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.
We all know you think your god thinks homosexuals are icky...and "perverted" and "against his plan" yada yada yada.
Stop being devious and fess up that your views on homosexuals are based in your illogical emotional attachment to your religious beliefs.
When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition.
You mean the kind of "logic" one can discover on teh series of tubes? Such as... "marriage is defined as an institution between two individuals that bear the capacity to procreate"? And not qualifying for it should be deemed grounds for disqualification. DOMA should also be amended to suggest... if a married couple doesn't meet the necessary capacity to procreate under a specified period of time, the marriage shall be deemed null and void.
Might want to go back and properly read my argument, or is falsely summarizing me like some others have in order to build your straw man the only means to which you can defend your position?
There is no debating with Nomander, Luckygem and Rayinak. They are blind to anything but heterosexuality. They refuse to see anything but what they want to see. In reality they are scared that their religion may disintegrate if homosexuality is accepted. Religion does not predate us. Religion is a figment of mass imagination, it was created to keep the masses in tow and kept too frightened to make up their own minds without consulting their book first. They want to keep the status quo as is with heterosexuals on top of the heap and gays suppressed at the bottom. The science and biology that defends homosexuality as normal, does not jell with their bible. Try and get them to answer a legitimate question like; When did they choose to be straight? or; IF god created everyone in its image, did he not also create homosexuals? There desire to keep gays and lesbians down and designated as second class citizens with less rights is no different than that of the mormon church's past stance that blacks were less human, or that of the first European Americans that exterminated the native Americans on the basis that they were heathens and thus equal humans. They were not considered gods children and killed wantonly. They will loose this battle over same sex marriage because of their bible. I say we tax the heck out of the churches and get our country out of the hole it is in.
I am not dismissing your argument, merely pointing out that you falsely summarize my own for your benefit.
There is no discussing with someone when you fail to attend to their position honestly.
One can choose the solution you describe, but then this is a reaction of an inability to properly defend ones position.
Notice the fallacious position of your comments.
You fail to deal with the argument, so you summarize all who oppose and then delve into your assumptions of their motives as support.
If you had been attending to the details of my argument, you would notice that I do not argue against civil unions. In fact, my position supports them in the same manner that I support marriage as its definition. They both legally and accurately describe the capabilities of the union.
You would know this if you assessed the discussion properly, rather instead your responses have been to dismiss, falsely summarize, and assume intent.
Marriage is not relevant to having children. One does not have to be married to have kids and one does not have to have kids because they are married. There are no rules or laws requiring a couple to have children or their marriage will be null. Your premise does not include adopted kids or children born from a surrogate mother. You just want to deny homosexuals the right to marriage under any circumstances. You should really be striving to find a solution to the skyrocketing divorce rate, it is the biggest threat to responsible child upbringing.
You can state it over and over again, but this is not an argument, it is a demand to conformity.
You have yet to attend to my argument, you simply keep claiming it wrong over and over without dealing with the points it makes.
You simply respond in the same manner as a broken record. /shrug
Let me tell you something. In Texas, there are plenty of gay men who get married to women, have kids and then divorce...and yes, to my amazement these women marry these men knowing they are gay!! So ,yes, gay men (or "homosexuals" as you call them because you apparently can't stop thinking about the sexual act ) are CAPABLE of having kids. Lesbians do it too. Is this the "institution" you are trying to defend? It's not the gays that are ruining marriage. Homophobes are the ones who cause this behavior. Why does this go on? Because when people learn about hate early in life, they believe do not have the option to come out.
Already clarified this. Your response shows you have not been following the discussion and your point is irrelevant to the discussion.
Please educate yourself on the discussion and the arguments of those you respond to. It keeps from confusing the argument.
I found the stats the OP quoted, interesting. I guess I'm in the minority for my age group (Almost 50 and I think it should be legal. FWIW, I'm heterosexual, conservative, and a Christian).
No one is asking heterosexuals to live a homosexual lifestyle, so what are they afraid of? Everyone deserves to be able to marry the person they're in love with and share a committed relationship with.
"Man" does not have the divine right to dictate who is allowed to be married and who isn't. IMO, that's sexist and aren't there laws preventing discrimination based on sex? I don't know why homosexuals haven't brought a lawsuit based on the merits of sexism. If they did, they'd win.
I understand your position, but the issue as I explained it is simply that the word does not fit their position.
Civil unions more appropriately serve their needs. A legal agreement between people to share responsibility and right between each other.
Marriage achieves the same thing in that basic respect, but it extends in meaning to which deals with that of any progeny that results and the rights gained by being a product of such a result.
Marriage carries an entire different contingency than "civil union" and properly identifies the capability of such a union. It matters not that the union produce such, but that it has the capability to produce such in its general makeup and so the definition and the legal attending to it are specific to those needs.
Encompassing them together creates confusion and incorrectly classifies a civil union as one with the capability to produce offspring.
We do not generalize in legal realms for a purpose so as to not run into confusing issues that will result from such.
I found the stats the OP quoted, interesting. I guess I'm in the minority for my age group (Almost 50 and I think it should be legal. FWIW, I'm heterosexual, conservative, and a Christian).
No one is asking heterosexuals to live a homosexual lifestyle, so what are they afraid of? Everyone deserves to be able to marry the person they're in love with and share a committed relationship with.
"Man" does not have the divine right to dictate who is allowed to be married and who isn't. IMO, that's sexist and aren't there laws preventing discrimination based on sex? I don't know why homosexuals haven't brought a lawsuit based on the merits of sexism. If they did, they'd win.
Thank you geek. . .it is a real pleasure to be able to rep and agree with a "conservative christian". . .but then, I KNEW they weren't all brainless. . .thanks again for your comment!
I understand your position, but the issue as I explained it is simply that the word does not fit their position.
Civil unions more appropriately serve their needs. A legal agreement between people to share responsibility and right between each other.
Marriage achieves the same thing in that basic respect, but it extends in meaning to which deals with that of any progeny that results and the rights gained by being a product of such a result.
Marriage carries an entire different contingency than "civil union" and properly identifies the capability of such a union. It matters not that the union produce such, but that it has the capability to produce such in its general makeup and so the definition and the legal attending to it are specific to those needs.
Encompassing them together creates confusion and incorrectly classifies a civil union as one with the capability to produce offspring.
We do not generalize in legal realms for a purpose so as to not run into confusing issues that will result from such.
Legal marriage is not about "blood lines". It is about joining two people together with legal rights as a couple. A child has 'blood rights' regardless of her parents being married. This is a red herring you have created to cover up your emotional wish to marginalize and discriminate against gays. And it's not a very good one, because it requires blatant special pleading.
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.
) are CAPABLE of having kids. Lesbians do it too. Is this the "institution" you are trying to defend? It's not the gays that are ruining marriage. Homophobes are the ones who cause this behavior. Why does this go on? Because when people learn about hate early in life, they believe do not have the option to come out.
