Gay Marriage

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
This is the sixth page and nobody has explained to me what critical and irreplaceable aspect homosexual couplings has inherent to itself. We are talking about the state acting in a positive manner, reaching out into society, with all it’s imaginative human relationships, and picking out a whopping one other to put up on a pedestal by recognizing it, titling it, ordering it, and privileging it. Nobody has actually justified such heavy-handed positive action from the state. Nobody has pointed to the critical and irreplaceable function of this relationship to society and humanity as a whole.[/quote]

Why are hospital visitation rights included in marriage?[/quote]

In order to make it more attractive and orderly for the reproductive sexes to order their couplings within marriage. Because, you know, reproduction is an inherent aspect of their coupling…

If you want to expand hospital visitation rights, then argue for it outside of the homosexual marriage argument. Argue it for friends, business associates, or for whoever the patient has had designated as a visitor through arrangements made prior to the hospitalization event.[/quote]

So do you have no problem granting them hospital visitation rights? If you are okay with that, then what individual part of government marriage are you against them having besides the name, assuming all parts could be applied for separately.

142

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Marriage recognition from the state simply provides rights and protections to individuals who decide to be in that contract. The smallest reproductive unit already has another name, its called “the smallest reproductive unit” and has nothing to do with marriage today. By definition the smallest reproductive unit requires 2 people of opposite sex who can produce offspring…[/quote]

False. It simply requires a male and female. Desire to have children or not, and abnormalities, do not unmake the reproductive sexes.
[/quote]

Something that cannot reproduce cannot be called a reproductive unit[/quote]

Bob’s eyes can’t see. They’re still eyes. And the function of our eyes is to see. Now, that’s enough of this nonsense.

143

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
This is the sixth page and nobody has explained to me what critical and irreplaceable aspect homosexual couplings has inherent to itself. We are talking about the state acting in a positive manner, reaching out into society, with all it’s imaginative human relationships, and picking out a whopping one other to put up on a pedestal by recognizing it, titling it, ordering it, and privileging it. Nobody has actually justified such heavy-handed positive action from the state. Nobody has pointed to the critical and irreplaceable function of this relationship to society and humanity as a whole.[/quote]

Why are hospital visitation rights included in marriage?[/quote]

In order to make it more attractive and orderly for the reproductive sexes to order their couplings within marriage. Because, you know, reproduction is an inherent aspect of their coupling…

If you want to expand hospital visitation rights, then argue for it outside of the homosexual marriage argument. Argue it for friends, business associates, or for whoever the patient has had designated as a visitor through arrangements made prior to the hospitalization event.[/quote]

So do you have no problem granting them hospital visitation rights? If you are okay with that, then what individual part of government marriage are you against them having besides the name, assuming all parts could be applied for separately.[/quote]

Anything not applicable to a friendship, for instance.

144

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think denying to consenting adults the right to marry is nothing short of denying some one the right to practice their Religion [/quote]

Adults can consent to do a lot of things. That basis alone does not entitle anybody rights. It still misses the heart of the issue. Which is the argument that a homosexual marriage is the same as a heterosexual marriage. If it is then same rights should be granted, but that argument cannot be made because it is not the same. [/quote]

why and who says ?
[/quote]

There is a claim of inequality between marriage of same sex couples and opposite sex couples. It seems to me, if you are arguing for equality, shouldn’t you first prove they are the same thing?

145

I think it is a fallacy to base a whole argument on the alleged fact that Our Government is promoting anything with the tax code . This is the beginning of disinformation

146

I think if you get side tracked in the conversation the so called right will win . If there is proof the Govenment is trying to promote hetero sexual marriage please post proof

147

[quote]Sloth wrote:
This is the sixth page and nobody has explained to me what critical and irreplaceable aspect homosexual couplings has inherent to itself. We are talking about the state acting in a positive manner, reaching out into society, with all it’s imaginative human relationships, and picking out a whopping one other to put up on a pedestal by recognizing it, titling it, ordering it, and privileging it. Nobody has actually justified such heavy-handed positive action from the state. Nobody has pointed to the critical and irreplaceable function of this relationship to society and humanity as a whole.[/quote]

This is the sixth page and you have failed to explain how the state denying Homo sexual marriage is positive

