Johns Hopkins Halts Discussion To Bring Chick-Fil-A To Campus Because Of Its Beliefs

Harrison Lee10 years ago

“Because its fucking unnatural.” Besides your misspelling of “it’s,” Teddy is about to destroy you. Fuck the unnatural argument. Look the fuck around you. I see cars. Buildings. Elected governments. Roads. Cell Phones. Fucking SPACESHIPS. And you say gays don’t deserve rights because it’s UNNATURAL? Last I check, not one of the things I just said are NATURAL. I see no naturally skyscrapers. No animals have elected governments. Human society and social structure is unnatural. Homosexual behavior has been seen in: Dolphins, fruit bats, and dogs. So you fucking tell me this is unnatural? The very fucking computer or phone you type your idiotic, fourth grade-level response on is unnatural. They can’t reproduce? Neither can: Infertile couples, couples in which the woman has hit menopause, couples where the woman has had a hysterectomy, couples where the man has had a vasectomy. “What is to stop people from marrying their cats or an ice cream cone?” Forgive me if I’m wrong, but there is a Goddamned difference between a FUCKING ANIMAL THAT SHITS IN A SANDBOX as well as A FUCKING INANIMATE OBJECT and a consenting, adult human being that is capable of basic human logic, which as I have just shown, you seem to be unable to do. So kindly rethink your logic, because I have had a child construct a better argument for Santa being real than your pitiful excuse for denying gays the rights to marry a consenting adult that they love. Teddy’s out, bitches.

That’s actually an interesting question. My gut would say no, but it is wrong for me to tell someone no because I disagree with it simply on a fundamental level before hearing reasoned arguments both for and against it. The only real arguments I can think of off the top of my head against polygamy would be multiple marriages’ affects on children raised within that family, but there have been plenty of occasions polygamous families have been raised throughout history, so that may be a moot point. There could also be legal tensions regarding possessions and wealth in these large families: if it is one man and several women, or one woman and several men, does the sole spouse get more legal power over financial matters and custody? Also, parents get tax breaks when a child is born. If a man sires seven children from different wives, does he get tax breaks for all seven children while the wives only get tax breaks for the one or two kids they birth? At its core, I would think that a polygamist family would be rare in America outside of certain religious communities, if for nothing else than the extremely difficult financial circumstances a family that large would produce. If anyone has reasoned arguments supporting polygamy, Teddy would be most interested in hearing them. But leave religion out of your explanation. I want to hear non-theological reasonings to allow this. Please be civil.

*deep breath* Alright. Couple things. I’ll do this paragraph by paragraph.
Starting with: the media loves to tout success stories with kids raised by gay parents. To an extent, I agree with you. I’m not sure how kids raised by gay parents develop, particularly with parents of the opposite gender. That said, there hasn’t been a lot of psychological research into the mental health of kids raised by gay parents. I have found studies that both say kids are mentally healthy and there are kids who are not. Yes the media at large is very liberal and is likely to tout more success stories than failed stories. I really don’t have enough evidence to say that gay parents are bad for kids. A large amount of psychological development occurs in school and among peers of a similar age, and a few studies show kids are more open with gay parents. At the end of the day though, what is most important for children is to be social with other children, and for adults to provide structure, support, and discipline.
Next: the government needs to “promote the family values that are needed for a child to be a virtuous republican (not the party) as well to encourage population growth.” What family values are those exactly? The only family values that have ever mattered to me are that the family loves each other and helps each other, as well as provides support/advice for each other and are willing to bring a family member down to size if their behavior is harming others or themselves. My father (speaking as the actual person writing this) was an asshole. His side of the family did nothing to curtail his behavior, while my mother’s did nothing but support her. He tore my family apart. He could have been gay, and I raised by two fathers, and the end result would have been the same. Family values aren’t gender specific. Love each other, support each other, and kick each other’s ass when need be. That’s family to me, and gays and straights are capable of doing it.
Also, to encourage population growth. There’s roughly 319 million people living in America. Already cities are facing overpopulation problems. Our infrastructure is crumbling faster than we can repair it, we have an overburdened healthcare system, even before Obama came into the field, and there is already extensive ecological damage caused by overurbanization. The Florida wetlands have faced tons of problems caused by increasing human populations. I went to school in Aurora, outside of Chicago, and the massive residential areas have absolutely destroyed the forested areas and wetlands that used to cover the region. Schools nationwide already have enough funding problems educating the numbers of students we currently have. We’ve got enough problems with qualified college students finding jobs that older members of the workforce don’t vacate. In fact, I honestly cannot think of a single problem that America faces that would be solved by having a larger population. China’s got 2 billion people. We damn sure don’t need that. If anything our population needs to shrink a little to allow us breathing room to solve our resource and labor issues.
“the support of such marriage seems to be purely from an emotional angle without any empirical benefits.” Speaking from a more personal angle: When I marry I girl, it’s going to be more based on emotion: as in do I love this girl?, rather than “does our marriage benefit America’s growth and general well-being?” Now granted, I want us both having jobs and being involved in our community, and us to raise kids that have good jobs as well. And really that is it. Us contributing to the economy and our community is empirical support enough for the vast majority of families in the US, so I fail to see how a gay family does any less.
“to many people it’s a recognition by the government of legitimate immorality.” I fail to see how homosexuality is any more immoral than sex before marriage, binge drinking, and general arrogant behavior, all of which which are kind of what is frequently touted in this site. And I’m ok with that. There’s already enough immoral behavior in this country. I don’t see how gays add to it.
And I’m going to end with your Bible thumping comment regarding the media. You’re absolutely right. The media portrays just about every single protestor of homosexuality as a bigoted idiot, although I don’t get how bigoted Bible thumper is an oxymoron. Anyone can be bigoted no matter their belief, including atheists. Anyhoo, yes, the media is not remotely fair in balancing the viewpoints of the two sides to this.
So, all of this said and done, I thank you, Mr. Fratasaurus, for engaging in a constructive dialogue with me. This was rather eye opening for ol’ Teddy, and gave me some new views to consider.