Marriage and sexuality

[madhatter85]

I think morality, or the lack of it, has a great deal to do with your persistent lying.

You can think whatever you want. It doesn't change the facts as they have been presented.

 

[darkendless]

Nice, trying to make a straw man.

I for one happen to believe the supreme court ruling correct in the context they provided, that it is fundamental to our very existence and survival. As such, benefits were given to married couples as an investment in the future of our nation. homosexual unions are not an investment in the future of our nation.

An American Supreme Court Ruling..... wow.

An investment into the future of your nation would be quit yar whinging and stop wasting money on fighting over who is right and spend that money on green technology and the likes.

Its pretty pathetic that this is even an issue.

 

[Kerr]

Nice, trying to make a straw man.

So, you don´t think it will affect our society negatively, you think it should just not be granted homosexuals because tradition state it should be between a man and a woman?

I for one happen to believe the supreme court ruling correct in the context they provided, that it is fundamental to our very existence and survival. As such, benefits were given to married couples as an investment in the future of our nation. homosexual unions are not an investment in the future of our nation.

And I disagree on all counts. Marriage has nothing to do with survival or investment in the nations future, it is an investment in the future of the individuals who marry. To be honest I don´t want the nation to invest in me and whoever I may marry in the future, it is between me and her and that is it.

May I ask you if you think that homosexuals should be able to enter a union with the exact same legal rights as marriage?

 

[madhatter85]

An American Supreme Court Ruling..... wow.

An investment into the future of your nation would be quit yar whinging and stop wasting money on fighting over who is right and spend that money on green technology and the likes.

Its pretty pathetic that this is even an issue.

Hey! something we can agree on! well, except for who's side we feel needs to quit whining.

 

[darkendless]

Hey! something we can agree on! well, except for who's side we feel needs to quit whining.

Well, i don't really care, i've accepted that yours as well as my government is completely useless and such laws will never be passed.

Either way though, this shouldn't be an issue.

My biased and conscience based opinion says pass the laws and tell the Godly's to shut up and preach to someone else.

 

[madhatter85]

May I ask you if you think that homosexuals should be able to enter a union with the exact same legal rights as marriage?

No. It isn't the marriage law that needs changed but rather hospital visitation rules and other such things that need to be changed.

 

[YamiB.]

No. It isn't the marriage law that needs changed but rather hospital visitation rules and other such things that need to be changed.

Or you could just change marriage laws since there has never been a valid reason presented to keep same-sex couples from getting married.

Edit :

Also madhatter if you reply to me I would like you to address the inconsistencies in your position that you failed to address in the last thread.

1. If marriage is only about making children through sexual intercourse of the two married individuals what is the point for infertile people to get married?
2. Is it a choice to become married to a person who is infertile?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Nice, trying to make a straw man.

It is Halloween.

But, how so? It seems that this is the argument for disallowing gay marriage; heterosexual couples are fundamental to our survival due to their ability to reproduce. Allowing gay marriage is somehow a threat to that. Therefore, I ask, will allowing gay marriage somehow stop heterosexuals from reproducing?

I for one happen to believe the supreme court ruling correct in the context they provided, that it is fundamental to our very existence and survival. As such, benefits were given to married couples as an investment in the future of our nation. homosexual unions are not an investment in the future of our nation.

I accept that reproduction is important for the vitality of a nation, but I still do not see how disallowing same-sex marriage removes that vitality, since we are not underpopulated and not likely to be. (In fact, reducing our population should be a goal if we really want to invest in the future.)

Essentially, I don't think there'll be a shortage of reproducing heterosexual couples if same-sex marriage were allowed. And, it should increase our investment in future populations as there will be more married couples adopting the many kids that need stable homes.

 

[Kerr]

No. It isn't the marriage law that needs changed but rather hospital visitation rules and other such things that need to be changed.

I was not talking about marriage there, I was talking about a solution a bit like the one we have in my country, where homosexuals have civil unions with about the same legal rights as marriage (not sure what the actual difference is). I was asking what you thought of that, or was that your answer?

 

[Kerr]

No. It isn't the marriage law that needs changed but rather hospital visitation rules and other such things that need to be changed.

