Marriage and sexuality

[Autodidact]

I have already responded to these.
Infertility is not behavioral and cannot compare to homosexuality. Infertility is not a behavior someone is compelled to do. Your argument is thus irrelevant.

Only if you can explain why behavioral vs. medical is a relevant distinction, which you have so far failed to do.

 

[Autodidact]

I said infertility is NOT behavioral


False, Homosexuals do not lose volition as to who they can reproduce with.
The infertile person loses volition as to reproduce at all.

Correct. Gay people can choose to live a false life of deception and lies, without integrity or love. That seems to be your approach.

I have addressed them and pointed out supreme court rulings. You just don't like the answers :banghead3:

No, I don't like wilful misinterpretation. The Supreme Court has held on at least three occasions, in three different contexts, that marriage is a fundamental right. I realize you don't like that fact, since it dooms your argument, but it is a fact.

 

[Autodidact]

SSM pundits keep bringing up supreme court rulings and not showing their quotes in context. I am just bringing to light their own misunderstandings of court rulings.

madhatter, you're the one who asserted that marriage is a privilege, not a right. You were wrong. Had you admitted that, you would have enhanced your credibility. As it is, you've sacrificed it.

It is better to invest in heterosexual couples who are loving.

Why?

There are plenty of loving and infertile couples who would, and do, adopt children who become victim of irresponsible parents or neglect/abuse.

Not enough, though, not nearly enough. Keeping any qualified parents out is abusive and cruel. There are thousands of children right now who need homes. Bigots like you would like to prevent them from having one, just because the potential adoptive parents are of the same-sex.

Wills can be put in place, living trusts, etc... they have access to all the same legal tools.

Really? Gay people can marry? Oh, you mean in Maine, Massachussetts, Iowa, Connecticut and Vermont.

 

[Autodidact]

But it does make all the difference in the world.

You cannot compare apples to oranges because they are not the same. Homosexuality is different from infertility, ethnicity, and gender on so many levels, yet SSM pundits forget these obvious facts.

And also the same on so many level. For example, same-sex couples are identical to infertile couples in that they cannot have children without some intervention.

 

[TheKnight]

One, we are not talking about extra priviligues. Two, there are many forms of love. I could never love another man the way I would love I wife.

Legally speaking, all marriage consists of is the bestowing of extra privileges.

Not really. With some exceptions, society should not care that much. If it does, it needs to be changed.

If society is the one bestowing privileges, then it should care.

I must point one thing out. When I think of marriage, I think of a union between two individuals. To put it simple. So when people talk about providing extra priviligues to anyone with homosexual marriage... it is not about anyone gaining extra priviligues, just that anyone should be able to marry the love of their life, even if that person is of the same sex.

Homosexuals can already have relationships with one another. All marriage is (outside of the relationships that they already have) is legal bestowing of rights and privileges.

Or do you believe that homosexuals should be allowed to join in a religiously authored union?

 

[Kerr]

Homosexuals can already have relationships with one another. All marriage is (outside of the relationships that they already have) is legal bestowing of rights and privileges.

Or do you believe that homosexuals should be allowed to join in a religiously authored union?

Personally, yes. Or at last I don´t think that the law should be in the way. Someone once said that it shouldn´t be the governments business, and that it should be up to the religious institutions in question. While I personally think they should all allow gay people to marry, I think that the person in question has a point in that the government should not be the one who hold the restraints... even if I think we maybe should take it one step further. Anyway, that is only about religious marriages, there are secular ones and in those it should not matter if they are hetrosexuals or homosexuals.

 

[Kerr]

Legally speaking, all marriage consists of is the bestowing of extra privileges.

And I think they should not be handed out depending on what someones sexual orientation is.

If society is the one bestowing privileges, then it should care.

Society is not everything.

 

[TheKnight]

Personally, yes. Or at last I don´t think that the law should be in the way. Someone once said that it shouldn´t be the governments business, and that it should be up to the religious institutions in question. While I personally think they should all allow gay people to marry, I think that the person in question has a point in that the government should not be the one who hold the restraints... even if I think we maybe should take it one step further. Anyway, that is only about religious marriages, there are secular ones and in those it should not matter if they are hetrosexuals or homosexuals.

Outside of the legal aspect of marriage, what is a marriage in your opinion? Because I'm not sure I understand you. If you believe that marriage is a bond of love, then what is stopping two gay people from entering a bond of love with one another? The fact that the government won't give them extra privileges for it?

