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 not "legal" because interracial marriage is based off of race, not sexuality and gender. An Indian man and a Swedish woman can still produce a child. Two men or two women can't. Race is a ridiculous medium to base marriage off of. Gender is not. There is no purpose for gay marriage. It's just nonsensical and unnecessary.
If you are awarded all the other concessions that come along with being married, but do not get to call your union a marriage, what difference does it make? You and your partner should feel comfortable enough with your relationship to not have to attach a marriage label to it. I don't like the idea of the gays ramming the idea that they need to be married down everyone's throats. Why? If you have the same concessions as a straight couple, what's in a name?
You have rights. You just don't have the right to marry another man. Just like I don't have the right to marry a man. I can see this conversation is going off of the deep end.
Your argument is quite flawed
1) Two men and two women cannot produce a child. This is correct. However not all male/female couples can produce a child, yet, they are allowed to marry.
2) Male and female couples should feel comfortable enough in their union to allow homosexuals engaged in the same union with the same 'concessions' to call it marriage. What's in a name?
3) You are correct. You do not have the right to enter into a marriage contract with another man. The law discriminates against you based upon sex.
Last edited by filihok; 06-13-2011 at 10:53 PM..
Reason: race>sex
1) Two men and two women cannot produce a child. This is correct. However not all male/female couples can produce a child, yet, they are allowed to marry.
2) Male and female couples should feel comfortable enough in their union to allow homosexuals engaged in the same union with the same 'concessions' to call it marriage. What's in a name?
3) You are correct. You do not have the right to enter into a marriage contract with another man. The law discriminates against you based upon race.
you forget though.. straight people will be able to marry someone of the same sex too.. so it's not a special right just for gays! everyone can marry anyone they choose
It's not "legal" because interracial marriage is based off of race, not sexuality and gender. An Indian man and a Swedish woman can still produce a child. Two men or two women can't. Race is a ridiculous medium to base marriage off of. Gender is not. There is no purpose for gay marriage. It's just nonsensical and unnecessary.
What? Civil marriage contracts have never required that those who contract them be able and/or required to reproduce.
Quote:
If you are awarded all the other concessions that come along with being married, but do not get to call your union a marriage, what difference does it make? You and your partner should feel comfortable enough with your relationship to not have to attach a marriage label to it. I don't like the idea of the gays ramming the idea that they need to be married down everyone's throats. Why? If you have the same concessions as a straight couple, what's in a name?
What are these "concessions" you're talking about??? You've lost me.
Quote:
You have rights. You just don't have the right to marry another man. Just like I don't have the right to marry a man. I can see this conversation is going off of the deep end.
No. I'm effectively banned from the 1400 civil rights that come with a civil marriage contract. I am not allowed to contract a civil marriage with a member of my own sex - that's the only acceptable option for a homosexual.
Quote:
I stand by my convictions as do most Americans on this subject. We will not tolerate this as a part of our society. Canadians have decided differently. I hear the quality of life there is amazing. Why not relocate and be happy?
Actually, a majority of Americans support giving gays equal rights - a majority of Americans support re-legalizing gay marriage. And I don't want to move because I'm an American. I love my country. I love our Constitution - a Constitution guarantees all citizens be treated equally under our civil laws.
I think your problem is you're conflating religious and civil marriages. They have nothing to do with each other. A civil marriage is simply a contract between two people, given power by the State, that confers some 1400 civil rights. It has nothing to do with your or my religion.
marriage under the law is not based on whether you can procreate or not..that is a religious assumption.. marriage is a contract signed and filed in the courthouse...that's all we're talking about here.. YOU are making it more than it is in context of the law
The primary purpose of marriage should be for procreation. Most married people do procreate. That's the way our society has worked for centuries.
Why the gays are so dead set on filing marriage contracts with one another makes no sense. If you are awarded all of the benefits that a straight couple is awarded, why do you need a marriage contract?
Expand allowances under civil unions. That's all I'm talking about here.
I think it depends upon what your basis is for not liking homosexuality. If you dont agree with it on religious grounds youll almost always be likely labeled as a bigot. I just think it's an unnatural act. Nature didnt design a mans penis to enter another mans rectum.
That's debateable considering the prevalence of sexually stimulated nerves around the prostate.
Regardless, homosexuality is an attraction not a sex act, and not all gays engage in anal sex, so that's a poor reason to dislike homosexuality.
Don't forget lesbians are gay too, and they don't engage in that.
So perhaps it's more accurate to say you think anal sex is unnatural.
The primary purpose of marriage should be for procreation. Most married people do procreate. That's the way our society has worked for centuries.
Why the gays are so dead set on filing marriage contracts with one another makes no sense. If you are awarded all of the benefits that a straight couple is awarded, why do you need a marriage contract?
Expand allowances under civil unions. That's all I'm talking about here.
there's where you're wrong.. you said "should" but I'm sorry dear.. it's NOT..and never has been under the law..
before the last couple centuries you speak of.. marriage was basically ownership of a woman by a man for even MORE centuries..
how conservative do you want to be? care to make women property again?
Gay rights are not human rights. Gays have the rights that everyone else has: to marry someone of the opposite sex.
That is such a stupid argument and a violation of the Constitution. Heterosexuals can marry the person of their choice, gays cannot. Therefore gays do not have equal rights.
Quote:
This will open the floodgates to all sorts of unions: immediate family, animals, objects, and basically everything.
Slippery slope fallacy. Animals and objects can't consent. And by your argument, we should ban heterosexual marriage since it leads to gay marriage, which leads to marrying animals, objects, family members etc.
Quote:
Our society has crumbled enough without us changing the definition of the institution of marriage.
We changed the definition of marriage 44 years ago. Did you whine about it back then?
Quote:
Why do homosexuals need marriage? It makes no sense.
Why do heterosexuals need marriage? It makes no sense.
Quote:
Just let them have the insurance benefits of a married couple and be done with it. Why gays are so focused on adopting the term "marriage" to their committed relationships is baffling to me. If you are in a secure, committed relationship, I don't know why you need to have a binding marriage to get by.
Why do heterosexuals? Marriage is nothing more than a legal contract. Religion has not been a factor in marriage for most of human history. So why are you so attached to the 21st Century common version of it?
Gays want to a special concession made for them to marry someone of the same sex. This will open the floodgates to all sorts of unions: immediate family, animals, objects, and basically everything. Our society has crumbled enough without us changing the definition of the institution of marriage.
That's pretty insulting. You're comparing same-sex unions to marrying an animal or an object? And you believe that same-sex marriage will lead to the "crumbling of society"? Get real.
And not all gays think alike, so when you say "gays want a special concession", I can't help but think, "Oh, really? How would you know what every gay person thinks?"
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.
Get real.
