Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Why not?

Nov 20, 2003 2:34AM PST

We've been going all around this for days. I've heard lots of discussion on lots of topics. So far no one has made an argument on the harm that would occur if gays were allowed to get married.

Can anyone give me a clear, simple explanation of the harm that would come to anyone who is married or who wants to marry just because gay couples can do it too? "Because it has to be a man and a woman" ain't good enough. "Because god said so" ain't good enough. "Because it will corrup our moral fiber" ain't good enough. "Because it's icky" ain't good enough. I want to hear about problems that will occur that are not happening now. Or whatever the harm is feared to be.

Thanks.

Dan

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Go for it, Blake
Nov 21, 2003 4:57AM PST

Extra points if you know the reason the song was given to Peter & Gordon.

- Collapse -
A World Without Love...
Nov 21, 2003 9:57AM PST
Extra points if you know the reason the song was given to Peter & Gordon. - Josh Katz

Ok, first the lyrics were written by John Lennon and Paul McCartney. I think the song was also recorded by Vonda Shepard, Bobby Rydell, and the Supremes to name a few. I would have to cheat to earn the extra points though...
- Collapse -
Jane Asher
Nov 21, 2003 6:05PM PST

possibly my only 'claim to fame' is sharing a beer with her at a party in '65...

- Collapse -
You're both right!
Nov 21, 2003 8:15PM PST

The song, credited to Lennon/McCartney but written by Paul, was one of many written during that period that the Beatles didn't think was good enough for them to record (McCartney himself has said he didn't think the song was very good). Other British artists were willing to record just about anything with their names on it and many of these rejected songs ended up being recorded by other artists with varying degrees of success. Peter and Gordon had hits with two of them -- A World Without Love and Nobody I Know.

The Peter half of Peter and Gordon was Peter Asher, whose sister Jane was dating McCartney at the time.

- Collapse -
(NT) Message has been deleted.
Nov 21, 2003 6:19PM PST
- Collapse -
Dupe has been deleted.
Nov 23, 2003 7:34AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Re:Off-topic trivia question, Dave:
Nov 21, 2003 10:01AM PST

Hi, Josh.

Just about everyone knows that's another Lennon-McCartney song, though I don't recall who was friends with whom...
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Re:Re:You are repeating yourself, and missing my point.
Nov 21, 2003 5:55AM PST

Hi DaveK,

Do you have sex with everyone you love? Do you think priests and others who choose a celibate lifestyle are unloved? Do you think that married couples who don't have sex don't love each other?

The "love the sinner, hate the sin" approach was one that Jesus adopted, you gonna argue with Him? Wink

Cindi

- Collapse -
Re: You are repeating yourself, and missing my point.
Nov 21, 2003 10:06AM PST

Hi, Cindi.

Priestly celibacy is a choice -- and there are many who think it ought to be just that for Catholic priests, too, as in the Orthodox Churches. Unfortunately, few in the hierarchy are among them -- partly because that's a "litmus test" for advancement under the current Pope. -- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Re: Offensiveness is a personal thing.
Nov 21, 2003 9:52PM PST

izzat so...

- Collapse -
Re:Hmmm, let's see now
Nov 20, 2003 5:19AM PST

This seems to be a compelling argument until you test it by applying it to marriage as it works (or doesn't) today. Many children are raised without the benefit of having a parent of each sex because of divorce, abandonment, and death. Some of these children have more than the usual difficulties, but many do not. Children whose parents give them up for adoption do have special challenges, but my experience with them is that they can overcome these challenges. Children today are much more flexible than many would think about what defines a family. Parents, grandparents, guardians, etc. are taken in stride. Sure, some children may be mortified that their classmate will find out about their parents, but that has been a fear for uncounted generations.

Dan

- Collapse -
All of your reasons...
Nov 20, 2003 5:25AM PST

Are "lets do it because it feels good" "I want it so I can have it" To hell with morals, I have none! And neither should you! Let's just forget teaching our children that we have a moral responsibility for our actions! Or That God is out of date with what we want, so do whatever you feel like! Some pretty sad things going on in this I want it now worldSad

Glenda

- Collapse -
Re:All of your reasons...
Nov 20, 2003 5:28AM PST

Glenda, what's more moral than two people who love each other wanting to be married?

- Collapse -
Re:Re:All of your reasons...
Nov 20, 2003 8:45AM PST

Josh, Nothing wrong with Loving some one, What is wrong is behaving in a morally reprehensible way with it! Sex for single people is just as wrong! Marriage is the only approved way to have a sexual relationship!
And I admit I was wrong, I guess about needing a law passed! I thought that is what I had heard! I should listen to the news better:)LOL

Glenda

- Collapse -
Re:Re:Re:All of your reasons...
Nov 21, 2003 5:55AM PST

Approved by who? Should it be against the law for unmarried consenting adults to have sex? Should a bunch of fat Congressmen get to decide who can have sex with who?

- Collapse -
Well, kinda, sorta.
Nov 20, 2003 5:35AM PST

I'm not sure where you're coming up with the 'because it feels good', but people who want to marry should be allowed to. I've seen no reasons impose government on the marriage decision. Morals are best imparted by the parents, not the government. Drinking, smoking, and gambling are all legal yet some parents are still able to teach their children that these things are immoral. God is also a subject best left for parents to be responsible for teaching.

We are in agreement that there are some sad things going on in the want it now world.

Dan

- Collapse -
I begin to see your problem Dan...
Nov 20, 2003 5:45AM PST

You simply do not understand what morals are.

Drinking, smoking, and gambling are NOT immoral as you seem to think from your statement. Stealing from another or using food/rent money needed to shelter/feed the family to pay for the smoking, drinking or gambling would be where any moral concerns came in.

