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.
you obvioulsy are being dense to avoid this point.
Seriously, are you trying to be stupid or just devious with this response?
its a fact unless one is stupid enough to attempt to slide around the issue proclaiming the irrelevant. Get on track.
Look, you are not ready for this
This, from the guy who claims to want to have intelligent discourse.
And you're awfully riled up for someone who also claims to be approaching this from a non-emotional position.
I'm not going to waste any more keystrokes discussing this issue with you, since you are obviously incapable of the very things you demand of your opponents. You're undeserving of my attention.
^ I agree. In fact, given the sorry state of the environment and the colossal inequities of wealth, perhaps we should reward couples who do not procreate.
Don't be obtuse, homosexual relationships do not produce bloodlines. Let me clarfify for you since you obvioulsy are being dense to avoid this point.
A bloodline is created when two supporting parents produce one. This is established with a MAN and a WOMAN coupling to create offspring. The bloodline is BETWEEN that MAN and WOMAN specifically to which creates such. You can play the idiot and and try to slide around the issue, but the fact remains that two men coupling produces NOTHING. Two women coupling produces NOTHING. Seriously, are you trying to be stupid or just devious with this response?
You are ignorant, please educate yourself. bloodlines were used to establish rights to the heir hood. It was also used to establish ties between nations. There is the old saying "blood is thicker than water". Homosexuals do not create such bloodlines, its a fact unless one is stupid enough to attempt to slide around the issue proclaiming the irrelevant. Get on track.
You provided a subjective manipulation in order to push an emotional position. Look, you are not ready for this, you aren't using logic but emotions to discuss this. You are relying on how you feel to assess the situation rather than what is factual and logical.
I am not interested in your feelings, in your opinion, or your emotions. They are irrelevant. You are attempting to redefine something based on these factors. For society to appeal to such is for society to degrade itself into that of the intellectually fallible and emotionally absurd.
By your "logic", sterile people should not be allowed to marry.
Marriage today in this Nation is about people who love one another making a life long committment that is legally recognized by the State, and comes with certain legal rights and privlages includig everything from power-of-attorney to joint ownership of all real properties.
So please, enough with your strawman about "bloodlines". No one is buying it as anything but a desperate attempt to rationalize discrimination.
BTW, the more married gay couples, the more chances for all those unwanted kids living in orphanages and within State foster systems to be adopted into a loving family.
It is up to each individual state to codify the definition of, and the requirements for, "Marriage".
Most States have codified the definition of, and requirements for, "marriage" as between one man and one woman.
And I do not see any change in these definitions in any significant numbers in the foreseeable future.
BTW - a state, such as Arizona, can refuse to recognize a same sex marriage performed in another state for the purpose of community property law
The question is if this is prejudiced at all. You can say that its up to states to decide what marriage is defined as, but marriage was around much longer than the USA was. Its not like America invented the institution of marriage, or that its a religious union, so any rules you make up for marriage are specific for this country only.
Now this brings me to my point that it is on the anti-homosexuals to prove that two men or two women should not be allowed to get married because "marriage" does not belong to the US. Other countries allow homosexuals to get married, so really that whole "marriage is only between a man and woman" argument is ignorant, because that is only a personal opinion.
If gays are being "denied" the right to marry aren't polygamists and pedophiles being denied it as well?
Did you just compare homosexuals to pedophiles? Two consenting adults is the same as one mentally ill predator and a helpless child? This is why your arguments never reach anyone, because they are ignorant and illogical.
But as for polygamy, I don't really know what to think about that. It seems like the purpose of marriage is to join two people into one entity through romance, love, etc. Could that work with 3 or more people? I don't know, every relationship I've been in has always been monogamous, so I don't know how polygamy really works.
But you homophobes that always compare homosexuals to pedophiles need to wake up. You are making stupid arguments that do nothing but infuriate reasonable people.
The question is if this is prejudiced at all. You can say that its up to states to decide what marriage is defined as, but marriage was around much longer than the USA was. Its not like America invented the institution of marriage, or that its a religious union, so any rules you make up for marriage are specific for this country only.
To me, it is meaningless how long "marriage" has been around as our discussion is about "marriage" IN THE United States - not any other country. And, in the US, it is up to the individual states to define the word "marriage".
Did you just compare homosexuals to pedophiles? Two consenting adults is the same as one mentally ill predator and a helpless child? This is why your arguments never reach anyone, because they are ignorant and illogical.
But as for polygamy, I don't really know what to think about that. It seems like the purpose of marriage is to join two people into one entity through romance, love, etc. Could that work with 3 or more people? I don't know, every relationship I've been in has always been monogamous, so I don't know how polygamy really works.
But you homophobes that always compare homosexuals to pedophiles need to wake up. You are making stupid arguments that do nothing but infuriate reasonable people.
The definition of marriage is between one man and one woman, not two adults. But hell, if we're going to change the gender then there's nothing stopping us from changing the number and after that the ages.
...But you homophobes that always compare homosexuals to pedophiles need to wake up. You are making stupid arguments that do nothing but infuriate reasonable people.
Bravo.
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.
