Disillusioned
New member
Oh This post doesn't really have a point other than me wanting to have the 1000th post, but really 67 pages in, do any of the posts have value anymore?
Ya, gay rights. and stuff....
Ya, gay rights. and stuff....
How To Explain Gay Rights To An Idiot
- Thread starter poet
- Start date
i did not say anything about gender, the mormons have a lock on one man, two or more women
dixon76710
New member
Heterosexual couples are given special treatment because they have the potential to procreate. If you want to extend marriage to gay couples, even though they dont procreate, you have no justification for precluding other types of couples who dont procreate.
You cant discriminate between people because you "think" we should.
Dont try to put words in my mouth. It only demonstrates the weakness of your argument. The fact that they are gay is irrelevant.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Two gaya beating up a homophobic man, no real point other than revenge is sweet.
sedan
red panda
Utter nonsense.
Heterosexual couples who have zero chance to procreate get married all the time. Why? Because marriage strengthens families and benefits society even when children are not biologically created.
dixon76710 said:
Unbelievable.
You are perfectly willing to discriminate against gay people because you "think" we should.
I asked you a question so that there should be no misunderstanding of your position.dixon76710 said:
I asked you point blank Wouldn't it benefit society if more gay men were in long-term committed relationships?
You responded No more than it would benefit from long term commited relationships between any two people.
Since you had previously stipulated that society benefits from heterosexual marriage, doesn't this mean that society also benefits when more gay men are in long-term committed relationships?
Perhaps you would like to clarify your statement, and that's fine. But to assert that I'm putting words in your mouth when I am responding directly to the answer you gave is worse than weak -- it's nonsensical.
poet
Banned
You pwned him, butt good.
dixon76710
New member
Notice how you didnt contradict anything I said. Just what is it you think was nonsense?
Nooooo, like I just said, marriage is limited to heterosexual couples, because they are the only couples who procreate, not because I think we should. No more discrimination against gay people than it is discrimination against my brother and I.
I didnt claim marriage between any two consenting adults benefits society. And specifically pointed out if it does, NO MORE SO in the case of a gay couple, than a couple made up of ANY TWO CONSENTING ADULTS, but you want special treatment for those who happen to be gay.
dixon76710
New member
Courts have routinely dismissed his silly logic. Revealing how you people run to it again and again and again.
Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm
In addition, within limits, a statute generally does not fail rational basis review on the grounds of over- or under-inclusiveness; “[a] classification does not fail rational-basis review because ‘it is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequity.’”...
And the link between opposite-sex marriage and procreation is not defeated by the fact that the law allows opposite-sex marriage regardless of a couple’s willingness or ability to procreate. The facts that all opposite-sex couples do not have children and that single-sex couples raise children and have children with third party assistance or through adoption do not mean that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples lacks a rational basis. Such over- or under-inclusiveness does not defeat finding a rational basis....
http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/pdf/759341opn.pdf
dixon76710
New member
No surprise the fag hags endorse such criminal violence.
sedan
red panda
I will never understand how the same people who readily admit that families strengthen society and that marriage strengthens families will also oppose extending marriage to gays and lesbians. And I could not manufacture a more illogical argument than the gays are promiscuous, the gays do drugs, the gays spread AIDS, the gays commit suicide, the gays are ooogie and so on ... If these things are bad and you think we'd be better off with less of them, then denying marriage to gays is the absolute last thing you want to do. Gay marriage means more long-term committed relationships. This means less promiscuity. This means less spreading of AIDS. Stronger gay families means fewer suicides and less drugs. Society wins.
dixon76710
New member
Nuclear families strengthen society. Mothers and fathers raising their children together to provide and care for the children they have created, as opposed to the alternative of one or neither of them doing so. Gay couples cant procreate.
poet
Banned
That is much too complicated for the righties to comprehend. They're so funny and sad, at the same time.
poet
Banned
Idiot. The premise is children aren't necessary for strengthening society. Many heterosexual couples are willfully childless or barren. They still contribute to society, as does, potentially, every other citizen, married or not. Gay couples can procreate, through surrogacy. Many choose to adopt, providing loving homes to children who would otherwise be wards of the state.
dixon76710
New member
Thats not the gay couple procreating and is at most, one of the gay couple and a third party procreating. And, ANY TWO CONSENTING ADULTS could procreate or adopt using your logic, soooooo not sure what you think would justify special treatment for those couples who happen to be gay. Other than your belief that homosexuals are so special.
poet
Banned
Procreation isn't the end all or be all. The world is already "over-populated", for the amount of resources and space that we have. We could do with a reduction in population, by the way. How many children do you have? People are irresponsible when it comes recreational sex and many "unwanted pregnancies" result. Being able to have children is not special . Being a parent to the children you have, "is".
dixon76710
New member
Silly, procreation continues with or without marriage. Argument could be made that it actually inhibits procreation. US blacks with LOWER marriage rates than whites has HIGHER birth rates. Result being that now the majority of black children are born to single mothwers.
poet
Banned
And? Are you touting that as a "win"? Like whites don't have unwed pregnancies? Or failed marriages? Or domestic violence? Or child abuse? What is your point? Precisely. You don't have one. You don't get a medal for procreating. Many folks aren't parent material. I think folks ought to have to take a "parenting test" to procreate. I think having children should be a privilege, not a right.
dixon76710
New member
???? No, its detrimental to the black community and society as a whole. Children born to single mothers have higher rates of poverty, juvenile delinquincy, drug and alchohol abuse, teenage pregnancy, HS dropouts and criminal convictions as an adult, when compared to children born to married parents.
You can compare HS graduation rates between whites and blacks and there is a large disparity. Compare the HS graduation rates between white kids raised by their married biological parents, to the graduation rates of black children raised by their married biological parents, and the disparity almost completely disappears.
poet
Banned
And it's not detrimental to the white community, or to all communities? Like all that you've mentioned doesn't happen in all communities. Your racist tone and implications are noted.
dixon76710
New member
Yes it is, even more so in the black community with rapidly declining rates of marriage and continuing high birth rate.