Pennsylvania gay marriage ban struck down-

I can't dumb it down any further for you. If you can't comprehend something so incredibly simplistic as "similar arguments" I don't know how you made it out of jr high.

I explained in detail how the arguments are identical.

 

You have NO argument to justify banning gay marriage.NO ARGUMENT that makes any sense. It's about as stupid as stupid gets. Would you be able to marry the person of your choice which I assume would happen to be one of the opposite sex? Yes of course. Would a gay person be able to marry the person of their choice? NO! Discrimination ! Plain and simple. What don't you get about that?

 

But you haven't presented any argument for banning gay marriage. Other than pretending you are blind to obvious close parallels, all you've presented so far is your personal belief that gay marriage is wrong. Your belief is losing.

 

If you look at the link I posted, basically the amortized health care costs of your demographic is significantly higher than mine. This means if you get added to my health care pool, it is going to make my already ridiculously expensive health care costs go up even more. If you engage in an unhealthy lifestyle that's fine. Just don't ask me to pay to subsidize it which is exactly what you are doing.

 

Wait so my demographic- the demographic of my wife and I- is significantly higher than yours? What exactly is your demographic- single white women?

Again how does treating two homosexuals like my wife and I are treated affect you? Those two homosexuals are likely already in your health pool, and if anything, being married has the potential of reducing their health care costs.

And two gay men will not be having the costs of birthin babies, which may well be part of your health care pool cost.

Oh- do you believe that smokers shouldn't be allowed to be married either?

What about fat people?

People who engage in risky sports?

People who ride motorcycles?

 

Currently, you do pay more (in my company health care) if you are obese, or a smoker. You need special insurance in my state to ride a motorcycle.
So, they all pay the costs related to their activity. Why is the gay group so special? (My guess is because the health care costs are so high, that they can't pay them on their own.)

Adding just one example: Many gay women choose to undergo IVF. This used to be a fairly rare procedure, but it is becoming increasingly common in the US. The net result is higher costs passed down to everyone else with healthcare. Unless you own shares in Aetna, or Blue Cross, this is a bad thing.
http://www.healthline.com/health-news/women-the-high-cost-of-in-vitro-fertilization-101613

 

Being gay is not an addiction or a disease. Remember when being a women was treated as a preexisting condition? Can't do that anymore either. Are you trying to say that married gays people on health family care plans are a greater liability to the insurance pool.? Prove it

 

No, it is a lifestyle choice. Just as is smoking, and overeating which you mentioned previously. I AM trying to say that they add to the costs of the health care pool. So, why can't you pay your premium just like everyone else?

Links to Gay Lifestyle health issues
http://www.home60515.com/4.html

 

Being gay is an unhealthy lifestyle? Being married is a healthy lifestyle! In any case you would use this to deny gays the right to marry? What is your legal theory that would support that? Civil rights are too expensive? I would like to see someone try that when this case gets to SCOTUS. LMFAO!

 

If you want to discuss economics, you might want to consider this.....you need to look at the big picture:

But it's not really about the economics,, is it?

 

Why should the government encourage you to do something that is clearly detrimental to your health? It's not just bad, it's really bad. Most studies show that it is significantly worse than smoking. Our laws are fine prohibiting people from smoking in restaurants. Maybe we should prohibit gays from kissing in restaurants because 99% of people don't want to see that. Last I heard, the people had a voice in the government. Your analogies to civil rights of the minority are the same that Stalin used in Russia to silence the majority. Welcome to America.

 

What are you talking about? What is the government encouraging anyone to do that's unhealthy? Getting married? Or do you mean being gay? That would make no sense at all. Being gay is just who people are. Nothing to do with the government. Still waiting to hear your legal theory that would justify opposition to same sex marriage based on the economic impact.

 

I was not making an analogy to civil rights. I was not comparing gay rights to any other civil rights issue or any other group. It is a civil rights issue in and of itself. People do have a voice in government, but they do not get to decide on the rights of others. Stalin? Russia? Please spare me.

And by the way, what majority are you talking about? I just saw a statistic that shows 55% of American's support same sex marriage. In one more generation that will be 85%

 

Marriage between men and women is a healthy lifestyle. There is no evidence that "gay marriage" is a healthy lifestyle. I suspect the detriment to health of being gay overwhelms any benefit of marriage.

 

No. Stop with these bizarre interpretations of what you think I am saying and instead focus upon what I actually say.

 

Same gender couples don't produce children.

 

Actually, every single argument you gave for gays to marry would apply equally in the case of couples made up of ANY two consenting adults. Not just the gays.

 

So why should sterile couples and middle aged/older women be allowed to marry? They don't even have the potential to produce children.

 

No, now address the point if you can. All children without their biological parents are equally worthy, NOT just those who happen to be with "gay parent"s.

 

Besides gay couples, what are some other examples of 2 consenting adults who are not allowed to marry?

 

They didn't have a legal relationship equal to that of a parent. She had to adopt the grandchildren in order to establish that.
And if a person marries someone who already has children, no legal obligations to those children are created.

 

Actually, between the single mother and grandmother there is ZERO chance of inbreeding.
But thanks for the beautiful demonstration of your hypocrisy. You people insist procreation is unrelated to marriage. That marriage cant be limited to heterosexual couples because of the potential of procreation because not all heterosexual couples have the willingness or ability to procreate. AND YET you insist a single mother and grandmother be excluded from marriage because of..... THE POTENTIAL OF PROCREATION!!!

 

Closed ~ Post Capacity