[quote]Lorisco wrote:
No, try and follow. I’m not against the government giving tax benefits, etc to anyone, which is what occurs now either through the domestic partners law or marriage. In terms of benefits these are both the same.
[/quote]
Why do you keep saying this when you know very well that civil unions don’t allow federal benefits while marriage does?
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
That is wishful thinking. Other State issues like gun ownership laws have been on the books in Texas for many years and the Feds are not adopting those. So your argument does not hold water.
[/quote]
Marriage is a different beast, due to the full faith and credit clause. If a couple is married in one state, that marriage is recognized in every other state. Not so on issues like gun control.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
46and2AheadofMe wrote:
Lol with the passing of prop 8 we have to change the way our state constitution is written. That should be proof enough that it is unconstitutional. So those of you who voted yes are against the constitution and should be deported.
A properly enacted amendment cannot be unconstitutional - now the constitution merely means something it didn’t before.
Good Lord - what is it with gay marriage advocates and a complete loss of common sense?
First we hear that a law against gay marriage violates a gay person’s “free speech” rights. Then we hear that “correlations are absolutely meaningless to show causation”. Now, we get this gem that a constitutional amendment is “unconstitutional”.
And gay marriage is advertised as the position of the “enlightened”. Beyond irony.
[/quote]
Ummm obviously amendments are not unconstitutional. But if the amendment is IN DIRECT CONTRAST to what the constitution already instates, that shows you that it contradicts the rights already given to people under the constitution. I didn’t mean the amendment itself was unconstitutional, I meant that the philosophy behind it is unconstitutional. Just as preventing interracial marriage is unconstitutional. Why do you think they had to make a proposition in order to get this passed? Because the judges declared it UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Try understanding someone’s argument before criticizing it. You seem to be pretty worked up about this issue. Are you trying to convince people you are against gay marriage to divert them from the truth of your sexuality?
Um there’s a term for gay men who have sex with women. They are called bi-sexuals. And any “preference” which someone is naturally born with and cannot change is no longer a preference. And if you think it’s unnatural why are there reported instances of homosexuality in animals? No I don’t see why you would be against gay marriage. It doesn’t affect you. The only reason you would be against it is because of your beliefs, and restricting anyone access of the same rights as you based upon your personal beliefs is wrong.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
ninjaboy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
ninjaboy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Is it possible for a gay person ‘to love’? Are we redefining love now? Love springs, at least partially, from the innate desire to procreate.
Gay people cannot love, in the actual sense of the word.
Do you love your mother, Headhunter?
Love for relatives is different from romantic love, toolboy. Love for family is rooted in the instinct for self-preservation (families work together for the survival of each).
Romantic love is based on the creation of children. Gay ‘love’ is not equivalent, by definition, therefore gay ‘love’ is simply perversion, and deserves no recognition by society.
Love is wanting the best for another person regardless of the cost to yourself, the whole “lay down your life for a friend” deal. It sounds like you’re confusing romantic love with physical attraction, which while similar are in fact two different things. Also, the point isn’t that gay love deserves recognition by society, its that two adult people (or more) should be able to sign a legally binding contract which grants certain privilages and responsabilities to both parties, regardless of their gender. Honestly, if a religious group chooses to recognize that contract as marriage, more power to them, but if not, it shouldn’t really effect how the government operates. I’ll say it again in case you missed it earlier, I don’t believe that homosexuals can be married in the eyes of God, no matter what the government says. Hell, I’d be happy if the government just called everything a civil union, and left the religious elements of marriage to churches. But as long as we’re going to say “you two people can obtain a legal status by signing this document” then we’d damn well better not add “unless you’re the same gender”.
No he is going by the evolutionary definition of love.
It is an emotion evolved to keep mates together to raise their offspring so that their offspring have a better chance of survival.[/quote]
Yup. And since gays join up NOT for the purpose of procreation, then its something else. What, I do not know. But since its different than the purpose of love as we define it, then marriage is out.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
discriminating against someone who has done no harm to others
Oh I wouldn’t go that far, have you checked the stats at the CDC lately? “Men who have sex with men made up more than two thirds (68%) of all men living with HIV.”
Without male homosexuals there would be no AIDS epidemic.
So…I wouldn’t say that they’ve done no harm.[/quote]
Don’t you think allowing males to get married would cut down on this statistic by putting a constraint on their promiscuity?
