Why again does it matter if fags marry?

[flexxx]

you're sort of overlapping things.

In the wildest stretch of the imagination a gay couple can't have kids...there is no way it can happen

but a hetero couple can. Even if one or the other is sterile, there is still the possibilty..in most cases...that they can have kids. hard to explain what im trying to say as i just woke up. ...basically ....in the process of human birth and embryotic creation...you need an egg producer, you need a sperm producer...without those you arent going to make a baby. hetero couples have this...gay couples dont.

and somehow all this means they shouldn't be allowed to get married?

whiskey tango foxtrot?

 

[triple]

triple, once again, proving himself to be a tard.

For a person who seems to stalk me in every thread I post in, you sure don't read my posts.

gay people are less human and deserve fewer rights than the rest of us.

I think its great that gays could get roughly the same rights (simply because nature prevents them from having true full rights, and there is nothing we can do about that) as straight people, let me clarify that, additional rights to account for them wanting to spend their life in a same sex relationship.

But as I said earlier, legal rights and marriage are two different things.

And if you want to go "marriage is a right!", you're right, it is, and gays have always had that right to marry a member of the opposite sex, just like the rest of us. You're trying to redefine marriage when you should be redefining the legal rights both types of couples have.

 

[El Mariachi]

faggots shouldn't be allowed to adopt a child. A child needs a WOMEN as the mother. Not a mother with a dick.

I don't think this person realised he just condemned all single fathers.

 

[commonsense]

Whenever I think about marriage I picture a union between a man and a woman. I'd like to keep it that way. But it doesn't really matter. Because if you label it something different, even though it may carry the same legal rights- it'll still be different. Hmmm. This is a toughie for me.

Do gay couples only adopt gay children? Normal couples can have gay children. So is there anything wrong with a gay couple raising a straight kid? He'd probably have a lot harder time growing up than a regular child. But not necessarily. I don't like the idea of gay couple adopting, but this isn't my world..

 

[El Mariachi]

And if you want to go "marriage is a right!", you're right, it is, and gays have always had that right to marry a member of the opposite sex, just like the rest of us. You're trying to redefine marriage when you should be redefining the legal rights both types of couples have.

So are you ok with extending the legal rights (hospital visitation, et. al.) to gays as long as its not called marriage?

 

[JuggerNaught]

and somehow all this means they shouldn't be allowed to get married?

whiskey tango foxtrot?

let them be best friends...marriage is for the normal people.

 

[flexxx]

And if you want to go "marriage is a right!", you're right, it is, and gays have always had that right to marry a member of the opposite sex, just like the rest of us. You're trying to redefine marriage when you should be redefining the legal rights both types of couples have.

So, really, what the fuck are you trying to say? You're saying you don't want gays to be allowed to have the legal rights that go along with marriage? You're going to need to clarify your viewpoint because I think not even you know what the fuck you're saying.

 

[flexxx]

let them be best friends...marriage is for the normal people.

I expected nothing better from you, captain normal, here's a sacagawea dollar for your troubles.

 

[triple]

So are you ok with extending the legal rights (hospital visitation, et. al.) to gays as long as its not called marriage?

I'm for extending the legal rights if its called marriage or not, I think it's important homosexuals be able to fully live their lives the way they want. But you have to understand, marriage does not include a homosexual couple. Redefining that standard of society in order to gain certain legal rights is the wrong decision, imo.

 

[flexxx]

I'm for extending the legal rights if its called marriage or not, I think it's important homosexuals be able to fully live their lives the way they want. But you have to understand, marriage does not include a homosexual couple. Redefining that standard of society in order to gain certain legal rights is the wrong decision, imo.

For what reason? Because of your own personal prejudices? Seriously, this is the sort of thing people were saying as to why women shouldn't have the vote. Your thinking is old fashioned.

 

[triple]

So, really, what the fuck are you trying to say? You're saying you don't want gays to be allowed to have the legal rights that go along with marriage? You're going to need to clarify your viewpoint because I think not even you know what the fuck you're saying.

My posts require a 5th grade reading level. I know that's a bit high for people like you, but maybe you can get your parents over here to explain it to you?

 

[triple]

For what reason? Because of your own personal prejudices? Seriously, this is the sort of thing people were saying as to why women shouldn't have the vote. Your thinking is old fashioned.

It's like jews celebrating the birth of moses on dec. 25th, and calling it christmas.

You can have jewish santa, baby moses, and all the other cool things that go along with christmas, but it's still not christmas.

 

[flexxx]

My posts require a 5th grade reading level. I know that's a bit high for people like you, but maybe you can get your parents over here to explain it to you?

When all else fails in a debate, resort to personal attacks!

Rodger, Dodger.

