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 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.
You've posted more incorrect assumptions. Your opinions are completely biased by your prejudice and have nothing to do with the facts:
Data from the 2000 US Census :
45.6 percent of married heterosexual partners are raising children
43.1 percent of unmarried heterosexual partners are raising children
34.3 percent of lesbian couples are raising children
22.3 percent of male gay couples are raising children
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.
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.
No, our culture has not evolved past nature .... we have a very small minority of homosexuals who want to restructure that culture to cater specifically to their desires and interests. Moreover, you're suggesting that the majority of these homosexual unions would automatically pursue those options to add children, which I think does not represent the vast majority.
The larger error here is the automatic assumption that society would view the artificial addition of children to a homosexual union as equally beneficial to society, qualifying them for those privileges ... or that society actually agrees with such an alternative "family" structure, which of course, is incorrect. So, you're basically demanding that "society" help facilitate a condition which it doesn't embrace.
The reality is, no matter how you slice it, spin it, or twist it, homosexuals possess the same "entitlement" mentality that liberals are well known for. You exist and therefore you are owed. No ... society owes you nothing, ESPECIALLY true insofar as restructuring it's values and standards to accommodate a particular group that makes up a tiny fraction of that society.
You are in fact demanding that the tail should wag the dog ... or that the cart should pull the horse.
You've posted more incorrect assumptions. Your opinions are completely biased by your prejudice and have nothing to do with the facts:
Data from the 2000 US Census :
45.6 percent of married heterosexual partners are raising children
43.1 percent of unmarried heterosexual partners are raising children
34.3 percent of lesbian couples are raising children
22.3 percent of male gay couples are raising children
No, I think what's missing here is elementary logic and critical analysis skills to understand that data from 2000 census is totally irrelevant, since those "marriage benefits" were not created in the year 2000, but decades before, when child bearing families entirely consisted of a man and a woman having children "Naturally", and no such homosexual marriage even existed.
No, our culture has not evolved past nature .... we have a very small minority of homosexuals who want to restructure that culture to cater specifically to their desires and interests. Moreover, you're suggesting that the majority of these homosexual unions would automatically pursue those options to add children, which I think does not represent the vast majority.
The larger error here is the automatic assumption that society would view the artificial addition of children to a homosexual union as equally beneficial to society, qualifying them for those privileges ... or that society actually agrees with such an alternative "family" structure, which of course, is incorrect. So, you're basically demanding that "society" help facilitate a condition which it doesn't embrace.
The reality is, no matter how you slice it, spin it, or twist it, homosexuals possess the same "entitlement" mentality that liberals are well known for. You exist and therefore you are owed. No ... society owes you nothing, ESPECIALLY true insofar as restructuring it's values and standards to accommodate a particular group that makes up a tiny fraction of that society.
You are in fact demanding that the tail should wag the dog ... or that the cart should pull the horse.
I wonder how it is you can speak for all of society. If all of society agreed with you on this topic, we obviously wouldn't be having debates like this on CD.
Sure we have. What humans do best is act in defiance of nature.
Aren't you sitting in a house of unnatural materials wearing clothing of unnatural fibers accessing an unnatural internet on an unnatural machine made from unnatural plastic and unnaturally alloyed metals?
I have another "Sad" story. My first cousin who is like a brother ... a very upstanding man of impeccable character ... hard working, caring father and loyal husband was victimized by a woman who was apparently unfamiliar with any of those character qualities that defined him, including honesty and integrity and decency.
They were married for about 7 years, had three children (all boys), when one day out of the blue, he was served with divorce papers. Totally dumbfounded given the absence of any overt marital issues ... with him believing that all was well, she callously informed him that her and her "girlfriend" (a person who he believed was just a close, long time friend) had maintained their lesbian relationship throughout the entirety of their marriage, and it was her sole purpose for marrying him in order to produce children for her and her lesbian lover to later raise together.
As a result of the way child custody laws generally work, she being the mother was automatically granted custody in absence of evidence of being unfit, with him being responsible for paying her child support in excess of $1400 per month. Apparently, the total lack of integrity demonstrated by this fraud purposely committed against this man did not qualify as evidence for her being an unfit mother, so she and her "girlfriend" were the big winners in their dastardly scheme, while he and the children, the losers. And yes, the children were losers too, as one could not design a better father from scratch, given unlimited options to choose from.
And this little scenario is not an isolated case. Of course, homosexuals do not have a corner on the market when it comes to dishonesty and lack of integrity to be sure ... but they sure seem capable of rationalizing some pretty outrageous behavior in facilitating their desires and achieving their goals without the slightest bit of conscience getting in the way.
In my view, she was an adulteress fraud, totally void of any quality that would constitute fitness to be a mother, and should have been ordered to pay him child support, with him granted full custody. Unfortunately, that's not the way things work today.
I have another "Sad" story. My first cousin who is like a brother ... a very upstanding man of impeccable character ... hard working, caring father and loyal husband was victimized by a woman who was apparently unfamiliar with any of those character qualities that defined him, including honesty and integrity and decency.
They were married for about 7 years, had three children (all boys), when one day out of the blue, he was served with divorce papers. Totally dumbfounded given the absence of any overt marital issues ... with him believing that all was well, she callously informed him that her and her "girlfriend" (a person who he believed was just a close, long time friend) had maintained their lesbian relationship throughout the entirety of their marriage, and it was her sole purpose for marrying him in order to produce children for her and her lesbian lover to later raise together.
As a result of the way child custody laws generally work, she being the mother was automatically granted custody in absence of evidence of being unfit, with him being responsible for paying her child support in excess of $1400 per month. Apparently, the total lack of integrity demonstrated by this fraud purposely committed against this man did not qualify as evidence for her being an unfit mother, so she and her "girlfriend" were the big winners in their dastardly scheme, while he and the children, the losers. And yes, the children were losers too, as one could not design a better father from scratch, given unlimited options to choose from.
And this little scenario is not an isolated case. Of course, homosexuals do not have a corner on the market when it comes to dishonesty and lack of integrity to be sure ... but they sure seem capable of rationalizing some pretty outrageous behavior in facilitating their desires and achieving their goals without the slightest bit of conscience getting in the way.
In my view, she was an adulteress fraud, totally void of any quality that would constitute fitness to be a mother, and should have been ordered to pay him child support, with him granted full custody. Unfortunately, that's not the way things work today.
Do you want me to start listing the hundreds upon hundreds of awful stories of irresponsible and abusive heterosexual parents? Because there are a ton out there. Does that make heterosexuality wrong and unnatural?
I wonder how it is you can speak for all of society. If all of society agreed with you on this topic, we obviously wouldn't be having debates like this on CD.
I never said ALL of society ... but yes, the majority, which CD doesn't necessarily reflect ... unless, like this thread, you believe that homosexuals constitute a 30+% demographic as is apparently the case here?
Do you want me to start listing the hundreds upon hundreds of awful stories of irresponsible and abusive heterosexual parents? Because there are a ton out there. Does that make heterosexuality wrong and unnatural?
No .... the absence of condemnation for such dastardly behavior and your attempt to excuse it by association with other wrongs is all to clear and consistent.
That alone tells the story.
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.
