Up to 8 years: A bill on punishment for "intolerance" towards LGBT people was introduced in the Rada

Not sure what your arguments are, but everything comes down to "can't deny special rights" to gays.
I have got that part.

 

The special rights given to heterosexuals just because they are heterosexual cannot be denied to homosexuals just because random bigots on the internet say so — correct.

Congratulations! You figured it out!

 

But you have figured out the part that gay rights are the special rights granted them by unelected officials without any kind of justification.

 

The justification is:

You are so bad at this.

 

for gays only - is a special right without justification why benefits extended to gays only.

 

It cannot be a special right when other groups already have it.

Do you not understand the definition of ‘special’?

 

Special means other groups do not have it.
Like I said if you remove marriage and procreation from the definition of marriage then you should provide benefits to all groups that is capable to receive those benefits.
You are suggesting that other groups should fight for their privileges separately.

 

No other groups can marry?
That is demonstrably false

Procreation is not a legal or implied requirement for marriage

Unfortunately that is what is required
Do you believe blacks fighting for the right to vote should have been invalidated because they were not fighting for women’s rights?
Do you hear how absurd that sounds?

 

Blacks fought to abolish race discrimination, that is correct.
Once race discrimination was abolished, it was abolished not only for Black race but for ALL races,.
It is 180 degrees opposite what has happened with Gay movement.
After marriage and procreation was removed from marriage definition the benefits were granted to gays ONLY.

 

And gay people fought to abolish gender discrimination, that is correct.

Once gender discrimination was abolished, it was abolished not only for gays but for all genders,.

Can you show me where in the law two same sex friends cannot marry?
Where does the legal precedent say this is for “gays ONLY”

You
Do
Not
Have
A
Valid
Argument

 

Close relatives are still banned from marriage, even though they are 100% equal to gay couples.
I hope you understand that since unelected officials removed procreation from marriage definition there is absolutely no reason to deny marriage to close relatives

 

Just as gay couples are 100% equal to elderly and infertile heterosexual couples.
Gay couples fought for gender equality, which they achieved.

Irrelevant as one groups rights are not based on if another group doesn't have those rights.
Procreation has never been a requirement in marriage.
If you want to engage in incest and have it recognized by the sate, feel free to demand what you feel is equality.

Why do you skip over so many simple questions?
Almost like you know you have no point but are in too deep…

 

All questions have been answered.
You support special rights for gays I do not.
That is all.
Incest does not exist if marriage and procreation are removed from the legal marriage definition.

 

Please show where gays are the only people that are allowed to marry. That is the only way they have “special rights”

Procreation cannot be removed as it never existed, outside of your fantasy…

Incest also has nothing to do with marriage, it is sexual activity between two closely related individuals.

 

Dumbing down people is a well know strategy of the leftists.
You insist that benefits should be paid for "sexual activity" without providing any kind of justification.

 

Your childish insults are amusing after watching your behavior in this thread alone.

You already provided the justification, it gives “life saving benefits”. Or is life not a justification?

Again, you keep asserting marriage is a special right for gays, meaning only gay people can wed, can you prove this?

 

In that case life-saving benefits had to be extended for everyone (not only for gays).
It did not happen, therefore special exception was created for gays.
close relatives cannot obtain life-saving benefits for no reason.
Marriage does not require sex, so your references about incest are irrelevant.

 

Marriage is extended to all non-related individuals.

Can you show where any law specifically names “gays”. Third time asking this question.

You must not understand how the SCOTUS rules on issues like this. The suit was brought on the basis of gender discrimination via the 14th amendment.

Then file suit to the SCOTUS.

Incest is irrelevant to gender discrimination
They are two separate issues.

The law is currently equally applied to all regardless of gender, age, handicap, religion and race. If you want to marry your close family member that has nothing to do with the above nor is it a protected characteristic.

 

No it doesn't and same to you but more of it...

 

https://www.apa.org/topics/divorce-... 40 to 50,subsequent marriages is even higher.

Marriage and divorce are both common experiences. In Western cultures, more than 90 percent of people marry by age 50. Healthy marriages are good for couples’ mental and physical health. They are also good for children; growing up in a happy home protects children from mental, physical, educational and social problems. However, about 40 to 50 percent of married couples in the United States divorce. The divorce rate for subsequent marriages is even higher.

I'd call a 50% failure rate worthy of mockery.

 

I would find it sad. Why would you mock marriage because of an epidemic in divorces. You can thank the liberal left Democrats for much of this in many ways. Their politicians love to increase taxation and inflation while causing more unemployment putting money pressure on couples. This leads to the usual arguments that lead towards infidelity. Get rid of mocking Democrats and we will see more successful marriages.

 

Whatever it is marriage benefits have been extended to gays only, so the special rights for gays have been established.
You can slice it any way you want, but if you remove procreation from marriage the sex is irrelevant, if sex is irrelevant then benefits should be accessible to any type of couple.
References to law is kind of out of scope, because special rights for gays have been imposed by dictatorial fiat.

 

What I'm mocking is that marriage is not some super sacred institution that is always a win. This has nothing to do with politics, more to do with peoples' behavior. Not everyone who gets married enjoys it, it's not something people HAVE to do, it's only what you make of it.

 

Can two heterosexual men marry one another? Yes or no?

Procreation was never removed because it was never a requirement to begin with.

False

Is that where the discussion has lead where you just repeat the same thing over and over while ignoring counter arguments? And you wonder why the majority and the law do not agree with you.

Seems you want to hear yourself instead of actually debating your position.

 

Ah, but it is sacred. Started with Adam and Eve. Then, those who fell away from the Lord began to mock God with their own rituals of marriage. Fortunately, the Lord accepts the marriages to free the non-believers from sinful sexual behavior and give them the opportunity to eventually be sealed for all eternity upon certain ordinances done and accepted by the individual couples.