A tax benefit for married people is unfair to all the unmarried people . I could see a deduction for every person dependent on an income . But to reward something that is going to happen any way is foolish

148

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
This is the sixth page and nobody has explained to me what critical and irreplaceable aspect homosexual couplings has inherent to itself. We are talking about the state acting in a positive manner, reaching out into society, with all it’s imaginative human relationships, and picking out a whopping one other to put up on a pedestal by recognizing it, titling it, ordering it, and privileging it. Nobody has actually justified such heavy-handed positive action from the state. Nobody has pointed to the critical and irreplaceable function of this relationship to society and humanity as a whole.[/quote]

Why are hospital visitation rights included in marriage?[/quote]

In order to make it more attractive and orderly for the reproductive sexes to order their couplings within marriage. Because, you know, reproduction is an inherent aspect of their coupling…

If you want to expand hospital visitation rights, then argue for it outside of the homosexual marriage argument. Argue it for friends, business associates, or for whoever the patient has had designated as a visitor through arrangements made prior to the hospitalization event.[/quote]

So do you have no problem granting them hospital visitation rights? If you are okay with that, then what individual part of government marriage are you against them having besides the name, assuming all parts could be applied for separately.[/quote]

Anything not applicable to a friendship, for instance.[/quote]

What is 1 specific example

149

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

In all 32 states where gay “marriage” has been put to the vote it has been rejected. Not once has it been supported via popular vote - it’s only been enacted legislatively.

[quote]

On a side note, this could be delved deeper with the idea that should minority issues ever be discussed in direct democracy through referendums or plebiscites? Should a popular vote ever determine the treatment of a minority? For example a referendum on black reparations, or Native American land reclamation or land reserves or the mass populace voting on minority rights etc…

150

[quote]nickj_777 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

In all 32 states where gay “marriage” has been put to the vote it has been rejected. Not once has it been supported via popular vote - it’s only been enacted legislatively.

I think that would be alright until sentiment turns against Christians

151

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
This is the sixth page and nobody has explained to me what critical and irreplaceable aspect homosexual couplings has inherent to itself. We are talking about the state acting in a positive manner, reaching out into society, with all it’s imaginative human relationships, and picking out a whopping one other to put up on a pedestal by recognizing it, titling it, ordering it, and privileging it. Nobody has actually justified such heavy-handed positive action from the state. Nobody has pointed to the critical and irreplaceable function of this relationship to society and humanity as a whole.[/quote]

Why are hospital visitation rights included in marriage?[/quote]

In order to make it more attractive and orderly for the reproductive sexes to order their couplings within marriage. Because, you know, reproduction is an inherent aspect of their coupling…

If you want to expand hospital visitation rights, then argue for it outside of the homosexual marriage argument. Argue it for friends, business associates, or for whoever the patient has had designated as a visitor through arrangements made prior to the hospitalization event.[/quote]

So do you have no problem granting them hospital visitation rights? If you are okay with that, then what individual part of government marriage are you against them having besides the name, assuming all parts could be applied for separately.[/quote]

Anything not applicable to a friendship, for instance.[/quote]

What is 1 specific example[/quote]

Uh, I have no problem with a person being able to grant hospital visitation rights to people. But homosexuals wouldn’t have any different avenue than what’s available to a person granting the same status to a friend.

152

[quote]nickj_777 wrote:

On a side note, this could be delved deeper with the idea that should minority issues ever be discussed in direct democracy through referendums or plebiscites? Should a popular vote ever determine the treatment of a minority? For example a referendum on black reparations, or Native American land reclamation or land reserves or the mass populace voting on minority rights etc…
[/quote]

Sure, if the group is looking to have the public provide status, title, and privilege, through the state, to it’s relationship.

153

@ Sloth

Sorry but I have been curious what does your avatar mean? It is very Salvadore Dhali-esk and creepy as hell.

154

[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
@ Sloth

Sorry but I have been curious what does your avatar mean? It is very Salvadore Dhali-esk and creepy as hell. [/quote]I’m gonna guess it has to do with being symbolic of a society that kills it’s own children and with them it’s own future. Or some version thereof. I agree btw if that’s what it is. I always assumed it was something like that.

