U.S. Senate Approves Anti-Discrimination Bill Endorsed by Tim Cook

[chrono1081]

Marriage isn't just about recognising that you love someone. Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman that has evolved in society for the raising of children.

Then explain how people can get married even if they can't have children or don't want children. I can't even believe you tried to use that as an arguing point.

You are a hate filled bigot. Why? Because rest assured you will have some criteria by which you consider it wrong for two people to get married. Is it a brother and sister? What about a father and daughter?

Me a hate filled bigot? You don't know a thing about me. As long as that marriage is between two consenting adults its none of my business. Not to mention many states (probably one you are from) allow marriage between family members.

At some point you will reach a line that you consider it wrong to cross. Why? No other reason but hate?

None. What consenting adults do in their bedrooms is none of my business.

I don't think you are a hate filled bigot but you need to understand that there is more to this than hate. I don't hate you. I don't hate anyone. I do sincerely believe that redefining marriage to allow people of the same sex to marry would be contrary to the greater good.

I believe that children deserve to have a mother and a father. To intentionally deny them one of those is child abuse.

You just said above I was a hate filled bigot. Now, as for redefining marriage its already been done a million times throughout history. Christians redefined marriage to fit their needs to increase their numbers.

In Biblical times marriage wasn't for love unless you were rich, it was to gain property. Poor farmers sold off their daughters to gain livestock and money. Why don't we do that today? That's traditional marriage. Please explain why that definition was able to be changed.

Also, back in Biblical times men COULD have husbands. Why did that change? Nero had a husband.

As for "child abuse" you are 100% wrong on that. Numerous studies including the largest one ever done out of Australia proved kids of gay parents are just fine. You incorrectly assume every child has a mother and father. You also incorrectly assume that children only live with a mother and father.

What about single mothers? Children in foster care? Children who are raised by a relative?

Do you really think that a foster kid hopping from broken house to broken house is better off than a child adopted by a gay couple?

----------

It is the reductio ad adsurdum of the argument presented.

One may like apples or one may like oranges. An apple isn't the same thing as an orange. Refusing to call an orange an apple doesn't mean that one hates either.

Marriage involves a man and a woman. Two men or two women can spend all their lives together but it will never be a marriage. It is an ontologlical impossibility.

Wrong again. Marriage is nothing but a ceremony. We can strip marriage from EVERYONE and society will be exactly the same minus the wedding industry.

 

[rdowns]

Marriage isn't just about recognising that you love someone. Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman that has evolved in society for the raising of children.

OK, we're making some progress here. You agree that marriage has evolved therefore it has changed over time.

 

[chrono1081]

OK, we're making some progress here. You agree that marriage has evolved therefore it has changed over time.

He just flat out doesn't want to admit that his "gay marriage will somehow prevent heterosexual people from getting married and having kids" argument leaks like a sieve.

 

[r.harris1]

Marriage isn't just about recognising that you love someone. Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman that has evolved in society for the raising of children.

You are a hate filled bigot. Why? Because rest assured you will have some criteria by which you consider it wrong for two people to get married. Is it a brother and sister? What about a father and daughter?

At some point you will reach a line that you consider it wrong to cross. Why? No other reason but hate?

I don't think you are a hate filled bigot but you need to understand that there is more to this than hate. I don't hate you. I don't hate anyone. I do sincerely believe that redefining marriage to allow people of the same sex to marry would be contrary to the greater good.

I believe that children deserve to have a mother and a father. To intentionally deny them one of those is child abuse.

I'm married. Not even vaguely ever planning to have children. I'm able to enjoy the societal benefits of marriage without the pitter-patter of little feet. Why not other committed partners? And please refrain from responding with the "then we'll allow marriage between brothers and sisters" argument.

Children deserve a loving, stable environment. Of course, that does not require a man+woman. When I was growing up, my best friend at the time was raised by two women in a committed relationship. Probably hands down the best family culture I have ever witnessed and most assuredly not child abuse and I assure you that the family relationship (to be without a father) was 100% intentional.

Quite frankly, some of the most committed relationships I know are among my gay friends. Committed relationships build a better, stronger society, at least in my opinion.

In what way does allowing a committed couple to be legally married find itself contrary to the greater good? I find that it enhances the greater good significantly:

• 
  Provides legal stability to the entire family, including finances, insurance, etc. This also I believe helps society as a whole

• 
  Provides a stable, caring environment for children involved

• 
  Builds better communities because of inclusiveness

If my gay neighbors are married, it does not hurt me, my marriage or anyone else's marriage. Not only does it not hurt anyone at all, it also makes the world a better place . They're happy, society now has more models for stable relationships and therefore it should be happy. What's not to like?

 

[stockcerts]

Just read quite a few posts in this thread. It boggled my mind. I don't think some of the bigoted small minded/small town thinking displayed here is the way the majority of Americans think, maybe two decades ago. The Pope would disagree with many of the posts in this thread.

So glad I live in a community that appreciates and welcomes diversity, not hatred. Personally, I have a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that in 2013 people in our society don't feel that everyone should enjoy the same equalities.

