What Rights (If Any) Should Be Awarded To Homosexual Couples?

Keep telling yourself that bucko.

 

Its the courts and recorded history that tell us. Anything other than the silly tripe bouncing around in your head to offer?

 

What a ludicrous and misguided premise overall. You aren't making sense.

No one must necessarily answer the unreasonable and illogical views you propagate here.

 

laughably irrelevant, and refuted hundreds of times. it's a paternity law, not a marriage law, and it's not binding. if daddy isn't the daddy, he has no responsibility.

 

Because your question is stupid and false. For that you will never get the answer.

Because they don't have any special right.

They have the right to marry with the person that they love. Before they were banned, like previously was banned the marriage between whites and blacks... So, are you saying that a marriage between white and black is a special right. They can marry whites with whites and blacks with blacks.

 

Receiving special privileges from the government is not a "right." Rights are inherent, not things that are granted by the government. No individual has the "right" to a government-endorsed marriage; however, to prohibit consensual adults from committing peaceful acts through the threat of violence is a violation of their rights. So, the voluntary agreements and/or ceremonies can be considered a right, but whether or not the government endorses the marriage has nothing to do with rights.

We shouldn't have government-endorsed marriages to begin with. It's an unnecessary, silly, discriminatory statue. It allows couples special privileges merely for being couples and signing a contract with the state. Allowing homosexual government-endorsed marriage makes the system slightly less discriminatory and, in my view, a step forward... but what people who wanted to get married who are related to each other? What about polygamy? What about animal-fetish weirdos? What about the bachelors? If we have a government-endorsed marriage system, we surely should support endorsing all of these things, but it creates massive legal technicalities, and there is no point in having this government-endorsed system in the first place.

Get government out of the picture. Let the straights, gays, polygamists, etc. do what they want and call it what they want.

 

The mother and grandmother who have joined together for nearly a decade to raise their 3 children/grandchildren together love each other and they cant marry. In the 6 states with gay marriage, they cant marry. They dont get the SPECIAL rights that the gays now do. Where am I losing you. Perhaps youre reading more into the description "special rights" than what is there. Rights available to any two consenting adults, not "special". Rights not available to any two consenting adults, special rights. Thats all.

 

I would think a libertarian who has a problem with government using marriage to cut down on single mothers in need of assistance or unable or unwilling to provide and care for their child on their own, would have an even bigger problem with government essentially using marriage to win more acceptance and approval from the rest of society for gays.

 

That has nothing to do with the debate on homosexuals being allowed the SAME benefits as heterosexuals, in marriage.

If at some point in time what you mention is actually addressed... I would hope by then that the benefits granted heterosexuals, would also be something which homosexuals has previously been allowed. But it is simply dubious for people to bring up government endorsement of marriage, nearly every time the debate on homosexual marriage get rolling. Really, THAT should be a separate thread by itself. But i know why MOST HETEROSEXUAL in this forum people won't START a thread on that topic (no government benefits in marriage)... it is because it looks/feels good to them as it helps them to support arguments DENYING homosexuals "marriage"... but they darned sure don't ACTUALLY want to lose those benefits they claim that "no one" (meaning homosexuals) should have.

In other words, it's a red herring (for certain) within the context of this particular topic, even though it would likely be something worthwhile in its own thread.

Okay.

Different topic, separate thread. Unless someone could figure out and show the efficacy of a thread covering homosexual marriage AND polygamy... it makes about zero sense to throw polygamy up in the midst of a discussion about homosexual marriage (though I don't imagine or think about 5 to 10 guys being in the same marriage); it's just NOISE that someone typically manages to throw into the discussion.

Really, I'd like to see a thread or two on "The Role of Government in Marriage" and/or "Should Polygamy Be Legal In America". But no... someone almost always SLIDES that into a discussion on "Homosexual Marriage". It's just annoying.

Another thread, right there.

I agree that those things might be discussed, but not in a thread on gay marriage. IMO, it is not helpful to MASH those topic into the same space... considering the overall context and related arguments.

 

That makes little sense, dixon. Gay people don't want "marriage" so they can gain more "acceptance". That is a STUPID thought on your part... and it CLEARLY reflects the stark reality (once again) that you don't actually know what you are talking about overall.

Get real, dixon.

 

Heterosexuals cannot always procreate so why support marriage for them?

 

Come back with a normal argument.

And you are saying give rights to two consenting adults. I am a consenting adult, and you too, and we want to marry. THere is no special right. But law is impeding our marriage because we are of the same sex. What is the special (*)(*)(*)(*)ing right. NO one.

So the only argument that you have is homophoby. ANd point. Because you consider homosexuals different, so they must have different perceptions. And no, are equal, and two consenting adutls so they could be able to marry.

 

No matter what you say but population is growing, that means heterosexual couples ALWAYS procreate, procreation has never stopped. That is why we should have marriage for heterosexual couples.
In case you did not know, homosexual couples have nothing to do with marriage.

 

In case they do. Bright lines drawn in the law. Not necessarily for their precision but instead ease in identification. Its easy to tell if a couple consist of a man and a woman. Very difficult to identify the capacity to procreate.

 

Its like you dont even read what you choose to respond to. If you want to marry your gay lover in Iowa, you can marry your gay lover. If I wanted to marry my brother in Iowa, I couldnt marry. Special rights not available to me, but available to you.

Whether I wanted to marry my brother or sister, I would also be impeded. Its like you dont even read what you choose to respond to.

Dont confuse your inability to comprehend my arguments with me not making them.

 

Read Andrew Sullivans "Virtually Normal" for what the gays want. And its the courts giving them gay marriage to win them "respect" from the rest of society and "dignity" for the gays. Read "In Re Marriage". And it might then even make sense to you.

 

So, YOU think that defines what "gays want"? You get YOUR understanding of what all these homosexual people (just like you BTW) want, from something one person wrote? That had better be one hell of an accurate and inclusive book.

A person doesn't need to wait upon any court to grant them "respect". I can accept that courts CAN/DO grant individuals the LEGAL leverage to be EQUAL under the law.

dixon, stop wasting people's time; your notions and views are simply ludicrous, bigoted and homophobic beyond any reasonable measure.

 

Is "bigoted" your favourite word?
Keep giong dixon, you are not wasting my time.

 

They do? Every heterosexual couple procreates? There are no infertile couples? Or couples who choose not to have children?

Homosexuals do indeed procreate using methods such as artificial insemination and surrogate mothers. There is also adoption.

Why, then, should homosexual couples not have the protection of marriage for their families.

Again, people seem to be avoiding the reality of the situation.

 

Look up the meaning.

Interesting.

 

There's no need to marry your bother or sister: a legal kinship already exists.

What else you got?

 

Then gay couples should get legal kinship, but not the marriage.

 

why not?


...........