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.
It's based on biology, two men cannot make a baby together, so there is no reason to prod them into getting married, no reason to give them tax breaks, no reason for government to subsidize them.
And some hetero couples can not biologically reproduce together. There is no requirement of reproduction in marriage. Some states require some couple to NOT be able to reproduce in order for them to be married.
Arizona, Illinois, Utah. These are similar bans, they just apply only to first cousins. In Illinois, both have to be over 50 or one has to be infertile; in Arizona both have to be over 65 or one has to be infertile; in Utah both have to be over 65, or both have to be over 55 with one being infertile.
Quote:
Indiana, Wisconsin. In Indiana, first cousins or first once removed can get together... as long as they're both over 65 and infertile. In Wisconsin, the way around the ban is for the woman to be over 55 or at least one of the two people to be infertile.
No need to defend it, it speaks for itself, a Man and a Woman made for each other, their parts match up and they can serve a purpose. Whats to defend? It explains itself. Anything else is just laughable.
I'll agree with myself I think it speaks for itself.
It's based on biology, two men cannot make a baby together,
so do hetero sexual couples who are barren can't make a baby either.
Hetero couples who can't have babies of their own, look to adoption, and even surrogate mothers, or will even do invitro.
OH DAMN! Homosexual couples do the same thing all the time. I know a lesbian couple who both got pregnant at the same time (same sperm donor) so they could have children together, who were related.
so, this argument has no strength anymore.
Quote:
so there is no reason to prod them into getting married, no reason to give them tax breaks, no reason for government to subsidize them.
I've known several same sex couples that have been together longer than most of my straight/hetero couples. One couple I know have been together for nearly 27 years. why should this couple be banned from : being covered under insurance, not allowed to receive death benefits, or even not be able to see their partner in a hospital because they weren't the legally recognized wife/husband?
Please join us in the 21st century. Your 1960's "leave it to beaver" world no longer exists.
And as far as cultural norm, it wasn't the cultural norm for women to be treated as equals either, but that didn't stop us from winning our equality.
And these issues, on some grounds legit, have been pushed for 30 to 40 years. The youth coming up today need an explanation as to why, for the first time maybe since the Civil War, that they will not inherit a greater nation than the previous generations.
I don't really want to continue on this topic any longer than is necessary. jjrose, although this topic isn't personal against any one individual, I would like to ask you some intentionally leading questions:
1) Are you gay? If so, why are you gay?
2) Why do you think other people are gay?
Pardon me if I do not respond in a timely manner. Today I am taking the woman who birthed me out for a belated Mother's Day celebration.
It's based on biology, two men cannot make a baby together, so there is no reason to prod them into getting married, no reason to give them tax breaks, no reason for government to subsidize them.
Since when was marriage about making babies? Apply that argument to heterosexual couples who refuse to have children.
Should they have no reason to get married, no reason to give them tax breaks, or no reason for the government to subsidize them?
The whole 'marriage is procreation' holds no weight whatsoever and is dated and tired. Come up with something more logical and intelligent.
And these issues, on some grounds legit, have been pushed for 30 to 40 years. The youth coming up today need an explanation as to why, for the first time maybe since the Civil War, that they will not inherit a greater nation than the previous generations.
I don't really want to continue on this topic any longer than is necessary. jjrose, although this topic isn't personal against any one individual, I would like to ask you some intentionally leading questions:
1) Are you gay? If so, why are you gay?
2) Why do you think other people are gay?
Pardon me if I do not respond in a timely manner. Today I am taking the woman who birthed me out for a belated Mother's Day celebration.
To answer your questions.
1) I am a lesbian, because I am emotionally, and physically attracted to women. I was not raped, or abused. I had a great relationship with both my mother and father. I was raised in a non extremist baptist house. I also tried to be hetero. I was married, he is still my best friend. I have children too.
2) I would assume that other people are gay or lesbian because they find that they are attracted to people that are the same sex as they are.
To you.
1) why are your straight?
2)why are other people straight?
Marriage" isn't about love.
You can be in love and not be married.
You can be married and not be in love.
"Marriage" isn't about sex.
You can have sex and not be married.
You can be married and not have sex.
"Marriage" isn't about children.
