How to Stop Homophobic Behaviour

LOLOLO!!!! ah geez. Government doesnt encourage only heterosexuals to marry because they like to "sleep together". They do so because when they do sleep together, children are frequently the result. Families are formed.
Nothing special about gays that would justify such special treatment for gays not available to any two consenting adults. ANY two people could adopt a child, use invitro or a surrogate mother. Gays arent some kind of 2nd best option to nuclear families made up of mothers and fathers raising the children they have created.

 

But neither the desire nor the capability to reproduce or raise children is even considered in affording access to the contract to heterosexuals.

A 90 year old female cancer patient in the last seconds of her life can marry an 18 year old
healthy male. Obviously that has something to do with factors other than the capability to procreate.

How about the free choice of individuals who are similarly or, in some cases, identically situated to enter into governmentally recognised contracts when the government has no compelling interest to exclude them?

 

Many anti-gay folks do exactly as you're saying above. And you're correct... people just aren't going to shut-up because others disagree with them.

 

That is 'part' of the reason; surely not the only one.

They have virtually as much interest in allowing same-sex couples the right to marry as well. And if you cannot see that after all of this discussion, then people are wasting their time arguing with you.

 

another epiphany

then we agree that govt either needs to get out of the business of marriage or make it any 2 consenting adults be they straight, gay, or even related.

I also say that the inequities to single people must be addressed

to come up with some type of law or ruling for 3% of the population and base it upon a specific sexual act is nuts. Either make it as simple as "any 2 consenting adults" or get out of it entirely.

Otherwise, we just perpetuate the govt even more. First it will be about how 2 people have sex. Next, it will be those who want a 3-way marriage. it will never end.

 

I would say without regard for the sex of the spouses. People who are related to each other aren't in a similar situation to people who are unrelated. For civil purposes, reciprocal benefits should perhaps be based on something less restrictive than marriage. Since marriage is a form of contract, I doubt the government is going to stop regulating those contracts.

See above.

That's a misrepresentation. It's not based on a sexual act, but on the commitment two people make to each other when they unite via their adult, voluntary consent to a long-term arrangement - one that is usually economic and which may or may not include sexual relations between them.

Now you're arguing a slippery slope - one which ignores the fact that the law differentiates between classes of people. Someone who is unmarried and seeks to marry is in a different situation than a person who is already married and seeks to add another person, or a group of people who wish to all be married to each other. Considerable modification would have to be made to the law to accommodate the latter two classes of people, and the government has no clear obligation to do that.

 

Homosexuals should stop strutting the world as if we all have to bow and scrape to their never ending,screehing demands.

We are getting sick of it!

 

If you keep making ridiculous demands, based upon your imagination (as the above), it indicates a 'sickness' alright... your own mentality.

 

Sure they are. Probably more homes right now made up of two single, closely related people than there are homes made up of gay lovers. Many of them raising children. With procreation removed from the equation, the fact that a couple is engaging in sexual relations becomes irrelevant.

 

Two closely related people are equally capable of entering such a relationship. Where is the misrepresentation

 

Thats because we dont know which couples will procreate. We only know that all that do will be exclusively among the heterosexual couples.

 

if you want equity then it must be any 2 consenting adults. Just because you might be sickened at the thought of mom and son getting married does not mean that it is wrong. You would then be a hypocrite because you argue that 2 women should be recognized as married yet want to deny mon and son.

And with respect to a 3 person "marriage", why not? Ultimately, the only equitable method is for govt to only recognize the individual and to let partnership contracts take care of the rest.

 

flat out lie. homosexuals procreate all the time. you don't need to be a "couple" in order to procreate. you don't even need to have intercourse to procreate

 

Nope. Physical impossibility for a homosexual couple to procreate. Grasp hold of a little reality if you can. What you speak of is at most ONE of the couple and a 3rd person procreating. ANY two consenting adults could do that. Nothing special about gays that would warrant such special treatment for gays.

 

They dont want equity or equality. They want special treatment for gays because they think they are so special.

 

Yours is a very liberal position on the issue. I'm just telling you how the law works. If you want mother & son to be able to marry each other, you're going to have to 1) convince legislators it's a good idea, 2) defeat public referenda trying to ban it in state constitutions, and/or 3) convince the courts that a mother & son are similarly situated to other couples.

In other words - the very things that same-sex couples and their allies are attempting to do. No one gets a free ride here.

It is not the purpose of the law to make everyone equal. That is not what "equal protection of the laws" means.

My arguments are not a moral judgment. They're an attempt to get people to understand how the legal system actually works. Seriously, do a web search for "similar situation" and "judicial review". Educate yourself so that we can discuss the matter intelligently.

I'm not advocating either way on parent/child marriage. What I am doing, is refuting your demand that if 2 people of the same-sex marry, then parents have to be allowed to marry their children. That isn't how the law works.

The law is not equipped to handle that situation. It's not just a matter of some court declaring that 3 people have to be allowed to marry each other. It will require a complete overhaul of marriage law; a very different situation than expanding civil marriage to include same-sex couples.

I don't disagree. Just don't confuse "equitable" with "equal protection of the laws". They aren't the same thing. The laws are not designed to be equitable. Quite the opposite, in fact.

 

strawman. nobody here has advocated that ONLY gays be allowed to marry.

 

Well, this thread isnt about marriage but the abundunce of other threads on "gay marriage" certainly do advocate the current marriage be only extended to including gays

 

The above will go a LONG WAY toward combating HOMOPHOBIA (indeed).

 

You and your ilk who constantly bombard everyone else with your increasing, incessant outrageous demands, that are sick.Like a boorish child, you will never be satisified until the whole world is turned into a homosexual cesspit!

 

You dramatize reality (that is sickening), and expect thinking people to take you seriously? Get real. I and those who are homosexual, are hardly doing what you say. No one needs your DRAMA, and it doesn't help society one iota.

You may buy the BS you're putting down, but I surely won't.

Oh, I WILL be persistent, BUT can you please list the "outrageous demands" that you claim are "increasing" for ALL participants here to see?

Do you think that "homophobic" behavior is 'okay'? Tell me exactly what they hell you're talking about. The typical anti-gay RANTS won't do in this era; sorry.

You are surely misled and lack understanding, concerning what 'I' am generally getting at overall. I look at YOUR response, and see a form of societal neurosis; I surely do.

You are definitely misguided and express a distorted view of reality. And I GUARANTEE you, I will not ever cease speaking for people's rights. So if what you see here bothers you that much, you need to PUT ME ON IGNORE RIGHT NOW! How is it I'm supposed to embrace the BS you're putting out, and then YOU expect myself and others to NOT respond. Or are you completely unaware that you are relating OPINIONS, and not actually defining 'reality' itself?

Yeah, you've pissed me off; but I will always attempt to be 'civil'.

 

nope, not a single thread advocates extending marriage to ONLY homosexuals.

 

only because I like you will I let you call me a liberal

 

Soooooo make it a mother and daughter. A brother and brother. A sister and sister. They are of the "same sex". Or when you refer to "same sex couples", do you really mean gay couples?