What Rights (If Any) Should Be Awarded To Homosexual Couples #2?

A minscule minority of the world's population. Don't be under another delusion.

 

Prove what you're saying. Don't make up stuff, then try to insult people because they don't buy your BS. Please, grow up.

 

It's hard to take anyone, who can't spell "Hallelujah" correctly, serious.

 

We can't know how many homosexuals there are. Only we can know it in the countries where is completely legal and with the same rights. And this theoric legal equality is new, in the case of Spain and Canada that I think that were the first ones to introduce it only 6 years.

And for example in the case of Spain, and we could extrapolate to the rest of the world we can talk about 2%-3% of homosexuals. But also we can't affirm that, maybe the numbers are bigger, but as minimum that numbers.

This minority, that is not so, need the same rights like the rest of people. And if they want to marry or adopt they should be able to do so.

 

If the only argument you can use in favour of homosexual marriage is to recognise a spelling mistake,you must be really desperate. Your arguments in favour of a homosexual marriage charade sounds more hollow and pathetic every day.!

 

All right, well tell me, and everyone else on this site, how many, and what proportion of the world's population, is covered by legislation in favour of homosexual marriage. And I mean actual legislation, not some fantasy legislation that you 'hope' (in your dreams)will be passed.

I bet you it's minscule, no matter how hard you try and pump it up to gargantuan proportions!

 

yup...............

 

already proven it's not a delusion, seeing as same sex marriage exists in MANY countries, including the US.

 

The number of people is not the issue: we're talking about "delusions", remember? You're the one who brought it up.

It wouldn't matter if SSM only existed in one country with a population of 1000 people. If it exists (somewhere/anywhere), it's not a delusion.

So, move on please. You're just continuing to make a fool of yourself.

 

It has more validity than your argument that gay marriage is a delusion. The six states that have legalized gay marriage simple point out the fact that you are the one that's delusional here.

 

If you feed the troll they will always come back for more - since someone has proven themselves to be an absolute moron, numerous times, it is best to let the troll go back into their cave.

 

Correction, six states had given special rights to homosexual couples. The delusion is to think that marriage equality has been achieved in those states.

 

It is equal in terms of giving homosexual couples the right to marry the person they love and the ability to enjoy the same protections, rights and benefits that straight people enjoy/take for granted.

It also removes the gender-discrimination - one can marry a person of their choosing of either sex. As a result it allows anyone in the general populace to marry twice as many people as they could before. It's about opening up an institution in order to strengthen it in the 21st century, contrary to claims from the right of causing it irreparable harm. It's about societal evolution, freedom of choice, and the future of marriage itself as a social and legal institution. The social ramifications cannot be underestimated, but the legal side and the civil rights aspect are the qualities that make it so sought after, and there are so many which strengthen relationships and households of all kinds - single sex or mixed sex, to deny it to same-sex couples is cruel and without any real objective.

To say marriages is there merely to regulate procreation is to deny that many already have access to it despite having no natural ability, couples who are identically situated yet can freely access 1000's of rights simply because of their genders. That is a discrepancy I am not willing to accept, nor in fact your faulty premise of procreational ability being the only state interest. There are so many rights in marriage to connect unrelated people and legally bind us to those we ourselves choose as our family, and not the legal relationships afforded simply because of birth relation, that we can see it's firmly in civil rights territory. And honestly, the government should serve the people, not the other way around. The rights are ours to take for that reason. We should demand no less than full choice on the matter, even if we ourselves only wish to use the law as it is. It's a question of fundamental freedom.

 

Right marriage has been open for gays only. I hope you agree.
Now, could you please provide me definition of identical.
New meaning of the term has been introduced by insane uneducated judges in Iowa, and they have never been able to explain what identical means.
From scientific stand point opposite sex couples and same sex couples are fundamentally different, how it has happened that they become identical.
When exactly it happened?

 

So you are saying that in the states that allow same sex marriage, two female friends that are heterosexual cannot marry each other?

I see no special rights for gay people.

 

They could be excluded if either party sought an annulment or dissolution and the courts did so for a failure to consummate. Marriage limited to sexual couples. Heterosexual couples because they have the potential of procreation, homosexuals because they also have sex.

 

What you're saying simply lacks practical meaning.

 

But if they kept quiet about it they could live out their days enjoying all the tax breaks etc. inherent in legal marriage.

They could also sign a "no-sex" pre-nup just in case one was harbouring secret and lusty desires. Same effect, same benefits same right to a full divorce.

 

I am "straight", "love" my brother but cant marry him. Straights and gays have the same right. Gays choose not to enter into marriages because they prefer having sex with someone of the same sex. I as a 51 yr old divorcee, too set in my ways, choose not to marry the woman I have sexual relations with. Would be nice if government were to modify marriage to something I might be more interested in partaking of, but I have no constitutional right that mandates the government do so. Heterosexual couples arent encouraged to marry because they like to have sex with each other, but instead because when they have sex with each other, children are the frequent result.

If you want to forceably separate marriage from procreation, you cant forceably maintain a connection to sex. Argue marriage should be made available to any two consenting adults if you want but marriage "awarded to homosexual couples" because they rub genitals just like a real mom and dad is just absurd.

 

Just as homosexuals could marry someone of the opposite sex and live out their days enjoying all the tax breaks etc inherent in legal marriage

 

It's been opened up for anyone wanting to marry a member of their own sex. Gays are the main beneficiaries of course, but you can add to that bisexuals and single-sex friends of a non-sexual nature. It is by no means a law that only gay people can access - technically it creates more rights for everyone.

You've missed the point again. I was talking about procreative ability. There are opposite sex couples who cannot procreate due to being too old or simply sterile. A 90 year old women would not be able to conceive yet can still marry and attain 1000's of rights from the state for no other reason than her sexuality. That only men and women procreate has no relevance to her case, since you could easily have an upper age limit, or exclude post-menopausal couples.

Older couples and sterile couples prove unequivocally that procreational ability cannot be used as a reason. Time to come up with a better one or accept defeat.

 

Silly logic. Doesnt even impact upon the reasons used. Heterosexuals arent encouraged to marry because all heterosexual couples procreate, they are encouraged because they are the ONLY couples who procreate. And besides, you cant complain that marriage laws are over inclusive, and use that fact to make them even more overinclusive.

 

You already have a legal kinship that could NEVER exist between an unrelated couple without a legal bond such as marriage. A lot of the provisions in marriage demonstratably exist for that purpose - to make 'family' of those who aren't blood related.

If you can legalise women's suffrage without removing the age/nationality limit on voting, I'd say you can remove the gender discrimination in marriage without removing every other "practical" limitation - such as prohibiting marriage between family members.

"Blacks and whites have the same right. People who are in interracial relationships chose not to because they prefer having sex with a different race".

Still doesn't address adequately nor constitutionally the issue of people known not be able to procreate (sterile/barren/old couples). It's an over inclusive characterisation based on gender/sexuality, which has the effect of awarding people who do not fit the initial criteria 1000's of rights simply because of the type of sex they have. That is not constitutional. Marriage must be either limited by the purpose you claim it to be (encouragement, regulation and accountability of procreation), or granted to those who do not have that ability as a legal contract between individuals of any gender. You can't have a half and scenario with a criteria based on how people have sex - THAT'S special rights.