And I think they should not be handed out depending on what someones sexual orientation is.

I agree.

Society is not everything.

I know, but that's not relevant. If society is doing the bestowing, then it is up to society how to bestow it. If I'm giving out money, it's up to me how to give it out. Anything else is theft.

 

[Venatoris]

Legally speaking, all marriage consists of is the bestowing of extra privileges.

The privileges are only "extra" if marriage is not available to everyone.

 

[TheKnight]

The privileges are only "extra" if marriage is not available to everyone.

Wrong. The privileges are extra if not everyone has them. For instance, single people don't get those privileges, hence, the privileges are extra.

 

[Kerr]

Outside of the legal aspect of marriage, what is a marriage in your opinion? Because I'm not sure I understand you. If you believe that marriage is a bond of love, then what is stopping two gay people from entering a bond of love with one another? The fact that the government won't give them extra privileges for it?

Marriage has many levels. I view it as a bound of love, Autodidact mentioned it is a foundation for a family, which is another aspect of it. There is also a huge legal aspect. It is not something that belong to any religion in my opinion. Marriage exist both as a secular union and as a religious one, and I think most religions have it, not just the Abrahamic ones.

I know, but that's not relevant. If society is doing the bestowing, then it is up to society how to bestow it. If I'm giving out money, it's up to me how to give it out. Anything else is theft.

Sometimes the rules are wrong, though.

 

[Venatoris]

Wrong. The privileges are extra if not everyone has them. For instance, single people don't get those privileges, hence, the privileges are extra.

Like I said, If marriage is not available to all single people. If everyone can get married then everyone has the opportunity to get these privileges. If opportunities are equal to all there is nothing extra about it.

 

[McBell]

Or do you believe that homosexuals should be allowed to join in a religiously authored union?

I don't give two cricket farts what any religion claims marriage to be.
The fact is that religion only adds fluff and window dressing to a legal contract.

It is not the fluff and window dressing that same sex couples want.
It is the ability to enter into a legal contract.

 

[madhatter85]

Like I said, If marriage is not available to all single people.

Marriage is available to all single people regardless of race, gender, creed or otherwise. They all have equal opportunity to marry anyone they choose that is of the opposite sex.

Marriage, as defined by the Supreme Court is fundamental to our very existence and survival. Homosexual acts and behavior does not coincide with supreme court ruling as homosexual acts and behavior are notfundamental to our very existence and survival.

 

[MoonWater]

Homosexuals of course can marry any member of the opposite sex they wish if they desire to receive benefits of marriage.

yeah, but they can't marry someone they love like heterosexuals can. THAT is why it is discriminatory to outlaw same sex marriage.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

I am still waiting for an explanation about why discrimination against marriage based on sexuality is any different than discrimination against marriage based on race. As strong as some of you feel about this you must be able to explain.

 

[madhatter85]

I am still waiting for an explanation about why discrimination against marriage based on sexuality is any different than discrimination against marriage based on race. As strong as some of you feel about this you must be able to explain.

Race is not behavioral.

Behavioral discrimination takes place all the time and is not illegal. People who choose to conduct themselves in a certain manner are subject to restrictions legally and socially.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

Race is not behavioral.

Behavioral discrimination takes place all the time and is not illegal. People who choose to conduct themselves in a certain manner are subject to restrictions legally and socially.

BullPoop it's not! There are many people in the world that would say it is improper to marry or even date outside of your own race. Hey, you are free to marry anyone you wish as long as they are of the same race. See? It doesn't feel very nice when it's something you are doing that is criticized. It doesn't matter if you fall in love with someone of a different race. Push those feelings aside and marry someone else. Otherwise you are wrong.

(For the record I am not racist. I am just showing how discriminating against same sex marriage is no different than racial discrimination.)

 

[Mr Cheese]

Race is not behavioral.

Behavioral discrimination takes place all the time and is not illegal. People who choose to conduct themselves in a certain manner are subject to restrictions legally and socially.

how do u ignore someone please, anyone?

thanks

 

[Kerr]

Marriage is available to all single people regardless of race, gender, creed or otherwise. They all have equal opportunity to marry anyone they choose that is of the opposite sex.

And there are many of us that thinks marriage should include being able to marry someone of the same sex.