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.
Being against gay marriage probably has more to do with family values as in reproduction than caring if someone is gay. And yes a family is people who love each other but the issue about marriage is to have children and carry on our human race. A gay relationship will never do that. Even with artificial insemination a sperm and egg are required. A lot of people just feel that is marriage, man and woman. A partnership between two of the same sex is something different. They do deserve a lot of the same rights and benefits but maybe the term marriage just doesn't sit well with some and a Union is maybe a more accepting term.
Homosexual people can and do reproduce through heterosexual sex, and in no small numbers. That's probably one of the reasons it persists in our populations.
There is no prove homosexuality is DNA based. There is no gay gene.
I have no idea how you come up with these crazy ideas. Of course no homosexual was involved. Do you know where babies came from? )
Been telling you this entire time that homosexuals can reproduce; I don't know why that hasn't sunk in yet...
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12
And what is the percentage of population that came to this world this way?
Doesn't matter
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12
Who talks about reproduction? Marriage has always been an union of a man and a women.
Just answer the question. Are you okay with it (say we call it a "civil union") being legal, and for homosexuals to get the same benefits heterosexuals provide?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12
You are tripping kid. Procreation is in 99.99% a heterosexual matter.
Makes no difference who's doing most of the procreating. You said heterosexuality is what ensures the survival of the species, when that is clearly not the case since homosexuals can reproduce now. It is conception of a child that ensures our survival. Someone just being heterosexual will not get the job done.
And you still haven't explained how not being able to reproduce naturally justifies limiting gays' freedoms but not heterosexuals who also cannot reproduce naturally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12
You already have civil unions. What else do you want?
Not everywhere. And I'm thinking they want fully equal treatment as heterosexuals, even if they do agree to not call it "marriage".
Do you really think your homosexuality is a coincidence? Nothing is a coincidence in nature. And no: homosexuality is not equal with heterosexuality.
Not gay, you can't prove the second, and the third is entirely irrelevant to this subject. Tell us how it matters. Tell us what difference it makes that we heterosexuals can reproduce naturally and homosexuals can only reproduce by use of modern technology.
Been telling you this entire time that homosexuals can reproduce; I don't know why that hasn't sunk in yet...
Doesn't matter
Just answer the question. Are you okay with it (say we call it a "civil union") being legal, and for homosexuals to get the same benefits heterosexuals provide?
Makes no difference who's doing most of the procreating. You said heterosexuality is what ensures the survival of the species, when that is clearly not the case since homosexuals can reproduce now. It is conception of a child that ensures our survival. Someone just being heterosexual will not get the job done.
And you still haven't explained how not being able to reproduce naturally justifies limiting gays' freedoms but not heterosexuals who also cannot reproduce naturally.
Not everywhere. And I'm thinking they want fully equal treatment as heterosexuals, even if they do agree to not call it "marriage".
Not gay, you can't prove the second, and the third is entirely irrelevant to this subject. Tell us how it matters. Tell us what difference it makes that we heterosexuals can reproduce naturally and homosexuals can only reproduce by use of modern technology.
I haven't followed the discussion, so this may be irrelevant.
Homosexuals can, have, and do reproduce without technology. I suppose it might not be the #1 choice of sex for them, but in a bind to keep humans going, they can do it.
[quote=Vic 2.0;26012523]Been telling you this entire time that homosexuals can reproduce; I don't know why that hasn't sunk in yet...
They can but they don't. Homosexual don't feel the obligation to nature heterosexuals do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Just answer the question. Are you okay with it (say we call it a "civil union") being legal, and for homosexuals to get the same benefits heterosexuals provide?
You already have as much as you need.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Makes no difference who's doing most of the procreating. You said heterosexuality is what ensures the survival of the species, when that is clearly not the case since homosexuals can reproduce now.
Maybe they can but they don't in numbers necessary to sustain the population.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
And you still haven't explained how not being able to reproduce naturally justifies limiting gays' freedoms but not heterosexuals who also cannot reproduce naturally.
Because you can't reproduce as a group.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Not everywhere. And I'm thinking they want fully equal treatment as heterosexuals, even if they do agree to not call it "marriage".
Think again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Tell us what difference it makes that we heterosexuals can reproduce naturally and homosexuals can only reproduce by use of modern technology.
That heterosexuals for the past 50000 years have been respodnible for sustaining this civilization while homosexual haven't been. What is so difficult to you here?
Been telling you this entire time that homosexuals can reproduce; I don't know why that hasn't sunk in yet... They can but they don't. Homosexual don't feel the obligation to nature heterosexuals do.
We can and we do... My partner and I have 3 children.
I'm heterosexual. We also have as much as we need without the legal benefits of marriage. The question is, what justifies not giving gays the equal benefits? You've said it's because homosexuality and heterosexuality are not equal, and implied that's because heterosexuality is what "ensures the survival of the human race". The problem with that argument is that it implies only those who can "ensure the survival of the human race" should be given these benefits; it translates into homosexuals (who can in fact reproduce, both naturally and by the use of modern technology) actually being more entitled to these benefits than heterosexuals who cannot reproduce in either way.
Basically, your argument not only fails to justify discriminating against gays; it sort of backfires on some heterosexuals.
It's altogether irrelevant, however. Since you cannot identify a verifiable harm caused by homosexuality, gay marriage, or gay adoption, there is no reason not to at least allow them the same benefits.
We can and we do... My partner and I have 3 children.
No you have 3 children, your Partner had nothing to do with it, she did not get you pregnant.
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.
)