How Does One Justify Being Anti-homosexual Rights?

What is a "homosexual" right? Is that a right that is attracted to a right of the same sex?

 

If the rigts were made available to all individuals, they wouldnt be homosexual rights. Gays are all about special rights for gays because they are so special.

 

So then heterosexuals who wish to restrict marriage to members of their sexual orientation...want special rights?

There's two sides to every coin. You're proposing a double standard, hypocrisy in and of itself.

 

No, heterosexuals have special rights because heterosexual couples are the only couples who procreate. Gays want these same special rights for no other reason that the fact that they are gay.

 

Except that heterosexuals don't have to, want to, or be able to procreate to be married.

That's where that argument falls through completely.

And don't give me the paternity argument. Even when the husband isn't the father, i.e. when the wife gets sperm from a fertility clinic, the husband is considered the father. That argument is just as invalid.

 

1) You aren't in a position to say anything about what gay people actually do or do not want. You are not our spokesperson.

2) Gay people are individuals with the same diversity of opinions as straight individuals.

3) It's not about "special rights" based on being gay. It's about obtaining/protecting our equal rights despite some people's obsession with the irrelevant difference of our orientation.

 

Thus my statement that "heterosexual couples are the only couples who procreate". As opposed to all heterosexual couples procreate. Can you comprehend the difference in meaning of the two statements?

Actually, it has no impact upon my argument.

 

I can see what it is that they demand in the dozens of court cases they have filed seeking the creation of these homosexual rights.

 

No, you see what you want to see through the lens of your own prejudice.

I predict your next move will be to selectively quote from some case that you mistakenly believe supports your foolish notions.

In turn, we'll have to post quotes from the same cases that show where you're wrong, even though you'll never admit it and continue to insist that you're right.

Spare us this repetitious exercise in futility, please.

 

Great points!

 

You're point?

So if couples need neither prove capacity or willingness to procreate....then why would homosexuals need to be willing or able to procreate?

You're applying a double standard. Therefore your argument falls through. See how that works?

So then if a couple need not be able or willing to procreate homosexuals need not be willing or able in order to marry.

Huzzah!

 

The argument to give homosexuals equal rights is strong all over, it's sad so many people cling to hate, prejudice, and/or weak religious arguments.

 

Thats why I cling to a strong constitutional argument.

 

They dont. They only need show that they are a man and a woman. Its easy to determine the presence of a man and woman. It is impossible to determine the ability to procreate with any accuracy.

 

So it's not procreation but gender that determines right to marry?

Why would the gender of the pair matter if they don't have to be able to or willing to procreate?

 

So it's not procreation but gender that determines right to marry?

Why would the gender of the pair matter if they don't have to be able to or willing to procreate?

 

Because it is the POTENTIAL of procreation of the class of heterosexual couples, NOT the ability or willingness of the individiual couples. Which part dont you understand?

 

Yet they don't have to have the ability or willingness to procreate.

So their potential to procreate has no bearing on their right to marry.

When are you going to admit that?

 

Because if you (*)(*)(*)(*) a guy in the ass your as evil as Hitler!

We also know that all gays are pedophiles, too!


Grrrrr! Gays!!!!

Two queers (*)(*)(*)(*)ing in a hotel room 3 states over ruins my life, (*)(*)(*)(*) it!

 

How does anybody justify opposing the E.R.A.?

When our Constitution was ratified, white men were given rights. Now that they can't jump, crime still pays, for some white men, given uneven enforcement.

We needed an E.R.A., but when that came around, no attorneys made enough of a case, for it. It seems they like to churn false controversies and continue, on any hapless chumps, whom attorneys capture.

Homosexuals can get really obtuse. Finding a homosexual, who will cut to the chase and admit to a need for E.R.A. may take a venture, into the world of lesbians. There have to be lesbians, who want an equal rights amendment.

 

"Homosexual rights" are not human rights, any more than are "glutton rights", "kleptomaniac rights" or "OCD rights"; so there is nothing that needs justifying. You're welcome.

 

I don't know, but it must be a whole lot easier than trying to justify late term abortions on healthy babies. You should see some of the comments in the abortion section! The venomous hate against the unborn in that section is far worse than anything you'll find here.

 

This isn't about abortion.

 

Not sure I follow your fool logic. "Their" (heterosexual couples") potential to procreate has everything to do with marriages limitation to hetersexual couples. The individual couples potential to procreate has no bearing on their right to marry.

 

this is a self defeating argument.

their ability to procreate is why marriage is limitted to heterosexuals, regardless of their ability to procreate. How can you say such an idiotic thing with a straight face?