Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How does two men or two women getting marred effect anyone else?
We are all part of a society.
Laws affect us all - directly or indirectly.
Children need a mother AND father to EXIST, as well as to thrive best in being raised. - Axiomatic truth.
Marriage is PRIMARILY for the benefit of the future society - children.
Although not all heterosexual couples have children, ALL children come from heterosexual unions.
Thus, responsible, logical law makers acknowledge that society has a vested interest in heterosexual unions & no interest & even liabilities (according to the US CDC) with homosexual unions. Already, there is a push by the LGBT to normalize other sexual fetishes like pedophilia. Rights CAN NOT be based on sexual fetishes.
If 2 women or 2 men want to be together - fine. That's their business, but they shouldn't demand special treatment simply for having sexual fetishes, which homosexuality is, since it is not truly intercourse, but require substitutes (ie exist-only entrance).
George Bernard Shaw said, "Government is impossible without a religion: that is, without a body of common assumptions."
"You can’t have an unlimited expansion of the concept of equal rights or equal recognition because at a certain point it begins to undermine another necessary principle, that of community cohesion. You simply can’t have a society that recognizes virtually all forms of behaviour as equal." -MCMX
People who disagree with you on a legal issue are bigots and haters ?
When people have nothing else to offer, some resort to childish name calling, aka "adhominm attacks" -& don't even realize their hypocricy & lack of logic.
The Supreme Court needs to hear a case involving a homosexual couple, interracial or otherwise, in order to set an applicable precedent. The Loving v. Virginia case involved a man and a woman and had absolutely nothing, zero, to do with homosexuality.
Don't you love it when you have to explain common sense?
Hm...
Can you "come out of the closet" about your race?
Some who deep down know they are wrong - desperately pretend something fits when it so obviously doesn't, so they get desperate, trying to draw ridiculous analogies - like equating race with sexual fetish preferences.
Anybody with any common sense sees through this obvious lack of logic.
We are all part of a society.
Laws affect us all - directly or indirectly.
Children need a mother AND father to EXIST, as well as to thrive best in being raised. - Axiomatic truth.
Marriage is PRIMARILY for the benefit of the future society - children.
Although not all heterosexual couples have children, ALL children come from heterosexual unions.
Thus, responsible, logical law makers acknowledge that society has a vested interest in heterosexual unions & no interest & even liabilities (according to the US CDC) with homosexual unions. Already, there is a push by the LGBT to normalize other sexual fetishes like pedophilia. Rights CAN NOT be based on sexual fetishes.
If 2 women or 2 men want to be together - fine. That's their business, but they shouldn't demand special treatment simply for having sexual fetishes, which homosexuality is, since it is not truly intercourse, but require substitutes (ie exist-only entrance).
George Bernard Shaw said, "Government is impossible without a religion: that is, without a body of common assumptions."
"You can’t have an unlimited expansion of the concept of equal rights or equal recognition because at a certain point it begins to undermine another necessary principle, that of community cohesion. You simply can’t have a society that recognizes virtually all forms of behaviour as equal." -MCMX
We gay people deserve the same benefits. Being gay is not a fetish and gays are not pedophiles, nor are we fighting for it. Procreation is not required of marriage, senior can marry, sterile people can marry, non religious people can marry. Being gay is not a behavior. Marriage for gay people increases community cohesion. Marriage contracts are secular and religion is not mandatory for marriage or mandatory to believe in. We have the freedom of and from religion. Getting the same 1049 rights and benefits is not special treatment, it is equal treatment.. Every thing you have said is blatant lies. Keep lying and in the future you will be on the wrong side of history.
Don't you love it when you have to explain common sense?
Hm...
Can you "come out of the closet" about your race?
Some who deep down know they are wrong - desperately pretend something fits when it so obviously doesn't, so they get desperate, trying to draw ridiculous analogies - like equating race with sexual fetish preferences.
Anybody with any common sense sees through this obvious lack of logic.
You mean people like you who make nonsense claims that homosexuality is a fetish. It is not. You lack common sense and only religious sense of persecution. It is you that is so desparate that you spread lies to denegrate a minority to make it seem okay that you are descriminating for a good reason. There is never a good reason to select any group and discriminate against them. Go back to your cave.
George Bernard Shaw said, "Government is impossible without a religion: that is, without a body of common assumptions."
That quote doesn't mean what you think it means. Shaw was an atheist and a Fabian (i.e., a Socialist). By "common assumptions" he meant a narrative or mythology, not a "religion" like Buddhism or Christianity.
One could also interpret it to mean: Religion is merely a body of common assumption.
American "common assumptions" also include the separation of church and state and equal protection.
If a male-female couple meet in bar in Las Vegas, get drunk, decide to get married the next day in a drive-through wedding chapel officiated by an Elvis impersonator is that an "authentic" marriage ... while a loving female-female or male-male couple who have lived together for years are denied any kind of marriage recognition?
If same-sex couples are not allowed to marry their relationships are being disrespected.
If same-sex couples cannot marry if they want to, they are second-class citizens.
Don't you love it when you have to explain common sense?
Hm...
Can you "come out of the closet" about your race?
Some who deep down know they are wrong - desperately pretend something fits when it so obviously doesn't, so they get desperate, trying to draw ridiculous analogies - like equating race with sexual fetish preferences.
Anybody with any common sense sees through this obvious lack of logic.
You should probably avoid playing the "common sense" card when a) you're wrong and b) that fact was explained to the poster you quoted quite awhile back.
"We gay people"???
Right there, I know you are deluding yourself.
Gay originally meant, "happy."
Now it is warped into homosexual fetishes, disguised as a single source of identity - what rubbish!
YOU ARE NOT "GAY."
Who you are is much more complex than the sexual fetishes you have.
Sexual fetishes is one tiny aspect of your perspective and approach to living, not your identity.
Quote:
Being gay is not a fetish...
Again, you are mistaken.
"Fetish: any object or nongenital part of the body that causes a habitual erotic response or fixation."
A man's genitals do not fit with another man's genitals, & the same lack of fitting applies with 2 women.
Thus, they resort to substitutes, aka "nongenital parts" & thus homosexuality is a fetish.
Please provide evidence that "civil marriage is a civil right."
You won't be able to, because it is not included in civil rights.
Many people are not married - yet they still have civil rights.
Civil rights are a combination of honoring individuals rights with being "CIVIL" - as in civilized - getting along with the society as a whole.
The society, in case you haven't realized, is completely 100% derived from heterosexual unions... & NEVER, not even once, has a homosexual couple produced offspring by themselves.
Thus, marriage, primarily, is for the future society - children.
As mentioned, although not all heterosexual couples produce children, ALL children (every single one) come from heterosexual unions. Thus, it is in society's interest to legally support heterosexual unions.
Quote:
If same-sex couples are not allowed to marry their relationships are being disrespected.
If same-sex couples cannot marry if they want to, they are second-class citizens.
There are already rights on contractual law (ie cohabitation agreements, common law marriage), which provides sufficient protection for couples with homosexual fetishes. There is absolutely no need, & in fact libability - in redefining the basic unit of society (the family) to be based on sexual fetishes.
Nature has made it so that homosexual relationships do not have the right to produce offspring.
That is axiomatic truth.
There is no logical or beneficial reason to try to ignore this & enforce laws that go counter to this axiomatic truth.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
