Gays have just as much of a right to marry

You should know by now, that isn't absolutely true. (It isn't even worth debating with you anymore.)

Makes them a couple (whether you like it or not). That they may at some point get "married", shouldn't be subject to your opinions or wishes.

Homosexual couples can surely have children within them; more than a few gay people have kids when they enter into "homosexual" relationships (just as straight people do). Some others have children via surrogates (just as heterosexuals do).

Your notion that homosexual couples cannot or do not have families is simply biased and ludicrous.

 

Brothers and sisters have just as much of a right to marry as anyone else, they can just marry someone they're not related to.


*******
Interesting that you bring up interracial marriage. Loving v. Virginia upheld the rational you're questioning here.

Where the anti-interracial marriage argument failed was when it could not substantiate a 'compelling state interest' in maintaining racial purity.

There is no sexual-orientation purity equivalent, so the 2 are not comparable.

 

But gay couples have proven themselves to be similarly situated to most heterosexual couples (those that can procreate naturally with each other) for the purpose of administration of the marriage contract; thereby satisfying the legal standard. Furthermore they are identically situated to the remainder of heterosexual couples (those that cannot naturally procreate with each other) thereby exceeding the requirements of the legal standard.

Having proved this position, it falls upon on the state to provide compelling and necessary reasons to deny them access to the contract based on gender.

To round off, notions of racial purity were just a smokescreen to cover the fact that certain whites hated blacks and thought they were inferior. They honestly thought you could catch "the black" merely by touching a black person. Their notions of "racial purity" were not served by denial of access to the marriage contract because a black person could copulate with a white person even if they weren't married and a black person and a white person were equally capable of being infertile even if they were!

Notice any similarities here?

 

I'm doing my best to explain this to him but it's as if he keeps sticking his fingers in his ears and goind LALALALAL. I think he's just trolling - there's no way a grownup could find this difficult.

 

Why are you willing to compare your gold standard, kids with a mom and a dad, with identically placed kids with the single exception that is germane to this topic - they have gay parents instead of straight one. Still two of them. Just of the same sex.

It's the only comparison worth bothering with in this context.

 

So you're saying, in the context of a thread called "gays have just as much right to marry" that comparing every type heterosexual parenting under the sun while ignoring the kids parented by the people in the subject line is definitely the best way to gain insight into the issue. Do I have that right?

 

There it is. I knew you had slipped up.

If you're going to make the claim that some relationship factors like race (or height, or whether they're god people or cat people) has no bearing on that couple's ability to form a nuclear family. But there is one very specific factor that is FUNDAMENTAL, meaning without it a nuclear family cannot be formed. And that factor is a simple binary. Gay or not?

Ok, fair enough. We should address a definition first. Is a nuclear family one with a mother and father who are the genetic and legal parents of their kids? Or the legal parents but not necessarily their offspring? Do the parents have to be of different sexes? So there's the continuum. We're not going to include, say the possiblity of cars and buildings raising kids and whether that would fit into the definition. Why? Because nobody has brought it up, it doesn't happen in the real world, and it's one of an infinite number of crazy hypotheticals all of which would need to be considered by the rules that allowed this one in. So we're not going to consider crazy stuff, just the range of possibilities that might be found here, on earth, in the US, early in the 21st century.

Ok. If your definition of what constitutes a nuclear family is the most liberal of the three I proposed, allowing that two men with a child are as much a nuclear family as the nice normal family next door then two things happen. You and I agree, which we don't, and your statement making a big deal about nuclear families, who can make them, and their importance to our culture becomes non-informative. Why bother making a big fuss over the distinction only to allow that every possible permutation involving two parents and children falls into the favored group? All you've done is explained how it's faster to say "family" than "nuclear family" because they are the same thing.

But you're not saying that, either. The only alternative is that one or both of the most liberally inclusive definitions (gay parents and straight non-biological parents) are in some way less fit as parents or in other ways do less good than your gold standard. Now you've been very helpful in explaining how the statistics support not even considering single parent families to be nuclear certified. We get that. And it's a fair point that nobody has a problem with. So single parents are not even going to get a spot at the table.

There's been a little talk about adoption here but you haven't even tried to provide a reason to exclude families based on genetics, so let's allow non biological straight parents in, but we can make it provisional if you have some data for us. Just so we can get out by lunch, ok?

Now you keep coming back to comparing the gold standard (I know, yes. He is very handsome. Yes, I would love to be friends with them. Please try to focus.) with single parents, drug addled single parents, abusive undereducated single parents. And we do appreciate that you want us to understand that these myriad groups we can just call "other" are not being considered for excellent reasons. The list you provided has been very helpful in that regard, but, as I keep pointing out, we all agree with you and none of the "others" were even up for membership at this time. But there is one other group who actually are arguing for inclusion, and they are the folks named in the title of this thread, and they're actually right over there so. No, over there. You can turn your head farther and stop pretending you can't see them waving at you. Ok. You can't see them. But you are aware that the purpose of this hearing is to assess whether or not they should be allowed to proudly wear the title "nuclear." That's why we're here after all. So I propose we take all the very helpful metrics of good parenting that you kindly provided - we'll just use those ones because we can assume you won't object to using your own criteria - and we'll just see how those folks over there stack up against the rest and then we can get lunch.

Where did he go? I know he's not under arrest but I mean how did get out?

He seems to have left a bunch of pnotocopies explaining how cannibals are definitely terrible parents.

 

Any human that advocates for the Marriage Rite is an idiot that supports religion thats all ,yes religious nutters are all types of sexual preference.Thats all its about of god nutter LGBTIQC people wanting to get married just like their other god nutter friends ,and a convenient political distraction for all those jumping on the band wagon.

 

Rebuttal,Marriage is a religious RITE ,not a democratic Right you do understand the difference don't you?

Religious RITES ,are primative Triballly based thinking backward and culturally inappropiate in the 21st century for anyone including homosexual people.

Marriage is nothing more or less then a Property contract which as far as I know homosexuals have the right to make Property contracts except mariage contracts [which can be done different ways .

Is the Gay Marriage thing about the right of Homosexuals getting dressed in wedding gowns like all other wifes and going down a church Isle like good catholics can ??

If thats the case go for it ,I to hate Catholic Hypocracy ,why any human wants to get maaried is beyond me .so if Marraige Rites for religious mided homosexuals is established will you pack in this rediculous crap of the LGBTIQC rights movement,if its about Religious nutters having the same RITES go for it nothing to do with the rest of the Non religious or Anti-marriage \divorce population.thats about the other 98% that marraige Rites for Homosexuals is about as important as what the price of fish in Norway is today.


Why the feelings of Homosexual religious nutters is of so much import when many other issues in relation ship to HIV \AIDS particularly in the USA are of a more immediate Life and death naturefor the Human community as whole and for the Homosexual community in Particular.

Hello Homosexuals are still denied medical support in the USA ,now the Right to health care for HIV\AiDS sufferers irrespective of income or health coverage is truely a Right worth fighting for.

 

Stop hating, vilifying and persecuting homosexual people.