Dismiss Notice
Thanks for being a member of our community. Please donate toward site expenses if you can.

Gays have the same rights as straight people

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by SpaceCricket79, Jul 18, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Page 10 of 23
  1. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,633
    Likes Received:
    1,736
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You always seem to come up with the most succinct way of saying these things. How do you do it!?
    I mean, its not as if people haven't been making that exact same counterargument throughout the whole topic,
    but,....well....it just seems better when you say it. :/
     
    Meta777, Jul 20, 2012
    #226
    Taxpayer and (deleted member) like this.
  2. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,633
    Likes Received:
    1,736
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Huh? How is that a straw-man???

    You said: "Improving the well being of children" was the state's interest in discriminating against homosexual couples.

    So I asked you what exactly you meant by that,

    and You responded: "children born to single mothers with absent or unknown fathers dont do as well as children born to their married mother and father."

    to which I replied: "But we aren't talking about children raised by single mothers or just children who don't know their father,
    we are talking specifically about children raised by homosexual couples, aren't we?"

    you answered that with: "Nope. Marriage isnt limited to heterosexual couples in order to exclude homosexual couples, but is instead so limited to include all couples that conceivably can procreate. "

    So at this point I can only reasonably assume that you're saying that children raised by the people who "procreated" them do better than those raised by parents who did not themselves "procreate" the children being raised by them or by a parent that did "procreate" them but wherein the other parent who participated in the "procreation" is missing.

    If that is not what you were meaning to say, then why exactly did you cite the providing for the well-being of children through limiting marriage to potential procreational couples as the state's interest in banning gay marriage?





    Also,.....Can you cite your source for your statistics involving the one group of children (which ever group that is) doing worse than others in the areas that you listed?

    -Meta
     
    Meta777, Jul 20, 2012
    #227
  3. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,633
    Likes Received:
    1,736
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That statement taken alone does not make any sense at all.
    One would think that detecting infertility would be just as easy as detecting fertility,
    since detecting either case naturally rules out the possibility of the other case being true at the time of detection.

    Again, perhaps you were meaning to say something else?
    Did you mean to say that it is easy to detect some types of infertility?
    If that is the case, why not ban all such easily detectable infertile couples from getting married?

    Also, if you believe that there are indeed none-homosexual couples for which it is easy to detect their infertility,
    then, again, why not ban them too from getting married if procreation is truly a legitimate interest of the state?

    -Meta
     
    Meta777, Jul 20, 2012
    #228
  4. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,633
    Likes Received:
    1,736
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Again, how is that a straw-man???
    You specifically stated: "children born to single mothers with absent or unknown fathers dont do as well as children born to their married mother and father."
     
    Meta777, Jul 20, 2012
    #229
  5. Object227

    Object227 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    3,950
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Children with no fathers won't do as well because the father is absent, not because the mother is incompetent. Learn to read what is written.
     
    Object227, Jul 20, 2012
    #230
  6. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,633
    Likes Received:
    1,736
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Huh, you're saying I should learn to read what is written? Tell me, where did I say that children not doing well was due to an incompetent mother?
    I suggest that you should follow your own advice and learn to read what is written.
     
    Meta777, Jul 20, 2012
    #231
  7. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,552
    Likes Received:
    4,479
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because, I never said any such thing. Stop trying to tell us what I am saying and instead simply quote what I say.

    Nope, I said improving the well being of children is a legitimate governmental interest and said nothing about homosexuals. And Ive said repeatedly, marriage isnt limited to heterosexual couples in order to exclude homosexual couples. It is to include all couples with the potential of procreation. Homosexuals exclude themselves, preferring to limit their sexual relations to those of the same sex to achieve an orgasm, instead of sexual relations with someone of the opposite sex to bring children into the world.

    Silly fool logic. The overwhelming majority of children who are not born to their married mother and father, are born to single mothers, on their own with the father absent or unknown. The fact that some tiny percentage of those not born to married parents, will end up being adopted, does nothing for the majority of them who dont.
     
    dixon76710, Jul 20, 2012
    #232
  8. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,552
    Likes Received:
    4,479
    Trophy Points:
    113

    LOLOLOL Hes not suggesting you learn to read what YOU have written but instead what others had written. YOU claimed

    But you knew that.
     
    dixon76710, Jul 20, 2012
    #233
  9. Robodoon

    Robodoon Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Messages:
    4,906
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not to the Creator, do dog (*)(*)(*)(*)ers have the same rights, or how about people who like to rape kids?

    Now kids have more worth than dogs, but look at what you are saying.

    Creation is one thing, its not everything...just like Truth. Truth is just one thing.
     
    Robodoon, Jul 20, 2012
    #234
  10. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Stupid and lazy argument. children and dogs can't consent.
     
    rahl, Jul 20, 2012
    #235
  11. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    there is no potential of procreation among infertile, geriatric, paralyzed or sterlyzed couples.

    this is why your argument is idiotic, and self defeating.
     
    rahl, Jul 20, 2012
    #236
  12. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63

    Good points. However, he was advocating rights for child rapists... so age of consent might not be the key distinction in his particular example.​
     
    Taxpayer, Jul 20, 2012
    #237
  13. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,633
    Likes Received:
    1,736
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What? I did just quote you. And by the way, other than the portions with quotes around them, I'm not telling anyone what you are saying, I'm asking you but for some reason you seem more intent on accusing me of painting your position than simply answering the darn questions.

