Marriage and sexuality

[madhatter85]

Stop pretending your anti-gay bigotry is not the official doctrine of your church.

Call us what you want. This is the LDS opinion here: Same-Gender Attraction - LDS Newsroom

Now can we get back to the non religious discussion of how we are not required to give marital benefits to people who don't contribute to society the way marriage benefits were originally given for? That would be Prospective procreation and care for progeny.

 

[McBell]

Call us what you want. This is the LDS opinion here: Same-Gender Attraction - LDS Newsroom

Now can we get back to the non religious discussion of how we are not required to give marital benefits to people who don't contribute to society the way marriage benefits were originally given for? That would be Prospective procreation and care for progeny.

Now perhaps you would be so kind as to explain what it is exactly that heterosexual couples contribute through marriage that cannot be contributed by same sex couples.

It has already been shown that same sex couples can and do in fact have children, so that can't be it.

 

[madhatter85]

Now perhaps you would be so kind as to explain what it is exactly that heterosexual couples contribute through marriage that cannot be contributed by same sex couples.

It has already been shown that same sex couples can and do in fact have children, so that can't be it.

Prospective procreation and care for progeny.

Same sex couples can only have children of their own by using more resources than the vast majority of heterosexual couples.

I'm not telling anyone what they can or cannot do in their bedrooms, or who they can or cannot lust after.
My statement is that we are not required to support it because marriage, not only implies monogamy but, as ruled by the supreme court it is fundamental to our existence and survival.

 

[Kerr]

Prospective procreation and care for progeny.

Same sex couples can only have children of their own by using more resources than the vast majority of heterosexual couples.

I'm not telling anyone what they can or cannot do in their bedrooms, or who they can or cannot lust after.
My statement is that we are not required to support it because marriage, not only implies monogamy but, as ruled by the supreme court it is fundamental to our existence and survival.

I have a question. If a kid looses all his relatives in an accident, and he needs a new family. How is the cost more when that kid is adopted by a homosexual couple then by a hetrosexual one?

And what about the couples where one is impotent or sterile? They need extra resources as well. Resources does not matter, we do not provide benefits or rights to people dependent on how much they cost. It is as simple as that.

 

[McBell]

Prospective procreation and care for progeny.

Same sex couples can only have children of their own by using more resources than the vast majority of heterosexual couples.

I'm not telling anyone what they can or cannot do in their bedrooms, or who they can or cannot lust after.
My statement is that we are not required to support it because marriage, not only implies monogamy but, as ruled by the supreme court it is fundamental to our existence and survival.

I see.
So you are merely going to repeat the same lines of bull **** even though they have already been shown to be nothing more than bull ****?

 

[Autodidact]

Prospective procreation and care for progeny.

Same sex couples can only have children of their own by using more resources than the vast majority of heterosexual couples.

WTH is "prospective procreation? Obviously, same-sex couples can care for progeny just as well as different-sex, so that's plain wrong.

As is the rest of the post, but since I'm on ignore madhatter will never have the benefit of learning that.

 

[shadze]

WTH is "prospective procreation? Obviously, same-sex couples can care for progeny just as well as different-sex, so that's plain wrong.

As is the rest of the post, but since I'm on ignore madhatter will never have the benefit of learning that.

What pathetic wisdom.Thier are thoudands of hetereosexual who do not look after thier kids. And you spout that is the correct way to bring children up. After all christ had no children. Maybe we should preach a childless humanity based on Christ example.

 

[madhatter85]

What pathetic wisdom.Thier are thoudands of hetereosexual who do not look after thier kids. And you spout that is the correct way to bring children up. After all christ had no children. Maybe we should preach a childless humanity based on Christ example.

Again you bring religion to the debate when I have not. However, I disagree with you that Christ was not married but that can be discussed in another thread if you like.

 

[methylatedghosts]

madhatter - did you take the time to read that essay I linked from a representative of the SCM?

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

Prospective procreation and care for progeny.

Same sex couples can only have children of their own by using more resources than the vast majority of heterosexual couples.

