Now, explain your unjustifiable bigotry against every other form of human relationship, having adopted the homosexual cause. Your whopping inclusion of homosexuals is marginally less ‘bigoted’ than my own position. By a mere one other form of human relationship. And I can justify why hetero marriage is crucial to the nation. Crucial.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
What you want is bigotry. You want unjustifiable discrimination. The raising up, and putting up on a pedestal, a relationship above others, without justification. Stop saying homosexual relationships are special, above simple friendships and other forms of association. That is subjective, and personal.[/quote]
Friends don’t suck each others dicks. Atleast mine don’t. Maybe you’ve got better friends than mine. ):[/quote]
As, so the purpose of putting homosexual relationships above other forms of human relationships is because they provide each other oral sex.
[/quote]
Do you really need me to elaborate here? Is the only difference between your wife, and your friend that she can reproduce with you?
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
I’m confused. What exactly is the problem with gays and lesbians being joined till death do them part.[/quote]
If they want to exchange rings and work out arrangements. with no more privilege or recognition than Joe Bob and his buddy, fine. The government treating their relationship as something so absolutely special and critical, recognizing it and privileging it, above Joe Bob and his pal, is uncalled for discrimination. [/quote]
It’s no more discrimination against Joe Bob and his pal than is a legally recognized heterosexual marriage.[/quote]
State recognized heterosexual marriage (don’t forget limited to two people, too) is discrimination. Rational, justifiable discrimination. One man and one woman provide the model for the smallest reproductive unit, capable of propagating the citizenry (future parents in turn, future labor, future taxpayers) in intact households, with both biological parents present. The ordering of the reproductive sexes IS a general welfare issue. Take a drive through a ghetto. Visit a prison. Look at the welfare/food stamp/entitlement rolls. Visit a graduating high school or college class. Big time general welfare issue. If the above wasn’t part and parcel, if it wasn’t inherent to the ordering of men and women together, I wouldn’t support recognition of marriage. It would be pointless. It would deserve no more recognition than Joe Bob and his pal. [/quote]
As has already been pointed out, there’s a great number of heterosexual people who get married who are unable, and / or unwilling to reproduce themselves, and there aren’t any laws against that. Should there be? Are these senior citizens, barren women, impotent men, driven proffessionals, and adoptive hippys just jumping through loop holes and cheating the system?
Which is worse? 2 heterosexual people who marry and don’t have children, or 2 homosexual people who marry and do have children. Which one is more deserving of the special treatment you’re talking about? Do you think 2 homosexuals are less capable of raising productive members of society than a “single mother”? Do you think 2 homosexuals raising a child are worse for that child than an abortion? There’s a big difference between “reproducing” and raising a child.[/quote]
The point that I would actually want answered here is that if opponents are adamant about the reason for this “justified discrimination” how come that people who can not live up to those somewhat elusive and nebulous obligation allowed to marry if they just happen to be heterosexual?
Should the government not implement a strict oversight apparatus to make sure that people do not shirk their responsibilities?
After all, whatever the role of marriage has to be play when it comes to further advance the glory of Ro…, um, provide cannonfo…, um, better society as a whole, people who receive special privileges better hold up their part of the deal, right?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
*TN’s virtually worthless Edit function insists on leaving this off my post:
You could even theoretically conjure up a cult of several million people all joining together in matrimony. All married to each other for whatever reason thereby annihilating any concept of what marriage has always been.
And like Sloth said, if the state can decide it has the power to limit it to two then the state also can decide to limit it to a man and a woman. After all who do you or the state think you are restricting Adam, Steve and Evelyn from joining together in marital bliss?[/quote]
This is nonsense.
His whole argument is that if two heterosexual people are allowed to marry, two homosexual people must be allowed to marry too.
That might be a slippery slope, there might be reasons for it, but there is no real legal leg to stand on.
