The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

PostmodernProphet said:
?????......rather obviously they don't, so why did you ask?.......
Click to expand...

So gay couple, in a long-term, committed relationship, never have to worry about "paternity, inheritance, custodial rights"? Now the paternity issue isn't much of a problem. But inheritance? Custodial rights? It is obvious that they do apply.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
The is no secular case against gay marriage. There are only people that object to gay marriage for religious grounds searching for a secular justification for their religious beliefs.
Click to expand...
The is no secular case for gay marriage. There are only people that support gay marriage because they hate religion and are searching for a secular justification for their hate.
 
Damn Yankee said:
The is no secular case for gay marriage. There are only people that support gay marriage because they hate religion and are searching for a secular justification for their hate.
Click to expand...

This is a croc. There is indeed a secular case. Hetrosexuals have rights when married that gays do not have when denied marraige. Clearly these rights are civil, therefore, you advocate denying civil rights to certain citizens. The rest of your "case" is invalid. It is, as I said earlier, nothing more than unfounded fear of polygamy. If such were not so, you would have provided a counter argument, which you have not.
 
It's called: "using absurdity to point out absurdity". Since your IQ is below 100 you have an excuse to miss that. But it's hilarious that you don't have a problem with the liberal argument that I demonstrated was absurd.
 
WinterBorn said:
So gay couple, in a long-term, committed relationship, never have to worry about "paternity, inheritance, custodial rights"? Now the paternity issue isn't much of a problem. But inheritance? Custodial rights? It is obvious that they do apply.
Click to expand...

/boggle.....how, when they can bear no children?......
 
Return of Dune said:
This is a croc. There is indeed a secular case. Hetrosexuals have rights when married that gays do not have when denied marraige. Clearly these rights are civil, therefore, you advocate denying civil rights to certain citizens. The rest of your "case" is invalid. It is, as I said earlier, nothing more than unfounded fear of polygamy. If such were not so, you would have provided a counter argument, which you have not.
Click to expand...

the only things denied to homosexuals in this instance are things which are denied to everyone......no one can marry someone of the same sex.....whether they are sexually attracted to them or not.....
 
Damn Yankee said:
The is no secular case for gay marriage. There are only people that support gay marriage because they hate religion and are searching for a secular justification for their hate.
Click to expand...

There is no case against gay marriage except a religious one. And a religious reason cannot be the sole basis for governmental actions or inactions.

I am a very religious person, so your entire "its because they hate religion" argument is nonsense.
 
There is no case against gay marriage except a religious one. And a religious reason cannot be the sole basis for governmental actions or inactions.

I am a very religious person, so your entire "its because they hate religion" argument is nonsense.
Click to expand...

Damn Yankee said:
It's called: "using absurdity to point out absurdity". Since your IQ is below 100 you have an excuse to miss that. But it's hilarious that you don't have a problem with the liberal argument that I demonstrated was absurd.
Click to expand...
.
 
Damn Yankee said:
If a man gets it up for a sausage, regardless of the size of the sausage, he's gay.
Click to expand...

To avoid another of your diversions, I'll leave this alone except to say that if your main objection to gay marriage is that nonsense about more gay men being pedophiles, you still have no case. If you want to ban convicted pedophiles from marriage that is a different thread. But homosexuals who have never molested anyone should be allowed to marry.
 
Damn Yankee said:
.
Click to expand...

You think that is a zing? I say the ONLY reasons against gay marriage are religious ones, and then I say I am very religious. Those shoot down your claims. That is a zing?

lol Ok, but the zing is against you, not for you.
 
Its a zing because it shows, once again, that you are so obsessed with me that you react to my post without reading my earlier response to another poster.
 
If you want to ban convicted pedophiles from marriage that is a different thread. But homosexuals who have never molested anyone should be allowed to marry.
Click to expand...
So there has to be a victim who's had the maturity and resources to get a conviction first? In the meantime these pedophiles can be raping young boys. That's perverted and sick.

Not to mention the argument then will be to forbid the pedo from adopting kids...
 
Damn Yankee said:
So there has to be a victim who's had the maturity and resources to get a conviction first? In the meantime these pedophiles can be raping young boys. That's perverted and sick.

Not to mention the argument then will be to forbid the pedo from adopting kids...
Click to expand...

No, that is not what I said. But it is how our system works. But you are wanting to convict an entire group because of the actions of a very few? Thats not how this works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top