Why should not homo couples have the same marriage rights as heteros?

'Homos' as you call them, are people. Just the same as 'heteros'.

Actually, I give up. This thread isn't even a discussion, it's a platform for homophobia. Equal rights for all.

 

Welcome to the zoo. You'll find that there are some chronic offenders-you'll get to know who they are- who sniff out these threads like cadaver dogs and drag them down into the pit of inanity. However, there are some good people here too

 

Even if you can't get a good discussion on some threads, at least you can learn solid phrases! I'll definitely be using this one in the future!

 

You can also say-and it may become true-that you feel like your drowning in a sea of idiocy and monkeys dressed as lifeguards are laughing while throwing you anvils. Good luck!

 

Most relationships the government does not recognize. Friendships, relatives other than children/parents or non-married couples. So I fail to see how it can feel like the government is actively trying to tell you that your relationship isn't valuable because they don't recognize it. Only a few special cases demand recognition. These are the relationship between a parent and a child and a married couple.

Children are dependant on their parents so the need for that is quite clear. The main reason to recognize heterosexual marriages is to protect the weaker parties: the women and children. This happens by requiring the male to support them even if they divorce later. Preventing polygamy that will lead to a large number of non-married and unsatisfied males is also important. None of these aspects are really relevant when it comes to homosexual relations as they are typically more sex- and pleasure-focused than family-focused. There is of course also the issue of disease-prevention: why should the state incentivize behaviour that spreads HIV so efficiently?

 

You really do not know a whole lot about gay people. Pleasure focused? No more so than anybody else. And how is the state incentivizing anyone's behavior? What does HIV have to do with gay rights?

 

HIV spreads more efficiently in homosexual than in normal sex. Thus by sending the signal that homosexual behaviour is not only tolerated but outright desirable the incidence of HIV is likely to increase.

 

OK Fred. Please explain to us why you get to decide what is normal? To gay people, being gay and having gay sex is normal. Gays do not say that heterosexuals are not normal so it works both ways. Being in a minority does not automatically make who you are, what you do and how you do it abnormal. At least not in this country so lets dispense with the pejoratives.

By "sending a signal" I assume that you mean by extending marriage and other rights to gays, correct? OK well, I suppose we could drive the gays back into the shadows to live on the margins of society where everything that they do has to be secretive. Or, we can support and validate their relationships, encourage stability of families and bring them into the mainstream of society where they can get the medical, and social services to deal with the disease.

Which approach do you think would be more effective Fred? Oh, and you didn't respond to my comments on children and marriage.

 

Hey all you homophobes and anti equality people........here is an example of the company that you're in:

 

A civil UNION, yes, but not marriage. A civil union that merits all the same benefits, rights and obligations that a legal marriage affords. Call me crazy but I do not want to walk down the street and see two gay guys engaged in a lip lock swappin' spit. THAT, is purely disgusting.

 

Shall I quote you the SCOTUS on separate but equal arrangements as it regards constitutionality? What about what they have to say about equal protection under the law? What about what they have to say about full faith and credit to contracts made in other states?

Call me crazy but I do not want to walk down the street and see two land whales engaged in a lip lock swappin' spit. THAT, is purely disgusting one for the actual image and 2 for the images of them slapping meat in the bedroom it inspires in my poor visual oriented mind.
But I wouldn't pass a law denying their liberty, I'd simply look away.

 

How will denying gays marriage prevent you from walking down the street and see two gay guys engaged in a lip lock swappin' spit ? Consider this:

The issue of Civil Unions keeps coming up, and it’s most often in the context of “ I support full rights for gays but they should not be able to call it marriage” and “Civil Unions are the same thing, why all the fuss ?” Why all the fuss indeed? First of all there is much in words, especially such a powerful, universally understood word as marriage. A word conveys a status, it means that people who that word applies to have certain rights that others may not have. “Citizen” or Citizenship is another such word. What if the law of the land was, that while all citizens had all the same rights and protections, naturalized citizens could not actually call themselves “Citizens.” Perhaps they could be called “Permanent Civil Residents” Does anyone think that these people would actually feel like real citizens who are full accepted by society? How long would it be before these people got sick of explaining what a “Permanent Civil Resident” is. It would be especially difficult when dealing with people from other countries, or travelling abroad where everyone is just a “citizen” They would have to explain their status every time they applied for a job, applied for a passport, or renewed a drivers license. They would be sure to encounter people who were ignorant of the term, or perhaps looking for a reason to stand in their way and deny them their rights. Get the point?