 

[niuniu]

It boggled my mind. I don't think some of the bigoted small minded/small town thinking displayed here is the way the majority of Americans think, maybe two decades ago. The Pope would disagree with many of the posts in this thread.

Not sure about the Pope, but Jesus certainly would disagree with deeply prejudiced Catholics like Sue De Nimes.

People who are 100% for equal rights, and see gay people as absolute equals in all terms are far more likely to be closer to Jesus and his real teaching than any of these Catholics with their 'homosexuality is a condition, but you can make it to heaven if you don't touch each other and change your disgusting ways' stance.

 

[zioxide]

Natural behavior? Oh, the some animals are gay argument? Some animals practice cannibalism as well - should we all do that as well?

What is this straw man? Can you make any argument that isn't full of logical fallacies? What the hell does cannibalism have to do with two people who love each other getting married?

There is nothing ignorant or hateful in my words.

You're joking right? You don't get more ignorant or hateful than this statement right here:

I have sympathy for anyone who is afflicted with same sex attraction.

and have done nothing but show your own hate filled prejudices.

I love this part. "You're calling me out on my bigotry so you're a bigot for not accepting my bigotry!" is essentially what you're saying.

I am a man. I am unable to get pregnant and bear a child. A woman can.

That isn't equal.

Who can I sue?

Another straw man?

Marriage isn't just about recognising that you love someone. Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman that has evolved in society for the raising of children.

No, let's be realistic here. Marriage is a legal contract saying that two people are in a relationship and share rights and decision making (ie. one of them is incapacitated in the hospital), are able to file taxes together, etc. It's a civil license joining two people. Nothing more, nothing less.

Your religious belief on what marriage is, in reality, is irrelevant. This country wasn't founded on the basis of a religion, it was founded specifically on the separation of church and state. We don't make policy based on a 2000 year old fictional story book.

You are a hate filled bigot. Why? Because rest assured you will have some criteria by which you consider it wrong for two people to get married. Is it a brother and sister? What about a father and daughter?

Another straw man? This is just crazy talk. First you compare paedophelia to two loving, consenting adults, then you compare it to cannibalism, and now you're comparing it to incest? What's next?

It is the reductio ad adsurdum of the argument presented.

One may like apples or one may like oranges. An apple isn't the same thing as an orange. Refusing to call an orange an apple doesn't mean that one hates either.

You actually think that arguing with a fallacy helps your argument? Are you joking?

Marriage involves a man and a woman. Two men or two women can spend all their lives together but it will never be a marriage. It is an ontologlical impossibility.

Hah, there's thousands of happily married gay couples in my state and there have been for years now. Guess it's not so impossible after all.

 

[niuniu]

Haha! Just saw that now in your quote. Marriage between same sexes is an ontological impossibility!

That's hilariously bad

Must have picked that up from a random sentence generator!

 

[Michael Goff]

Haha! Just saw that now in your quote. Marriage between same sexes is an ontological impossibility!

That's hilariously bad

Must have picked that up from a random sentence generator!

I wonder if most people even know what Ontology is.

 

[r.harris1]

Not sure about the Pope...

Interestingly, Francis has indicated in a recent interview that perhaps his flock is somewhat too obsessed with things like gay marriage. Obviously doesn't change church doctrine but interesting comments, nonetheless.

 

[citizenzen]

Homosexuality is not the same thing as sexual acts between two people of the same sex.

Let's go back to the logic behind this for a minute.

Those in favor of homosexual marriage are looking at the big picture: human and civil rights, equal protection under the law, the lack of any demonstrable harm to children, families or society.

You're arguing that it makes you feel icky.

Do you see why your argument may be lacking?

 

[r.harris1]

I wonder if most people even know what Ontology is.

My guess is probably not.

 

[niuniu]

Let's go back to the logic behind this for a minute.

Those in favor of homosexual marriage are looking at the big picture: human and civil rights, equal protection under the law, the lack of any demonstrable harm to children, families or society.

You're arguing that it makes you feel icky.

Do you see why your argument may be lacking?

Surely if there was a moral case, it would be that homosexuals themselves are inherently bad. Something as base as petty as men or women touching each other isn't grand enough to warrant any serious academia.

 

[ElectronGuru]

Let's go back to the logic behind this for a minute.

It strikes me as conditional love: I will accept you and your beliefs when you conform to me and my beliefs.

 

[Michael Goff]

It strikes me as conditional love: I will accept you and your beliefs when you conform to me and my beliefs.

You just summed up 90% of religious people.

 

[chrono1081]

You just summed up 90% of religious people.

Yep.

I'm a Christian who believes equal rights for all, treat others as you want to be treated, help the poor (which I do all the time but don't advertise because I think charity is more sincere when not done for attention) yet I was told by other "Christians" that I can't be a Christian because I'm gay and that I'm a sinner and going to hell.

Now which person follows more in line with Jesus's teachings? Hm...

 

[dec.]

Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman that has evolved in society for the raising of children.

Do you mind if I ask where you're located, because you could be wrong.

Here in Canada and in many other countries (including parts of the US) marriage is a relationship between two adults, no matter what some religious people claim, they are irrelevant. Accept it.