OMGDZ, society will implode is not a legal argument.[/quote]
Give me valid reasons for denying legal marriage to Adam, Steve and Evelyn. You will not be able to do so using Delbert’s rationale.[/quote]
Wait, what’s wrong with my rationale?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
*TN’s virtually worthless Edit function insists on leaving this off my post:
You could even theoretically conjure up a cult of several million people all joining together in matrimony. All married to each other for whatever reason thereby annihilating any concept of what marriage has always been.
And like Sloth said, if the state can decide it has the power to limit it to two then the state also can decide to limit it to a man and a woman. After all who do you or the state think you are restricting Adam, Steve and Evelyn from joining together in marital bliss?[/quote]
This is nonsense.
His whole argument is that if two heterosexual people are allowed to marry, two homosexual people must be allowed to marry too.
That might be a slippery slope, there might be reasons for it, but there is no real legal leg to stand on.
OMGDZ, society will implode is not a legal argument.[/quote]
Coming from PWI’s Emperor of Nonsense this is…nonsense.[/quote]
Weak sauce.
[quote]orion wrote:
The point that I would actually want answered…
[/quote]
I’ve already answered it. The more men and women married, the more the model is encountered. The more it is encountered, the more it is a norm. The more it is a norm, the more likely it is to be followed. The birds and bees, through sheer numbers, take care of the rest. It would in fact be counter-productive to do as you suggest.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
*TN’s virtually worthless Edit function insists on leaving this off my post:
You could even theoretically conjure up a cult of several million people all joining together in matrimony. All married to each other for whatever reason thereby annihilating any concept of what marriage has always been.
And like Sloth said, if the state can decide it has the power to limit it to two then the state also can decide to limit it to a man and a woman. After all who do you or the state think you are restricting Adam, Steve and Evelyn from joining together in marital bliss?[/quote]
This is nonsense.
His whole argument is that if two heterosexual people are allowed to marry, two homosexual people must be allowed to marry too.
That might be a slippery slope, there might be reasons for it, but there is no real legal leg to stand on.
OMGDZ, society will implode is not a legal argument.[/quote]
Give me valid reasons for denying legal marriage to Adam, Steve and Evelyn. You will not be able to do so using Delbert’s rationale.[/quote]
I dont have to.
Straight people are allowed to marry.
Marriages as far as governments are concerned are a contract between two consenting adult.
Denying two consenting adults to enter into the very same contract everyone else can because of their sexual orientation is discrimination.
That there is no logical reason why polygamy should not be legal too is admittedly true, but no court would have to decide on that, so it is also largely irrelevant.
That is not how a court operates.
I don’t have a whole lot of time to join in the fun, but just off the top of my head, I see two major issues that married heterosexual couples enjoy and that gay couples are denied: inheritance and taxes. When a gay couple spend their LIVES together, in a monogamous relationship, accumulating assets, etc… and then one of them dies, the surviving partner has NO legal right to the property or any form of inheritance, the dead fag’s FAMILY would have all the right to it, even though they had nothing to do with it and may have even been against the relationship. A married couple enjoys these rights.
Married couples have certain tax advantages when they file jointly (not always, but in certain instances).
Why does the IRS have the right to deny GAY couples who wish to form a life together the same tax advantages?
Either make ALL marriages “civil unions” and allow ANY two consenting adults to enter into that arrangement (thus enjoying the same legal benefits), and let anyone who wants to get "married’ to get “married” in a church OR allow homosexuals to get “married” just like hetero sexual couples and grant them the same rights as everyone else…
I’m sure that there are more issues, such as the right to pull the plug or decide options during emergency surgery, etc… that should be OBVIOUS that the gay partner should have the right to make that call, but in the current way they are recognized, THEY DON’T.
