“Actually, Patti Stone, I'm very tolerant. Are YOU tolerant? Can you tolerate--patiently put up with--people who disagree with you? If you can't, you're not truly tolerant. My observation is that those who talk most about tolerance are the least tolerant of all.
Can you allow my to state my opinion without calling me names (e.g., "intolerant")? Can you rationally and logical defend your position without lashing out? If same-sex "marriage" has any true merit, it should be able to be defended calmly, logically and rationally. That its defenders continue to attack all who disagree is telling, indeed.”
Patti Stone on Jun 25, 2013 at 23:45:07
“I'm quite calm and logical. You are the one carrying on. I simply disagree with you and said so.”
“If I'm wrong about the biology, where am I wrong?
And what is the logical rationale for redfining marriage to include same-sex couples?
Logically, you cannot deny a right that doesn't exist in the first place. Since marriage, by definition, is about the union of a man and woman, it follows that same-sex couples are not entitled to marriage. That is not a denial of rights; that is common sense.”
LintLass on Jun 26, 2013 at 00:38:26
“You're the one making an accusation *based* on biology, so the 'burden of proof' is on you to do more than make simplistic claims that display ignorance and are a priori heterosupremacist. Also, disregarding civil law to make claims against equal protection *of* that civil law doesn't wash in ....civil law.
You haven't proved any case for it being 'about the union of a man and woman' by simply insisting so. Never mind compe close to the legal standards to deny civil rights and the equal protection of the law to others just because a few religions have historically oppressed some humans and demanded others are only about breeding.
Rights are *unalienable,* not something bigoted people can remove just because you keep insisting you're naturally. superior for the very fact of being a minority group.
You also can't impose *your* religious view on others and call it 'religious freedom' to deny other *religions* freedom to live as we believe. With equal protection of the law.
You're the one insisting that all the evidence and constitutional law and actual reality of who can be married with or without biological children 'doesn't count' *and* all the LGBT people and our loved ones and all the peer-reviewed scientists are *lying* simply because *you* want to make a simplistic assertion that claims heterosexuals deserve special rights because you look like you might breed or once have. :)”
And I'm still waiting to read a logical rationale for same-sex "marriage".
Why do you keep bringing up religion? I've said nothing about religion or creationism. So, why do you mention it?
And I'm not suggesting anyone infringe upon anyone else's rights. The fact of the matter is same-sex couples have no right to marriage, because marriage is not about same-sex couples. Marriage is about the union of male and female. Same-sex couples' rights aren't being denied at all, don't you see? You can't deny a right that doesn't exist.
It really is a pity that you can't seem to reply without lashing out at me. I've not lashed out at you. I'm not angry at you. I don't hate you (or anyone else). So, why must you lash out at me?”
JPM59 on Jun 25, 2013 at 22:53:44
“Actually, this is your current user name. I'm sure others would be able to look at your writings, and tell us exactly who you are.
Whose definition of marriage are you using? Can you cite an example where this is stated, "Marriage is about the union of male and female."?
Civil unions do not present the parties with the same government based rights.
“I'm not opposed to same-sex couples having tax benefits, hospital care and visitation benefits, inheritance benefits, or any other similar types of legal benefits. And, if that really is all that same-sex couples want, then I say they should labor towards that end. It's called a "civil union". But, I am absolutely opposed to redefining marriage. Marriage, by definition, is the union of male with female.
In my opinion, you can have all the legal rights you mentioned without co-opting the societal institution of marriage, redefining it to be something it was never intended to be, making same-sex couples the equivalent of heterosexual couples. They are not, for obvious, biological reasons.”
“One: Did I ever claim to be a "right winger"?
Two: How have I "trashed" the Constitution of the U.S.?
I'm still waiting to hear or read a logical, rational argument in favor of same-sex "marriage". I have yet to hear one. Personal attacks are all I hear or read.
BTW, I'm not somewhat educated; I'm fully educated. University graduate. Masters degree. Former public school teacher (currently an adjunct instructor at a community college). I'm also married to a current public school teacher--science teacher (biology, chemistry). So, I'm not uninformed.”
Patti Stone on Jun 25, 2013 at 23:07:11
“No, just intolerant.”
JPM59 on Jun 25, 2013 at 22:01:07
“For one who has invested in so much education, you seem to have trouble keeping up with the overall conversation.
First. This one author decided to show some artistic photography, just to show how these beautiful couples are not harmful to anyone
You jumped on that, proclaiming, "And we're, therefore, supposed to change our views, redefine the concept of marriage and reorder society based on photographs of smiling people? Does that really and truly make any sense?"
I suppose not, for you. As one of the uninformed, you would not know about the tax benefits, the hospital care benefits, the inheritance benefits, that only marriage can provide.
You would take for granted, that only 'historically defined marriage', is due those benefits. I mean, you do know, that only the government license is required to approve marriage, thus conferring all those benefits. Right?
You then proclaimed, "Our problem as a society is that we have tossed logic, reason and common sense to the wind. The reality is same-sex "marriage" makes no common sense; it is illogical and irrational. Just because something makes some people feel happy does not, therefore, make it right.”
Do you really believe this is all based on "making people feel happy?"
You, and all of your degrees, all of your education, have disposed basic rights because people, who are gay, wish to have those same basic rights.