You thing a set of homosexual "parents" would be likely to impart good moral values to children when their very lifestyle is immoral?

- Collapse -
Parents
Nov 20, 2003 6:06AM PST

I think that any parents, whether there are quotes around the word or not, are going to relay a set of values to their children. I know parents who are imparting values that I agree with and that I disagree with. I'm sure you're in the same situation. The question is why should the government get to choose the parents?

Dan

- Collapse -
Ummmm ...
Nov 20, 2003 6:13AM PST

... left to their own devices, I think NATURE determines who can be parents. Personally I am opposed to many of the extenuating means many go through to have biological children. I don't have kids myself. My bio clock is atickin' and since I have never really tried to have kids I think it will/would be a shock to discover I'm infertile or whatever. But, it has to give one pause the number of multiple births of premies who have lifelong problems resulting from assisted conceptions. Not to mention the gutwrenching complications of surrogacies gone awry, etc. If a man wants to spend his life with one man, he doesn't need the sanction of the government to do so. But he couldn't rationally expect to be impregnating his partner. That's not government making the choice!

- Collapse -
Re:Ummmm ...
Nov 20, 2003 6:28AM PST

Surragocy and reproductive assistance are fascinating subject for me.

I didn't bring up parenting, I'm just trying to answer other's points.

Dan

- Collapse -
No you aren't!.
Nov 21, 2003 5:36AM PST
"I didn't bring up parenting, I'm just trying to answer other's points."

Your post was in response to mine and mine dealt with your lack of knowledge regarding moral/immoral actions/activies.
- Collapse -
The Purpose For Getting Married...
Nov 21, 2003 12:10AM PST
If a man wants to spend his life with one man, he doesn't need the sanction of the government to do so. But he couldn't rationally expect to be impregnating his partner. That's not government making the choice! - Evie

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're suggesting here Evie. Do you think reproduction is the sole purpose for getting married? If so, do you believe that couples who choose not to have children have no purpose in getting married? Perhaps couples who lack the ability to conceive naturally should be denied marriage???

You also seem to imply that same sex marriages will only be between two men of which neither can currently become pregnant. (Actually scientists have successfully impregnated bulls) But same sex marriages will apply to women as well. With the technological advances in medicine, both partners in a female same sex marriage can reproduce. Perhaps same sex marriage for women would be more acceptable to you than same sex marriage for men? When men can become impregnated due to scientific advances, would same sex marriage between men become more acceptable to you???
- Collapse -
Re:Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're suggesting here Evie
Nov 21, 2003 9:50PM PST

yes you are.... you do it all the time.... it's a bad habit...

and btw, Evie WASN'T suggesting anything, she was making a point.... it was you who interpreted it wrongly....

- Collapse -
A BIG Amen! Edward:)) NT
Nov 20, 2003 8:48AM PST
Happy
- Collapse -
Nope, it still works because...
Nov 20, 2003 5:37AM PST

the steady increase in unwed mothers and divorces has followed right along with the steady decrease in moral values and any sense of personal responsibility.

Divorce and unwed mothers have also been more able to follow the decline in moral values because the liberal agenda for deviant acceptance subsidises the behavior.

Many welfare families would have a father but his continued presence would inhibit welfare qualification which in turn would have an inhibiting effect on Democratic voter registrations.

NOTE: I can attempt to inject politics like Dave, but darned if I can think of a way to blame it on Bush.

- Collapse -
Do I understand your point?
Nov 20, 2003 6:20AM PST

Are you saying that if gays are allowed to marry that people who would now marry, or stay married, would be more likely to divorce or not marry?

Or are you saying that government regulation can be used to impart morals?

I think we may have a basic disagreement on the ability of the government to direct the morality of the population.

Dan

- Collapse -
No you don't but likely because you are trying hard not to...
Nov 20, 2003 7:13AM PST

The steady decline of moral values has already done enough damage. Further erosion will only exacerbate moral problems.

Instead of tossing out morals cultivate them and the decline can be halted and values restored. One is seldom successful in putting out even a small blaze with flamable liquids.

Think of Society as a hill, social and moral values as topsoil, morals as sod and progressive liberalism as running water. The running water can be beneficial to the sod and topsiol and the hill in general as long as it is kept in check. Once it gets a toehold it tends to try to wash away the sod and soil. Once erosion starts it rapidly gets worse if left unchecked or worse yet if one, probably through ignorance, removes sections of soil in a misguided attempt to aid the water flow. Eventually we have no hill, no topsoil, no sod but a lot of muddy water.

Special rights was the first breech of the moral fundaments and allowing marriage would exacerbate this by becoming an ever widening breech.

- Collapse -
holy ****!!!!!!!! you just got first prize for ANALOGY OF THE YEAR...
Nov 20, 2003 7:18AM PST

Think of Society as a hill, social and moral values as topsoil, morals as sod and progressive liberalism as running water. The running water can be beneficial to the sod and topsiol and the hill in general as long as it is kept in check. Once it gets a toehold it tends to try to wash away the sod and soil. Once erosion starts it rapidly gets worse if left unchecked or worse yet if one, probably through ignorance, removes sections of soil in a misguided attempt to aid the water flow. Eventually we have no hill, no topsoil, no sod but a lot of muddy water.

- Collapse -
Just have to add......
Nov 20, 2003 8:59AM PST

What my Mother always said that I hated when I was a kid and wanted to do what all the other kids were doingHappy

BIRDS OF A FEATHER FLOCK TOGETHER! LOL

Glenda

- Collapse -
Government
Nov 20, 2003 9:58AM PST

Government would have to be the Army Corps of Engineers. When they're done with it, the hill will be paved and toxic with a debt load of $20 Billion.

Dan