QUESTION: Same-Sex compared to Same-blood marriage

Yes but the "recognition of marriage" is something the state has no right to do, because by doing so its selectively prejudices and discriminates against a certain group of people.

That is regulation.

Which is prejudice, hence the evidence of discrimination. Why should marriage be restricted? It is clearly not a definitive social arrangement. It changes over time and space. Simply because America has had a history of heterosexual, coupled (ie two people) marriages is no reason for that arrangement alone to be encouraged.

You miss my point. The state should have no standards outside of consenting adults!

LOL See above.

 

The marriage license is not a regulation it is a license granted to qualified individuals. Homosexuals can qualify by marrying a person of the opposite sex.

It is not prejudiced, any man and any woman can get married to each other. Contracts are the very definition of restrictive. It is a definitive social arrangement and has been since the inception of America. Most of the world has had a history of heterosexual marriage. That's because the overwhelming majority of human beings are normal, heterosexuals. Homosexuality is an aberration. Aberrations, just like mutations, are not generally encouraged in human society.


You miss my point. The state should have no standards outside of consenting adults!


LOL See above.[/QUOTE]

 

And I would argue that you skirted the question here simply to continue justifying why you can cherry-pick which consenting adults can get married and which can't after accusing others of being wrong for doing so.

 

Which is a regulation of social contracts - it gives benefits to some and not others.

Exactly - the arrangement places a precedent on one set of contracts over another, establishing regulation of social conditions through arbitrary and immoral discrimination.

Yes it is else, such benefits would be to ANY contractual agreement for connected living.

No - they cant get married to the opposite sex, they cant marry multiple people etc etc.

LOL No, they are entirely based on the notion of free and open consent. Regulation is the arrangement you describe.

So? Slavery was as well. You think that should come back too?

Again so what? Its also similarly had slavery, an overwhelming lack of democracy, equal rights (for women and men) so on and so forth. This is not an argument.

Why is heterosexuality "normal" whereas homosexuality isnt?

So you dont believe in freedom after all! I knew it. All you believe about it was is "encouraged by human society". But let me ask you two things -

- In light of that sense of morality, you would agree then that slavery, democracy and so forth are all "aberrations" because they were never 'generally encouraged' in human society?

- And the biggest question of all - why should anyone care what is "encouraged by human society" as a basis for law and morals?

The state should have no standards outside of the desires of consenting adults when it comes to civil unions!

 

I agree. Such an arbitrary division is as stupid and nonsensical as that placed against homosexuality in marriage to begin with. This is why ALL consenting civil unions should be recognized.

 

and who is guilty of that?

Yes the filthy rich and royalty to keep the money and power in the family. Its why they are all nuts even today.

why would anyone want the gubafia to control what goes on their bedroom in the first place?

 

So what? There are lots of regulations that do the same thing.

Regulating marriage is neither 'arbitrary' or 'immoral'...

Marriage is a civil contract reflecting a commitment between a man and woman it is NOT 'connected living.'

Any man and woman can get married. If you want to start a new discussion on polygamy I suggest you start another thread. You are deflecting.

Contracts have restrictive covenants. That is the point. 'Free and open consent' is another subject.

Completely beside the point and yet another obfuscation.

Slavery (as I already said) is nothing but an obfuscation frequently foisted by the pro-gay marriage cadre. There is no comparison whatsoever.

Homosexuality is unsustainable by itself. It requires natural heterosexual procreation.

Freedom has nothing to do with sexuality. There is male and female. That is predetermined.

An aberration is nothing more than a deviation in a large population. In this case, homosexuality is an aberration, not only because their numbers are miniscule in comparison to the whole of the human race but also because they cannot sustain themselves without heterosexual procreation. (like I already told you)

Morals are encouraged by human society as they are a way for humans to agree how to live as harmonious as possible. Laws are based on agreed-upon morals.

In the US, the 'state' is 'We The People' and 'We The People' make up US society. Society has seen fit to create a civil instrument to support a man/woman commitment. Gays want to CHANGE that by aligning themselves with RACE and SEX. Gays are not a RACE nor are they a separate SEX.

Gays are either male or female and can only be created through heterosexual procreation. Any male can marry any female and visa versa therefore, there is no State discrimination of gays.

 

If a man wants to marry his sister and she wants to marry him what difference does it make to them if same-sex couples are allowed to marry?

They just need to point out that, in their opinion, they are similarly situated to other, consenting, opposite sex adult couples.

That was the exact point I was trying to make so I don't see how this constitutes "cherry picking"?

 

I honestly do not care who they are as long as they are two consenting adults. Is it kind of weird? Yes. Do we have to right to stop two consenting adults from living their own life? Nope. As long as it does not interfere with the rights of another person I support it however weird it may be.

 

One couple can't make babies. The other can make seriously messed up babies.