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

No. Not sure where you got that from.

 

Sure it does, in black and white.

 

Yeah, no one can take away your posterboys for gay marriage, Nero and Elagabalus. Nero deballed his boyfriend, dressed him up to look like his ex wife and married him. And Elagabalus, growing tired of whoring himself out to men in the palace, decided to marry his slave.

Gays are free to participate in such pretend marriages. Even here in conservative central Texas, you can go down to the local Church of Christ and the preacher will marry you to anyone you like.

 

So, you admit you were wrong ... again.

Good.

At least you're consistent.

Please don't start on the "Nero and Elagabalus couldn't procreate, therefore it isn't marriage" bull(*)(*)(*)(*). We're all tired of that one.

 

___Amen.___

 

IMO its perfectly acceptable to deny gays the ability to get married. why on earth would anyone consider marriage a universal right? there doesn't even need to be an argument against it. if the people don't want it, then they should be able to vote against it.

 

Not at all. You evidently missed this part.

"CIVIL MARRIAGES" are those which are recognized by CIVIL law.

 

You may not see them, but there are gaping holes in your logic. There are good reasons why millions of people do not hold the view which you do.

It doesn't merely involve popular opinion; and in America... human rights are not determined by mere popular opinion. That is reality.

 

Why are the countries and States which allow homosexual couple to marry legally somehow "wrong" to do so?

Rome is an interesting academic study... but to mirror it today would not particularly reasonable or practical.

 

how is marriage extended to gays a 'human' right?

 

THINK about it? It should be apparent to anyone who considers things reasonably with compassion. Trying to vote-away someone's liberties/freedoms, isn't necessary in the case of homosexual couple's marrying. After all, what damage will it do to have them marry legally??

 

that's not an argument and you know it.

asserting that extending marriage to gays is such an obviously good thing to do that anyone with emotions will support it is nothing more than condescending

 

Thats about as good as it gets with Johnny. All emotions and hormones. Logic and reason are foreign concepts to him.

 

Nothing should be afforded to them, they should have the same as everyone else.

 

Bottom line... we are dealing with HUMAN issues. You would be a fool to think that the answers can all be spelled out here in this forum.

I'm trying to communicate things that aren't typically 'contained' within so-called "perfect" answers.

If you can't exercise compassion and THINK deeper into these things; then you won't understand and solve one darned problem. (Bet on it.)

Where is all this unnecessary judgment of homosexuals coming from?

 

nope. no limitation to opposite sex couples anywhere in there.

 

the SCOTUS declared it a basic civil right.

 

It's pretty good really, and others have said so over the years. No, I don't have perfect answers, but I can encourage others to 'think' further than they typically would without my input. If you think you have THE perfect answers for all of this, be my guest (it's foolishness). If you show me that you are thinking reasonably, I can accept the fact you are doing just that.

That you say or actually THINK that... is humorous to me. Carry on.

 

No one is asking that marriage be extended to gays, simply that the right of marriage not be denied to American couples who happen to be of the same sex. Much in the same way not denying drivers licenses to Americans who happen to be Jewish isn't extending driver's license to Jews.​

 

You may think they're unfounded, but have nothing to base that on. As I mentioned, it's going to take time to see the real consequences. In any case, my point remains. We would be encouraging relationships that leave children without a mother and/or father, and/or without one or either biological parent.

So, we're going to change the definition of marriage to essentially give homosexuals a couple of tax breaks?

In time, homosexual marriage will only serve to make homosexual parenting a societal norm, which I think we can fairly say would increase the number that choose to raise children. Unless you're prepared to argue that homosexuals are biologically less inclined to want children.

I hope you're not presuming that this isn't a concern of mine, it certainly is. That's just not the topic we're discussing.

 

Well, first, I'm not in a position to propose legislation. Second, our topic is the rights of homosexual couples.

And had I made that claim, you may have a point. Only I didn't mention any relationship "that he or she would otherwise have". You just made that part up.

Well, this is where we differ. I'm perfectly happy to have homosexuals and everybody else exercising rights that are equal to mine. I just don't think we should define a marriage as 'any two people'. And I would hardly call an increase in fatherless homes a "strange fear".

And you seem to be missing the point that the State would not be simply allowing these arrangements, as they already do, but would now be subsidizing them. That is, actively encouraging them. As I mentioned before, I wouldn't necessarily argue that gambling ought to be prohibited, but I don't think the State should be actively encouraging it.

 

Yes. I agree.

Seems to be a very good analogy and/or snapshot of reality.

 

YOU ASKED ME to spell out the risky behaviors. That is what I did. YOU chose the context, not me. What part are you not understanding here? I may have to retract that part about you being smart enough to know this. Trust me, if my goal was to demonize you, it would've been clear.

You're still not listening. A same-sex parenting arrangement deliberately deprives a child of a mother or father, and at least one of his biological parents. Wanting the State to encourage more such arrangements is what's disgusting.

Yes, it's clear you've got an aging pair of homo-goggles firmly in place, where every glance, every remark, is somehow "anti-gay", or an attempt to victimize you. It's a tired routine, really. Grow up already.

 

I apologize if my assumption was incorrect. However, arguing against giving a marriage license to a same sex couple because "SS marriage is going to deprive more children of a relationship with their mothers and/or fathers" if they would not have that relationship anyway... is even more absurd.

​

The right in question is for two people to live as one, to have that union recognized by law and for them to be treated as a couple rather than individuals by the government where possible. That's a marriage.

Adoption agencies do prefer married couples to unmarried ones. That preference is on the part of the adoption agency. The state is no more encouraging adoption by issuing a marriage certificate, than your employer is by giving you a job. Even though both a couple being married, and being employed, are preferences on the part of the adoption agency. ​

 

and 500!!!