US declares "gay rights are human rights"

Why to serve the stated governmental purpose in fostering the formation of stable households, of course. The same reason they have or seek to have marriage extended to gays. The less obvious answer is what possible justification could there be for only extending to gays. Once you take procreation out of the equation, sex no longer has any relevance to the formation of stable households. Only relevance it had to heterosexual marriages is that it is heterosexual relations that lead to children, whose wellbeing government has an interest in and that can benefit from a stable household. Two gay guys bringing each other to orgasm, doesnt give rise to anything for the government to have a concern let alone a legitimate interest in licensing and regulating the relationship.

 

So then you agree that gays have the same need for marriage as heterosexuals?

As I've pointed out time and time again, gays do indeed procreate with methods also utilized by heterosexuals.

Yes and gays have children of their own. Attempting to ignore this or pretend it is not so only shows you dishonesty.

As for you statements about gay sex, it's nothing more than a flame bait tactic that bears no meaning in this discussion.

Please stay on topic.

 

I'm focusing all my discussion with you on the other topic, but I have to respond to this....

1) Reproduction is not the only legitimate government interest with respect to marriage.

2) Care of children is FAR more valid and important state(*)interest.

3) Sadly, in this imperfect world, a lot of natural biological parents are either unable to care for their kids or are deemed unsuitable to do so by the state, and put into care.

4) (*)Same-sex couples who have comparable household formats to straight couples are able to adopt and care for these children.

5) As care of living children who have been placed into adoption is a state interest, giving same-sex couples marriage benefits to improve their homes and the conditions their children grow up in helps society.

 

___Amen!___

 

Because that's the only argument left? Rofl

Exactly, we should be promoting people that want to form stable households, gays are wanting to adopt the children that heterosexuals are flooding the system with.
I am sure that most of these children would rather be raised by two people that love them to remain in a state facility being a number and a head-shot.

 

I agree wholeheartedly.

 

You could just stop dodging with silly arguments and admit that in your opinion, homosexuals should not be allowed to marry because they are homosexuals.

Why won't the anti gay crowd admit that they just want to discriminate against homosexuals? It would make the debate progress quicker!

 

You got it; anti-gay folks cannot justify their animus.

 

I would have much more respect for them if they were honest and just said "you know I really just don't like gay people." or "I find gay sex disgusting."

 

Honestly, I don't know if I would "respect" them... but I could likely make more sense of where their heads were within the overall discussion.

All this veiling of bigotry and hatred... is unhelpful period.

 

Truely ignorant interpretation of what I just said. But so typical. NO

And as Ive said, again and again, thats not the gay couple procreating, and is instead, at most, one of the gay couple, and a third party procreating. Aaaand of course, ANY TWO consenting adults could "procreate" using your logic so does NOTHING for your arguments regarding gays.

 

just like MANY heterosexuals. And, nobody but you has suggested letting ONLY gays marry, so you can quit being inellectually dishonest any time now.

 

ANY TWO PEOPLE can have "comparable household formats" and adopt and care for these children. Got anything to support your arguments regarding homosexual couples? I didnt think so.

 

nobody said they couldn't, and nobody has argued for marriage to be extended to homosexuals ONLY.

We know you don't have an argument left, since all the rest have been refuted, but this particular strawman of your is getting very tiresome.

 

Ive not dodged anything and have provided detailed answers to all questions. You just cant formulate a response and so are left with nothing but your ability to dodge the issues.

 

What you allege to be a strawman is what exists in 6 states.

 

nonsense. you don't have to be gay in those 6 states to marry.

You know this of course.

 

6 states with gay marriage and every gay marriage case, both successful and unsuccesful ones have all have argued for marriage to be extended to homosexuals only. It is the animus towards homosexuals they use to create this right to marriage. No animus towards closely related couples living together so no right to marriage.

 

No.

The comparable household format to the regular heterosexual model is one where a pair-bond or life bond exists between two people. That is vastly different to a mother-daughter scenario, which may be a temporary arrangement, but usually a human being always tends towards seeking a mate - based on their natural instincts - and seeks to nurture children with said person. Not everyone will do this, but the point is that gay couples have FAR more in common (not just sex, pair-bonding) with straight couples than a mother and daughter raising a child due to circumstances have.

But before you get up on your high horse screaming about how your "mother and daughter" deserve rights, I'm not saying they don't.

 

Nope, they've argued for the rights of platonic same-sex friends to marry too. Just like opposite sex platonic "couples" can. In reality this is same-sex marriage, not "gay" marriage...

 

Nobody has brought forth a case for incestual marriage. Nobody has asked for, or stated marriage should be granted to homosexuals ONLY. When you're done chasing your tail, please rejoin the rest of us back in reality

 

You dont have a clue. From the Iowa case for example. Like I said, they ONLY extend marriage to gay couples.

enacted a law that effectively excludes gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage....

civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage....

Under such a law, gay or lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship,.....

The benefit denied by the marriage statute—the status of civil marriage for same-sex couples—is so “closely correlated with being homosexual” as to make it apparent the law is targeted at gay and lesbian people as a class......

It is instead directed toward gay persons as a class.&#8221.....

By purposefully placing civil marriage outside the realistic reach of gay and lesbian individuals,....

In sum, this history of discrimination suggests any legislative burdens placed on lesbian and gay people as a class “are more likely than others to reflect deep-seated prejudice rather than legislative rationality in pursuit of some legitimate objective.”...

We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not
substantially further any important governmental objective. The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification.
http://data.lambdalegal.org/in-court/downloads/varnum_ia_20090403_decision-ia-supreme-court.pdf

 

Any two people can establish a "pair-bond or life bond". Got anything relevant to homosexuals???? .... I didnt think so.

 

Each and every time you demand "gay rights" to marriage.

 

dixon, is seeking to lead many into his tail-chasing 'circle' of reason.

I think it is fair to ignore his anti-gay arguments.

He's been informed/refuted soundly MULTIPLE times, but he continues in the same abject illogic as before.

So be it.