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.
Society collectively decided that it was consistent with it's own self interests to offer these extra benefits to those who procreate and raise future contributing members of society. Homosexual unions, by nature, do not produce children, and therefore are not entitled to the benefits whose purpose was for the security of the children.
By nature, you are correct, homosexual unions cannot produce children.
However, our culture has evolved past nature, and homosexual unions can easily have children now. Be it through artificial insemination, adoption, or what not.
Therefore, the argument that "Well, these benefits were given to married couples to protect the kids" still do extend to homosexuals.
You are confused about "Rights" versus "Benefits", and I've said this many times and I'll say it again .... those "Benefits" offered married couples were not instituted to enrich or provide privileges to the two partnered adults ... they were designed to assist these two adults with the extra burdens inherent in raising children .... for the security of the children.
Society collectively decided that it was consistent with it's own self interests to offer these extra benefits to those who procreate and raise future contributing members of society. Homosexual unions, by nature, do not produce children, and therefore are not entitled to the benefits whose purpose was for the security of the children.
The bottom line is there is no "Right" to receive benefits or privileges ... and those benefits are not owed to you. You have a "Right" to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness ... THAT'S IT. No "Tax Benefit" ... No "Property Benefits" none of these things are "Rights". And since a great number of you don't even believe in a "Creator" who endows you with those rights to Life, Liberty, etc. I'm not sure you have a leg to stand on there.
Guy, there are plenty of gay people that believe in God. Don't even bring religion into this.
There are also plenty of gay people that have kids. Don't gay couples with kids deserve the same benefits to produce future members of society as straight couples raising children?
Whether we call them rights or benefits, the point is that straight marriage gives straight people "things" that gay people don't get. Those "things", whether "benefits" or "rights" are handed to some people and not others.
All that said--you still haven't answered how this has anything to do with pedophilia.
NAMBLA is the one that jumps out....and not to long back they actually managed to get themselves looked at as a viable organization with a serious agenda. No...I can't name any others off hand...but even one is to many. Contrary to one lunatic poster on here with an overlyhigh opinion of himself ....I am not giving them any credibility. However the media has granted them an inordinate amou.t of attention over time thus allowing their views to slither into public debate as having merit.
Im sure there are others...which can be looked into when I have time or inclination to do so. In the meantime, regardless, we are at least gettingback on topic
Deflection. You and I both know that NAMBLA and pedophilia have no real place in public discourse. The KKK still exists but most people are vehemently against racism. NAMBLA is not enough in and of itself to make pedophilia widely acceptable.
Deflection. You and I both know that NAMBLA and pedophilia have no real place in public discourse. The KKK still exists but most people are vehemently against racism. NAMBLA is not enough in and of itself to make pedophilia widely acceptable.
Deflection?? Lol...ok. I will agree that we seem to agree that certain point of view have no place in public discourse....as it relates to normalizing things like pedophilia. Im still not seeing how I attempted to deflect anything.
Fact is...I am more than a little angry and frustrated at a great many things right now....first and foremost amongst the grab bag that ever elusive understanding of the female mindset. Since I am rather....preoccupied...with actual relationship issues tthat effect me immediately and directly it can be hard to focus on issues such as this that engage the rage. Methinks it may betime for me to take a break.
So...why should I start the new thread? Show me where I as in ME, myself is being " close minded" on any other subject than sexual abuse of children here. On that issue there is no room for any " light" to enter as the only relevant light on that subject is the light I would drag child sex abusers into to publicaly beat them to a pile of red goo.
To keep on the op's subject. I was abused when I was 3 or 4 years old. I believe it only happened once, that is all I remember. I never let it happen again. I knew who did it, but under threat of retaliation, I did not tell anyone and repressed it till my teens. Any way, I am and have always been supportive of putting child abusers in old fashioned medieval stockades in public display. Not go so far as to beat them to a pulp, shame them? Yes indeed. Though the threat of being stoned to death sure would be a deterrent for most any crime.
What's bizarre is that it is often the same people who go on about the "sanctity of marriage" who use the argument that gay people are not discriminated against because they can marry people of the opposite sex.
So they are okay with gay people having a sham marriage with someone of the opposite sex? Where is the "sanctity" or integrity in that?
It seems that gay people take marriage more seriously than those who use this line.
One of my older brothers married a woman in 1969 and he knew he was gay, he divorced and remarried another woman in 75 and she divorced him around 1980 when she got tired of his boyfriends. He goes to gay bars, yet claims to be mostly straight. He told me I was a sinner because I married my partner.
One of my older brothers married a woman in 1969 and he knew he was gay, he divorced and remarried another woman in 75 and she divorced him around 1980 when she got tired of his boyfriends. He goes to gay bars, yet claims to be mostly straight. He told me I was a sinner because I married my partner.
Sounds like your brother hasn't come to terms with it yet.
You are confused about "Rights" versus "Benefits", and I've said this many times and I'll say it again .... those "Benefits" offered married couples were not instituted to enrich or provide privileges to the two partnered adults ... they were designed to assist these two adults with the extra burdens inherent in raising children .... for the security of the children.
Society collectively decided that it was consistent with it's own self interests to offer these extra benefits to those who procreate and raise future contributing members of society. Homosexual unions, by nature, do not produce children, and therefore are not entitled to the benefits whose purpose was for the security of the children.
The bottom line is there is no "Right" to receive benefits or privileges ... and those benefits are not owed to you. You have a "Right" to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness ... THAT'S IT. No "Tax Benefit" ... No "Property Benefits" none of these things are "Rights". And since a great number of you don't even believe in a "Creator" who endows you with those rights to Life, Liberty, etc. I'm not sure you have a leg to stand on there.
My friend Barbara married a vet from Vietnam, but not till they were both widowed from prior marriages and not of child bearing age even, they were together for 21 years till George passed away from MRSA last year. She and he got the 1049 privileges granted to married couples and she went to the VA clinic for care and got part of his benefits and his SS after he passed away. There were no children involved, nor is it required that a couple have children, ever, for their marriage, rights and privileges to be valid.
Why does one have to believe in the creator to receive rights or benefits, where does it say you have to believe in god, that is a choice, not mandatory. It is not just freedom of religion, but freedom from religions oppression.
One of my older brothers married a woman in 1969 and he knew he was gay, he divorced and remarried another woman in 75 and she divorced him around 1980 when she got tired of his boyfriends. He goes to gay bars, yet claims to be mostly straight. He told me I was a sinner because I married my partner.
NAMBLA is the one that jumps out....and not to long back they actually managed to get themselves looked at as a viable organization with a serious agenda.
Looked at as viable and serious by whom? By themselves, and by right-wing bloggers. That's it. They have a symbiotic relationship like that between the shock jock and the censor, or between the Yippies and Governor Wallace.
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.