Secondly, jurisdictions where civil unions exist do not always provide full equality. Now you will say that can be remedied by legislation. Well, I’m here to tell you that is not so easy. A few years ago, the New Jersey Supreme Court mandated that Civil Unionized people have all of the same rights as married people. However, the reality is a different thing” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/nyregion/28civil.html

And you might also want to read http://www.gardenstateequality.org/issues/civilunions/

In addition, under federal law, the disparity is even greater, especially now that DOMA has been overturned but couples who are restricted to civil unions do not benefit from that http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/marriage_unions.html

Lastly, I don’t believe for a nanosecond that those who claim that they support equal rights for gays but not marriage actually want and support equality. They are threatened by the idea of gays being able to call their unions “marriage” because if they did , THEN they would ACTUALLY be equal. All of the hoopla about the word is based on that fear. They must defend at all costs the great and stable institution of traditional marriage where the median age for a woman’s pregnancy is now lower that the median age of marriage and where half of these traditional unions end in divorce. Please consider the possibility that redefining marriage may actually strengthen the institution with an influx of stable relationships , and committed partners. Please consider that married same sex couples will simply blend in and become part of the social fabric. However, if you can’t do that, at least be honest and admit that you really don’t buy the “equality” line either.


.

 

Why do you assume he's my 'buddy'? I am my own person, and trying to tar me with someone else' statement is a really lame attempt at guilt by association, where none actually exists.

I have no idea what you mean. Partisan crap is partisan crap, regardless of the sex of the person posting it.

 

Bigotry

More bigotry.

More of a response than merited.

 

A legal marriage is the CIVIL recognition of a marital UNION. There is no need for separate terminology - certainly not if the benefits, rights, and obligations are equal to those afforded by a legal marriage. It's empty rhetoric, since civil unions aren't federally recognized, and thus don't provide all the same benefits, rights, and obligations as a legal marriage.

The only reason for so-called 'civil unions' to exist as a separate institution for same-sex couples is so some people can tell themselves how tolerant they are while obviously wishing to remain separate so they can still feel superior.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with whether same-sex couples receive full legal recognition of their marriages as marriages. As for what I would call you, I'll pass on that.

What you do or don't want to see is frankly irrelevant. Your heterosexuality doesn't entitle you to some special right to be shielded from other people living their lives. Ditto on what you find 'disgusting'. That's nothing more than your personal opinion, and why should anyone care about your personal opinion on such things? For the record, I don't kiss my partner in public - not so much as harmless peck on the cheek. We don't even hold hands in public. Not safe where we live.

 

It appears that Friedrich has realized that he is not welcome here. Hopefully.

 

And you have the constitutional right to not swap spit with another guy. You do,not however have the right to prevent someone else from doing so. There is no right to not be offended.

 

I don't support civil unions, but this message certainly tells me that gay-marriage is more about ruining it for married couples and pushing conservatives in the back of the bus than a wish for "equality". Especially as most homosexuals don't even want to marry: link. One can't help but to wonder how such a fringe-issue has become so important for so many.

 

Oh yes, LifeSiteNews what a trustworthy source. Not.

 

Fred, In my first two posts in response to yours, I tried, and I believe succeeded at not over-reacting despite the blatant offensiveness of your words. I provided you with information in the hope that you might understand things differently, and asked questions in an attempt to understand your thinking. However, you showed me no sign of wanting to learn or do anything more than troll and flame bait.

Anyone who knows me here will tell you that I am not known for my restraint and since your are persisting with your inane clap trap, the gloves are now off. This latest post is nothing more than moronic bovine excrement. Same sex marriage is about ruing it for other? Your just repeating talking points that you heard from some other bigot and I doubt if you can even explain why or how that could be. No one can ruin a marriage except those who are in that marriage and if you are as stupid as you sound you’ve probably done that already. Do not persist in dragging this forum into the gutter with your insensitive, uninformed idiocy

 

From the link: homosexuals are about 3,5% of the population and 3% of Spain's homosexuals have used to right to marry during the seven years this has been possible. 3,5%*3% = 0,105%. Life expectancy is about eleven 7-year-periods so this issue is relevant to about one percent of the population. If that's not a fringe-issue, then what is? Of course that in itself doesn't mean this right could be given to that 1%. But when it comes at the cost of religious freedom, children's wellbeing (if nothing else, many poor countries will no longer allow adoptions) and an increasingly hostile environment towards those with different values (as can be seen from the latest post by mr. ProgressivePatriot), I simply don't think it's worth it.

Also some historical or even global perspective would be useful. What percentage of successful past civilizations have lifted homosexual monogamy to the status of heterosexual monogamy? How repressive towards homosexuals are Western "bigots" compared to for example the ruling class of Iran or Saudi-Arabia? If nothing else, this could at least calm you down, Sir, and be able to see that we are not polar opposites in some fight between good and evil...

 

Just more bigoted bovine excrement

 

Weren't you worried about lowering the quality of the forum? Perhaps you should start with yourself and avoid 5-word ad-hominem posts. If that really is a concern of yours.

 

That is all that your rambling, incoherent, and moronic post is worthy of. This is about human rights. Your statistics are meaningless. You're basically saying that minorities don't matter, are not entitled to rights. Then you rant about cost of religious freedom without explaining what the hell your talking about. Then "children's well being" while ignoring the points that I previously made about children and same sex marriage. I do believe that we are polar opposites in many ways.

 

Same sex couples marrying has no effect what so ever on other married couples, so it of course does not ruin it for everyone else n