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.
... Heterosexuality lends itself to procreation and procreation lends itself to marriage and the biologically related family.
Homosexuality has no connection to procreation or nature's design by which the two sexes create children and families ...
Procreation is not a requirement of marriage. Millions of married people throughout the generations have legally married without procreating.
Children were born to unmarried couples. Often these offspring are abandoned by one or the other or even both of the biological parents.
Most importantly, same-sex couples are raising children ... nurturing them, rearing them ... they have created a family. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy (appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1988) noted that when deciding the case known as Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013).
When you see homosexuality as merely a sexual fetish, then you really don't know what you're talking about, the very definition of ignorance.
That's exactly the point. Ignorant people, prejudiced people ... they seem unaware that when a woman who happens to be lesbian falls in love with another woman and wants to build a relationship with her. Ditto for gay guys. However, I guess these homophobes have their minds in the gutter and can only think about the actual sex act.
Obviously individuals are not protected equally, since you can marry a woman and I can't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Yes, but I can't marry a man and you can.
In my state, marriage is still a contract between one man and one woman.
It isn't based on sexuality, which is no one's business except the marriage partners.
No, instead it is based only on the sexes of the participants.
So what special privilege does anyone have if we all play by the same rules?
What you want is a special privilege based solely on your personal preference.
Furthermore, this personal preference of yours violates the intent of marriage laws when they were originally created by our elected officials.
If you want to fundamentally change marriage, start with a clean sheet of paper and make your case for marriage between members of the same sex.
I would be a supporter of same-sex marriage if I ever heard a good argument for it.
To this day I haven't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rlarson21
You do realize that sexual orientation is unchosen and not changeable. .. right. So why can you marry in accordance with your unchosen trait but I cant with mine?You're either stupid or a troll or intellectually dishonest. Is the right of a straight man to marry a woman equal to the right of someone with a homosexual orientation to marry a woman ?do you deny that us gay people exist?ill bet you believe that everyone is born straight and gay people are straight but chose a different lifestyle.. but youre wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
If we ignore the fact that marriage serves a greater purposed than to be a ruse by which the power of the corrupt state is harnessed to force the normalization of homosexuality, then marriage in accordance with your unchosen trait might make sense.
Heterosexuality lends itself to procreation and procreation lends itself to marriage and the biologically related family.
Homosexuality has no connection to procreation or nature's design by which the two sexes create children and families.
More to the point, the debate over "equal marriage" is a charade since the only reason homosexuals want to marry is so they can claim to also be normal and have a license from the state to prove it.
Opposition from same-sex marriage advocates to polygamy and other definitions of marriage that dilute their claim of exclusive sameness with traditional marriage lays bare the lie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
Maybe if procreation was required of ANY marriage, you might have a point, but since no one is required to procreate to get married, your point fails.
Again, we are face to face with common sense.
When marriage laws were written, common sense was still common so the simple fact that marriages between a man and a woman were in harmony with nature's design (see penis and vagina) was the only rationale needed to restrict marriage to one man and one woman.
Having tossed common sense out the window to facilitate arguments in favor of same-sex marriage, we cannot now pretend it is still in play when we take up questions like the legitimacy of traditional marriage.
If we are to change the rules about marriage, then consistent logic should dictate who may or may not wed.
If those who support same-sex marriage believe they have the right to marry the person they love without a restriction on sex, then I shouldn't see the very same posters opposing polygamy.
If we are to live by a lie, then we should all live by the same lie equally.
You don't get to make your own definition for bigot, dude. Sorry.
It's not a made up definition.
You used your different opinion to restrict others because you don't agree.
You're intolerant of people wanting to get married to the same sex, so you vote for taking away the right.
I can accept that people "disagree" with homosexuality but don't take away my rights to be happy because of your opinion of disagreement.
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.
