Do you approve of bans on same-sex marriages?

[huajiro]

How different is it if a non-productive homosexual couple married than a non-productive heterosexual family married. If neither produce offspring for whatever reason, what is the difference if they married or not?

What is the difference between a homosexual couple getting married and a heterosexual couple who cannot produce offspring? Society and the Church seem to have a problem with the homosexual union, even though neither can produce children, and most people's point has centered around reproduction. Can a heterosexual couple who cannot have children get married? If so, why?

 

[true blood]

Another reason homosexual marriage isn't well for this country is, long term, the country will have less citizens meaning less taxes paid. If homosexual marriage is legalized it will promote younger adults and teach children that homosexual activities are a norm therefore the populace of homosexual will increase while birth rates decrease. I think its a fine line this nation is treading. At any rate the issue will either be positive or negative in the long term.

 

[Green Gaia]

true blood, your claim is absolutely unfounded. You cannot claim to know what will happen in the future anymore than I can. Homosexuality is not a choice and is not taught. By allowing BGLT people equal rights that will not make more homosexuals. There will be the same name there's always has been. And just to repeat myself again, BGLT people DO have children, I do.

 

[true blood]

I agree that we do not know everything that is going to happen in the future but we must make projections. It is very rational to make a statement that legalizing homosexual marriages will in turn increase the numbers of the homosexual population down the road. In turn this will lower the number of heterosexuals. Homosexuality is not genetic, that's a farse. If it were so we would see increases in specific areas in this country but in reality it fluctuates. If it was genetic it would literally grow and spread. It's a choice. But anyways the more heterosexuals who opt for homosexuality does project lower birth rates.

 

[cfer]

I agree. Religious organizations should not be required to perform same sex marriages--or any other type of marriage they do not approve of. Those religious organizations that wish to perform such marriages should be allowed to do so. NO HUMAN COUPLE OF LEGAL CONSENTING AGE should be denied the right to a civil marriage which offers ALL LEGAL RIGHTS AND BENEFITS afforded to those married by a clergyperson. The bans against same sex marriage that passed in 11 states are a violation of civil rights and should be overturned by the courts.

Very well put. I do NOT support a ban on same-sex marriages. We are supposed to have a separation of Church and State in this country, which means that the government should not and cannot govern religious organzations. If the religion accepts same-sex marriages, the government should acknowledge those just as it does with hetero marriages. Why is there a difference in the eyes of the government?

The government should be all about protecting and enhancing the lives and rights of ALL its citizens, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, whatever. If that means performing civil unions so that same-sex marriages are equal to hetero marriages in the eyes of the State, that's what has to be done.

 

[Pah]

Another reason homosexual marriage isn't well for this country is, long term, the country will have less citizens meaning less taxes paid.

Are you still hung up on the population decrease error?

If homosexual marriage is legalized it will promote younger adults and teach children that homosexual activities are a norm therefore the populace of homosexual will increase while birth rates decrease. I think its a fine line this nation is treading.

Homosexuality is not taught. The percentage of homosexuals has not increased in the last generation which would have occurred has teaching been the "way to become a homosexual"

At any rate the issue will either be positive or negative in the long term.

That's enlightening!

These, folks, are prime examples of why institutionalized Christian fear and hate is the only way to delay the coming of equal rights. There just isn't a secualr reason worth debating that makes any sense.

Bob

 

[huajiro]

Another reason homosexual marriage isn't well for this country is, long term, the country will have less citizens meaning less taxes paid. If homosexual marriage is legalized it will promote younger adults and teach children that homosexual activities are a norm therefore the populace of homosexual will increase while birth rates decrease. I think its a fine line this nation is treading. At any rate the issue will either be positive or negative in the long term.

I told you it was about the money, it always is.

 

[Green Gaia]

It is very rational to make a statement that legalizing homosexual marriages will in turn increase the numbers of the homosexual population down the road.

No, it's not rational to make that assumption. That's absolutely false. Allowing equal rights will not make more gay people.

In turn this will lower the number of heterosexuals.

How?

Homosexuality is not genetic, that's a farse.

According to whom?

It's a choice.

No, it's not.

But anyways the more heterosexuals who opt for homosexuality does project lower birth rates.

Opt?????? :sarcastic

 

[huajiro]

true blood, your claim is absolutely unfounded. You cannot claim to know what will happen in the future anymore than I can. Homosexuality is not a choice and is not taught. By allowing BGLT people equal rights that will not make more homosexuals. There will be the same name there's always has been. And just to repeat myself again, BGLT people DO have children, I do.

It kind of makes me think back to when women and African-Americans fought for their rights, little by little the excuses for oppression fade.:jam:

 

[Lintu]

So if we have fewer people, the government gets less taxes. But...the implication of this is that we have fewer people! That means the government doesn't need as much money to provide social services, right? With fewer people driving on the roads, they get worn down more slowly...with fewer children in school, it would take less money to fund them. I don't see how a reduction in the population could be a bad thing.

