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.
...Why is it not good enough to the homosexuals if their relationships were recognized in law as conferring all the same legal rights as a hetrosexual narriage?...
Let me ask you - why is it "too good" to allow same-sex couples access to the same marriage laws that opposite-sex couples currently enjoy?
There is no support because I have never said that you are mentally ill. I have been the loudest critic of people who use the mentally ill label to describe people who are not - in this thread alone at least three times have stated that anyone who does so is being disrespectful to and is trivalizing people who do suffer from mental illness.
Do not put words in my mouth and spread vicious rumors about me by insinuating that I ever said something that i did not. You have been arguing fairly up to this point - so I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you must have just made an uninformed assumption - and confused me personally with a large number of people who unfortunately do call homosexuality a mental illness.
Or perhaps you just got to caught up in trying to be clever in your parody - and missed that the post that you quoted was on a topic that was somewhat different then that of the thread. Threads do that sometime - try to keep up.
Assumptions are easily avoided and dumb things to make. You should work on not falling prey to them.
I just copied YOUR post, and changed the bolded words.
I have children. My partner has children. Why shouldn't our children be allowed to live in a family with the same government protections that a heterosexual couple with no children receive?
Isn't that what i just said? Maybe I did repeat myself, but I think, if you are gay and adopt children with your partner, then you should receive all the same consideration, protections, tax breaks, etc... as any other married couple. But if you do not adopt children, then you are just two people sharing the same apartment, two roommates if you will.
Only if we infer hte same with heterosexual couples that do not ever intend on being parents or are both infertile (and never intend on being parents).
The problem is, regardless of what the institution was intended to be, the fact that we do allow childless couples to wed and we do not penalize them for refusing to have children in their lifetime, the procreation argument is idiotic and irrelevent when it comes to the discussion of gay marriage.
References to human infertility is overused in these discussions. A man and woman engaging in sex and NOT conceiving is so uncommon, that if they cannot do so in one year, we refer to them as an infertile couple. The medical term for infertility:
Infertility is the failure of a couple to conceive a pregnancy after trying to do so for at least one full year.
The difference is that men and women having sex, make babies, two men cannot. So you are trying to apply a rare distinction between men and women, while not only, is that same distinction NOT rare between gays and lesbians, it's a biological fact that they can never make a baby together.
My wife and I have been married for 6 years. No kids. Must be we haven't been having sex? Oh, no - that's right, it's the vasectomy that's getting in the way. Procreation is not a requisite for marriage, so you have no point.
I'll ask again - if all of the rights/benefits/protections of being legally married are centered around having children, why do you get ADDITIONAL benefits when you actually have them, then?
My wife and I have been married for 6 years. No kids. Must be we haven't been having sex? Oh, no - that's right, it's the vasectomy that's getting in the way. Procreation is not a requisite for marriage, so you have no point.
You and your wife are in a distinct minority then.
The only reason government is involved in the institution of marriage is because of the children. Government is not encouraging, promoting, endorsing and giving tax breaks for marriage because of fairytale wedding gowns, cakes and wedding receptions, an environment for sex, and its not because we all think it's swell that people love each other. It's because we see no other, better place to raise the children who are our future. Oh yeah, and government is not involved in marriage because we want them endorsing the Christian religion either.
Men and women make babies, and we want to encourage as many of them as we can to get marriage, and stay together and raise them together. You and your wife are a man and a woman, and we naturally assume you can make babies together. Remember, we want as many men and women as possible to stay married.
Like I said, we have enough freeloaders as it is, why create a whole new set of others. There will always people who will take advantage of the system, like people who buy two horses just so they can call their estate a ranch, to claim tax breaks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
I'll ask again - if all of the rights/benefits/protections of being legally married are centered around having children, why do you get ADDITIONAL benefits when you actually have them, then?
As an incentive.
We know that even if a couple do get married, and don't really want kids, they will still most likely have children anyway, unless they get snipped like you.
It's really this simple, men and women make babies, and we as a society hope that as many of these children as possible, are raised in a loving family with their parents.
People are imperfect, many of us are bad at personal relationships, we already have a near epidemic of out of wedlock births in this nation. This is all the more reason to pound the message that marriage is about children, and children should be raised by their parents. Instead, people like you want to make it all about themselves.
Isn't that what i just said? Maybe I did repeat myself, but I think, if you are gay and adopt children with your partner, then you should receive all the same consideration, protections, tax breaks, etc... as any other married couple. But if you do not adopt children, then you are just two people sharing the same apartment, two roommates if you will.
Then to be equal a hetero couple should also have to have children to be granted those rights and protections.
References to human infertility is overused in these discussions. A man and woman engaging in sex and NOT conceiving is so uncommon, that if they cannot do so in one year, we refer to them as an infertile couple. The medical term for infertility:
Infertility is the failure of a couple to conceive a pregnancy after trying to do so for at least one full year.
The difference is that men and women having sex, make babies, two men cannot. So you are trying to apply a rare distinction between men and women, while not only, is that same distinction NOT rare between gays and lesbians, it's a biological fact that they can never make a baby together.
How many times does the average married couple have sex?
Let's say once a week.
That would mean that it isn't uncommon for a hetero couple to have sex without getting pregnant, sometimes for many many years if ever. Otherwise a woman of a hetero couple would be pregnant at all times.
...The only reason government is involved in the institution of marriage is because of the children. Government is not encouraging, promoting, endorsing and giving tax breaks for marriage because of fairytale wedding gowns, cakes and wedding receptions, an environment for sex, and its not because we all think it's swell that people love each other. It's because we see no other, better place to raise the children who are our future. Oh yeah, and government is not involved in marriage because we want them endorsing the Christian religion either...
Can you give any evidence that supports your position that the sole reason for the legal status of marriage in this country is for child-bearing/raising?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
...Men and women make babies, and we want to encourage as many of them as we can to get marriage, and stay together and raise them together. You and your wife are a man and a woman, and we naturally assume you can make babies together. Remember, we want as many men and women as possible to stay married...
Yep, would could have made babies, but we didn't. Yet, we were still allowed to get married. Odd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
Like I said, we have enough freeloaders as it is, why create a whole new set of others. There will always people who will take advantage of the system, like people who buy two horses just so they can call their estate a ranch, to claim tax breaks...
OK, wave your magic wand and make all the gay people in this country straight. Now assume everyone wants to get married. At what number do we cap the "freeloaders" that can't/won't have children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
...As an incentive.
We know that even if a couple do get married, and don't really want kids, they will still most likely have children anyway, unless they get snipped like you.
It's really this simple, men and women make babies, and we as a society hope that as many of these children as possible, are raised in a loving family with their parents.
People are imperfect, many of us are bad at personal relationships, we already have a near epidemic of out of wedlock births in this nation. This is all the more reason to pound the message that marriage is about children, and children should be raised by their parents. Instead, people like you want to make it all about themselves.
This is lovely sentiment, but doesn't address why you get MORE benefits when you actually have children, as opposed to only being married. If the marriage benefits are ALL ABOUT CHILDREN and ONLY ABOUT CHILDREN, why do you get additional benefits when you actually procreate?
I just copied YOUR post, and changed the bolded words.
Yes - and in doing so - you insinuated that my thoughts on the subject were much different than they were.
Being clever can be fun - but words do mean things - and your first paragraph amounted to a vicious and false attack.
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.
Maybe I did repeat myself, but I think, if you are gay and adopt children with your partner, then you should receive all the same consideration, protections, tax breaks, etc... as any other married couple. But if you do not adopt children, then you are just two people sharing the same apartment, two roommates if you will.