Gay Marriage

I dont know who your talking to PhotoGra1 but I was pretty sure there were other benefits besides just the 600 bucks mentioned earlier.

Once again, any homosexual man is more than free to marry a single woman and gain those benefits.

It does not state anywhere that homosexuals can not get married.
of course they can.

 

Benefits such as: social security benefits, survivor benefits, next of kin, etc, etc, etc, are only provided by legal marriage. In fact, in the state of Virginia, any contract that provides "similar benefits of marriage" is null and void in this state. Marrying a lesbian or a female will not provide me the same rights as a heterosexual marriage. Period. What good would it do me to secure these rights with someone other than my partner?

 

That is not equality and you know it. Homosexual relations define what it means to be a homosexual. That's like saying laws against interracial marriage are not racist or discriminatory because blacks and whites are both equally free to marry members of their own race.

 

I'm not forcing anything on anyone by making factual statements about obvious truths. There is just no denying that the purpose of life is to reproduce and perpetuate the species. You can argue all you want about the "meaning of life" but the sad, cold reality of the matter is that life only exists in order to reproduce and perpetuate. The only way that this is possible is for a man and a woman to copulate. Any other type of pairing is a deviation from this norm. Since a deviation from the norm undermines the fundamental purpose of life, it is wrong. It's as simple as that.

 

That's absolutely irrelevant. The divorce rate has increased everywhere over the course of the last fifty years, and this has coincided with the growing acceptance of homosexuality. But I don't think that I ever stated that there's a definite correlation. What I'm saying is that homosexuality is a contributing factor.

 

life exist only to reproduce? This is news to me. I had no idea there was an authority that determined beyond denial this "Cold reality" of such a purpose, or even that life has a purpose at all. I also had no idea that deviations from norms is equvalent to wrongness. Consensus morality and the naturist falacy is apparently the way and thus I am today enlightened thanks to iiaajmm.

 

and what we're saying, and I believe I speak for a good percentage of people calling you out is that it doesn't follow that tolerance for homosexuality could weaken the heterosexual family or could even be a contributing factor. If my next door neighbor brings home a boyfriend, how could it possibly follow that my parents would decide to want to get a divorce. The only argument with even the slightest weight would be that men may cheat on their wives with other men since they would be willing to come out but even then, it would be heterosexism that motivated them to stay in the closet and get married in the first place.

 

Im not aware of Black coloured people and white coloured people being married or not married.

One guy in here, Blackguard, was going to marry someone of a 'different race' so maybe he can discuss that with you in another thread.

In this case, you are talking about human behavior, not inherint physical appearance.

Now we will agree, Marriage is NOT an equal right to all citizens. Never has been.
For example - I have NO RIGHT to the benefits of Marriage because Im single.

Three women and one man = two women who DO NOT have the rights and benefits either.

However, Any one man has the right to marry one woman.
Gay or not gay.. or kinda gay or simply fantasising about being gay.

Another Dilema - we simply dont know and cant realistically monitor marriages to find out if one or both partners have decided to become gay after the marriage.

Again.. its simply too difficult to govern these things on a per-marriage basis, so we kinda have to conceed to 'blanket' policies like this.

 

Racial distinctions are fluid and artificacts of history and geography. Sexual differentiation and complementarity are immutably woven into the created order.

 

WE are talking about inherint sexual orientations. The American Psychological Association has long held that it is not a choice and since the 1970s no longer even calls it a disease

What the hell are you talking about? That's not an example. How is you not having marriage benefit like being able to visit your non-existant spouce in the hospital, willing your estate to your non-existant even applicable? That doesn't make any sense.

Yes, that is true but policy regarding partnership rights are what is under debate here.

THAT IS NOT EQUALITY! If you criminalize that which defines a homosexual, you are still casting homosexuality as inferior and that is not equal treatment under the law. Look at my interracial marriage example once again.

How many times does "decided to be gay" need to be debunked for you shitheads to be persuaded?

 

Why is this such a major issue with people? You are who you are. Just because one is gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender does not make them an evil person. I am happy to say that my sister is bisexual and I love her...she is a good person. I am bisexual and I am loved by both my husband, family and friends. Peace and Love to you. Keep the peace.

 

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/1995papers/johnson.html

http://www.messiah.edu/hpages/facstaff/chase/h/articles/schmidt/index.htm

 

**



To Huck gay people are sinners and immoral and that is it.

There is no point trying to put up any argument because his views are not based on anything rational.

It is based on his religious belief.

He is not here to debate with you he is just here to preach.



**

 

Oh, C'mon Balbus...

I'm in favor of same-sex marriage, but I'll admit that Huck is coming up with rational arguements and isn't relying on religious dogma to make his arguements for him...

On the other hand this is a classic example of you resorting to personel attacks to discredit a point of view...

 

It's hard to deny that for many homosexuals being homosexual is a clear lifestyle choice. For others, the origins of their homosexuality may be more obscure, but in the end there is no evidence to suggest that homosexuality is inherent. The human body is structured in such a way that heterosexual sex is the normal means of copulating. Sorry, but the anus is only intended for expelling waste and its use as an alternate vagina is just plain wrong. I can't see how you can logically argue otherwise.

The fact that the APA has changed its definition really means nothing. It's all relative to who has control of the APA and doesn't reflect what is true and right. Actually the fact that the APA would consider one form of sexual deviance okay, but others like incest, not okay, is a little disturbing. But I guess they have to bend to public pressure. I guess that's why people like lesbian feminists have to try and convert people to homosexuality--because they know if they can brainwash enough people into the lifestyle, then they make it legitimate, which in turn gives them the power to push their heterophobic agenda.

 

Who are you, or anyone else for that matter, to say what someone else can or cannot do with their own anus? How does it harm you if consenting adults take sexual pleasure from anal stimulation? I'm not a big fan of anal sex myself, be it hetero or homo, I'm just not turned on by the thought of sticking my willie in a poophole, but if someone else wants to it has no affect on my life and it is none of my damn business.

 

I can't see how you can logically deny someone's choice of lifestyle when it doesn't harm you, and isn't illegal in and of itself. It's discrimination, plain and simple, and it's wrong.

 

Nobody is proposing to outlaw private homosexual acts. Marriage policy is another matter entirely.

 

Well, how does two gay men or women marrying affect you? Remember, in America laws aren't there to enforce morals, they are there to protect the people. Who exactly does a ban on gay marriage protect?

 

You could make the same argument about incest and child pornography, except that for the last couple of years homosexuality is no longer illegal, because politicians had to cave into public pressure, just as they would cave into public pressure were there enough people who believed possessing child porn was a "right" and formed organizations to push their agenda.

Sorry, but discrimination is not wrong when it is against people who are behaving in an improper manner.