What Rights (If Any) Should Be Awarded To Homosexual Couples? Part 3

That's just a stupid response.

 

Sorry but that is B.S. those links reference to right of married couples. There is no such thing as right of couples. I.e. if ANY two people get together and declare themselves a couple, they are not going to have a rights.

 

The situation is not similar but rather fundamentally different.
If you put man and woman in the confined apartment you might get three or more people instead of two. If you put two people of the same sex in different apartment you going to get the same two people. Assuming no one has died.
2 is not equal to 3
It looks like you guys want to ignore laws of nature and replace them with laws dictated by gays.

 

Special rights for homosexuals is a special reason not to allow gay marriage.

 

so why can't they have a normal marriage without special rights?

 

Nobody is asking for special rights.

 

That is simply idiotic to say.

 

Kreo, I'm slightly confused; didn't you say (I could have sworn you did) that you have no problem with civil unions? Wouldn't that, too, be awarding "special rights" to gay people? In fact as a completely separate institution, isn't that even more special?

I'd go as far as to say ANY rights awarded to gay couples are, by your logic, "special rights". So the only consistent position for you would be "no rights for gays"...

 

To me, the language (marriage/civil union) would means virtually nothing... IF the EXACT same rights and benefits which marriage grants couples were perfectly matched (legally).

But most people already know that various states would try to under-hand something, to short-change homosexual couples. So, by far... the best approach is to attain "marriage" for all.

 

If you don't agree with something, its always a 'special' right. But if its something you do agree with, it suddenly becomes 'equal' rights. Hmm...

 

Who cares about what you have asking or not asking?
Special rights have been granted to homosexual couples only, in six states.

 

Because they can't. The same way man can't have normal pregnancy.

 

But civil unions is a totally different story. In case of civil unions you are not legislating nonsense and yes special rights are granted as a social engineering program.

 

lets look at history, genes and my god the bible......if men were meant to reproduce with men, it would happen, and vice versa for females......God made human and sexes for a reason...just look around- do you se homosexual rabbits or leapords? If you don't beleive in God- go become a muslim and screw goats...and leave America, that would be a blessing to all of us.

 

Homosexuals couples and heterosexual couples. Let's not forget them.

 

Because they can't?

Really? Says who? You? And who are you to make such a judgement?

Admit it...you have no reasoning other than you dislike homosexuals.

 

2 people of the opposite sex, who are sterile, are identical to two people of the same sex.

your argument defeates intelf.

 

nonsense, since you don't have to be homosexual in order to marry someone of the same sex. meaning, no special rights for homosexuals.

 

but they can and do. same sex marriage exists in numerous countries, including the US.

 

I don't see how it's a different story. I don't think you even understand what a 'civil union' is... They typically award ALL the rights and privileges of marriage except the name itself. So basically it's marriage law copied and pasted line-by-line and simply given a new headline to make it more palatable to people like you. And evidently it works. It's a 'Trojan horse' for pete's sake; but as it happens a lot of anti-gay people seem to be almost too (*)(*)(*)(*)ing stupid to realise it! ...Madness!!

But the point still stands - you claim marriage for same-sex couples would be "special rights" but the bulk.. nay, all of those legal rights are granted by civil unions... Which I believe you said you didn't have a problem with. Which means you support (by your logic) "special rights"!!

 

One has nothing to do with the other in the secular world.
And I would appreciate a reason other than "Because they can't."

 

Amen to that!

 

No.

1) No one is obligated to believe in your god.

2) I'm wondering why you picked becoming a Muslim as the alternative for those who don't believe in your god. If we don't believe in gods, why would we join a different religion that nonetheless worships one?

3) I have no desire to screw a goat or any other animal.

4) I don't take orders from the likes of you anyway.

5) America does not belong exclusively to people who worship your god.

6) If you can't handle people not believing in your god, then maybe you're the one who should leave America, since you obviously don't respect its freedoms.

 

Incorrect.

Not special rights.

Equal rights.

 

That doesn't sound like a very Christian attitude.