Why homosexuality should be banned

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
PostmodernProphet said:
no it isn't.....it's a basic requirement.....man, woman, ceremony......
Click to expand...

It is an inconsequential to the definition of marriage.

What is it that makes a man & woman ok, but makes two women not ok? Is there some logical reason for this or is it just another example of "that is the way it has always been"?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
if I had claimed that it WOULD be ridiculous....you must have me confused with someone who's said that....
Click to expand...

You claimed that you would be forced to accept them if they were allowed to marry.

But if they were allowed to marry, absolutely nothing would change except the benefits they receive from the gov't and that you would know they were allowed to marry.

What other possible way would you be effected?
 
WinterBorn said:
So the gender of your partner is how you earned the right?
Click to expand...

yes, I met the qualifications set forth for the benefits....I married someone....just as when I went to law school and passed the bar, I met the qualifications set forth for arguing cases before the court....
 
WinterBorn said:
You claimed that you would be forced to accept them if they were allowed to marry.

But if they were allowed to marry, absolutely nothing would change except the benefits they receive from the gov't and that you would know they were allowed to marry.

What other possible way would you be effected?
Click to expand...

dude, this is getting infantile....you answer your own question in your question......what part of "required" do you not understand......go back and read the last ten posts where I answered your question.....here it is again...."nothing would change except the benefits they receive from the gov't".....and in your own words......reflect on it for a bit.....

and let me ask again.....why do you oppose single people getting "the benefits they receive from the gov't".....are you biased against single people?.....if we can arbitrarily change the meaning of a word just to give people benefits, why stop there......we can change the word "child" to include adults, then I can claim my son and daughter as dependents again......
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
yes, I met the qualifications set forth for the benefits....I married someone....just as when I went to law school and passed the bar, I met the qualifications set forth for arguing cases before the court....
Click to expand...

There is a huge difference between the two.

You said that straights earned the right to marry. So you consider being born straight is the equivelent of earning a right? You don't have to do anything, just be born with a certain sexual orientation and you will have earned a right that gains you 1,000+ benefits from the gov't?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
dude, this is getting infantile....what part of "required" do you not understand......go back and read the last ten posts where I answered your question.....
Click to expand...

I read them and they are nonsense.

Your claims are that you will somehow have to respect them or accept them. None of that is true. If they are in a relationship now, do you have to accept that? The licence and wedding ring do not change anything in your life.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
are you saying entering into a relationship with someone of the same sex isn't also a choice?
Click to expand...

The "entering the relationship" part is. But sexual orientation is not (at least based on the testimony and claims of countless gay people).

I never chose to be straight. It is simply how I am wired.
 
WinterBorn said:
Because it needs to be changed does not mean it is of any consequence.

It just means it is a hold over from a time when prejudices against gays were allowed.
Click to expand...

lol.....ah, I'm sure that marriage means a man and a woman engaging in a legal relationship ONLY because we don't like gays.....
 
WinterBorn said:
There is a huge difference between the two.

You said that straights earned the right to marry. So you consider being born straight is the equivelent of earning a right? You don't have to do anything, just be born with a certain sexual orientation and you will have earned a right that gains you 1,000+ benefits from the gov't?
Click to expand...

you suck at pretending what I believe.....try harder.....
 
WinterBorn said:
If they are in a relationship now, do you have to accept that? The licence and wedding ring do not change anything in your life.
Click to expand...
no, if they are in a relationship now, no one has to accept that.....if changing the definition of "marriage" has no effect on that, why demand the change.....as I said, just pass a law giving tax breaks to two men who live together.....you don't need to go through all this just for benefits.....you're looking for more and I don't choose to give it to you......
 
WinterBorn said:
The "entering the relationship" part is. But sexual orientation is not (at least based on the testimony and claims of countless gay people).

I never chose to be straight. It is simply how I am wired.
Click to expand...

but you aren't looking for a change in the law based on sexual orientation....you are looking for a change in the laws with respect to "entering into the relationship".....as you admit, it's a choice....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
you suck at pretending what I believe.....try harder.....
Click to expand...

You said that straight people earned the right to marry. Other than being born witha certain sexual orientation, they have done nothing that the gay couples haven't done.

And since that is the only tangible difference, and since you have not clarified what they have actually done, I was forced to guess at it.

If straight couples have actually done something to earn the right, please clarify that.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
no, if they are in a relationship now, no one has to accept that.....if changing the definition of "marriage" has no effect on that, why demand the change.....as I said, just pass a law giving tax breaks to two men who live together.....you don't need to go through all this just for benefits.....you're looking for more and I don't choose to give it to you......
Click to expand...

If the tax breaks were the only benefit, that might work. But they are not, as I have previously stated.

I am looking for equality for all people. At some point, that right that is being demanded will be given.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top