How Does One Justify Being Anti-homosexual Rights?

Why does it have to only be the couple that produces the child? Heterosexual couples also use an outside person to make children if one in the couple is unable to. I don't know the legality of it, but I know it happens, so surely it works out.

 

I said no insults please or you will get this thread locked down.

 

The state can do many things, but it cannot distinguish between citizens and reserve civil rights for one group without demonstrating a compelling necessity to do so.

Unless there is a necessity we all have a right to be treated as equal under the law. Historical prejudice, religious belief, animus... these are not sufficient reasons under the law. But other than them, no one has offered a reason why the state needs to deny a marriage license to a same sex couple.​

 

So Dixon, it doesn't matter if a married couple can procreate or not as their group can, right? So I have a solution, lump all married couples (homo or hetero) into the "married couple" group and you get a group who has the potential to procreate.

 

/sarcasm on
Yeah... just like a black person can marry someone of the same race just like a white person can, so why do they need a special right just for them?
/sarcasm off

 

that wasn't an insult, it was an observation.

 

It was unnecessary to your point and it is easily interpreted as offensive.

 

It doesnt have to be. But, ANY two consenting adults can procreate using the assistance of a third person. Nothing special about those who happen to be gay. And seems silly to argue that marriage cant be limited to heterosexual couples because of the potential of procreation of procreation, but you want it extended to all gays on the off hand chance they might want to use a surrogate or sperm donor to make a kid. Heterosexual sex has a strong, natural tendency to lead to procreation. There is no such tendency of homosexual sex to lead to surrogacy or invitro fertilization.

 

Nothing has to be special about homosexuals. Homosexuals Also raise children. Did you know 25% of homosexual couples raise children? Only 19% of those are adopted. Also note that in some states they can't even adopt, so it would be higher, also it is not a big difference from heterosexual couples, which is 44%. So all couples can cause procreation to happen.

 

Children not with both their mother and father are raised by a wide variety of alternate pairs of adults. Nothing special about those who happen to be gay that could possibly justify such special treatment for homosexuals

If they adopt, the child support payments from the other biological parent stops. So they frequently dont adopt.

 

Don't treat them special. Removing the gender restriction on marriage doesn't even need to address homosexuals, much less elevate them for some kind of special treatment.​

Is that speculation or do you have some numbers and sources to offer?​

 

Speculation that child support payments stop when the child is adopted by someone else, or that some homosexuals dont adopt the children they care for? Neither are speculation.

 

No. Whether child support has anything to do with 6% you were addressing. Do you know if any significant portion of that group is even receiving child support?​

 

Actually, if both biological parents agree, no one has to pay child support (at least in New Mexico), which is what happens when homosexual couples help each other create children. If the biological parents had to pay child support, no one would agree to that and not as many children would be created by homosexual couples.

 

Nonsense.The state imposes child support. The parents can only surrender their parental rights as someone else adopts the child.

 

the state does no such thing. one party must SEEK an intervention for the state to order child support payments.

 

You dont have a clue as to what you are talking about. Used to date a girl worked for the State Attorney Generals office. Her only job was bringing court actions against deadbeat fathers who the mother had not sought child support from.

 

good for you. the state does not impose child support without a party seeking intervention. they have no way of knowing whether a party is paying for childcare or not.

 

The state is named as the one the actions is brought under. Like I said, you dont have a clue. But thats never stopped you before. And the government knows when the mother seeks financial assistance from the state for herself and her child.

 

yes, one of the parties brings the action to the state. the state doesn't go looking to impose anything.

yes, they of course know WHEN ONE OF THE PARTIES BRINGS IT TO THEIR ATTENTION. Let me know when you are finished making my point for me, lol

 

Nope, one of the parties seeks assistance from the state to provide for themselves and their children, and the state that brings the action against the biological father. Frequently the women wont even cooperate in identifying or locating the father.

 

I don't know why you keep posting things that prove my point.

the state doesn't impose anything without a party seeking intervention.

let me know when you're done proving my point for me.

 

They arent seeking intervention by the courts. They are seeking public assistance from the governent, NOT their babies father. And obviously you havent even yet comprehended my point.

 

never said they were seeking intervention from the courts, you have confused yourself. and of course I have comprehended your point, that's why I have been refuting it for the past 3 pages.

 

They arent seeking intervention from anybody captain irrelevant.