What Rights (If Any) Should Be Awarded To Homosexual Couples #2?

New thread seeing the other one passed 500 posts.

http://www.politicalforum.com/gay-lesbian-rights/216464-what-rights-if-any-should-awarded-homosexual-couples.html

Link to old thread above.

Impressed with the poll results, majority of people support marriage. Disappointing that a small handful do not believe that homosexual unions should be legally recognised.

Marriage is the only 'right' thing. Civil unions can be accepte for a short time, but people wil not settle for anything less than they deserve.

 

The same rights as heterosexual couples.

 

They should have the same rights and the same responsibilities of any other couple. Anything less is unconstitutional.

 

Yeah, but they are insisting upon the special rights reserved for heterosexuals. The mother and grandmother down the street have joined together as a couple to raise their children/grandchildren together, they dont get these rights because they dont rub genitals and the gays insist they be granted the rights, because they do rub genitals.

 

I don't have a problem with gay marriage.

But I do look at it from the possibility of cheating the law. I don't know if in the USA a mother can be on paid leave from an employer for a specific time after giving birth but if this is so and a gay couple adopt, what is to stop both from claiming the same benefits?

 

Here in America, married heterosexuals couples dont have equal rights but instead, BY DESIGN, have UNEQUAL rights to those who are not a married heterosexual couple. Thats why the gays want to be included so bad.

The detachment from reality is truely complete with this one. Read the freakin title of the thread-


Rights "Awarded To Homosexual Couples #2"

 

Heterosexuals are given certain rights because hetwerosexual couples have the potential to procreate. If you want to also give them to homosexuals, you lose any justification you had from witholding marriage from any two consenting adults.

 

It isn't THAT exclusive dixon, and others have repeatedly proven that is the case. Why do you keep posting that lie?

 

We're you argument falls through however is that homosexuals can and do procreate using methods that heterosexuals also utilize. Heterosexuals that marry and are married. I.E. artificial insemination and surrogacy.

Why then should homosexuals be barred from marriage?

Let's be honest now, you've been dodging this question for ages.

 

Because youve never proven anything. Never even strung together a few words to argue why. Just these baseless proclamations of what has been done in the past, again and again and again. So many times, YOUVE actually come to believe it.

 

And what you cant seem to wrap your head around is that ANY TWO CONSENTING ADULTS could procreate using those methods. Mother and grandmother down the street could "procreate" using those methods. Your point is meaningless in regards to homosexuals. Got ANYTHING to justify rights "awarded to homosexual couples" denied to others? I didnt think so.

 

strawman. nobody has asked for marriage to be extended to homosexuals ONLY.

 

Incest is illegal, as has been pointed out many times.

Two consenting adults could marry. However, that is not the relationship that marriage is founded upon. That would be two people in love who wish to make a legally binding bond for life.

 

Who says so?

 

The argument that dixion has been parroting follows the slippery slope fallacy.

Frankly I don't care if two randoms strangers want to marry.

Heck, it happens all the time as it is in Las Vegas.

 

No, nothing. Okay.

Stop lying, dixon. Likely everyone but you realizes I have made valid arguments here. And though others have opinions (and I respect that)... I know well enough that your arguments are FAR from being water-tight.

Are you talking about your own posts? (I think so.)

You BET I believe what I'm saying; and not for the reasons you say. Sometimes I wonder if you really believe what you're saying, or just regurgitating what others have said is "true". In any case, I would put my arguments up against yours in virtually ANY venue (even a hostile one). You can bet that I'm not going to argue anything that I DO NOT BELIEVE or think is true. You may not like like my views, but I'm sure they tend to make sense. (You aren't the only person I've discussed these things with.)

 

BIG TIME!

Taaa-daaa!! But it seems that dixon does. There is no way anyone can help him with that 'hangup'.

Ha-Ha!! LOL!!

 

Oh, so you now admit that heterosexuals get special treatment, but you say that gays want 'special treatment' when they want the exact same treatment as heterosexuals?

Huh?

 

You are a joke. I have proclaimed it from the very beginning. Youve just been too busy crafting pointless strawmen to avoid the topic of discussion, that youve never addressed the arguments I actually make.

 

Hysterics, emotions and hormones. Its what you do. What you are. Your arguments are an emotional appeal. I dwell in logic, reason and the constitutional law.

 

Marriage between two closely ralated people is illegal. But so to is marriage between two people of the same sex sooooooooo whats your point. Or my mistake in EVER presuming you have one.

And the single mom and grandma dont have sex with each other. They are heterosexuals.

 

There is nothing logical or reasonable about feeling so intensely passionate about denying something that you yourself have admitted hurts nothing and effects no one other than those who wish to have a same-sex marriage.

Constitutionally it could go either way, but prop 8 has been declared unconstitutional, upheld by a STRAIGHT judge and the Ninth Circuit will more than likely uphold Walker's decision, with SCOTUS probably refusing to hear the case. That's how I predict it will play out.

 

He asked you "who says so". And you couldnt provide an answer and you merely hoped no one would notice.

 

Semantics.