“Actually, my "concept of marriage and ordered society" is based on biology and human history. Over recorded history, marriage has virtually always been based on the biological union of male and female. The very few exceptions (such as the case of certain Roman emperors) have been just that: exceptions, way outside the norm. History shows that marriage, regardless of culture or religion, has almost always meant the union of a man (husband) with a woman (wife). Even when marriage has consisted of one man plus multiple wives, heterosexuality has been the biological basis of that polygamous union.
Why? Because nothing other than a heterosexual union will produce children. Marriage, ultimately, is about producing children (and, no, I'm NOT suggesting only those heterosexual couples who desire and are physically capable of producing children should get married). This is why marriages have always been defined as the union of male and female. It's about biology! The scientific and biological reality is that homosexual unions cannot produce children under any circumstance. Homosexual unions cannot physically engender a family.
I have yet to hear or read anything anywhere from anyone that lays out a logical rationale for changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couple. 9 times out of 10, there will be no logical, rational argument given against anything I've written here, only hate-filled attacks. Why? Because no logical or rational reasons for changing marriage exist.”
shrillerthanyou on Jul 7, 2013 at 13:43:27
“"I have yet to hear or read anything anywhere from anyone that lays out a logical rationale for changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couple."
Because it is inherently unfair to not extend the legal rights and responsibilities available via civil marriage to our gay brothers and sisters. You can parrot the biology argument until the end of time, but it's a non-starter as the procreative aspect of marriage has no place in discourse regarding civil marriage.”
LintLass on Jun 25, 2013 at 22:34:00
“Umm, no, you're simply wrong about the biology, (while claiming a priori that heterosexual sex for breeding is the only purpose to life or social bonds) ...and you're also ignoring all the other cultures in the world who did *not* have a problem with LGBT people or our partnerships. (Like lots of the Native American cultures of this land we're living on, for instance. )
Even ignoring basic principles like equal protection of the law, even for LGBT people and infertile people, not to mention the *real* history of marriage even in the Christianized West, the simple fact is that 'straights-only marriage' was based on using women as property and establishing parentage, not claims of biology that people were *ignorant of,* (the Christians thought man's 'seed' was what made babies and women were just incubators. ) Modern marriage and modern society involve lots of basic civil rights as a civil contract between free and equal people, and not all religions or churches believe the religious view you want to impose to begin with. ...while sparing straight infertile people the injustice and denying LGBT people the rights to secure the lives and interests of even our own biological children.”
JPM59 on Jun 25, 2013 at 22:15:18
“Hmmm. I'm guessing you are bringing a lot of this on yourself.
Currently, you only have 3 comments.
I don't know how you can logically say, that, "9 times out of 10, there will be no logical, rational argument given against anything I've written here, only hate-filled attacks."
So, this new user name that you're using; I'm guessing you needed to 'come back' with a new one?
Obviously, to me, no logical, or rational argument, could ever show you the errors of your thinking. You are set in your ways. You only believe what you want to believe.
Just remember one important message if you remember any at all.
All men are created equal. This includes women. This includes all colors. This includes ALL religions. This includes ALL orientations.
Take your archaic, creationist views, and go back to your little insulated home.
Don't worry, we'll make sure NOT to infringe on any of your basic rights.
“"When we look through beautiful photos from same-sex weddings, we struggle to understand why anyone would want to keep these couples from marrying." And we're, therefore, supposed to change our views, redefine the concept of marriage and reorder society based on photographs of smiling people? Does that really and truly make any sense?
Our problem as a society is that we have tossed logic, reason and common sense to the wind. The reality is same-sex "marriage" makes no common sense; it is illogical and irrational. Just because something makes some people feel happy does not, therefore, make it right.”
up4uinca on Jun 27, 2013 at 16:17:02
“I'll remember your last sentence while I'm drinking my beer tonight after work.”
BeninOakland on Jun 26, 2013 at 09:55:33
“So yet another new profile. That makes four in the last 24 hours.
Exactly what do you get out of it!”
Patti Stone on Jun 25, 2013 at 23:04:12
“Yes, by all means, let's stamp out happiness!”
JPM59 on Jun 25, 2013 at 21:10:46
“Good to see you're practicing your 1st Amendment right. (sarcasm)
Did you hear, the women are planning to take over the country?
Their first 'law', will be vasectomies for all males over the age of 12.
I mean, really, it makes no common sense, no logic, and no rational thought, to believe women should worry about pregnancy.
OH, yeah, I'm a straight male. Somewhat educated. Getting really fed up with all of you right wingers trashing our Constitution.”
LintLass on Jun 25, 2013 at 15:19:20
“Umm, trying to use injustice to try and punish people because for *us,* marrying someone of the same sex *makes all the sense in the world,* and marrying someone of the *opposite sex* just cause you or someone else's religion demand so, ...*that* would be both illogical, irrational, and harmful to all involved.
(Mind you, in my case, as a bisexual, it wouldn't be *inherently* nonsensical if I married a man, but it *would* sure be illogical to have let someone tell me to leave my would-be-legal wife of ten years in hopes of finding someone just so mean and bigoted people and those trying to impose someone else's religious views might 'approve.' )
Your 'concept of marriage and ordered society' is, again, based on neither marriage nor order, only denial and exclusion and inequality imposed upon others.”