if the purpose of marriage is reproduction, then those who cannot reproduce should not be allowed to be married
now if two or more people wish to form a partnership and call it marriage, i think that the state should keep its nose out of the picture
the state should not be allowed to define marriage
however, the state has an interest in the health and well being of children
as such, the state needs to require those that produce children to provide for them and should a partnership choose to dissolve, then there needs to be a requirement to provide for the health and welfare of children that were produced by such a partnership
in the case of adoption or fostering of children, once more the state has a vested interest in the health and welfare of such children
W
WinterBorn
Guest
You went with a choice that you thought you could defend.
There is no reason to disallow gay marriages. Morality is not an issue. The only way you can call homosexuality immoral is to use religious beliefs, which is unconstitutional.
Basing the decision of who can marry solely on sexual acts is nonsense. Especially since most straights perform some of the same acts. If oral sex does not stop straights from marrying, it should stop gays. To argue otherwise is pure bigotry.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Neither can some "straight" couples.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
And yet, studies have shown children of gay couples show no negative effects. The only down side is the prejudices shown by the ignorant.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
I gave him some, instead.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
Thank you.
Socrtease
Verified User
Personally I like the first video better. It comes from the angle of a man that has not only raised a gay child, but who risked his life for our freedoms in the single greatest struggle for freedom this planet has ever known. He is right, if the right to be in a consentual adult loving relationship is not a basic human right then what the fuck was he over there fighting for. Many of the Men who fought in WWII were racists, but they were fighting for the freedom of white americans as much as they were black americans, whether they acknowledge it or not, because freedom is not subjective, nor is it equivocal. You can try to equivocate it all you want, but your equivocations are based on bigotry, plain and simple.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
i like how the video pointed out that gay children are never raised by straight parents....
to be in a consentual adult loving relationship ???
And who do you believe is preventing him or her from being in a consensual adult loving relationship?
No one....Thats absolutely right....
Thousands of homosexuals as of this very minute are in loving consensual adult relationships and NO ONE is trying to stop them at all....so YOUR
your equivocations are based on ignorance and mis-characterization of the facts.....
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
You're arguing semantics. The point is they are not legally allowed to certify themselves as a couple as straight people are.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
And yet, one group can receive benefits from the gov't, and one cannot.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
and if you're not married you have restricted inheritance rights, hospital rights, dissolution rights etc....
Beefy
Worst gambler ever
And herein lies the point. Good post.
The anti gay marriage crowd is trying to hang their hats on the morality argument, or the unnatural argument, but the bottom line remains the same. They don't want homosexuals to have the same rights.
Its truly going to be one of the great embarrassments of the overall civil rights movement, that a large part of this country wishes to deny a basic, civil right to another large part of this country, merely due to semantics.
Its a shame. Opposing gay marriage is opposing real equality, in the most basic sense.
The following is directed at the opponents of same sex marriage:
Religion? Okay, if your religion doesn't allow it, then don't let two guys or gals get married in your church. I support that. Your religion is your religion, but my country is my country. Society? You don't own society anymore than any one individual in it, gay or straight, so shove that shit where it belongs, in the toilet. Children? If gay marriage is bad for children, show me how marriage at all is a universal litmus test for raising children, and show me any information you have that says that gay couples are worse at raising kids than straight couples, or single parents, or absentee parents, or grandparents. And as an aside, your side complains that since they cant have kids, its not in the direction of what marriage is about. So feigning concern for children is crap. If you really cared about kids, you'd pick a fight elsewhere.
If you don't want a segment of this country to have the same rights as the rest of us, just come out and say so. If you think that gays are weird, or that their lifestyle creeps you out, just come right the fuck out, and SAY SO.
Its not like its a big secret anyhow, its obvious, so pull that hood off and come clean.
Last edited:
perhaps i did not carry my argument far enough
i do not oppose gay couples adopting or fostering children
in fact our younger daughter has acted as a surrogate mother for a gay man in hawaii and a gay couple in sf - just so you do not think that she is in favor of just gays, she also acted as a surrogate mother for a couple in sweden
i only stated that the state has a vested interest in the welfare of children whether they are raised by heterosexual or homosexual people
perhaps i did not carry my argument far enough
i do not oppose gay couples adopting or fostering children
in fact our younger daughter has acted as a surrogate mother for a gay man in hawaii and a gay couple in sf - just so you do not think that she is in favor of just gays, she also acted as a surrogate mother for a couple in sweden
i only stated that the state has a vested interest in the welfare of children whether they are raised by heterosexual or homosexual people
perhaps i did not carry my argument far enough
i do not oppose gay couples adopting or fostering children
in fact our younger daughter has acted as a surrogate mother for a gay man in hawaii and a gay couple in sf - just so you do not think that she is in favor of just gays, she also acted as a surrogate mother for a heterosexual couple in sweden
i only stated that the state has a vested interest in the welfare of children whether they are raised by heterosexual or homosexual people
it is not that such relationships exist, but that they do not have the benefits of recognition by the law
Socrtease
Verified User
Marriage, for many, is the ultimate form of recognition of that relationship. You are being purposely obtuse and think that no one will get it. Same sex couples don't have all the same rights as their breeder counterparts, One of the primary rights they are not allowed is the right to inherit by intestate succession. If a man and woman are married for 50 years and one of them dies without a will the law still works in the favor of the surviving spouse. Not true for homosexuals in any state that does not recognize same sex marriages or civil unions. There is also the right to continue raising your children. In every state in the US it is assumed that children of the marriage belong to both parties, but with a same sex couple the one that is not the parent gets screwed and so does her child. You want to hide your bigotry in your statement that " NO ONE is trying to stop them at all" when that is absolutely false. People are trying to stop them and work on a daily basis to try to figure out how to turn back the advances they have already made. Pretend all you want, but most of us are not fooled.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
My apologies, I misunderstood your statement.