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

Until conclusive evidence can be provided that explains what causes homosexuality, the government has no moral or legal obligation to alter the existing definition of marriage.

 

Why gays deserve special rights while man and his siter don't.
Please explain.

 

There was no single evidence has ever been presented supporting the idea that homosexuality has anything to do with marriage.

 

That's quite a silly idea.

Causation doesn't change the circumstances of homosexual relationships. Nor does it change the fact that they are deserving of and in need of the responsibilities, protections, and benefits of marriage.

 

There is no justification has ever been presented why homosexual relationship deserves special benefits.

 

How do you define "special"?

 

My definition is exactly the same as definition from dictionary.

spe·cial
   [spesh-uhl] adjective
1.
of a distinct or particular kind or character: a special kind of key.

2.
being a particular one; particular, individual, or certain: You'd better call the special number.

3.
pertaining or peculiar to a particular person, thing, instance, etc.; distinctive; unique: the special features of a plan.

4.
having a specific or particular function, purpose, etc.: a special messenger.

5.
distinguished or different from what is ordinary or usual: a special occasion; to fix something special.

If any two people do not get special benefits of marriage why two homosexual people should get those benefits?

 

Well then, it doesn't apply to homosexual people as we know them to be.

How does that apply to ALL homosexual people. They aren't so distinct that they're "special".

Also N/A.

N/A, unless one considers that homosexuals are NOT allowed to MARRY the person most compatible with them as human beings. (That is surely special.)

N/A

Unless one has been sleeping under a ROCK for the last 20-30 years, they'd know that the existence, normalcy and commonality of homosexual people is a PROVEN reality. Marriage of those people is imagined or "said" to be "special"... but common knowledge and observations dictates otherwise.

Because they saw to to form a FAMILY, which means they have certain NEED of those same benefits which heterosexual couples most often do. There are no small number of appropriate rights which come to married folks, which two people unofficially-partnered (or joined) do not possess. That is why two people who are married might certainly seek to be.

 

Right, every couple (regardless of sexuality) would like to have those thousands benefits of married couples, why exception should be made for homosexual couples.
Why homosexual couples are so special that they deserve special benefits?

Consider mother and daughter that live together and raise the child. Don't you think such couple deserve marriage benefits. I think it does.

Why special marriage benefits should be awarded to homosexual couples only but not to all couples?

 

Because it was never about equal rights for homosexuals but instead special rights "awarded to homosexual couples" simply because they are a homosexual couple, denied to the mother and grandmother because they are not homosexual.

 

Made distinct by the law when rights are "awarded to Homosexual couples" for no other reason than the fact that they are homosexual.

 

Those "benefits" would be proper and helpful to extend to homosexual couples (which is not legally allowed in 44 states); and it would not be an exception. Of course, you don't seem to think so.

It's not because they are "special" (because they aren't), homosexual couples get married for ALL the same reasons as heterosexual couples. So, what problem(s) do YOU see in that?

That's a STUPID analogy; you know that, right?

Again, that isn't about marriage; your analogy SUCKS.

The above is ludicrous; homosexual couples are those being 'denied' rights/benefits (in the real sense). Please, don't try twisting reality with semi-clever and unjust legal spin. Bottom line: There is nothing "special" about affording homosexual couples the same rights/benefits as those which are heterosexual.

 

There is no analogy around, there is a reality that you refuse to understand.
If homosexual couples can get marriage benefits why any other couples can't.
Are you willing to violate equal protection and discriminate non-sexual couples for sole purpose of personal satisfaction? I guess you are.

 

Yea, they call it equal rights but for special people only.

 

No. There is a REALITY that YOU clearly refuse; that your OPINION does not define the world for all others in America.

That is a POOR argument for denying 2 (unrelated, but committed) homosexual people the right to marriage; that's what your words boil down to.

That isn't the issue here, and reality should be showing you the same. I'm certain you're feigning ignorance.

All you're doing is proving you don't know what you're saying.

 

That is ignorance speaking.

 

Ok, please define commitment as reason for awarding special benefits for homosexuals. Why commitment of two homosexuals deserve thousands of benefits while commitment of two non-sexual people does not.

Speaking about reality. I saw it on television, this question was presented during Romney's debate. One woman was raised by her mother and grandmother, and she had asked exactly the same question, why her mother and grandmother could not get marriage benefits while two homosexuals can.

So people are starting to wake up and think critically. You guys have fooled people around for so long, now it is time to assess reality.

 

They have no justification. EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT they have against limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, applies equally well to their proposed limitation of marriage to sexual couples. But if just any two consenting adults were entitled to marriage, it would cease to be rights "awarded to homosexual couples" for being homosexuals. They want special rights for homosexuals because they are so special.

 

Commitment is a reason simply on the basis that on the legal side of things, it's less complicated to award contracts such as marriage to those who intend to stay in them. It's less legal complications in other words.

But that's not the main reason for the government/state to offer up the 1,000 or so rights of marriage to same sex couples - it's that it comes to down to a question of fundamental fairness. They pay their taxes and social security contributions enjoyed by other married couples; why shouldn't they also have access to those same benefits?

Economically same sex marriage has shown to bring in money (pink dollars) for both the state and businesses, and laws like DOMA are according to big companies like Google and Microsoft (who are calling for the law to be repealed) costing them time and money due to differing state level and national level legislation.

But, to answer your point about marriage being granted to homosexuals yet denied to people who aren't romantically assciociated.. technically it isn't a requirement (unless used to assist fraud for example). If it were illegal what would happen to all those loveless marriages??

 

And as for the grandma-mother analogy, if they were living together and maybe both working, then a legal "partnership" of sorts would possibly assist in some way, and maybe a separate institution should be created for that, but the argument is a strawman at best and dodging the issue. Marriage is about helping couples financially and legally on a range of things affecting life in general. The mother and daughter are already linked by family and have certain automatic rights (such as hospital visitation, inherentence rights, ect...)

Marriage between a couple essentially makes you "family".

 

enough of this strawman. nobody here has advocated for special rights for homosexuals only. not a single person. You and dixon have no valid arguments against same sex marriage, so you invent these strawmen.

neither of you fool anyone.

 

strawman. nobody is fooled.

 

To recap:

- It's NOT illegal for two people of the opposite-sex to marry if they aren't in love/having sexual relations. The law does not require this.

- It IS illegal for, say, two male friends to marry in most states on account of the lack of same-sex marriage legislation.

So if anything you've just pointed out another injustice in the law, and (if you like) another reason to grant same sex marriage.

 

This pretty much sums up my idea on it. While I may think that two consenting adults should be able to amrry one another marriage is more of a church thing.

 

The single mother and grandmother, sharing a home and raising their children and grandchildren are a "same sex couple" and yet, they are denied marriage.
The "rights of marriage to same sex couples" would at least make sense. But this limitation to same sex couples who have sex with each other makes no sense.