Either get the LAW out of marriage, or allow ALL (as in ANY TWO individual) consenting adults regardless of gender marry.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
What you want is bigotry. You want unjustifiable discrimination. The raising up, and putting up on a pedestal, a relationship above others, without justification. [/quote]
You still haven’t answered my questions.[/quote]
I did. The relationship still provides the model, through increased frequency in the population. Sheer numbers, if the model is secure and honored, will ensure the results. Now answer mine. Why do you unjustifiably discriminate in favor of homosexual relationships to the exclusion of any all forms of consenting human relationship imaginative adults could come up with? Regardless of number, sexual or non-sexual.
[/quote]
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
WHICH IS WORSE? 2 HETEROSEXUAL PEOPLE WHO MARRY AND DON’T HAVE CHILDREN, OR 2 HOMOSEXUAL PEOPLE WHO MARRY AND DO HAVE CHILDREN?. WHICH ONE IS MORE DESERVING OF THE SPECIAL TREATMENT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT?? DO YOU THINK 2 HOMOSEXUALS ARE LESS CAPABLE OF RAISING PRODUCTIVE MEMBERS OF SOCIETY THAN A “SINGLE MOTHER”? DO YOU THINK 2 HOMOSEXUALS RAISING A CHILD ARE WORSE FOR THAT CHILD THAN AN ABORTION? There’s a big difference between “reproducing” and raising a child.[/quote]
No you haven’t.[/quote]
I did. I answered you twice. This will be the third time. One man, one woman, full fill the model I described. Homosexuals, or the polyamorous, Joe Bob and his pal, or a social network of single mothers, or whatever else, doesn’t. [/quote]
No you still haven’t. I’ve capatalized the questions this time. They’re multiple choice, yes, and no questions.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Now, explain your unjustifiable bigotry against every other form of human relationship, having adopted the homosexual cause. Your whopping inclusion of homosexuals is marginally less ‘bigoted’ than my own position. By a mere one other form of human relationship. And I can justify why hetero marriage is crucial to the nation. Crucial.[/quote]
You can justify that till the cows come home, what you cannot do, or you would have done so is to point to a law justifying the apparent discrimination.
At least supposedly America is a nation of laws, not a nation of your moral intuitions.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Circular. It IS a fundamental right as I keep saying. And it’s important to protect that right when it comes under attack.
[/quote]
I wholeheartedly agree.
Whenever someone wants to abolish heterosexual marriages he must be stopped. [/quote]
Thing is, Emperor, no one is trying to abolish homosexual marriages.[/quote]
Not the point.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
The point that I would actually want answered…
[/quote]
I’ve already answered it. The more men and women married, the more the model is encountered. The more it is encountered, the more it is a norm. The more it is a norm, the more likely it is to be followed. The birds and bees, through sheer numbers, take care of the rest. It would in fact be counter-productive to do as you suggest.[/quote]
Well in that case, getting more people married, even if they cannot live up to societies dictates, whatever they may be can only be beneficial.
You have already established to whatever marriages elusive purpose may be, people who cannot fully make that happen should be allowed to marry as that encourages others.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Now, explain your unjustifiable bigotry against every other form of human relationship, having adopted the homosexual cause. Your whopping inclusion of homosexuals is marginally less ‘bigoted’ than my own position. By a mere one other form of human relationship. And I can justify why hetero marriage is crucial to the nation. Crucial.[/quote]
What other forms of human relationship seek a life long partnership based on the same foundation of love and affection? So long as they involve consensual adult human beings, I really don’t care.
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
What you want is bigotry. You want unjustifiable discrimination. The raising up, and putting up on a pedestal, a relationship above others, without justification. [/quote]
You still haven’t answered my questions.[/quote]
I did. The relationship still provides the model, through increased frequency in the population. Sheer numbers, if the model is secure and honored, will ensure the results. Now answer mine. Why do you unjustifiably discriminate in favor of homosexual relationships to the exclusion of any all forms of consenting human relationship imaginative adults could come up with? Regardless of number, sexual or non-sexual.