I'm not telling anyone what they can or cannot do in their bedrooms, or who they can or cannot lust after.
My statement is that we are not required to support it because marriage, not only implies monogamy but, as ruled by the supreme court it is fundamental to our existence and survival.

And your statements about monogamy, existence and survival and care of progeny have been proven wrong again and again on this thread but you fail to recognize or acknowledge it.

Homosexual couples do contribute to the existence and survival of our species by raising adopted children to be healthy productive individuals who will then contribute to the survival of our species.

Marriage does not imply monogamy you fail to acknowledge polygamy, polyamory both of which take place around the world.

 

[ragordon168]

Call us what you want. This is the LDS opinion here: Same-Gender Attraction - LDS Newsroom

Now can we get back to the non religious discussion of how we are not required to give marital benefits to people who don't contribute to society the way marriage benefits were originally given for? That would be Prospective procreation and care for progeny.

things straight couple provide:

1. next generation
2. divorce lawyers?

apart from kids theres not a lot straight couples do that homosexuals dont. and since only ~1.5% of Americans ID themselves as GBL (point 5) there are an abundance of straight families to pop out the next generation.

p.s the church of LDS only has a .43% lead on openly GBL people so you might be a little outnumbered.

 

[Autodidact]

things straight couple provide:

1. next generation
2. divorce lawyers?

apart from kids theres not a lot straight couples do that homosexuals dont. and since only ~1.5% of Americans ID themselves as GBL (point 5) there are an abundance of straight families to pop out the next generation.

p.s the church of LDS only has a .43% lead on openly GBL people so you might be a little outnumbered.

Well then apparently LDS meet madhatter's definition of abnormal, which was as I recall a numerical minority. Further, it's behavioral. Why would we be required to provide rights to an abnormal group based on their behavior? *hint* If madhatter can figure out this one, he might understand why it's important to provide rights to minorities, including gay people.

 

[McBell]

*hint* If madhatter can figure out this one, he might understand why it's important to provide rights to minorities, including gay people.

He does not want to figure anything out.
Madhatter is only trying to justify/ratify his own beliefs.
He is not the least bit interested in truth or facts.
If you do not believe me, just look this here thread over.

 

[Alceste]

Call us what you want. This is the LDS opinion here: Same-Gender Attraction - LDS Newsroom

Now can we get back to the non religious discussion of how we are not required to give marital benefits to people who don't contribute to society the way marriage benefits were originally given for? That would be Prospective procreation and care for progeny.

Should post-menopausal women be allowed to marry? Was there ever a time in history when post-menopausal women were not allowed to marry?

 

[Autodidact]

Alceste: Would you please ask madhatter whether heterosexual couples who do not intend to bear their own children should be allowed to marry, and keep asking him until he answers? Thanks. My guess is that you will have to resort to the embarassing (to him) large colored fonts before he will acknowledge the question.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

I don't think members of LDS should be allowed to marry.

 

[Autodidact]

I don't think members of LDS should be allowed to marry.

Why, because of their behavioral abnormality, or because non-Mormon homes are the best place to raise children?

 

[Mr Cheese]

He does not want to figure anything out.
Madhatter is only trying to justify/ratify his own beliefs.
He is not the least bit interested in truth or facts.
If you do not believe me, just look this here thread over.

: hamster :

Indeed, madhatter is essentially a troll...

In that he really refuses to acknowledge anyone or anything , unless it promotes his bigotry.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

Why, because of their behavioral abnormality, or because non-Mormon homes are the best place to raise children?

Because all this thread has proven is that their offspring will be raised to be bigots.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Because all this thread has proven is that their offspring will be raised to be bigots.

but thats a behavioural thing, so it doesnt count...

or does it?

I'm confused...left is black and green is up...

one minute its homosexuals are genetic defects, next its al;l a behavioural choice, then we have the fact that homosexuals are secretly killing the human race, by their very existence....

:foot: at this point, I'm all for full frontal lobotomys to everyone....
then we could all be equal and there'd be none of this confusion and double talk

(the only non gross pic I could find)