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

That is what I am saying, gay people have nothing to do with marriage. They are equal with next to kin couples but not with married heterosexual couples.

 

You know what, I do not care, all I know that heterosexual population produce children, and I am willing to sacrifice my income to support married heterosexual couples. The only couples that are capable to procreate and rear children in optimal environment.

 

hahahaha, you are killing me.

heterosexuals ALWAYS procreate? there has never been a heterosexual couple who hasn't procreated?

 

I dont got the 100s of benefits and entitlements of marriage.

 

But I thought that civil unions were identical to marriages? Or are you saying that is actually a lie out forth by the anti gay marriage crowd?

 

Separate but equal then, eh?

 

Discriminating against some people won't solve the problem.

The OP was questioning what "rights" homosexuals have in regards to marriage. I agree that homosexuals should have the same benefits as heterosexuals; however, I say that couples, gay or straight, shouldn't have government benefits merely for being married. That's completely relevant to the topic, hence why marriage is a political debate -- it's government endorsed. If there was no government endorsement, we would be having a debate about whether or not gay people can have sexual relationships. I also see this government-endorsed marriage institution as highly discriminatory even if it endorses gays (although it's a step forward), and if government-endorsed marriage were to actually be an equal system, it would cause all kinds of legal technicalities -- I merely used polygamy, etc. as examples.

 

Yes.

Yes, I agree.

Not relevant to the topics on gay marriage. And it would be interesting to see how far several threads on the topic of removing 'all' government benefits or recognition of marriage would go.

I don't see where people are THAT concerned about the benefits they receive from "government" for being married; unless they DON'T receive them. Yet, almost invariably, somewhere in a thread on gay marriage... someone will slip in their view/belief that "government" needs to get out of marriage. I do understand the thought... but it has virtually nothing (at this point in time) to do with gay marriage.

It is a political debate, because LAWS are written via political influence. For those against gay marriage... there are myriad reasons for their opposition. One could study that sociologically for years; that part isn't 'all' political, not by any means.

Probably.

Well, I can see some of what you are saying. Still, there is the reality that those things aren't generally what is standing in the way of homosexuals having equal rights where marriage is concerned. In fact, I haven't seen one truly good or fully-logical argument against homosexual people being allowed to marry and also receiving the same benefits afforded married couples by the government.

 

If they are equal to "next to kin" couples then they are not separated.
According to modern science homosexual couples are 100% different from heterosexual couples, so they can't be equal.
It is only uneducated, corrupt lawyers and brainwashed public continue to repeat nonsense about equality that does not exist.

 

But that discrimination is intended, because it has a certain purpose. Only married heterosexual couples can provide optimal environment for procreation and rearing children.
We can have debate whether such discrimination is justified or not, but it has zero relevance to homosexual couples.

Don't you see political trick implemented by homosexual community (party).
They like benefits associated with marriage, they want to get it, so they promote that nonsense that homosexual is equal to heterosexual, even if it contradicts science.

 

Only married heterosexual can provide the optimal environment? Prove it. Sure its a widely held belief.. but there have been plenty of cases of children raised by same-sex parents across the US, so it shouldn't be hard for you to find me a study showing what the detrimental effects are, and how their status as a fully functioning member of society has been diminished by their upbringing...

The "optimal" argument is scaremongering and hyberbole. Nothing more. It's just that some people can't help but see homosexuals as anything but sexual deviants. And some even consider them to be pedophiles who only want kids in order to molest them. Seriously. It's tapping into those irrational fears.

 

Gay people want equality under the law, it's not some attempt to tarnish or mock heterosexuals in the process. It is not an attempt to destroy or diminish heterosexual marriages or families, it's about having a level playing field and not being treated as second-class-citizens. You can't expect homophobia in society to disappear if the very law itself is discriminatory towards gay people... In this day and age which is NOT all about procreation (since we've now determined homosexuality to not be a threat to civilization, and heterosexuals do a good job of breeding with or without marriage), it is not a state interest to deny same-sex marriage. There are no ill effects on population growth or anything else for that matter; yet a whole host of positive effects for anyone (kids included) living in a same-sex household...

 

If that has ever be "proven", then something like Proposition-8 would have addressed it. I can assure that your 'claim' was not overlooked; surely those who were/are FOR Proposition-8 would present such a POPULAR (but unfounded) argument.

That is unproven, and research performed most recently tends to challenge or mitigate your bold assertion.

You are disconnected from reality, if you think that is the case.

No tricks and no monolithic, hive-like "community either. It's a matter of human rights and social justice; rhymes with the U.S. Constitution.

Why shouldn't homosexual people WANT marriage?

What valid scientific truths are being set-aside, in order to further the notion of EQUAL HUMAN RIGHTS for homosexual human beings in this nation?

 

What hyperbole? If you support public policy that deprive children father or mother it is no hyperbole, it is crime against humanity.

 

You supposed to prove that homosexuality has any relevance to marriage. There is NONE, you guys have made it up to get benefits.
Government is not in business to care about someone's sexual desires.
There is only one legitimate identifiable purpose of marriage, is to support optimal (i.e. natural) environment for procreation and rearing children.

 

This is laughable.

The REALITY is that some children do not have a mother and father; some are put in adoption, abandoned, abused. And some kids are born into same-sex families as surrogates. That's reality, and it doesn't conform to your sense of idealism.

If it's a crime against humanity for the law to take reality into account and encourage alternative families as well as nuclear ones, show me some evidence that it screws kids up, or what ever you think constitutes a "crime against humanity"....

 

So may be we should have child nurseries and grow children as chickens.
It is very smart idea.

 

I don't even know how to respond to this

 

Don't you support unnatural (alternative) ways to procreate and rear children?

 

I support the government helping alternative families, yes. Unnatural? No. We've covered that one Mr. Scientist sir.

 

Government has always supported children in alternative families, as it should, but it should not promote such families. Support of gay marriage is endorsement of unnatural way of life that society is forced to pay for.

 

What support are you referring to? Surely any support is tantamount to a "promotion"? The best support is marriage, whether you believe that constitutes a promotion or not.

So what bad thing would happen if the government broke from delusions of family idealism and embraced a realistic policy towards alternative families (granted SSM in other words)?

 

Lifelong heterosexual monogamy is an "unnatural way of life".