Republicans plan to reintroduce Anti-LGBT ‘religious freedom’ bill supported by Trump

So I'm guessing you are against giving gays tax breaks that should be reserved for breeders only? Just trying to understand what the argument since it is supposedly not just homophobia.

 

Nope, just pointing out that you don't need tax breaks and governmental entitlements to exercise your "liberty" so stop this nonsense about anyones liberty being effected.

 

Got it. Homophobia it is.

 

And you've already stated that a man and a woman who cannot have children can still get married, so clearly having children has nothing to do with it.

 

Ive said that REPEATEDLY. NOT having children out of wedlock was the concern. ONLY a concern when men and women get together

 

So what? A man and a woman incapable of having children are not a risk to having children out of wedlock and can still get married.

So why should a man and a man or a woman and a woman not be able to do the same thing?

 

A grasp on reality you've lost.

 

Because encouraging men and women to marry reduces the # of children born to single mothers on their own with absent or unknown fathers. While encouraging two men to do so does not.

 

Actually it's people like you and atheists, who have the hate. Hatred towards Christians, as it is written there will be. If a gay couple want a wedding by a priest and it is not granted, is that hate from the priest or his practice of his religious freedom? If one forces another to go against their religion, who is the one with hate?

The tongue is very convincing, and the wickedest part of the body. It has the ability to make evil good, and good evil, as it is written it will become. The way in which your use of words on the matter is, is just another example of this.

 

Except it doesn't. Marriage benefits have gone up while the rate of marriage has gone down. The government isn't going to socially engineer people into liking each other.

 

I said reduces, not eliminate.

 

I roll my eyes.

You have ZERO non-religious justification for banning gay marriage. Just admit it.

You know, gay marriage also reduces promiscuity in gay men and promiscuity is the largest cause behind HIV in gay men. So therefore the government has a vested interest in protecting public health by encouraging gay marriage.

 

So...no lezzie cows then?

 

Geez!.

That's it. Public health. Hey, the WAPO just published an opinion that said the electoral college system has given us two presidents (Bush and Trump) who are hostile to "climate change" therefore the planet is in more danger because of the electoral college system.

I think maybe you can recycle the "climate change" argument in favor of recognition of aberrant sexual relationships too. Makes as much sense as the one you proffered.

 

I am an atheist, and my post below you are responding to, didn't contain even a hint of religion.

Its biology that requires one man and one woman.

They invented a new word to describe monogamy in a committed gay relationship. "Monogamish" which essentially means NOT monogamous.

 

And again, biology doesn't matter because you've already conceded that a man and a woman medically incapable of having children should still be able to get married.

 

Yes, because encouraging opposite sex couples to marry reduces the # of single mothers on their own with absent or unknown fathers. While encouraging same sex couples to do so does not.
My ex wife took birth control pills for years, only to find out later that she never had the ability to procreate.AND STILL, the potential of procreation is why drs prescribe birth control pills to sexually active, heterosexual women. And Still was why traditional marriage was limited to men and women.

To quote the courts on this very subject.


" And the link between opposite-sex marriage and procreation is not defeated by the fact that the law allows opposite-sex marriage regardless of a couple’s willingness or ability to procreate. The facts that all opposite-sex couples do not have children and that single-sex couples raise children and have children with third party assistance or through adoption do not mean that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples lacks a rational basis. Such over- or under-inclusiveness does not defeat finding a rational basis...."

"Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment"

 

Encouragements (IE rewards) for marriage have increased, yet marriage rates have gone down. Clearly, this correlation you are claiming exists, doesn't.

 

The rewards haven't increased and it used to be that the punishment for engaging in sexual relations or even cohabitating between an unmarried man and woman was jail. One only needs to compare the black and white population in the US. the blacks have a much lower marriage rate resulting in 73% of all black children are born to single mothers while only 29% of white children are born to single mothers. And with this black children have higher rates of poverty, juvenile delinquency, drug and alcohol abuse, teen pregnancy, HS dropouts and criminal conviction as an adult.

 

Yes, we should definitely go back to taking away people's freedom because they had consensual sex.

 

The point that flies over your head is that government didn't make it a crime to engage in sex or cohabitate with a woman who is not your wife, to encourage or increase procreation. Precisely the opposite.

 

They have increased the benefits associated with marriage pretty much every presidential cycle.

 

Yeah, that's why they now frequently call it the marriage penalty

 

Couldn't find my other post so I'll repeat. What was in the bill that was homophobic?

 

Banning same-sex marriage never prevented men and women from having children out of wedlock, did it? If that is your main concern, wouldn't having more people married be a good thing?