So I take it homosexual couples should not be able to have the same legal protection as hetrosexual married couples have?

 

[McBell]

I highlighted your falsification for you.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. (Skinner v. Oklahoma)
Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

#1, morality has nothing to do with this, It is the facts. #2 I cited the supreme court decision in the Loving Vs Virginia Case.

In the Skinner Vs Oklahoma trial they found that marriage and procreation go hand in hand.
Supreme Court Decision on Privacy: Skinner v. State of Oklahoma
Skinner v. Oklahoma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ROTFLMAO

The straws you grasp at.

 

[McBell]

You can think whatever you want. It doesn't change the facts as they have been presented.

But you have not presented any facts.
You have merely taken one sentence completely out of context and are now trying to convince (yourself, perhaps? everyone that your out of context sentence is relevant to this thread.

Nice try, but now you are merely flat out lieing.

 

[Kerr]

As such, benefits were given to married couples as an investment in the future of our nation. homosexual unions are not an investment in the future of our nation.

By the way, what is the better investment, in a hetrosexual couple with kids that are abusive or a homosexual loving couple that plans to adopt a kid and be good parents?

 

[madhatter85]

By the way, what is the better investment, in a hetrosexual couple with kids that are abusive or a homosexual loving couple that plans to adopt a kid and be good parents?

You are comparing apples to oranges. Homosexual couples are just as likely to be abusive as a heterosexual couple. However, Homosexuals have likely gone through more abuse than heterosexuals due to a number of reasons (bigotry, parental resentment, etc..) and therefore are more likely in general to be abusive (statistically). Also I am not just talking about physical abuse, I am talking about mental abuse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abuse
An abused child may grow up to be an abusive parent ( ther research using rats as animal mode...)

 

[madhatter85]

I was not talking about marriage there, I was talking about a solution a bit like the one we have in my country, where homosexuals have civil unions with about the same legal rights as marriage (not sure what the actual difference is). I was asking what you thought of that, or was that your answer?

It doesn't matter what the term is, it's still the same.

 

[madhatter85]

ROTFLMAO

The straws you grasp at.

Seems to me it is the SSM pundits that are grasping at straws.. They take the sentence and only post half of it and take it out of context.
I am basing my arguments on what the court says exactly as they say it, full sentences and all.

 

[Kerr]

It doesn't matter what the term is, it's still the same.

No then. So, only hetrosexual "unions" should be protected by the law? How is that fair?

 

[madhatter85]

No then. So, only hetrosexual "unions" should be protected by the law? How is that fair?

For the reasons I have stated before. the marriage benefits were put in place as a way to protect an investment in the future of the nation.

As far as personal legal protections [differentiated from marriage protections] there are no reasons why a self-identified homosexual should not get the same protections as anyone else.

 

[Kerr]

You are comparing apples to oranges. Homosexual couples are just as likely to be abusive as a heterosexual couple. However, Homosexuals have likely gone through more abuse than heterosexuals due to a number of reasons (bigotry, parental resentment, etc..) and therefore are more likely in general to be abusive (statistically). Also I am not just talking about physical abuse, I am talking about mental abuse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abuse
An abused child may grow up to be an abusive parent ( ther research using rats as animal mode...)

One, you misunderstood what I was saying. An investment in a loving couple is a better investment, regardless of if they are of the same or opposite sex, then investment in an abusive couple.

Secondly, you are just making my point for me when you talk about the abused getting the abuser. That is a very strong reason to invest in tolerance and acceptance, to invest in accepting homosexuality as a natural and acceptable behaviour.

Third, I have heard of a lot of hetrosexuals abusing their kids, but so far no one has been homosexual. Granted, there are less homosexual couples because, well, they are a minority, but the majority of all the child abuse still comes from hetrosexual parents.

 

[Kerr]

For the reasons I have stated before. the marriage benefits were put in place as a way to protect an investment in the future of the nation.

If marriage is an investment it is a very flawed investment.

But then again, I do not consider it a nation investment, or even of national interest. If it is an investment in anything it is in the future of the individuals involved.

As far as personal legal protections [differentiated from marriage protections] there are no reasons why a self-identified homosexual should not get the same protections as anyone else.

Well that is good. What benifits do you think they should have and not have then?