- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,985
- Reaction score
- 60,544
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Are you black?
Entirely irrelevant and none of your business.
Are you black?
The other lesbian can adopt her partner's biological children. The end result is one couple with children. Isn't that what some of you are saying marriage is all about to begin with, providing a stable environment for the little darlings? What does it matter how they were conceived?
How many lesbian couples are doing that?
Yeah, children with a stranger's genes in them.The other lesbian can adopt her partner's biological children. The end result is one couple with children.
Some of me has never said such a thing.Isn't that what some of you are saying marriage is all about to begin with, providing a stable environment for the little darlings?
I already stated in my first post that this is my own opinion, and I'd avoid voting on this issue.What does it matter how they were conceived?
There is no right to marry, never was, the fact is that the government got into the business of recognizing the institution years ago, and some places took it to the extreme of arresting religious leaders who dared to perform unsanctioned ceremonies on things like tax evasion, etc.Personal opinion only. I guess it would depend on how you define the term homophobe. To me, it is anyone with an irrational desire to not grant gays full rights, including the right to marry and serve openly in the military.
Yeah, children with a stranger's genes in them.
Would you want a stranger's genes in your baby? :2razz:
Some of me has never said such a thing.
Perhaps it was some of you who said it out loud and you got confused. :shrug:
I already stated in my first post that this is my own opinion, and I'd avoid voting on this issue.
It matters to me because I see homosexuality as a block to reproduction.
Would I want a stranger's genes in my baby? I don't know. I'm not infertile. I've never really had to ponder that dilemma. I have my own biological child. If I hadn't been able to produce ovaries I might have considered using another woman's. My ex-husband might have considered using another man's sperm. It's what infertile couples often do. Or we might have gone one step further and adopted a complete stranger. Imagine that.
I understand your instinctual objection. I'm not judging you or anything. I'm just showing you that in this day and age of medical miracles there is no such thing as a block to reproduction.
I'm sorry, I got an image of you pulling up to a pedestrian and throwing him in your trunk....
CaptainCourtesy said:I'm not arguing the position. All I'm saying is how those opposed would argue it. I agree with you.
Yes, but under anti-discrimination laws, this argument would fail. A white man not being allowed to marry a black woman is discriminatory under the law, because it prevents something that is legal, with the exception of race. A white man not being allowed to marry a black MAN is not discriminatory under the law. At this time, when it comes to marriage laws, sexual orientation is not recognized as discriminatory. In order to change the law, you have to have cause. The discrimination argument doesn't cut it because gay folks can already marry...just not someone of the same sex. This is why the family argument will win because there is plenty of research to support it. One cannot argue the discrimination position with any valid research. A gay man can still marry a woman will always stop the argument dead in the water.
You cannot legislated "love" or "want to". It is not logical. Currently, a man can marry a women, regardless of sexual orientation. Going with the "love" argument, is a loser argument. What if someone "loves" their dog? I've done this debate many, many times. The discrimination is a failed argument. Far too many potholes.
I do not assume sexual orientation is a choice. Nor do I hold that not legalizing gay marriage is right. But it's not about what is right; it's about what can be proven and what is a winning argument. Discrimination is a loser argument. I am pro-GM, and I've already shredded your position on this. An anti-GM person will do better.
Separate but equal wasn't. It was stupid 120 years ago and it's stupid now. They must be treated the same under the law.
There is nothing to be gained from the discrimination argument alone and there are far to many solid refutations.
I would vote no, if it was a bill to expand rights of Civil Unions then by all means yes. Marriage is a cultural/religious term, it shouldnt be changed to please a minority, but I dont see why We cannot offer basically the same rights under a different name.
Nice dodge. Who said the women in my story were not part of a couple?
Straight couples make the choice never to have children. Homosexual couples make the choice to have them.
Which one is more natural?
Given the enormous advances in reproductive medicine, the "unnatural" argument really doesn't hold any water anymore. People who really want children will have them and those who don't won't. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation anymore.
That's right, we can create gay-marriage just as we made a right for women to vote: through the legislative branch and the legislative exclusively.
The fact that gays are trying to force their religious beliefs onto the public through judicial fiat only demonstrates an extreme disrespect for the rule of law, favoring the bible over constitution.
Anybody willing to vote for for legal marriage for gay couples should also be willing to vote for legal polygamy marriages.
Anybody willing to vote for for legal marriage for gay couples should also be willing to vote for legal polygamy marriages.
Anybody willing to vote for for legal marriage for gay couples should also be willing to vote for legal polygamy marriages.
And if they can figure out the legal problems with them, I'd be all for it. Unfortunately, our entire legal system is based around a partnership that is disolved when one partner leaves. When you have multiple partners, deciding who gets what when someone leaves or someone joins, custody issues for multiple parents, etc. would be a legal nightmare. Come up with workable solutions and I'll be the first one to vote for legal polygamous marriages.
Not necessarily.
Would you vote to legalizing same gender marriages if the issue was on an election ballot and you could vote in the election?
Only two options are given as that is how an election would work.
Jerry, you're full of it. There are all kinds of things that people have equality in today that are not guaranteed in the Constitution. The Constitution was never intended to be a static document. We can't say "only white men can drive a car because the Constitution never says we can't make that rule", that's idiotic.
Are you really telling us that's what you think? :roll:
But it would become more necessary to recognize polygamy legally if gay marriage is recognized legally.
Why approve of one minority group and not another?
Would you vote to legalizing same gender marriages if the issue was on an election ballot and you could vote in the election?
Only two options are given as that is how an election would work.
Well, there are business relationships that envolve more than two parties in legal contracts. A polygamous relationship could be approached in similar fashion.
Yeah, I think gay-marriage should be created through legislation.
Not at all, so long as it is identical in every way to heterosexual marriage, including using the same terminology. Works for me.