    So when you stated that, "children born to single mothers with absent or unknown fathers dont do as well as children born to their married mother and father."
    Were you including children raised by homosexual couples as part of this group of children that do not do well? (note, that I am asking you what your view is, not telling you, so if you want to make yourself clear, just answer the question clearly), or do you believe that the effectiveness of raising children whether they be adopted or otherwise has no relevance when it comes to banning gay marriage? (again, asking you not telling you).


    Also, if you believe that the states interest in banning gay marriage has to do with the potential for a couple to procreate,
    then do you also believe that all easily detectible infertile couples should also be banned from getting married?
    If not, then why not????

    -Meta
     
    Meta777, Jul 20, 2012
    #238
  14. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,552
    Likes Received:
    4,479
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ???? I didnt claim infertile, geriatric, paralyzed or sterlyzed couples could procreate. That is why YOUR argument is idiotic. I quite clearly said, "it is to include all couples with the potential of procreation". We dont know which couples will procreate. We only know that all who do will be heterosexual couples. By encouraging all heterosexual couples to marry, all couples who can procreate are encouraged to marry.
     
    dixon76710, Jul 20, 2012
    #239
  15. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,633
    Likes Received:
    1,736
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Assuming that their infertile status is known, do you or do you not believe that these people should be banned from getting married?
     
    Meta777, Jul 20, 2012
    #240
  16. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63


    Octagenarian couples have no potential to procreate. Marriage is not about procreation. Marriage exists so a couple can live one life with less complications and burden.

    Mixed sex couples don't gain anything by denying this convenience to same sex couples, they don't loose anything by allowing it. At the end of the day, the only reason to deny marriage to same sex couples is to make it harder to be a same sex couple.
    ​
     
    Taxpayer, Jul 20, 2012
    #241
  17. 3link

    3link Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    10,734
    Likes Received:
    4,366
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You realize its just one big circle for him, right? His next move will be to point to two cases from state supreme courts that supposedly solidify his position when there are plenty of other state supreme court decisions (which I have previously posted) that say otherwise.
     
    3link, Jul 20, 2012
    #242
  18. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,552
    Likes Received:
    4,479
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So full of it. Question-

    Answer-

    What part didnt you understand?

    Yes. Some "children born to single mothers with absent or unknown fathers" might end up with a homosexual couple. Including ALL "children born to single mothers with absent or unknown fathers". Single mom going lesbian and moving in her girlfriend to help with the kids is a tiniest of percentages of all children born to single mothers. The most common alternative is a single mother, on her own, providing and caring for the child herself, with at most a monthly check from an absent father, frequently not even that. Had the single mother instead, first married her heterosexual partner before giving birth, the child benefits from an already established, stable household, and would be more likely to have the benefit of both their mother and father in the home, working together to provide and care for them.

    No one is banning gay marriage. Two people of the same sex arent excluded from marriage because they might be gay, they are excluded because they are of the same sex. No potential of procreation. Heterosexual couples are included because of the potential of procreation. Closely related couples are excluded because of the potential of procreation, couples of the same sex are excluded because of the impossibility of procreation. Platonic marriages are annuled because of the impossibility of procreation. None of this has anyrthing to do with anybody being "gay".
     
    dixon76710, Jul 20, 2012
    #243
  19. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    and your argument falls apart because infertile, geriatric, paralyzed and steralyzed couples can and do marry.

    your argument is to exclude same sex couples because they can't biologically procreate. this is an invalid argument, because there is no requirement for the ability or intention to procreate in order to marry.
     
    rahl, Jul 20, 2012
    #244
  20. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,552
    Likes Received:
    4,479
    Trophy Points:
    113


    LOLOLOL I didnt claim infertile, geriatric, Octagenarian, paralyzed or sterlyzed couples could procreate​
     
    dixon76710, Jul 20, 2012
    #245
  21. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,552
    Likes Received:
    4,479
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The absence of such requirement has no relevance to my argument. Im not arguing that heterosexual couples are encouraged to marry because they all procreate. They are encouraged to do so because they are THE ONLY couples who do procreate. A big difference, that you cant seem to even comprehend.
     
    dixon76710, Jul 20, 2012
    #246
  22. 3link

    3link Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    10,734
    Likes Received:
    4,366
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He's not saying that you said that. He's saying that the fact that infertile, geriatric, Octagenarian, paralyzed or sterlyzed couples are not barred from getting married pretty much destroys your "potential to procreate" argument.
     
    3link, Jul 20, 2012
    #247
  23. 3link

    3link Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    10,734
    Likes Received:
    4,366
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Even if this were the reason for marriage, it wouldn't justify limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.
     
    3link, Jul 20, 2012
    #248
  24. Object227

    Object227 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    3,950
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Don't be so obtuse. You know darn well that I'm referring to your accusation against Dixon here:
    Would you like to retract this now?
     
    Object227, Jul 20, 2012
    #249
  25. Foolardi

    Foolardi Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2009
    Messages:
    47,987
    Likes Received:
    6,805
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is absolutely true and american that Gays have Rights equal to straights.
    There is no qualm over that.No one is denying that right.But Gays do not have the
    same category of rights afforded a family member or a Married couple.Being
    Married is a matter of law.Being gay is simply a matter of an adopted lifestyle choice.
    Does not in any legal,moral or civil dispensation meet the demands of
    a Marriage,being a Family member or norms in a Society.Case in point Oscar Wilde
    who I admire but was also banished as a functioning literary genius in Britain due to
    his passion for homosexuality.
     
    Foolardi, Jul 20, 2012
    #250
Page 10 of 23
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page