You can have children and not be married.
You can be married and not have children.
"Marriage" isn't about religion.
You can be an atheist and be married.
You can be married without a preacher.
"Marriage" isn't about vows.
You can make vows without being married.
You can be married without vows, only an affirmation; "I do".
"Marriage" isn't about rings.
You can wear rings without being married.
You can be married without exchanging rings.
People need to learn what marriage ISN'T before trying to argue what it IS.
Marriage is legally only about property, citizenship, kinship and inheritance. The marriage license is an application for State and Federal benefits granted a specific class of people. All arguments about love, romance, reproduction, religious dogma, tradition and family values are PERSONAL BAGGAGE and cultural ignorance of the legal fiction called marriage.
Religion doesn't own marriage. The State owns it
Denying US Citizens benefits granted others on the basis of their sexual orientation is no more valid than denying the bigots the same benefits because "I" am offended by them. .
Denying US Citizens benefits granted others on the basis of their sexual orientation is no more valid than denying the bigots the same benefits because "I" am offended by them. .
Rights, rights, rights, rights, rights. Where are my rights? Every day I wake up I have less rights than the day before. A new law for this, a new law for that, a new government program I am required--forced--to subsidize. I can counter any moral-relativism play and say someone's rights are being violated, or not upheld. I have a "right" to see that society is the model that not only I want to have, but that I want future generations to have. Here's the thing: In a strong, nuclear family, government services are basically unnecessary. i.e., not needed. But we're no longer fostering the nuclear family as the ideal, because it's easy to just "do whatever the blip we wanna do." We are actively promoting subversiveness as a success model, and it's unequivocally the wrong response to the issue of troubled homes and whathaveyou. I guess on a primal level it makes sense, insofar as it's natural for those who were raised, in whatever environment they were raised in, to want to protect that way of life. The argument isn't about whether those individuals raised by gay people will or won't be more balanced, or similarly balanced. There's gay people. The world gets it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
To answer your questions.
1) I am a lesbian, because I am emotionally, and physically attracted to women. I was not raped, or abused. I had a great relationship with both my mother and father. I was raised in a non extremist baptist house. I also tried to be hetero. I was married, he is still my best friend. I have children too.
2) I would assume that other people are gay or lesbian because they find that they are attracted to people that are the same sex as they are.
To you.
1) why are your straight?
2) why are other people straight?
I have changed my mind and will not continue with some of the larger points I was wanting to make with this. I will say that emotionally, and physically, does not equate to biologically. They're separate.
I will answer your questions:
1) I am straight because I am drawn to the opposite sex, not only because I find them to be one of the most beautiful creations around, but because I am drawn to them on a primal level in order to perpetuate my lineage, and the species. Whether one chooses to have children is a logical conclusion, not a biological one.
2) I would assume the same for others, but cannot speak for them.
A few final words. There will be no Utopia. For the heteros in support, reading the hetero-hatred (as well as religious hatred) in this thread should be revealing to you. I have called a few of the trends over the past decade correctly, have mis-called a few others, and, although I might very well be wrong about this one, I think what is going to happen is that you will see an "explosion of gay people." But it's not going to be, well, really real. It will just be a bunch of single people, I suspect mostly women, who will get married for the benefits and can now use the adoption system to "create a loving family." It's not that they are lesbian, but they are emotionally bonding as life strategy, with sex being one of the possible, and perhaps natural, outcomes of such an arrangement. Again, in my opinion, while some men would benefit from this, the gay issue is a women's issue masquerading as a gay issue. Without 150 million potential women behind the cause, it cannot stand. There is a caveat. Should the nation collapse, hypothetically, the traditional family structure can survive on it's own. Those who rely on the government system to support their structure may not do so well. In my opinion, the foster-care system is now being used as a weapon to further deconstruct the image of a traditional family. Now, not everyone gets a fair shake at life, nor would everyone grow up in a, quote/unquote, solid home. Unfortunately, society is now actively promoting the destruction of the nuclear family, and it has been for a while. And there's a reason. Outside of man-on-man, same-sex relationships, the traditional family includes something very important: a penis. And we just cannot have that.
-Budgetlord
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.
I think it speaks for itself.