Gay people's opinion should not be taken into account in the marriage debate

Absurd, silly argument.

 

Actually, the laws passed allowing homosexual couples to marry legally, are promote 'inclusiveness', not the opposite. If rights had been taken from heterosexuals, that would have been 'exclusive'.

Ultimately, there will be virtually 'zero' valid reasons to deny homosexual people the right to legally marry those of the same sex. That is where the laws are headed.

There is no evidence (in reality) that anything special is being provided by allowing couples of the same sex to be legally married.

 

Rights, not available to any two consenting adults, are special rights. For heterosexual couples because they are the only couples who procreate, and for gay couples because they are so special.

 

I and my brother are of the "same sex" and not eligible for marriage in any of the 50 states.

 

I think the argument about whether or not such rights a "special" stem primarily from a person's perceptions. Considering that two people of the same sex are allowed to marry... is effectively no different than any other marriage between heterosexuals.

 

If you and your brother are truly blood kin and were raised in a typical household... there are other aspects to be seriously considered where marriage would be concerned.

That is essentially a different topic altogether.

 

Heterosexual couplings lead to births of children, homosexual couplings never do. And


§ 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is
presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the
child is born during the marriage;

never applies in the case of homosexual couples, because they cant produce children.

 

Such as?

 

No, overcoming fear is as simple as education. There is a very basic truth, but you have to be open to accept it. It can be varified by most major medical groups worldwide and by getting to know any homosexual people, couples, or families.

The fact that you are complicating the issue seems to point to the fact that you are not ready for the truth.

 

Wrong. Every state simply included same sex couples in the already set definition of civil marriage. They simply took man and woman out of the license. Easy.

 

... that is generally irrelevant within the context of the current discussion. Most people realise that intuitively, yet you trot that line out as if it is THE one unimpeachable thought. LOL!!!

 

Start another thread.

Example: "Why should/shouldn't blood kin be allowed to marry one another?"

It might be interesting.

 

Irrelevant down at the gay bath house. Most frequently detrminative in courts of law. But thats why you must imagine that it is irrelevant, because it so frequently defeats your arguments, when it comes to courts of law.

 

????? PRECISELY the opposite. Marriage limited to heterosexual couples, the only couples who conceivably can procreate, is only mildly overinclusive in that some heterosexual couples will not procreate. ON THE OTHER HAND marriage limited to both heterosexual couples and homosexual couples to encourage the formation of stable homes, is drastically under inclusive because ANY TWO CONSENTING ADULTS can form a stable home.

 

Now you are just being insulting. (Please, stop wasting mental energy.)

Just watch what happens, if you live to see it. In due time, homosexual people will have the rights they deserve as human beings.

 

Irrelevant.

 

YOU are the one that brought it up in this thread.

 

No, I didn't mention YOU and your brother.

Incest isn't the topic; discussion of homosexual marriage is.

 

Now, if we had a government that only built roads, delivered mail, regulated commerce, and defended our shores we wouldn't be now trying to "fix" legislation with more legislation that will then need to be fixed again later when the polygamists get upset and then fixed again later when people challenge age of consent.

Less government would have meant no Jim Crow laws, no anti-homosexual laws, no preferential marriage laws because none of that was the duty of the state.

Just sayin'.

 

I was speaking of the real world, not the one you imagine in the future.

 

It's a few court challenges away, but I think you know this.

 

You are speaking of the real world you accept; there is MORE to it than what you think, dixon.

You aren't wrong about everything... but we surely disagree about the conclusions you have reached and embraced overall.

That is reality.

 

Children born to single mothers, when compared to children born to married mothers, have higher rates of poverty, juvenile delinquincy, HS drop outs, teen pregnancy and criminal conviction as an adult, all factors that frequently lead to the need for government involvement with financial assistance or incarceration. I think governments involvement in the limited case of heterosexual couples, the only couples that conceivably can procrete, is consistant with limited government. And millions of children provided and cared for by single mothers, governmental assistance, housing, day care, and public schools and meal programs is not consistant with limited government.

AND I cant think of much more inconsistant with limited government than this current campaign to use marriage to win more "respect" for homosexuals from society and more "dignity" for the gays.

 

Respect and dignity are earned. Equal rights are ours as American citizens. You can continue to oppose them, but you are now in the minority. We will gain equal rights in your lifetime. Then what will you do???

 

^^Result of government trying to fix a problem. Gay people don't have unplanned pregnancies, either. Next...

And I can't think of a much more inconsistent with limited government than utilizing the Congress to create anti-constitutional piece of legislation like DOMA.

If the government was truly limited, ie doing only what the Constitution limits it to then we wouldn't have any of these problems to begin with.