155

That’s “Cronos devouring one of his children” by Rubens.
It could be worst.
It could be Goya’s one.

156

[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
@ Sloth

Sorry but I have been curious what does your avatar mean? It is very Salvadore Dhali-esk and creepy as hell. [/quote]

See Kamui’s comment.

Well, I chose it because it nicely represents the fall of the West. You have the old devouring it’s youth. Contraception, abortion, embryonic stem cells, entitlements and debt (the old devouring the next generation)…etc. A graying population devouring it’s offspring for power, life, and pleasure.

157

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
This is the sixth page and nobody has explained to me what critical and irreplaceable aspect homosexual couplings has inherent to itself. We are talking about the state acting in a positive manner, reaching out into society, with all it’s imaginative human relationships, and picking out a whopping one other to put up on a pedestal by recognizing it, titling it, ordering it, and privileging it. Nobody has actually justified such heavy-handed positive action from the state. Nobody has pointed to the critical and irreplaceable function of this relationship to society and humanity as a whole.[/quote]

Why are hospital visitation rights included in marriage?[/quote]

In order to make it more attractive and orderly for the reproductive sexes to order their couplings within marriage. Because, you know, reproduction is an inherent aspect of their coupling…

If you want to expand hospital visitation rights, then argue for it outside of the homosexual marriage argument. Argue it for friends, business associates, or for whoever the patient has had designated as a visitor through arrangements made prior to the hospitalization event.[/quote]

So do you have no problem granting them hospital visitation rights? If you are okay with that, then what individual part of government marriage are you against them having besides the name, assuming all parts could be applied for separately.[/quote]

Anything not applicable to a friendship, for instance.[/quote]

What is 1 specific example[/quote]

Uh, I have no problem with a person being able to grant hospital visitation rights to people. But homosexuals wouldn’t have any different avenue than what’s available to a person granting the same status to a friend.

[/quote]

So you’re okay with them getting all the same privileges as long as they have to do more paperwork to obtain it?

158

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
This is the sixth page and nobody has explained to me what critical and irreplaceable aspect homosexual couplings has inherent to itself. We are talking about the state acting in a positive manner, reaching out into society, with all it’s imaginative human relationships, and picking out a whopping one other to put up on a pedestal by recognizing it, titling it, ordering it, and privileging it. Nobody has actually justified such heavy-handed positive action from the state. Nobody has pointed to the critical and irreplaceable function of this relationship to society and humanity as a whole.[/quote]

Why are hospital visitation rights included in marriage?[/quote]

In order to make it more attractive and orderly for the reproductive sexes to order their couplings within marriage. Because, you know, reproduction is an inherent aspect of their coupling…

If you want to expand hospital visitation rights, then argue for it outside of the homosexual marriage argument. Argue it for friends, business associates, or for whoever the patient has had designated as a visitor through arrangements made prior to the hospitalization event.[/quote]

So do you have no problem granting them hospital visitation rights? If you are okay with that, then what individual part of government marriage are you against them having besides the name, assuming all parts could be applied for separately.[/quote]

Anything not applicable to a friendship, for instance.[/quote]

What is 1 specific example[/quote]

Uh, I have no problem with a person being able to grant hospital visitation rights to people. But homosexuals wouldn’t have any different avenue than what’s available to a person granting the same status to a friend.

[/quote]

So you’re okay with them getting all the same privileges as long as they have to do more paperwork to obtain it?[/quote]

Same arrangements as friends can make, sure.

159

[quote]TheGreatXavi wrote:

I wonder this, to many people ( obviously men ) who are not agree with gay marriage because its involved sodomy, how about lesbian marriage??? they dont do sodomy right?

[/quote]

Sodomy laws usually cover other deviant sexual acts. Yes, I’m against lesbian sex/marriage.

Western countries have a rapidly declining birth rate.

I disagree.

160

[quote]nickj_777 wrote:

On a side note, this could be delved deeper with the idea that should minority issues ever be discussed in direct democracy through referendums or plebiscites? Should a popular vote ever determine the treatment of a minority? For example a referendum on black reparations, or Native American land reclamation or land reserves or the mass populace voting on minority rights etc…
[/quote]

Difficult question. However, regarding gay “marriage” the results thusfar show that the people have rejected the idea.