APP - damo, dixie and i agree

Southern Man said:
One of those laws should be to prohibit adoption by persons engaging in unhealthy sexual practices and abnormal behavior, like homosexuality.
Click to expand...
There is no such law, nor should there be. The reality is most of the children living with gay people were born to them naturally.
 
Damocles said:
Yet it does. Why would they not allow to brothers who simply wanted easy inheritance paths to get that license rather than spending thousands on lawyers to set up the same benefits? Why would they not allow gay people to?

These licenses are tools of the government used to support the dogmatic beliefs of the majority religion.
Click to expand...

Brothers should not be allowed to marry simply to avoid taxes, they already have a family relationship that is reconized by the government. Brothers should be and are allowed to contract for things like the care of a child. My marriage has nuthing to do with a church. THe one componant I am saying we should do away with is gay marriage, because it is related to a religous element.
 
Southern Man said:
One of those laws should be to prohibit adoption by persons engaging in unhealthy sexual practices and abnormal behavior, like homosexuality.
Click to expand...

So you want to bring back the anti-sodomy laws and use them in adoption cases?

Better to leave kids without parents than to actually allow gays to adopt?



Since straights engage in sodomy as well, should there be some test for sexual practices before allowing them to adopt?
 
Jarod said:
Brothers should not be allowed to marry simply to avoid taxes, they already have a family relationship that is reconized by the government. Brothers should be and are allowed to contract for things like the care of a child. My marriage has nuthing to do with a church. THe one componant I am saying we should do away with is gay marriage, because it is related to a religous element.
Click to expand...
And again, IMO, the government shouldn't be in the business of marriage, it is a sanction of the religious belief of the majority.

Saying "they shouldn't be allowed to do that to avoid taxes" is rubbish. The vast majority of brothers wouldn't do this because of the heavy cost of separating when they found somebody they wanted to spend their lives with, basing the argument on "brothers shouldn't be allowed to just for that"... is just weak support of that same majority belief and cements my opinion that it is based on the religious doctrine of the majority.
 
Southern Man said:
That's clear evidence that these folks chose to be gay, which means that it ain't natural.
Click to expand...
Nah, it just means that they either tried desperately to deny their urges and fit in with society because people that hate gays often make their lives hell, or that they simply were able to push beyond their distaste in order to have a child.

The reality is, most of the children that live in the situation you want to "save" adopted children from by simply not allowing them to marry are the natural children of one of the homosexual "partners", are not abused, and are protected by the laws already in place for that purpose.
 
Southern Man said:
That's clear evidence that these folks chose to be gay, which means that it ain't natural.
Click to expand...

No it is not. If anything it is clear evidence of the prejudices against gays and the lengths that people will go to in order to avoid the hassles and dangers of being openly gay.

You would deny them marriage, and parenthood if you could. Is it any wonder they do not come out of the closet?
 
Damocles said:
And again, IMO, the government shouldn't be in the business of marriage, it is a sanction of the religious belief of the majority.

Saying "they shouldn't be allowed to do that to avoid taxes" is rubbish. The vast majority of brothers wouldn't do this because of the heavy cost of separating when they found somebody they wanted to spend their lives with, basing the argument on "brothers shouldn't be allowed to just for that"... is just weak support of that same majority belief and cements my opinion that it is based on the religious doctrine of the majority.
Click to expand...

NO because there is a secular government interest in not allowing people with a current family relationship to marry if they are doing it to avoid taxes.

That is not the same with gay marriage.

Damo, again I ask, AM I MARRIED?
 
Jarod said:
NO because there is a secular government interest in not allowing people with a current family relationship to marry if they are doing it to avoid taxes.

That is not the same with gay marriage.

Damo, again I ask, AM I MARRIED?
Click to expand...
Which still doesn't change any of my other questions.

Any consenting adult who wishes to enter into a contract should be able to, marriage is simply a grasp for the same power as religion, and government licensing was created to limit the rights of individuals, first inter-racial couples, now homosexual couples, in some of the northern states they began solely to limit the Latter Day Saints...
 
Damocles said:
Nah, it just means that they either tried desperately to deny their urges and fit in with society because people that hate gays often make their lives hell, or that they simply were able to push beyond their distaste in order to have a child.

The reality is, most of the children that live in the situation you want to "save" adopted children from by simply not allowing them to marry are the natural children of one of the homosexual "partners", are not abused, and are protected by the laws already in place for that purpose.
Click to expand...

That may have been true 30 years ago, but one can plainly see from the response that truth tellers like me get when discussing the issue, along with accolades of queer art and queer public figures, the opposite is true: queers are celebrated and truth tellers are demonized (and, the height of hypocrisy, accused of being gay).

I have no problem with queers raising there own children; I just think that they should be put on the back of the list when looking to adopt other's.
 
Southern Man said:
That may have been true 30 years ago, but one can plainly see from the response that truth tellers like me get when discussing the issue, along with accolades of queer art and queer public figures, the opposite is true: queers are celebrated and truth tellers are demonized (and, the height of hypocrisy, accused of being gay).

I have no problem with queers raising there own children; I just think that they should be put on the back of the list when looking to adopt other's.
Click to expand...

Truth tellers? Not even close.


Gays are still subject to the prejudices today. Perhaps a hollywood star or musician, but for regular people they are still shunned and rejected.
 
Jarod said:
NO because there is a secular government interest in not allowing people with a current family relationship to marry if they are doing it to avoid taxes.

That is not the same with gay marriage.

Damo, again I ask, AM I MARRIED?
Click to expand...
Also, there is no compelling need to give a tax break to everybody that enters this contractual arrangement. The question should be, "Why would we feel compelled to give it to two strangers that entered into it just to avoid taxes?"

And if you want to call yourself married, by all means do so.
 
Southern Man said:
That may have been true 30 years ago, but one can plainly see from the response that truth tellers like me get when discussing the issue, along with accolades of queer art and queer public figures, the opposite is true: queers are celebrated and truth tellers are demonized (and, the height of hypocrisy, accused of being gay).

I have no problem with queers raising there own children; I just think that they should be put on the back of the list when looking to adopt other's.
Click to expand...
Which truth is this?

That children shouldn't go to Catholic church or to any school because there is a far higher likelihood of being molested by somebody in authority there than if they are growing up in a house with homosexual adults?

And that's cool with me, at least you don't try to say they shouldn't be able to adopt at all.
 
DonQuixote said:
that the government should get out of the marriage business and leave it to religions

what we have called marriage should be changed to civil unions or contracts

however, the government has an interest in the protection of children so laws regarding marriage may need to be applied to civil unions involving property and/or children
Click to expand...

So I'm just chopped liver eh?
 
Damocles said:
...

That children shouldn't go to Catholic church or to any school because there is a far higher likelihood of being molested by somebody in authority there than if they are growing up in a house with homosexual adults?...
Click to expand...

Wow. Prove it.
 
Damocles said:
Which still doesn't change any of my other questions.

Any consenting adult who wishes to enter into a contract should be able to, marriage is simply a grasp for the same power as religion, and government licensing was created to limit the rights of individuals, first inter-racial couples, now homosexual couples, in some of the northern states they began solely to limit the Latter Day Saints...
Click to expand...

I dont care why they began, I care why they exist now!
 
PostmodernProphet said:
my apologies.....I won't make the mistake of posting to your threads in the future.....
Click to expand...

I would really like to see your posts on the topic. I enjoy good debate and discussion.

But if your response on a topic is only ridicule, then its a waste of time. At least in my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top