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
46and2AheadofMe wrote:
Um there’s a term for gay men who have sex with women. They are called bi-sexuals.
Then there’s no such thing as homosexuals,or let’s just say the term is very much over used. Most of them are bisexual, by definition.
At least we got on thing cleared up.
[/quote]
I don’t see how this argument holds any relevance.
[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
Do you want kids? 'Cause you have no idea what you are in for.
I have kids. Shocking I know, but many gays actually do have kids either through previous marriage, surrogacy, or adoption. Even more hard to believe, my kids actually love me and say I’m a good dad!
Bullshit, no employer can discriminate against you for sexual orientation. It’s written on the wall in my break room. An employer is liable if they discriminate against you for being gay.
Are you interested in educating yourself, or do you enjoy spouting shit you know nothing about? There is no federal protection against employment discrimination of gays. It is up to the company, and any company wanting to discriminate based on sexual orientation is entirely free to do so.
[/quote]
Sort of. Most states do consider gays a protected class and discrimination based on sexual orientation is against state law. But, yeah, in a state that doesn’t, it’s up to the company.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
No, try and follow. I’m not against the government giving tax benefits, etc to anyone, which is what occurs now either through the domestic partners law or marriage. In terms of benefits these are both the same.
Why do you keep saying this when you know very well that civil unions don’t allow federal benefits while marriage does?
[/quote]
But marriage doesn’t under the DOMA. The federal government does not recognize same-unions and will not provide federal benefits whatever name they are given in the state they are recognized. That’s why the focus should be on overturning this law and getting benefits on the federal level.
Not forcing recongition as social equals in state a way that does not change legal rights at all. I can understand wanting to be seen as equal, and I personally consider gay realtionships equal, but I have mixed feelings about trying to force social change. In any case, the fight for equality as a LEGAL matter should come FIRST.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
ninjaboy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
ninjaboy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Is it possible for a gay person ‘to love’? Are we redefining love now? Love springs, at least partially, from the innate desire to procreate.
Gay people cannot love, in the actual sense of the word.
Do you love your mother, Headhunter?
Love for relatives is different from romantic love, toolboy. Love for family is rooted in the instinct for self-preservation (families work together for the survival of each).
Romantic love is based on the creation of children. Gay ‘love’ is not equivalent, by definition, therefore gay ‘love’ is simply perversion, and deserves no recognition by society.
Love is wanting the best for another person regardless of the cost to yourself, the whole “lay down your life for a friend” deal. It sounds like you’re confusing romantic love with physical attraction, which while similar are in fact two different things. Also, the point isn’t that gay love deserves recognition by society, its that two adult people (or more) should be able to sign a legally binding contract which grants certain privilages and responsabilities to both parties, regardless of their gender. Honestly, if a religious group chooses to recognize that contract as marriage, more power to them, but if not, it shouldn’t really effect how the government operates. I’ll say it again in case you missed it earlier, I don’t believe that homosexuals can be married in the eyes of God, no matter what the government says. Hell, I’d be happy if the government just called everything a civil union, and left the religious elements of marriage to churches. But as long as we’re going to say “you two people can obtain a legal status by signing this document” then we’d damn well better not add “unless you’re the same gender”.
No he is going by the evolutionary definition of love.
It is an emotion evolved to keep mates together to raise their offspring so that their offspring have a better chance of survival.
Yup. And since gays join up NOT for the purpose of procreation, then its something else. What, I do not know. But since its different than the purpose of love as we define it, then marriage is out.
[/quote]
I think you’re confusing origin with definition. If fact, a non-trival percentage of gay marriage opponents would disagree with your definition of love on the basis of being creationists. A whole lot of people get married without intending to have any kids. You do not have to desire to procreate to love someone.
Good point. If we are denying marriage to gays because they can’t procreate, then why aren’t we arguing over marriage rights for the infertile, disabled, or A-sexual partners?
[quote]clip11 wrote:
CAn a person choose to be gay? Theres no hardcore evidence that says its not a choice. And like someone brought out earlier in this post, even if it is natural to them, its not normal. Theres nothing abnormal about being black.[/quote]
Oh wow. Just wow.
So even if being black is natural, I could still consider it “abnormal”? I mean, it’s natural to them, sure, but I think it’s abnormal.
You really think people would CHOOSE to be discriminated against and persecuted?
Wow.