 

[Teflonatron]

Teflo, even if a member of a couple is infertile, they can adopt and have a reasonably normal family. I think its great that gays could get roughly the same rights (simply because nature prevents them from having true full rights, and there is nothing we can do about that) as straight people, let me clarify that, additional rights to account for them wanting to spend their life in a same sex relationship.

But as I said earlier, legal rights and marriage are two different things. The tradition of marriage wasn't invented so people could visit eachother in hospitals, and get benefits off of eachother's insurance. Those are legal rights that evolved around the tradition.

So what's the solution here? While you guys are trying to change the definition of marriage to change the legal rights with force, I want to leave marriage alone and change the legal rights.

First of all, there is no such thing as a legal right. Rights are above the law, and the law may not infringe on those rights.

Secondly, I don't remember seeing a right to marriage anywhere in the constitution.

Thirdly, there is nothing preventing a religious union between two men or two women, should a religion decide to endorse that union.

What I don't understand is the presumption that the legal status of a married heterosexual couple is completely sepearte from that of a gay couple. Isn't justice all about equality under the eyes of the law? I understand your point, that gay men still have the legal right to marry a woman, but why must the legal status of marriage only apply to unions between a man and a woman?

Is it not essentially the same thing? Ok, the word 'marriage' can't be used because it's defined as a union between a man and a woman, so let's just stick with 'legal union'. In order to create equality under the law, we must then rid ourselves of legal 'marriage', and create a law recognizing legal unions, between two men, two women, or a man and a woman, (or simplified to just a union between two consenting adults), and give all those who become joined in the eyes of the law the same legal status, with the same benifits currently reseved for only heterosexual couples.

See, it's not so much giving homosexual new rights, as it's creating equality under the law.

 

[triple]

When all else fails in a debate, resort to personal attacks!

Rodger, Dodger.

Well, that would certainly explain "triple, once again, proving himself to be a tard."

 

[flexxx]

It's like jews celebrating the birth of moses on dec. 25th, and calling it christmas.

You can have jewish santa, baby moses, and all the other cool things that go along with christmas, but it's still not christmas.

What great logic and reasoning.

Is this analogy supposed to prove your intolerance for everyone who isn't just like you?

Great, you've proven it well.

 

[Doaln]

fucking christ i'm up to page 22 now, but SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT ANNE HECHE ALREADY JUGGERNAUGHT. holy fucking christ you are saying the same thing over and over again and it doesn't matter for shit. whether they are born gay, become gay through their upbringing, or "choose" to be gay, it doesn't matter. i suspect it may fall under all three, and most in the first two. to think that all gays CHOOSE to be gay in todays world where they are constantyl bashed, beaten, and sometimes killed, is a little far fetched. i'm continuing onto page 23. the first pages before i went to bed last night (somewhere around page 12) were still decent posts. 13-22 haven't accomplished shit by the anti-gay marriage people.

oh, and before i forget, i saw this a few pages ago

2) The only thing homosexuals are denied is certain benefits. A civil union could bring about those benefits without forcing the church to officially recognise marriage.

No one is forcing the church to recognize marriage. Gays want it recognized by the STATE.

ps, i have to go to class soon. i will try to catch up on saturday or sunday.

 

[JuggerNaught]

I expected nothing better from you, captain normal, here's a sacagawea dollar for your troubles.

i dont need your 1.50 homo...

 

[triple]

What great logic and reasoning.

Is this analogy supposed to prove your intolerance for everyone who isn't just like you?

Great, you've proven it well.

My analogy is supposed to prove that you can't redefine a word, or a tradition, or a whatever, simply because it doesn't apply to you. You can do something new and get the beneifts of "whatever", but it's still not the real thing, and never will be.

That's not me talking, that's reality.

 

[flexxx]

First of all, there is no such thing as a legal right. Rights are above the law, and the law may not infringe on those rights.

Secondly, I don't remember seeing a right to marriage anywhere in the constitution.

Thirdly, there is nothing preventing a religious union between two men or two women, should a religion decide to endorse that union.

What I don't understand is the presumption that the legal status of a married heterosexual couple is completely sepearte from that of a gay couple. Isn't justice all about equality under the eyes of the law? I understand your point, that gay men still have the legal right to marry a woman, but why must the legal status of marriage only apply to unions between a man and a woman?

Is it not essentially the same thing? Ok, the word 'marriage' can't be used because it's defined as a union between a man and a woman, so let's just stick with 'legal union'. In order to create equality under the law, we must then rid ourselves of legal 'marriage', and create a law recognizing legal unions, between two men, two women, or a man and a woman, (or simplified to just a union between two consenting adults), and give all those who become joined in the eyes of the law the same legal status, with the same benifits currently reseved for only heterosexual couples.

See, it's not so much giving homosexual new rights, as it's creating equality under the law.

you're going to give triple a logic overload: