Thread: Straight people's opinion's should not be taken into account in the marriage debate

Originally Posted by Taxpayer

No ones asking you to license male female relations. Just certify when a couple is married. Failing to do so unfairly penalizes people who try to live as one in a society that is designed to deal with folks individually. We've recognized that for centuries, that's why we have laws that accommodate married folks and attempt to minimize problems caused by these laws.

Actually me and millions of other people have asked for that, it is hardly "no ones". It has to be something, that motivate man and woman to be together for a long time to bring up new generation. There is no other justification to regulate man and woman relationship.
Marriage benefits are associated with marriage license for a sole purpose to motivate man and woman to get married. Those perks have nothing to do with any other types of couples.

Originally Posted by kreo

Actually me and millions of other people have asked for that, it is hardly "no ones". It has to be something, that motivate man and woman to be together for a long time to bring up new generation. There is no other justification to regulate man and woman relationship. Marriage benefits are associated with marriage license for a sole purpose to motivate man and woman to get married. Those perks have nothing to do with any other types of couples.

Folks will marry regardless of what the law says. Extending 5th amendment privilege or not requiring a married couple to separate their accounting to file individually does nothing to motivate a couple who not otherwise live as one to get married. It just accommodates their choice. There are no perks.

In marriage, like all things, government serves people, not the other way around.

Originally Posted by Makedde

This would be because opponents don't want to allow such tests to go ahead, it might prove them wrong.

Crapola. No conservative has ever prevented a homo couple from raising a child, so there should be plenty of examples. The reason you won't find a lot of gay couples raising children is because most of them are completely wrapped up in themselves and their lifestyle. For them, life isn't about what you can give, what sacrifice you can make, but rather what you can get and what makes you happy.

Originally Posted by saintmichaeldefendthem

Crapola. No conservative has ever prevented a homo couple from raising a child, so there should be plenty of examples. The reason you won't find a lot of gay couples raising children is because most of them are completely wrapped up in themselves and their lifestyle. For them, life isn't about what you can give, what sacrifice you can make, but rather what you can get and what makes you happy.

Bigotry noted.

It does seem a bit bigoted on its surface doesn't it? Yet anyone who identifies themselves by their sexually-deviant behavior could be seen to be focusing on indugence just a little don't you think?

Originally Posted by Taxpayer

Folks will marry regardless of what the law says. Extending 5th amendment privilege or not requiring a married couple to separate their accounting to file individually does nothing to motivate a couple who not otherwise live as one to get married. It just accommodates their choice. There are no perks.

In marriage, like all things, government serves people, not the other way around.

Exactly right government serves people by licensing and regulating relationship between man and woman. Marriage is not a welfare for sexual couples, at least it should not be according to constitution and principles of free society.

Originally Posted by kreo

Exactly right government serves people by licensing and regulating relationship between man and woman. Marriage is not a welfare for sexual couples, at least it should not be according to constitution and principles of free society.

Actually the minister is licensed not the couple being married. And how is marriage regulated? And what do you mean by 'government'? You know there are several levels of government and marriage is largely a state issue. You sound like one of those 'rage against the machine' types who doesn't half understand the system but is following the popular mantra that we're all getting screwed by it.

Originally Posted by Silhouette

It does seem a bit bigoted on its surface doesn't it? Yet anyone who identifies themselves by their sexually-deviant behavior could be seen to be focusing on indugence just a little don't you think?

First off, homosexuality is based on attraction, not the act of sex. You can be gay and never have sex in your entire life.

Second, who are you to decide whether someone's private sex life is deviant?

Yeah, tell me again gays aren't adopting and raising kids. Try to say they aren't doing a (*)(*)(*)(*) good job of it to.

Originally Posted by saintmichaeldefendthem

Actually the minister is licensed not the couple being married. And how is marriage regulated? And what do you mean by 'government'? You know there are several levels of government and marriage is largely a state issue. You sound like one of those 'rage against the machine' types who doesn't half understand the system but is following the popular mantra that we're all getting screwed by it.

What is the purpose of regulation and licensing of relationship between man and a woman? There is got to be something in that policy. Like I said before, in free society, government can only regulate and license something that interfere with other people's lives. Heterosexual couples can create new people (i.e. children) and we all responsible for those people, so relationship between man and woman require regulation. No regulation is required for all other types of couples, that means gay couples have nothing to do with marriage.