Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-09-2014, 10:14 PM
 
Location: Nice, France
1,349 posts, read 661,587 times
Reputation: 887

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryTimrod View Post
lol so you think the government should care about romantic couplings?

i like to think there is a better reason for government to be involve din something than two people love each other and are in a physical relationship. lol i think society would survive without government recognizing that and rewarding it, as though being single is a bad thing.
I notice you didn't anwer my very candid question. Do you want me to ask it again or do you need time to think about it?

I said before that I could agree with the government having nothing to do with "romantic couplings" whatsoever.

But then I also agree with OP in that stable families are a benefit for society as a whole. I just disagree with the fact that they should be heterosexual. I just want them to be as stable as they can.


(and i don't even want to marry myself, so you see, people don't always fight for their own privileges)

 
Old 01-09-2014, 10:17 PM
 
92 posts, read 75,233 times
Reputation: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by personne View Post
I notice you didn't anwer my very candid question. Do you want me to ask it again or do you need time to think about it?

I said before that I could agree with the government having nothing to do with "romantic couplings" whatsoever.

But then I also agree with OP in that stable families are a benefit for society as a whole. I just disagree with the fact that they should be heterosexual. I just want them to be as stable as they can.


(and i don't even want to marry myself, so you see, people don't always fight for their own privileges)
stable families kind of implies there are a kids, not something that results from gay couplings. i don't think society beneifts from gays and straights being married if kids are not even part of the e quation.
 
Old 01-09-2014, 10:19 PM
 
Location: Nice, France
1,349 posts, read 661,587 times
Reputation: 887
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryTimrod View Post
you seem to think two gays can have a kid eespite your mastery of biology. i don't think marriage rights really about rewarding two guys who have anal sex with each other. lol sounds pretty goofy to me if so
Actually, two gay men can't have a kid together, but they're perfectly capable of having and raising a kid, yes.

Co-parenting - Considering Co-Parenting?

And why is it that it's only gay men who are mentionned on these type of threads? Lesbians are hot in your fantasy world so they don't count or they are not as offensive ?

Don't bash anal sex until you've tried it. It may not give you a kid but it surely could make you scream as one, seeing how you obsess about it
 
Old 01-09-2014, 10:21 PM
 
Location: Nice, France
1,349 posts, read 661,587 times
Reputation: 887
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryTimrod View Post
stable families kind of implies there are a kids, not something that results from gay couplings. i don't think society beneifts from gays and straights being married if kids are not even part of the e quation.
Still no answer to my question? Please? Pretty please?


Another question. My mom married again aged 59 (to a guy). Is her marriage not a real one? It sure has been very happy for the last 12 years. And as couple, they benefit society much more than single (don't get me into that as I can prove it so many times, and it would just derail the thread)
 
Old 01-09-2014, 10:28 PM
 
Location: McKinleyville, California
6,414 posts, read 10,472,048 times
Reputation: 4305
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryTimrod View Post
Ok, well i think it should be tied to having kids or they should do away with government in the marriage business. Why does the government need to recognize and reward sexual relationships? That's not a legit function of government.

It also discriminates against singles.

Why can't other people in a relationship, like father-daughter apply for marriage benefits if gays can and has nothing to do with kids resulting from the relationship?
If one ties kids to marriage, then most current marriages do not mean a thing. My spouse and I, much like many straight couples, do not have sex anymore, so marriage is not just about sex, marriage is about a commitment. Or did you marry just for sex? Singles are not discriminatated against, they can get married, simple. A daugher and a father are already related and have legal ties that protect their relationship. This thread is really bringing out the stupid in some people. No wonder the battle for same sex marriage is winning, the side against it cannot hold an honest debate worth salt.
 
Old 01-10-2014, 06:08 AM
 
Location: Florida
77,012 posts, read 47,489,856 times
Reputation: 14806
Quote:
Originally Posted by personne View Post
To the OP:

I'm sorry but I may have misunderstood as English isn't my first language.

Do you mean promote as in "tv ads" or promote as in giving even more benefits to heterosexual marriages in a time where same sex marriage is about to rightfully be obtained in the whole USA for those benefits also?

Thank you for your answer.
No, not TV ads. It can be encouraged through government benefits, like it is now.
 
Old 01-10-2014, 06:11 AM
 
Location: Florida
77,012 posts, read 47,489,856 times
Reputation: 14806
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDragonslayer View Post
You are wrong again, marriage exists because two people want to make a legal commitment, it has nothing to do with procreation. One can get married and not have kids, one can have kids and not get married. Do you need Sesame Street type songs to make it easier for you to understand? Those 1049 federal rights never address children, ever. Read them. None of them are about children or procreation or protecting children, zip, zilch, nada, zero. Marriage is not required for humans to reproduce anymore than a dog or cat would need marriage to reproduce.
The discussion here is why the government should promote traditional marriage, and the answer is that stable families with children benefit the nation as whole. There are exceptions, like couples who cannot (or don't want to) have kids, but they are exceptions, not the rule. Most couples who marry do have kids, and it benefits the nation as whole, so it is worth promoting.
 
Old 01-10-2014, 06:13 AM
 
Location: Florida
77,012 posts, read 47,489,856 times
Reputation: 14806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist View Post
Religious beliefs? Like the baker in Denver who wouldn't provide a cake for a gay wedding claiming it went against his religious beliefs, but was happy to provide one for a DOG wedding?
Yes, like freedom to live your life by your faith. It has been a basic freedom in this nation, and it is under attack.
 
Old 01-10-2014, 06:34 AM
 
Location: A great city, by a Great Lake!
15,896 posts, read 11,961,214 times
Reputation: 7502
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
Yes, like freedom to live your life by your faith. It has been a basic freedom in this nation, and it is under attack.

So let me get this straight. Basically as long as people live their lives by what you believe, then that's OK? Unfortunately that isn't the way it works, and not everyone has the same beliefs. So instead of worrying about the lives of others when they aren't causing you any harm directly, why not live your life how you see fit, and let others live theirs how they see fit?
 
Old 01-10-2014, 06:38 AM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
24,260 posts, read 14,168,058 times
Reputation: 9895
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryTimrod View Post
why should gays be eligible for marriage benefits if they are incapable of having kids. Marriage rights were set up to protect women in an inbalanced relationship that results in kids.
I have given birth twice. I guess someoe forgot to tell me I was incapable of having kids.

Either way, the elderly are incapable of having kids, yet they can marry. My mom got married last year and she is in her 70s.
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.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:55 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top