Gay Marriages Should Be Denied.

No ones rights are violated by keeping the institution of marriage as between a man and a woman.

Homosexual couplings are not marriage because they are not equal to heterosexual couplings.

Like I said...good luck.

 

Because gays cannot contribute new life to society and because homosexuality is an aberration. Gays should create their own civil unions.

Limiting the number of children being converted to homosexuality which is an aberrant lifestyle.

 

Irrelevance followed by opinion followed by an allusion to the impossible. Civil Unions don't offer equality as has been proven.

Cloud cuckoo land!!

 

From the position you relate above, scores of challenges to laws present in some states will emerge in the future; it is inevitable. The laws WILL be changed (and are changing as we speak).

 

They can/do. Even so, that isn't reasonable or valid justification for denying homosexual people legal marriage with equal benefits.

You cannot justify the above; the reasons are well-discussed and obvious. The existing laws (prohibiting same sex marriage) WILL eventually be changed to allow marriage.

Homosexuality is normal and it cannot actually be characterized as some "lifestyle". Your opinion, beliefs and feelings may allow you to paint it as such, but in essence you are not being accurate in what you say.

 

Its like you didnt even read what you chose to respond to. Gays being the loudest critic doesnt alter the intent of the law. DOMA and marriage Amendments restate what has been in place all along.

 

LOL hahahaha

 

Irrelevant to you, determinative in 44 states.

 

Two men cannot impregnate each other. A man can impregnate a woman. A coupling between two men will not produce procreation of any kind. Therefore gay couplings are NOT equal to heterosexual couplings.

Good luck.

Redefining normal does not make it mean what you want it to mean. It is a lifestyle because it styles itself after heterosexual couplings. It has to because homosexuals are such a miniscule fraction of the human population.

 

That means nothing, with respect to legal marriage.

Having a child leads to benefits which have nothing to do with being homosexual.

That does not justify denying them the right to legal marriage. I agree about the mechanics of what you suggest.

Legally, they surely should be. If gays have children (which many do), their kids should have the exact same benefits to their parents as those which straight parents. In essence, they are "equal" enough, considering all things.

There is no redefining going on. If you want to hold onto you perspectives or beliefs, that is one thing. But trying to deny people rights for no valid or good reasons, is simply ludicrous.

Marriage may indeed be a "lifestyle"; but sexual orientation is not.

Considering the population of the earth, 2-4% isn't a small number; in the U.S.A. alone, the numbers would be in the millions. Even so and despite the numbers, that doesn't justify denying a minority their rights as human beings and citizens of America.

 

Like many others, they are not harmful to anyone else, so there is absolutely no reason they should be denied. I think that love that is desired to go on for marriage should never be turned down by law, and there really is no reason for LGBT marriages to be prohibited at all.

 

maybe people who don't want kids shouldn't be allowed to marry.

after all, it seems that the whole point is procreation according to the gay bashers here.

 

Funny to you; I'm dead serious. And it is interesting (somewhat) that you see homosexuality the way you do.

 

The government should have zero say in what two or more consenting adults do. I say two or more because I support polygamy and biggamy in addition to gay marriage. The government only say should be how much a couple, or group pay in taxes if they choose to jointly file them.

I would like to point out that I do believe that the government should still be involved in divorce. There needs to be some sort of unbiased party when it comes to dividing assets. I would support a private sector option as well, to give people a choice other than the government.

 

But when a lesbian woman becomes pregnant, we know for a fact that her lesbian lover is NOT the father. Gay guys, no children are born. What benefits are you referring to.

 

No, it is to deal with the product of that procreation, the children. The majority of births are unplanned pregnancies to couples who didnt want to become pregnant. Government has just as much interest in their wellbeing as they do the wellbeing of children of planned pregnancies.

 

That means nothing here, dixon.

That has nothing to do with allowing them to marry legally (as you've been told many times).

 

Actually many times a male/male couple will use a donated egg or a surigate mother, so a child is in fact born. Others adopt, and I consider a man who adopts a child to be just as much a father as one who inpregnates a woman.

 

Test tube children and adopted children are still children, and as I said previously, it's nothing more than unfair for the law to divide LGBT marriages. It basically translates to a normal lifestyle for LGBT couples.

 

You claim

What you say "means nothing here" is why children living with gays dont have the same benefits in the law. Marriage doesnt create parental rights, in the case of two gays. Giving birth creates the mothers parerntal rights. Being married to the mother creates the paternal rights for the husband. Not a lesbian lover.

 

Born, at most, related to one of the men the child is biologically related to. The other man, has no connection to the child, no legal obligations to the child and no parental rights in the child.

 

Actually your quite wrong. That can be worked out through the courts. However, if gays could marry, those little problems would not exist.

Just another reason gay marriage should be legal.

You do a great job of making my arguments for me.

 

Again, you're saying noting meaningful, within the reasonable context of the OP I wrote.

NOTHING you're saying is actual "justification" for denying homosexual people marriage.

If heterosexual marriage were actually LIMITED to the stipulations you list above, you'd have something valid... but "births" are no requirement even in heterosexual marriages. So what the hell are you saying?

 

No, even married, a lesbian lover has no legal right or obligations to any child her same sex lover bears. A married gay man has absolutely no legal rights or obligations to any child his gay lover fathers.

 

It is why what you think "should be", IS NOT.

Actually, we were speaking of parental rights and obligations, but that why you want to dash back to the denial of marriage to gays. AAAAAAND it continues to be why you cant marry your boyfriend in 44 states. Not meaningful to YOU if you dont want to marry your boyfriend in one of those 44 states.