You can’t now turn around and act as if homosexuality does have some critical importance to society. A feature it should have before the state takes the positive action of recognizing and privileging it above all other imaginable arrangements between consenting (excepting one previous other).
I think all people have importance to society. Even those who can’t reproduce. I don’t think someone is less than me because they love someone of the same sex. I’m just not surprised that the religious (if you aren’t in my club you’re burning forever!) come to a different conclusion.
But you keep ignoring the fact that in your scenario when you reach a certain age marriage should end. Can’t make babies? Can’t get married.
What is the critical society wide importance of homosexuality?
Do you also support state recognized 20 person non-romatic/non-sexual marriages if applied for? What about a single person marriage?
Subjective emotional stuff that is simply opinion.
I guess you aren’t going to address the fact that those who can’t reproduce should not be married. And those who have been able to who can’t because of age shouldn’t either.
These people are not of critical importance to society. The state should throw them out the moment they go through menopause.
1 Like
Already did. I can’t prevent you from rejecting my response. But I did respond. And I am very satisfied with my response even if you aren’t.
Ah yes, the mental hurdle where it’s ok for them to because they are straight but since gay people can’t have kids (oh yeah just like those people) they shouldn’t be able to marry.
So it’s not about reproduction. It’s just discrimination. I don’t like gay people will suffice.
1 Like
No. It’s for the reason I gave.
Do you, though?
Of course not. Only people who can reproduce should marry. I thought we already established this. Those who can’t reproduce gay or straight can’t marry as they are not important to society. The state should only recognize those who can reproduce as they are the ones important to society.
Maybe we can put the people who can’t on an island or something.
Could we get your genuine answer?
Remind me of the reasoning. I can’t find the post. Might have been in the other thread.
Why should people who can’t reproduce be allowed to marry?
This was my response. You did quote it, actually.
No. I also don’t see this as something that is happening on a scale worth discussing. It seems like a hypothetical on scale with the disappearing straights.
I also don’t see the relevance although I know it’s a typical gay hating point. “If we let two guys marry why not let people marry trees?!”
If we let two straight people marry why not let people marry trees?
My bad. I still don’t see it being consistent. Your hangup is that gay people can’t reproduce therefore they aren’t important.
But straight people who can’t reproduce are.
So the issue is you don’t like gays?
So I’m clear the answer is no you don’t support those things? Or, no you can’t/won’t answer?
What are the things from which gays were excluded, prior to the State recognition of homosexual “marriage?”
Because of a feature that is intrinsic to heterosexuality which has important impact for all of society.
I mean, if state recognized marriage simply exists for personal expression why not recognize arboreal marriage? How does it affect straight marriage, indeed?
The answers in your question.