|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Mar 26, 2022 18:14:23 GMT
he's regurgitating centuries of the same horse shit that had my brothers skewered alive. how dare he even assume that he has some kind of magical-thinking power to define me or any other person for that matter. christians are experts at killing people with kindness all in the name of some wannabe spirit god whose supposedly pulling the strings of the planet as everyone dutifully falls in line. Nobody is promoting killing or assaulting people with gay/lesbian orientation. Just simply stating the purpose of sexual intercourse. all the rhetoric still points towards a world controlled by the whims and wishes of those who think they know what's best for everyone. and all in the name of some divinely inspired hearsay handed down from one generation to the next. oh there is a cauldron stirred, churned and fed constantly by those who live in absolute fear.
|
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Mar 26, 2022 21:25:58 GMT
Nobody is promoting killing or assaulting people with gay/lesbian orientation. Just simply stating the purpose of sexual intercourse. all the rhetoric still points towards a world controlled by the whims and wishes of those who think they know what's best for everyone. and all in the name of some divinely inspired hearsay handed down from one generation to the next. oh there is a cauldron stirred, churned and fed constantly by those who live in absolute fear. I have known atheists and/or non-religious people who opposed homosexuality too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Mar 27, 2022 19:26:12 GMT
That's ridiculous. There are heterosexuals couples that marry even with the intention of not having kids. There is something wrong with government deciding that two consenting adults cannot marry. So? Some heterosexuals don't have children. This doesn't change the fact that heterosexual intercourse is reproductive. I can fuck my partner in the ass all I want and we'll never make a buttbaby.
The government does not grant special rights to couples as a unit. It guarantees the rights of individuals.
And the fact that heterosexual intercourse is reproductive has nothing to do with marrieage. As people can have kids without marriage and people can marriage without planning on having kids. Congratulations. Some partners would still like to what you do and still get married. The government is not granting special rights to couples by having legal gay marriage.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 27, 2022 20:01:04 GMT
When you state "Any adult could marry the opposite sex" you are confusing the basic right (to marry) with a restriction placed upon that right (as long as it's the opposite sex). All rights come with restrictions, but they must be shown as valid restrictions or be discarded. There was no valid reason to uphold a racial restriction on marriage, and so it was rightly discarded. And likewise, no valid reason could be shown to restrict a spouse to the opposite sex. And it too, rightly fell. (And impure motives of conservatives or anyone else for espousing any policy have no bearing on the rightness of that policy.) And legalizing gay marriage does not take away any choices that you have in how you live. But you would take away choices from others. That's why it is indeed you who ought to butt out. There are all sorts of restrictions on whom one can marry based on age, family relationship et al. It's not an equal rights issue since homosexuals or bisexuals can marry the opposite sex.
Wow. I point out your mistake, and you proceed to make that mistake again. I will repeat: You are confusing the basic right (to marry) with a restriction placed upon that right (as long as it's the opposite sex). You just listed restrictions on that right to marry. Those are restrictions that have not been shown in court to lack validity. So, they remain in place. This is not true for the previous restriction requiring a spouse to be the same race, and not true for restriction requiring a spouse to be the opposite sex.Just as an aside, the custom of marriage may be ancient, but state-sponsored marriage with a network of enforceable laws is not ancient at all. But, more to the point, it is NOT the government who initiated the legalization of SSM. It was citizens seeking change who brought lawsuits against their state governments. And when those governments could not defend the constitutionality of denying marriage licenses to same sex couples the states were ordered by the courts to drop their restriction. I notice you put stock in 4 Supreme Court justices who dissented. Besides the fact that the lower courts throughout the country were siding overwhelmingly with the same sex couples, you should be aware that 2 of those SC justices had previously supported the criminalization of gay sex (Lawrence v Texas). The other 2 weren't on the court at the time, but it's a safe bet that at least one of them (Alito) would also have done so. If a judge thinks it's OK to criminalize gay sex, I wouldn't trust his legal analysis of gay marriage.Are you saying that you would be just fine with the existence of "civil unions" that are treated under the law as just the same as legal marriage? If so, it makes nonsense of any of your so-called complaints about SSM, because there would nothing left to object to except the use of a single word (marriage).
|
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Mar 27, 2022 20:22:32 GMT
And the fact that heterosexual intercourse is reproductive has nothing to do with marrieage. As people can have kids without marriage and people can marriage without planning on having kids. Congratulations. Some partners would still like to what you do and still get married. The government is not granting special rights to couples by having legal gay marriage. Over 90% of heterosexual couples have biological children together. 0% of homosexual couples do.  Tail wagging the dog much to base law on a small minority?
The historical social importance of marriage revolves around providing a stable home for children, holding the father accountable for support of his children, and establishing inheritance.
No one has given a good explanation why heterosexual marriage was fine and worked for thousands of years as is, or why the government needed to step in and change it? If it's an equality issue in regards to domestic partnerships, why do the LGBT hacks oppose civil unions?
The government didn't step in and changed heterosexual marriage. As you are aware heterosexuals can still get married. The only thing that government did is that now homosexuals can also get married with each other. Nothing changed for heterosexual marriage. I couldn't care less about what they oppose. If a homosexual doesn't want to get married, that's his business. If an homosexual wants to get married, that's his business too. LGBT hacks opposed to civil unions are no different than hacks opposed to same sex marriage.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 27, 2022 20:33:27 GMT
LGBT hacks opposed to civil unions are no different than hacks opposed to same sex marriage. Actually "civil unions" had real problems, both as a practical and a legal matter. But that's a whole other story.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Mar 27, 2022 21:13:14 GMT
This thread has reorientated into a gay marriage debate.  |
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Mar 27, 2022 22:00:06 GMT
all the rhetoric still points towards a world controlled by the whims and wishes of those who think they know what's best for everyone. and all in the name of some divinely inspired hearsay handed down from one generation to the next. oh there is a cauldron stirred, churned and fed constantly by those who live in absolute fear. I have known atheists and/or non-religious people who opposed homosexuality too. so have i. still nothing fuels the shekinah glory fires quite like the self-righteous on a mission from god just dying to burn something at the stake.
|
|