 

[Pah]

I agree that we do not know everything that is going to happen in the future but we must make projections. It is very rational to make a statement that legalizing homosexual marriages will in turn increase the numbers of the homosexual population down the road. In turn this will lower the number of heterosexuals. Homosexuality is not genetic, that's a farse. If it were so we would see increases in specific areas in this country but in reality it fluctuates. If it was genetic it would literally grow and spread. It's a choice. But anyways the more heterosexuals who opt for homosexuality does project lower birth rates.

It is irrational to continue to "harp" on population as a reason to oppose homosexual marriage. It's been demonstated time and time again on this board that proceartion is a misguided arguement.

The farce, as in creationism, is not to understand and accept the science of the matter. Christianity has been known throughout its history to bury its head in the sand in regard to science. The genetic influence has been amply shown in so many studies that the very posture of Christian thought (the head in the sand emphasis what body part?) is laughable.

Bob

 

[huajiro]

I agree that we do not know everything that is going to happen in the future but we must make projections. It is very rational to make a statement that legalizing homosexual marriages will in turn increase the numbers of the homosexual population down the road. In turn this will lower the number of heterosexuals. Homosexuality is not genetic, that's a farse. If it were so we would see increases in specific areas in this country but in reality it fluctuates. If it was genetic it would literally grow and spread. It's a choice. But anyways the more heterosexuals who opt for homosexuality does project lower birth rates.

I repeat: "How long have you been homosexual?"...you seem to know so much about what causes it. With the way people have treated homosexuals throughout history you have the nerve to think that someone would choose it. I don't think anyone would willingly put themselves through it. :tsk:

It is our job as human beings to make every other human being no matter what their race, color, religion, sexual preference, feel comfortable, not make their lives a living hell and question why they are the way they are.

 

[huajiro]

So if we have fewer people, the government gets less taxes. But...the implication of this is that we have fewer people! That means the government doesn't need as much money to provide social services, right? With fewer people driving on the roads, they get worn down more slowly...with fewer children in school, it would take less money to fund them. I don't see how a reduction in the population could be a bad thing.

If we cut the population down to a few happy people, we don't need Government:jam:

 

[Rex]

I think homosexuality is a choice and is not genetic. This doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to have certain rights for this choice.

I mean when you are born you are of no religion until you decide you are apart of that religion. A choice.

Oooh that gives me an idea for a post

 

[Bastet]

Another reason homosexual marriage isn't well for this country is, long term, the country will have less citizens meaning less taxes paid. If homosexual marriage is legalized it will promote younger adults and teach children that homosexual activities are a norm therefore the populace of homosexual will increase while birth rates decrease. I think its a fine line this nation is treading. At any rate the issue will either be positive or negative in the long term.

I'm not even going to pick apart the bunk you're posting...it's not worth my effort. Quite apart from anything else though, since humans are on their way to over-populating this planet and using its resources into extinction, I'd think a little poplulation decrease would be a good thing. :sarcastic

You've given me an idea for a bumper sticker:

SAVE THE PLANET - BECOME A HOMOSEXUAL TODAY! :biglaugh:

 

[huajiro]

I'm not even going to pick apart the bunk you're posting...it's not worth my effort. Quite apart from anything else though, since humans are on their way to over-populating this planet and using its resources into extinction, I'd think a little poplulation decrease would be a good thing. :sarcastic

You've given me an idea for a bumper sticker:

SAVE THE PLANET - BECOME A HOMOSEXUAL TODAY! :biglaugh:

I am going to start promoting homosexuality now, where can I get one?:jam:

 

[CJW]

Civil rights have never been based on self definition based on sexual desires.

Besides, you cannot have civil rights sans civilization.

 

[CJW]

" I'd think a little poplulation decrease would be a good thing. "

Same ol', same ol'....

"Utilizing their prominent social positions and the support of the local medical community, Nixon and her fellow committee women met with lawmakers and arranged talks on birth-control and sterilization to civic groups throughout the state. The talks sometimes featured such national birth-control pioneers as Edna Rankin McKinnon, the sister of America’s first female member of congress."
("In The Finest, Most Womanly Way:" Women
in The Southern Eugenics Movement
By Edward J. Larson
The American Journal of Legal History,
Vol. 39, No. 2. (Apr., 1995), pp. 139)
http://mynym.blogspot.com/

It is the pattern of Nazism. It's never quite stated but behind this "save mommy Earth" nonsense lurks the occult notion that effeminacy is good, so good.

 

[Jaymes]

Civil rights have never been based on self definition based on sexual desires.

Because that's all gay marriage is. Sexual desire. :sarcastic

Besides, you cannot have civil rights sans civilization.

Are you implying gay marriage will destroy civilization?

 

[Jaymes]

It is the pattern of Nazism. It's never quite stated but behind this "save mommy Earth" nonsense lurks the occult notion that effeminacy is good, so good.

Whoops, there goes Godwin's law. :jiggy: Too bad I lost by bringing it up...