Why Are You Against Same Sex Marriage?

We discriminate all the time and the law is about encouraging necessary and vital function of our species and they does not preclude homosexuals from doing so or engaging in their homosexuality. It is not about the person it is about a certain behavior which we should encourage and support and even legally sanction and one that requires no such thing.

 

Why shouldn’t a same sex couple with children not be allowed to marry while an infertile heterosexual couple be allowed to have multiple marriages?

 

If it causes no harm to others and all involved are consenting and have the ability to give informed consent, why not?

 

They are just creating a different kind of family.

 

That's not the point. We encourage and support and legal sanction things BECAUSE they are necessary and vital to our survival not just because it would be nice thing to do in some peoples opinion. It's not about consent. They can consent to share their wealth and property and insure each other and give POA to each other and love each other regardless of the heterosexual unions which are vital and necessary.

 

Nothing I have said has anything to do with religion. As if it matters I don't believe in supernatural beings or religious faith. My statements have been about the science, the biology and the nature of our species and how our society makes laws to encourage and support and legally sanction what is necessary and vital to it's survival. Yes the gender is completely important as to why we encourage heterosexual marriage and through our laws sanction it.

 

Improper use of "bulverism fallacy". What else could you be wrong on?

 

I wasn’t quoting you. But no, your posts have nothing to do with science or biology. Or the survival of our species. Same sex marriage does not affect, in any way, the survival of the human species. Marriage is a civil right. You can not like that all you want. The law doesn’t care. You can’t discriminate a civil right, in this case marriage, based on the sex of the couple. Same sex and opposite sex marriages are identical.

procreation is entirely irrelevant to marriage.

 

You have been repeatedly asked to prove this aspect, and have yet to address the point.

That said, since we have the 14th amendment and other laws that require that we do not discriminate on the basis of sex, which in this case would mean the sex of the participants in the legal marriage, we can't have a special dispensation for opposite sex marriage without allowing it for same sex as well. Especially since the legal marriage does not require procreation, and provides those benefits even if no child is ever produced. If we were encouraging marriages for the purpose of "survival of the species" then we would only give benefits to those who produced children, and to those who raised them, which may or may not be the same. But since we are not, your argument falls flat.

 

Humanity is not an endangered species. Heterosexual unions are not vital or necessary. You are welcome to marry of you want, and so is the same sex couple. You're not special so don't ask for special treatment.

 

Special dispensation for marriage is discrimination against single people and should not be a thing. If people want to get married that's fine, but it should be it's own reward.

 

BTW, looking at the poll options... what's the moral argument to ban polyamory? I see nothing wrong with it.

 

A whole different topic, in a different direction. Related but not the same. Feel free to start a thread on it. As one husband in a poly quad, I will be glad to participate.

 

All laws have to potential (with no claim that all laws do) to be discriminatory in some way or fashion. Automobile laws, particularly ones saying that you can't bike or walk along certain roads, are discriminatory against bicycle riders and pedestrians. Or the other way around, in that laws with give pedestrians right of way are discriminating against drivers. With the exception of religion, all of our prohibitions against laws that discriminate are based on innate aspects of a person; e.g. skin color, sex/gender etc. Single, or non-married is not a protected class anymore than pedestrians are.

 

ROFL well we would be if we didn't have enough heterosexuality going on and all the homosexuality could disappear tomorrow and we would not be. And correct homosexuality is not "special" as in rare, homosexuality is.

 

Ahhh you don't believe heterosexuality is vital and necessary to the survival of our species? Not encouraging homosexual activity is not discriminating on the basis of sex.

 

Strawman. There is no need to encourage either. Both occur normally and naturally. In that sense, the one guy has it right in that government recognition is not required for "survival of the species". As noted before, homosexuality does not exist in any numbers sufficient enough to impact population, especially in light of the number of heterosexual couplings that result in no children.

Denial of a set of government benefits or institutions based upon a protected class is. In the end the government is not required to recognize nor provide benefits for marriage. However, if it does so then it cannot discriminate on the basis of sex who is allowed to entered into said legal institution. Especially since said legal institution neither requires love nor sex nor offspring from those in said legal institution.

 

Homosexuality has never appeared, in humans or in animals, in any amount as to make this a rational concern. It might be more of a concern, if this was something that could be chosen, but there is no evidence that it is a choice.

Do you proof what you write? I mean I'm all about forgiving for typos, but when the word is a key element for your argument, some scrutiny is called for?

 

It was the proper use.

 

Which has nothing to do with what I said.

Spare me...................not my problem you can't read simple English.

 

Go learn what is a strawman.

We do things in government not because it feels good but because it serves a purpose and the purpose of legal marriage is to encourage and support and legally sanction what is vital and necessary to the survival of our species and maintain our society. There is nothing vital and necessary about homosexuality and it should not be encourage or supported through out laws. Does that mean outlawed, of course not you DO understand the difference don't you?

 

All of a sudden, gay people think they are right in having a marriage between two males or two females...."Marriage" is sacred...and will never be completely identified as a Marriage..with same sex partners...Procreation is the stopping point...Wake up folks, your letting a few LBGTQ's change society..

 

And did the slide into perversion stop? NO! It immediately segued to "transgender" rights. I'll say it again... unless their is a way to alter a persons genes to change from xx to xy and visa versa, there is no such thing as "transgender" ( they are cross dressers and self mutilators) and there is no such thing as "gay" marriage.

 

You don’t need marriage to procreate. With today’s science you don’t even need sex to procreate. And even if you needed both, as I wrote above, humanity is not having any problem with low numbers. So that’s no reason to oppose homosexuality.

 

It directly addressed your comment of " we would be if we didn't have enough heterosexuality going on " which is an implication that there was some kind of chance of there being more homosexuality than heterosexuality.

If you would write simple English, including proper punctuation, then it would be no problem to read it. However, when you write "And correct homosexuality is not "special" as in rare, homosexuality is." you just said that the thing that isn't rare, is rare. That is not simple English. That's simple contradiction.

Since I never said anything to elicit the question "Ahhh you don't believe heterosexuality is vital and necessary to the survival of our species?", you indeed made a strawman.

You once again dodge the issue of how marriage, in any form, is vital and necessary to the survival of our species. Simply saying it over and over again means little, other than to show that you are not aware of what is vital and necessary of the survival of our species.