Hello everybody

[giblets]

Society a hundred years ago consisted of a vast number of poor people being exploited by a tiny number of very rich people. Despite the obvious recent parallels, please explain how people are worse off now than they were then.

Are you a Marxist?

[Ben Kenobi]

And all of these bad things can be laid at the feet of gay couples.

Never said so. Simply said that it was a consequence of earlier actions, and that the continued consequence would be the same as the earlier actions. That is all. It doesn't matter so much how it came about so much as it matters where it's going.

And Ben, how again are you harmed.

People doing worse in general, harms me in the specific. Those who are doing well, have greater burdens placed upon them by a society struggling to tread water. And the US is in trouble. Surely you, and the others here see it. I see it, and I'm not from here. I see lots of people struggling to keep their heads abreast, getting by day to day. It's worse, much worse than it was the first time that I came down. And I know it's not just me who sees things this way.

And yes, I'd love to hear how you think they're harmed. I would think that getting them into committed relationships would be safer than the dating scene, similar to hetero couples.

The protection for committed relationships, is that the promiscuity in general is an order of magnitude less. Most of the protection from it goes away when you have 4-5 different partners in a year. Most committed gay men and women have about that many partners in a year. Then there's the anal fissures, greater susceptibility to parasites and other pathogens etc, but do you really want to hear about those things?

[kentonio]

Are you a Marxist?

No, I'm an Aries.

[rah]

So point 1, no correlation . So immaterial.

Point 2, no correlation. Again you're blaming gay marriages on people doing worse. try again.

Point 3, all those thing that you're against happen without them being allowed to marry. So how does letting them get married change anything? And you yourself say committed relationships reduce promiscuity.

TRY again.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why are folks arguing with our resident bigot and expecting him to say rational things?

[Ben Kenobi]

Point 3, all those thing that you're against happen without them being allowed to marry. So how does letting them get married change anything? And you yourself say committed relationships reduce promiscuity.

Facts apparently are immaterial. Unsurprisingly so.

[giblets]

Government, at least under the common law has the power to regularize and solemnize marriage, among their other powers.

Why should such a power be exercised in a way that discriminates against homosexuals by excluding them? It's perfectly reasonable for the government to say "you can't force someone to marry you" because if someone doesn't consent to something they have judged for themselves that it would be detrimental to their interests.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why should such a power be exercised in a way that discriminates against homosexuals by excluding them?

Society has an interest in marriage that can provide children for the future. Marriages between gay people won't provide children under any circumstances, ergo, it makes no sense to call such relationships marriage, and to recognise them as marriage. They are different because the relationship is in itself different, and should be treated in a different fashion. The nature is not the same.

It's perfectly reasonable for the government to say "you can't force someone to marry you" because if someone doesn't consent to something they have judged for themselves that it would be detrimental to their interests.

Which is why marriage isn't an individual right. Depriving someone of marriage is not the same as depriving them of free speech or conscience rights which are protected. This is why fr'nstance, bans against polygamy and bigamy can be upheld. If marriage is a natural right, then there is no need to restrict it as being between a man and a woman, why not have 4 women or 4 men?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

You will never experience the touch of a woman.

[Asher]

Society has an interest in marriage that can provide children for the future. Marriages between gay people won't provide children under any circumstances, ergo, it makes no sense to call such relationships marriage, and to recognise them as marriage.

I know several gay couples with children.

I know many more heterosexual couples without children nor any intention of having them.

Your definition would claim one a marriage and the other not a marriage. Which is which?

[Zoetstofzoetje]

I personally am regularly harmed by gays. Because my gay neighbours insist on playing really loud Celine Dion music while going brokeback mountain, every single time.

[rah]

Facts apparently are immaterial. Unsurprisingly so.

Let me know when you post a fact.

And yes many people get married without any intention of having children and some that can't. Yet they can marry so your logic FAILS again. I guess I shouldn't say that since you haven't demonstrated any logic at all. I don't know why I keep expecting you to.

I think I'll just back to laughing at the town fool.

[giblets]

Society has an interest in marriage that can provide children for the future. Marriages between gay people won't provide children under any circumstances, ergo, it makes no sense to call such relationships marriage, and to recognise them as marriage. They are different because the relationship is in itself different, and should be treated in a different fashion. The nature is not the same.



Which is why marriage isn't an individual right. Depriving someone of marriage is not the same as depriving them of free speech or conscience rights which are protected. This is why fr'nstance, bans against polygamy and bigamy can be upheld. If marriage is a natural right, then there is no need to restrict it as being between a man and a woman, why not have 4 women or 4 men?

So the state should only allow marriages between couples that are capable of conceiving a child? That is not the status quo. If for some reason a woman is infertile then by your reasoning her relationship with a man is equivalent to a homosexual relationship.

Not allowing multiple marriages at once is not the same as not allowing a minority group the ability to get married at all.

[Tupac Shakur]

I still want to know how a gay couple being married personally harms you. Or why you should even care.

What a ****ing retarded standard. Did the Holocaust personally harm most Germans? If not, why should they have even cared about their government engaging in immoral behavior, right?

Thread Godwined! Close this *****, Mike!

[giblets]

What a ****ing retarded standard. Did the Holocaust personally harm most Germans? If not, why should they have even cared about their government engaging in immoral behavior, right?

Thread Godwined! Close this *****, Mike!

Wouldn't it make more sense for him to delete your post and ban you?