 

[stockcerts]

Let's go back to the logic behind this for a minute.

Those in favor of homosexual marriage are looking at the big picture: human and civil rights, equal protection under the law, the lack of any demonstrable harm to children, families or society.

You're arguing that it makes you feel icky.

Do you see why your argument may be lacking?

I agree with you completely, but you will never convince Sue. I learned years ago, you reason with the unreasonable.

 

[Mac'nCheese]

http://youtu.be/uZjKUN5QI0s

 

[s2mikey]

So glad I live in a community that appreciates and welcomes diversity, not hatred. Personally, I have a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that in 2013 people in our society don't feel that everyone should enjoy the same equalities.

I don't think most people mind equality. Unless, it takes way from someone else's equality or is going to cost someone else money. That would be treading on them which is no good.

I have no problem with gays and whatever it is they want to do with their lives. The issue I have is that it doesn't seem that accepting gayness for them is enough. They want people to embrace it, to celebrate it, to somehow shoehorn it into their belief system as being this terrific thing. Well, sorry but some of us just prefer the regular old Mom and dad setup and that's what we feel is best for kids. I know, I know, what draconian, right wing thinking. But, really it isn't. It's just that if you don't embrace every single little thing out there and lifestyle.... You are labeled a hater.

That's the one thing I've found about liberals that's hard to deal with. They are al about equality and fairness unless you disagree with them or in any way don't swallow everything they try and shove down your throat. Then,watch out.....

 

[AppleFan360]

Never mind. Please delete.

 

[chrono1081]

I don't think most people mind equality. Unless, it takes way from someone else's equality or is going to cost someone else money. That would be treading on them which is no good.

I have no problem with gays and whatever it is they want to do with their lives. The issue I have is that it doesn't seem that accepting gayness for them is enough. They want people to embrace it, to celebrate it, to somehow shoehorn it into their belief system as being this terrific thing. Well, sorry but some of us just prefer the regular old Mom and dad setup and that's what we feel is best for kids. I know, I know, what draconian, right wing thinking. But, really it isn't. It's just that if you don't embrace every single little thing out there and lifestyle.... You are labeled a hater.

That's the one thing I've found about liberals that's hard to deal with. They are al about equality and fairness unless you disagree with them or in any way don't swallow everything they try and shove down your throat. Then,watch out.....

I don't have equal rights because of thinking like yours. I don't try and shove gayness down anyones throats, I just want equal protection under the law. Thats all any gay person wants. I shouldn't have to live a less equal life because I'm not attracted to women. I pay taxes just like you, I deserve 100% equal rights. Case closed.

It sounds like you're basing your knowledge of gays on stereotypes. Do you know any people like the ones you described? If not congratulations you know gays but not stereotypical ones.

----------

Again, wah wah wah cry baby. We all have our problems. Right now mine is fighting for my life with this friggin cancer in my body. Maybe you need a little perspective before telling me how all important your problems are compared to others.

I'm very sorry to hear that. I hope you get the treatment you need and make a full recovery. I'll be keeping you in my prayers.

 

[Michael Goff]

Again, wah wah wah cry baby. We all have our problems. Right now mine is fighting for my life with this friggin cancer in my body. Maybe you need a little perspective before telling me how all important your problems are compared to others.

Yes, just because somebody else has a bigger problem means that you can't complain about yours. So since you're only fighting one cancer, if there's somebody with multiple cancers... you thus lose your ability to complain.

Right?

 

[DrMotownMac]

Because gay people don't choose their sexuality, and no one should be discriminated against because of something they have no control over.

Wow. "...no one should be discriminated against because of something they have no control over." Wow.

James Holmes walked into a movie theater in Aurora, CO, last year and shot and killed 12 people because he is psychotic and hears voices in his head. But "no one should be discriminated against because of something they have no control over", right?

I'm sorry. I actually agree with you in that gays should not be discriminated against in the workplace. But not for the illogical reason you give. Look, you are just going to lose every argument with that statement. It's NOT about whether or not they can control it...that's irrelevant. The question is whether or not being gay hurts the co-workers or the company. And I would argue the success of Apple, with Tim Cook at the helm, proves that having gay employees may actually be HELPFUL to the bottom line, and it is certainly not harmful.

But not having control over a behavior is not a reason to excuse it. The USA being a free country where we "live and let live" and promote individual liberty and freedom...that's a much better reason. Your actions just can't be proven to hurt others, because if they do, well, that goes out the window.

Psychopathic serial killers, serial rapists, pedophiles, exhibitionists, etc., may all be "born that way" and "unable to control their urges", but it doesn't mean that we should ever excuse it. And once we start doing that for THAT REASON, then that's when we really will start sliding down the slippery slope. Who really cares whether being gay is nature or nurture?

 

[thekev]

I am a man. I am unable to get pregnant and bear a child. A woman can.

That isn't equal.

Who can I sue?

Your logic leaves a lot to be desired, so much that I'm not convinced you aren't simply being disingenuous. You compared the biological capability to give birth to a social construct. Do you really believe that to be a valid comparison? If so explain to me how one relates to the other.