Yet they can't marry... Which makes them unequal to heterosexual couples. Go figure.
not even one of the most liberal and progressive states out of fifty?
Race isn't a choice but intraracial or interracial marriage IS.
If you were to define marriage between two people of the same color, you'd still follow your logic of equallity, since ALL people can marry someone of the same skin...EQUALLY. Right?
Your confounding the relationship choice with the actual condition of the parties. Homosexual marriage is a 'choice' but gender is not. Interracial marriage is a choice but race is not. Do you see the connection?
Race is to Gender as interracial marriage is to homosexual marriage.
No one is excluded from the law so as such no one receive privileges denied to others.
Equality for all, as guaranteed by the founding documents of our country.
It's a travesty. And as far as I'm concerned, it's a crime.
Who is Loving?
Gay marriage blows more than straight marriage.
Gay marriage blows more than straight marriage.
I hear gay marriage is a real pain in the ass.
Yes, men are being excluded from marrying men, yet woman are not. That's descrimination being applied to only one group. And before you mention lesbians, that's not the same aspect.
Woman cannot marry women, but men can. Additional descrimination, not 'negating' descrimination.
And let's not look at history, let's look at a hypothetical. What if there was a prop. akin to prop8 that banned all interracial marriage (not just in one race). Now it's being applied to everyone equally. This is justified?
Like Transexuality and Gender Identity Disorder, born-homosexuality is a biological error. Race is not. Therefore gay marriage and interracial marriage are not comparable even if gays ever did suffer though anything even remotely close to Black slavery.
Gay marriage = interracial marriage is fantastic hyperbole at best.
1 of the 2 core purposes of marriage is to promote procreation if healthy children. Gays, hemophiliacs and familial couples cannot do this.
My soon to be step son would disagree with you.
My father, stepmother and 2 sisters would disagree with your soon to be step son.
As our founding fathers feared, we are too stupid to self govern, and this democracy is leading back into slavery as all democracies have.
We Americans have a modern history of Divorce and marriage break down. what has this to do with gaye marriage? Heck most of the people that I meet at the Senior Center, have been married and divorced several times. They have children by more than one spouce.Gosh I have divorced and married 6 times. Was it all because I met that gay lady in paris in 1965.
I was told that it was because of a gay man, that WW2 started in 1939.
I was once accosted verbally by a gay man, but I was more interested in his wife to care what he wanted. She was a Hot Fox.
my goal has always been to live with 5 lovely beautiful rich ladies, and have them support me in a great fashion.
I agree completely with this, but am often accused of being a fascist when I say it. John Adams was of this mindset. He felt that the common man was far to stupid to govern. I have yet to see him proven incorrect.
This is a different question.
You originally asked why it happened, and to that I have no conclusive answer.
As to why I think born-homosexuality is a biological error:
Procreation is not a necessity to good parenting. Two-parent households of any gender combination promote children of equivalent health and functioning level.If we were to look at gay marriage in a vacuum, I wouldn't really care about it.
It doesn't exist in a vacuum, though, and the modern pro-gm argument removes the procreation of healthy children from the purpose of marriage, and it is this which harms the sociological institution of marriage.
Yup.The government's vested interest in marriage is promoting couples raising children.
In bold is where you veer off course. The state has a vested interest in supporting couples raising children. Biological, step and other non biological couples raising children fulfill this, as these children, overall, function on the same level, and, overall, do better than children raised in single parent or other non-two parent familial situations. Gay couples raising children, produce kids that are as healthy as those from straights. So, in this part of the argument, promoting gay unions is in the government's interest.Any couple not raising children is of no concern to the state.
This rules out the majority of gay couples.
Of the gay and strate couples raising children, the state has a vested interest in the health and safety of those children. This means the state has no interest, in fact has grounds to oppose, familial unions and second marriages with small children. Reasonable opposition to the step-parent dynamic rules out the majority of gay couples with pre-existing children.
the common man doesn't govern, we have a representative democracy
Prove that if one is born homosexual it is a biological error,
This not completely accurate. The purpose of marriage, from a governmental standpoint, is to promote the healthy rearing of children. Procreation is not a necessity to this.
Jerry, I read the study you posted. I discusses biological DIFFERENCES, not errors. This is a significant semantical variation.
Procreation is not a necessity to good parenting. Two-parent households of any gender combination promote children of equivalent health and functioning level.
In bold is where you veer off course. The state has a vested interest in supporting couples raising children. Biological, step and other non biological couples raising children fulfill this, as these children, overall, function on the same level, and, overall, do better than children raised in single parent or other non-two parent familial situations. Gay couples raising children, produce kids that are as healthy as those from straights. So, in this part of the argument, promoting gay unions is in the government's interest.
I've already given a sample of supporting evidence in post 192, and while I may be willing to give additional examples, I have no interest in trying to conclusively prove beyond a reasonable doubt my position in this light weight thread.
Jeffersonian rhetoric was despise by many of the FF's like Madison, John Adams, Hamilton, Jay et all. There were men who did not believe men were equal.
This not completely accurate. The purpose of marriage, from a governmental standpoint, is to promote the healthy rearing of children. Procreation is not a necessity to this.
If that were true, then all partners who have no children would be denied marriage licenses.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?