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.
...and those neanderthals who think it is sick will be castigated and laughed at for being so backwards.
The views on morality will "evolve" and "progress" to the point where it will be wrong to deny the love of two people, one of whom will be a child.
Conservatives will be seen as bigots who would deny men, women and children the right to express their love.
There will be nationwide celebrations as each state makes adult-child marriage legal. And the people who are deeply offended by what they call a gross and inappropriate act will be shunned by a "progressive, modern society" that will be touted in the mass media.
Mark my words.
Funny, i'm sure that some knumbskull made the same prediction 40 years ago.
Like I stated previously, the "advantage" has to apply to each and every single heterosexual marriage. Not most, not some.
Since there is no such thing as an absolute, the application of such an impossible standard is an illegitimate argument, regardless of topic. Nothing would qualify as having a benefit or an advantage applying such a criteria.
Having said that, heterosexual relationships IN GENERAL offer society advantages over homosexual relationships, and the "legal benefits" aspect of marriage which seems to be the REAL point in the debate over same sex marriage was never intended to be a direct benefit to the adult partners in the union. These legal and financial advantages offered married couples were specifically geared toward protecting the interests of the offspring produced by that union. Since homosexual relationships by nature do not produce offspring, such benefits are not owed.
Now, your argument as presented demanded a no-exception situation, yet I'm sure your response will be to include the exceptional situations where homosexuals may have biological children, and heterosexual couples may not have children ... of this I have no doubt. But as I previously stated, there are always exceptions, and rules and laws and such are not designed to address exceptions, but to address the most likely situations and scenarios.
Others advantages to heterosexual marriage include the stability factor such marriage creates as exemplified by insurance rates which are lower for married men than for their single counterparts.(insurance companies don't make moral judgments). In lieu of another explanation, it would seem that married men tend to engage in less risky behavior, with the obvious factor being the wife who encourages more maturity, as it is well recognized that women tend to exhibit greater maturity than males of the same age, again, with certain exceptions. Consequently, a union of homosexual males would be missing that female maturity influence ... resulting in more risky behaviors, and this bares out to be true in the analysis of homosexual males in large majority. The raw statistics show exponentially higher numbers of sexual partners with homosexual males compared to their heterosexual counterparts .... exceptionally higher rates of disease ... psychological disorders ... greater levels of drug and alcohol abuse, and shorter lifespans.
So, heterosexual marriages provide society more than just ONE single advantage .... such as offspring, less disease, less substance abuse, and longer lifespans, which result in a more stable society now, and a more stable society in the future.
...and those neanderthals who think it is sick will be castigated and laughed at for being so backwards.
The views on morality will "evolve" and "progress" to the point where it will be wrong to deny the love of two people, one of whom will be a child.
Conservatives will be seen as bigots who would deny men, women and children the right to express their love.
There will be nationwide celebrations as each state makes adult-child marriage legal. And the people who are deeply offended by what they call a gross and inappropriate act will be shunned by a "progressive, modern society" that will be touted in the mass media.
It's perfectly normal for any and all species to have anomalies.
However, just because a certain trait is an anomaly does not mean it's a bad thing. Things like homosexuality and left-hand dominance are both anomalies and completely harmless to the species.
Anomalies are not " normal " and the vast majority of the time does no damage to any species...homosexuals can't damage the species because they can't reproduce...dictionary definition below
Remember when being left-handed was thought to be the devils doing?
I can draw the analogy out, but I know you can come to the obvious conclusion here.
Yeah and in Biblical days they stoned to death Homosexuals and Warlocks
Since there is no such thing as an absolute, the application of such an impossible standard is an illegitimate argument, regardless of topic. Nothing would qualify as having a benefit or an advantage applying such a criteria.
Having said that, heterosexual relationships IN GENERAL offer society advantages over homosexual relationships, and the "legal benefits" aspect of marriage which seems to be the REAL point in the debate over same sex marriage was never intended to be a direct benefit to the adult partners in the union. These legal and financial advantages offered married couples were specifically geared toward protecting the interests of the offspring produced by that union. Since homosexual relationships by nature do not produce offspring, such benefits are not owed.
Now, your argument as presented demanded a no-exception situation, yet I'm sure your response will be to include the exceptional situations where homosexuals may have biological children, and heterosexual couples may not have children ... of this I have no doubt. But as I previously stated, there are always exceptions, and rules and laws and such are not designed to address exceptions, but to address the most likely situations and scenarios.
Others advantages to heterosexual marriage include the stability factor such marriage creates as exemplified by insurance rates which are lower for married men than for their single counterparts.(insurance companies don't make moral judgments). In lieu of another explanation, it would seem that married men tend to engage in less risky behavior, with the obvious factor being the wife who encourages more maturity, as it is well recognized that women tend to exhibit greater maturity than males of the same age, again, with certain exceptions. Consequently, a union of homosexual males would be missing that female maturity influence ... resulting in more risky behaviors, and this bares out to be true in the analysis of homosexual males in large majority. The raw statistics show exponentially higher numbers of sexual partners with homosexual males compared to their heterosexual counterparts .... exceptionally higher rates of disease ... psychological disorders ... greater levels of drug and alcohol abuse, and shorter lifespans.
So, heterosexual marriages provide society more than just ONE single advantage .... such as offspring, less disease, less substance abuse, and longer lifespans, which result in a more stable society now, and a more stable society in the future.
Please post links to the "raw statistics" you claim. I'm betting old Paul is involved. Or one of the evangelical anti-gay groups like Traditional Values or FRC.
They have a reputation for distorting other people's studies for their anti-gay crusade.
Or are you just pulling those ridiculous claims out of your nether regions.....again.
Since there is no such thing as an absolute, the application of such an impossible standard is an illegitimate argument, regardless of topic.
Correct. When it comes to relationships, there are no absolutes. Therefore, if there are no absolutes, then the limitation on gender in regards to a legally-binding contract does not make any sense.
Quote:
Nothing would qualify as having a benefit or an advantage applying such a criteria.
I don't see why it can't be left as "two (or more) persons who wish to share property" - a pure civil union for which certain benefits, rights, and privileges exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Having said that, heterosexual relationships IN GENERAL offer society advantages over homosexual relationships
And homosexual relationships IN GENERAL offer society advantages over heterosexual relationships.
Case in point, heterosexual relationships can create unwanted children. Homosexuals can adopt these unwanted children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
and the "legal benefits" aspect of marriage which seems to be the REAL point in the debate over same sex marriage was never intended to be a direct benefit to the adult partners in the union.
Your opinion. I think the benefits, protections, right and advantages of marriage are designed to benefit the family unit as a whole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
These legal and financial advantages offered married couples were specifically geared toward protecting the interests of the offspring produced by that union.
Of which homosexual couples can have. Or are those children not worthy of the legal and financial advantages?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Since homosexual relationships by nature do not produce offspring, such benefits are not owed.
Ok, answers my previous question. You don't feel that any children a homosexual couple has are not worthy of said benefits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Now, your argument as presented demanded a no-exception situation, yet I'm sure your response will be to include the exceptional situations where homosexuals may have biological children, and heterosexual couples may not have children ... of this I have no doubt.
Of course you have no doubt - because it's a fact. Some heterosexuals cannot have children and some homosexuals can. Even science is capable of creating a child from the genetic material of two women.
The argument presented is: If a homosexual couple can do everything that a sterile heterosexual couple can do - why is it that the heterosexual couple can get married, but the homosexual one can not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
But as I previously stated, there are always exceptions, and rules and laws and such are not designed to address exceptions, but to address the most likely situations and scenarios.
And then laws are altered and added to include additional likely situations and scenarios that were not previously considered.
In this case, it's homosexual marriage. Another good example are cyber crime laws. In the early 90's, they were practically unheard of. And now, with the expansion of the internet to epic proportions, laws are needed to handle crimes done over said medium.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Others advantages to heterosexual marriage include the stability factor such marriage creates
Can apply to homosexual marriage as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
as exemplified by insurance rates which are lower for married men than for their single counterparts.(insurance companies don't make moral judgments).
First, you say that insurance companies give lower rates to married men, but then claim they don't make moral judgements? Fact is, all insurances weigh judgement on customers and potential customers. That's why married men get lower rates. That's why teenagers have very high rates. That's why criminals have extremely high rates.
If the insurance company judges you to be a person who might cost them a lot of money, they raise the rates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
In lieu of another explanation, it would seem that married men tend to engage in less risky behavior,
"tend to"
That's judging.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
with the obvious factor being the wife who encourages more maturity, as it is well recognized that women tend to exhibit greater maturity than males of the same age, again, with certain exceptions.
That's their judgement.
It's possibly based upon fact and trends, but still a judgement of a person's potential character without actually knowing them.
Quote:
consequently, a union of homosexual males would be missing that female maturity influence ... resulting in more risky behaviors,
And, based upon this hasty generalization, a union of homosexual women would result in...?
Quote:
and this bares out to be true in the analysis of homosexual males in large majority.
I'd like to see a statistical breakdown of risky behaviours and percentages in longterm (male) homosexual relationships vs heterosexual relationships.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
The raw statistics show exponentially higher numbers of sexual partners with homosexual males compared to their heterosexual counterparts
Proof?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
.... exceptionally higher rates of disease ... psychological disorders ... greater levels of drug and alcohol abuse, and shorter lifespans.
Proof?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
So, heterosexual marriages provide society more than just ONE single advantage .... such as offspring, less disease, less substance abuse, and longer lifespans, which result in a more stable society now, and a more stable society in the future.
Without seeing unbiased proof of your statements, the advantages here are a moot point.
I find it interesting that you're comparing single homosexual males (which, single men are, in general, more promiscuous) against heterosexual males in long-term relationships (as many studies do). If you could provide evidence that long-term homosexual relationships have more disease, more substance abuse, and shorter lifespans, I would appreciate it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
That is more than just ONE advantage, yes?
Not really. Can't say without proof of point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Howest2008
Anomalies are not " normal " and the vast majority of the time does no damage to any species...homosexuals can't damage the species because they can't reproduce...dictionary definition below
Never said that anomalies themselves are normal, but that it is normal for anomalies to exist. For any given species to have zero anomalies would be a statistical anomaly in and of itself.
First, you say that insurance companies give lower rates to married men, but then claim they don't make moral judgements? Fact is, all insurances weigh judgement on customers and potential customers. That's why married men get lower rates. That's why teenagers have very high rates. That's why criminals have extremely high rates.
If the insurance company judges you to be a person who might cost them a lot of money, they raise the rates.
Those rates are based on ACTUARIAL judgments, not moral judgments. Huge difference. A moral judgment is a personal feeling or opinion based on ones own moral code. An actuarial judgment use statistical facts about each & every group a person fits into to judge the likelihood of a future payout. Statistically, a married man is less of a risk to the insurance company than an unmarried man. Whether that risk differs between married STRAIGHT men & married GAY men, I don't know.
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.
But as I previously stated, there are always exceptions, and rules and laws and such are not designed to address exceptions, but to address the most likely situations and scenarios.
