/26/24 at 9:05 am
Posted on 11/26/24 at 9:06 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
Can you provide a justification for banning slavery that didn't involve violating the rights of property owners in 1860 based on the moral beliefs of the majority?
Hint: When you base rights on the moral beliefs of the majority, you're screwed.
I mean, we are in agreement here. Just as we recognize that slavery was wrong because it violated the fundamental rights of individuals, we should also recognize that denying consenting adults the right to marry, based on the moral beliefs of the majority, is similarly unjust. The law should protect individual rights and freedom, not enforce the views of the majority, especially when it doesn't harm anyone. Just like with slavery, this is about ensuring equal treatment for all.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 9:09 am to SidewalkDawg
quote:
we should also recognize that denying consenting adults the right to marry,
We do believe they can get married. It's not about violating rights of anyone individually. They can marry the opposite sex.
What you are asking is for us to change what marriage is to something that it is not.
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News