Why homosexuality should be banned

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
PostmodernProphet said:
they have equal rights....they can marry anyone I can marry.....
Click to expand...

That is the same nonsense that has been stated before. It ignores the problem and hopes it goes away.

So you are saying that we should deprive a portion of our population equal treatment and respect under the law, so that the majority isn't bothered by knowing that they were allowed to marry?


That is ridiculous.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
And just think; just a few decades ago, people of different races were demanding that society accept their relationship and be allowed to marry. How dare they found it necessary for everyone to accept their choice. They should have accepted their choice and left everyone else out of it.
Click to expand...

look, I understand you're having difficulty grasping the essence of this argument, but your repeated babbling isn't going to draw me away from it....I ignore people who don't realize this debate has nothing to do with race......

people don't choose to be black, people do choose to enter into a relationship with someone of the same sex.....

that's the last time I respond to your posts on that topic....
 
WinterBorn said:
You are not required to treat them any differently.

The requirement is for the gov't to give the same benefits to all its citizens.
Click to expand...

but it isn't the same benefits it gives to all it's citizens.....those benefits only go to those who are married.....should we also change the definition of marriage to include those who live alone?.....after all, it's unfair that they don't get the same benefits the government gives to "all its citizens".....

obviously you don't see the contradiction between the two sentences quoted above....I'm not sure why....unless you aren't looking at it....strip it down to just the noun and the verb...."you are not required"....."the requirement is"......there, do you see your problem?........
 
WinterBorn said:
All of those are rights that you have earned. You equate being straight with earning a law degree and passing the bar?
Click to expand...

no, I am equating being obtuse with being a liberal.......I have pointed out that people in society are treated differently.....you said all must be treated the same regardless of what their circumstances are......two people "earn" rights by being married....two people of the same sex can't be married.....you want to change that by changing what's required to "earn" it.....why not change what is needed to "earn" being treated as a lawyer?......
 
WinterBorn said:
I have done nothing of the kind. Allowing gays to marry would have no effect on you except in the most abstract way in your own mind. The fact that you think its icky or sinful is not a reason to deny them equality.
Click to expand...

I've shown it countless times in this thread....requiring us to treat them as if they were married is a requirement.....how can I be required to do something if it has no effect on me?.....
 
WinterBorn said:
That is the same nonsense that has been stated before. It ignores the problem and hopes it goes away.

So you are saying that we should deprive a portion of our population equal treatment and respect under the law, so that the majority isn't bothered by knowing that they were allowed to marry?


That is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

basically we have no problem.....we aren't ignoring the problem, we are ignoring the liberals.....

they aren't entitled to the same treatment as married people because they haven't 'earned' it......you want to give it to them anyway.....yet, you have no 'problem' denying those rights to single people.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
but it isn't the same benefits it gives to all it's citizens.....those benefits only go to those who are married.....should we also change the definition of marriage to include those who live alone?.....after all, it's unfair that they don't get the same benefits the government gives to "all its citizens".....

obviously you don't see the contradiction between the two sentences quoted above....I'm not sure why....unless you aren't looking at it....strip it down to just the noun and the verb...."you are not required"....."the requirement is"......there, do you see your problem?........
Click to expand...

Now you are just trying to salvage your argument by bringing in nonsense.

The point is not whether single people get the benefits. The benefits are for people who are committed to a relationship. The point is that we are not allowing people to marry who fit every single requirement except that they are of the same gender. And that is inconsequential to the institution of marriage, to the gov't who gives those benefits, and to the entirety of society.

The fact that you claim that just by knowing that gay people are married will effect straight people's marriage is ridiculous. You will not be forced to treat people any differently or to accept their life. The only way you would be able to even tell if they ARE married is based on a ring on a certain finger.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
they aren't entitled to the same treatment as married people because they haven't 'earned' it......QUOTE]

What? What did you do to earn the right to marry? What do any straight people do to earn that right? Be born with a certain sexual orientation?
Click to expand...
 
Southern Man said:
Yes, study it in Massachusetts and other Godless States.
Click to expand...

Lets study it in NC and test whether that tiny remark in your constitution will stand up in court.


There have been plenty of studies on the effects of gays raising children. There is no negative impact.

There is no legitimate reason for stopping gays from marrying. That dutch study you quoted offered no evidence at all. It was, as I said before, based entirely on a logical fallacy.

To quote your own link on Logical Fallacies: "It is always fallacious to suppose that there is a causative link between two things simply because they coexist."
 
Southern Man said:
At least 20. This is a big decision and should be done with the utmost care.
Click to expand...

The only reason for a delay would be if anyone could show justification for it. So far the only justifications that have been shown are that some straights would be bothered by simply knowing that gays were allowed to marry, and a single dutch paper without any tangible evidence.

No, there is no need to delay.

It will have no effect on other people's marriage. To think that straights will have a higher divorce rate because gays are allowed to marry is ridiculous.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
no, they aren't....they are for people who are married......a man and a woman who live together for fifty years but do not marry do not get the benefits.....
Click to expand...

Because the CHOOSE not to marry, not because they are not allowed to marry.

And actually, in some places they would be recognized as common law husband & wife.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top