[/quote]
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
WHICH IS WORSE? 2 HETEROSEXUAL PEOPLE WHO MARRY AND DON’T HAVE CHILDREN, OR 2 HOMOSEXUAL PEOPLE WHO MARRY AND DO HAVE CHILDREN?. WHICH ONE IS MORE DESERVING OF THE SPECIAL TREATMENT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT?? DO YOU THINK 2 HOMOSEXUALS ARE LESS CAPABLE OF RAISING PRODUCTIVE MEMBERS OF SOCIETY THAN A “SINGLE MOTHER”? DO YOU THINK 2 HOMOSEXUALS RAISING A CHILD ARE WORSE FOR THAT CHILD THAN AN ABORTION? There’s a big difference between “reproducing” and raising a child.[/quote]
No you haven’t.[/quote]
I did. I answered you twice. This will be the third time. One man, one woman, full fill the model I described. Homosexuals, or the polyamorous, Joe Bob and his pal, or a social network of single mothers, or whatever else, doesn’t. [/quote]
No you still haven’t. I’ve capatalized the questions this time. They’re multiple choice, yes, and no questions.[/quote]
No, I have…Did you not read my description? I want the smallest biological unit capable or rearing it’s OWN biological children in intact homes (with both natural, bio parents present) as the model. Regardless of an individual couple having children, the model (one man, one woman, smallest reproductive unit) is still present. I want the model encountered as frequently as possible. Sheer numbers will take care of the rest. Further managment would be burdensome and most likely counter-productive to the intended goal. Heterosexuality vanishes tomorrow, so does humanity. Homosexuality? “Well, what’s on TV tonight?”
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
*TN’s virtually worthless Edit function insists on leaving this off my post:
You could even theoretically conjure up a cult of several million people all joining together in matrimony. All married to each other for whatever reason thereby annihilating any concept of what marriage has always been.
And like Sloth said, if the state can decide it has the power to limit it to two then the state also can decide to limit it to a man and a woman. After all who do you or the state think you are restricting Adam, Steve and Evelyn from joining together in marital bliss?[/quote]
This is nonsense.
His whole argument is that if two heterosexual people are allowed to marry, two homosexual people must be allowed to marry too.
That might be a slippery slope, there might be reasons for it, but there is no real legal leg to stand on.
OMGDZ, society will implode is not a legal argument.[/quote]
Give me valid reasons for denying legal marriage to Adam, Steve and Evelyn. You will not be able to do so using Delbert’s rationale.[/quote]
I dont have to.
Straight people are allowed to marry.
Marriages as far as governments are concerned are a contract between two consenting adult.
[/quote]
Not in the US. Here, as far our government is concerned it is a contract between two consenting adults of the opposite sex.
[quote]
Denying two consenting adults to enter into the very same contract everyone else can because of their sexual orientation is discrimination.
That there is no logical reason why polygamy should not be legal too is admittedly true, but no court would have to decide on that, so it is also largely irrelevant.
That is not how a court operates. [/quote]
Your cart is in front of your horse.
The logical reasons why polygamy should be legal if homosexual marriage is legal were given by Mr. Cooper back in the thread beginning.[/quote]
-
Yes, and it has no real leg to stand on. Because, supposedly, government is bound by the law of the land.
-
Maybe, maybe not.
However the question that might come before the SCOTUS will not be that terribly broad.
It will neither involve polygamy, dogs or lampposts.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Circular. It IS a fundamental right as I keep saying. And it’s important to protect that right when it comes under attack.
[/quote]
I wholeheartedly agree.
Whenever someone wants to abolish heterosexual marriages he must be stopped. [/quote]
Thing is, Emperor, no one is trying to abolish homosexual marriages.[/quote]
Not the point. [/quote]
Then don’t raise it. I was responding to you.[/quote]
I did not raise a thing, except maybe one or two eyebrows.
Letting gay people marry is in no way, shape or form an attack on anybody elses right to marry.