Started By
Message
re: .
Posted on 4/26/13 at 10:41 am to robby1220
Posted on 4/26/13 at 10:41 am to robby1220
quote:
I was looking for an escape from my own damn logic on that one.
When I read your first response on the subject, I had the thought "Well that wasn't the direction I expected him to go." You're welcome for the out.
1
Posted on 4/26/13 at 10:46 am to Duke
Posted on 4/26/13 at 10:50 am to Randy1375
I fully support it. I have many gay friends and I am of the attitude that people deserve to be happy. Two men getting married is not a bad thing like some people try to make it out to be. How is it any worse than a woman getting pregnant and her and the father getting married just to get married. Let people do what makes them happy. It doesn't hurt anyone else
Posted on 4/26/13 at 12:29 pm to Randy1375
quote:
Do you support gay rights
Can I not give a frick about it without supporting it, or does that mean I support it by not giving a frick?
Posted on 4/26/13 at 12:41 pm to Hardy_Har
quote:
Can I not give a frick about it without supporting it, or does that mean I support it by not giving a frick?
Posted on 4/26/13 at 12:43 pm to Duke
quote:
There is a danger to potential offspring in an incestuous relationship that doesn't exist within a gay one. It's not an apples to apples comparison.
Gay incestuous father/son or mother/daughter.
Posted on 4/26/13 at 3:51 pm to Alahunter
quote:
Gay incestuous father/son or mother/daughter.
I mean, if we're not going to allow straight people to do it...we can't let gays do it either. That's discrimination.
Posted on 4/26/13 at 3:54 pm to Duke
The statement was made, that morals was the problem, and that laws shouldn't be based on them.
As far as straight incest, there's birth control, as well. So in reality, it's less about a health issue, than it is a moral issue.
As far as straight incest, there's birth control, as well. So in reality, it's less about a health issue, than it is a moral issue.
Posted on 4/26/13 at 4:02 pm to Alahunter
quote:
As far as straight incest, there's birth control, as well.
Birth control isn't 100%. Except for abortion. So ok, they can marry. If there is a pregnancy however, there is a forced abortion.
quote:
So in reality, it's less about a health issue, than it is a moral issue.
It's a mix of both on the incest front, but yes, morals certainly play a significant role.
quote:
The statement was made, that morals was the problem, and that laws shouldn't be based on them.
All laws to some degree are based on morals. I agree with you on that end. Generally though, the collective moral ideals of a society instead of simply religious morals.
I'm actually with you on that.
This post was edited on 4/26/13 at 4:04 pm
Posted on 4/26/13 at 4:06 pm to Duke
What happened to this thread?
Posted on 4/26/13 at 4:07 pm to Duke
quote:
I'm actually with you on that.
I suspect you'd agree that the Gov't having their hand in marriage is a bad idea as well. And that it's best left to religious entities. There should be no "extra" benefits, through taxes or whatever, simply for cohabitating with another person. Hetero, or Homo. As far as legal issues. If one wishes, hetero or homo, they can have legal papers drawn up, giving power of attorney, conservatorship, or whatever powers they wish their partner to have, and that doesn't have to be limited to partners or married couples. Anyone can do this now.
Because of that, I stand by my statement, that homosexuals, have the exact same rights as heterosexuals in this country.
This post was edited on 4/26/13 at 4:08 pm
Posted on 4/26/13 at 4:19 pm to Alahunter
quote:
I suspect you'd agree that the Gov't having their hand in marriage is a bad idea as well. And that it's best left to religious entities. There should be no "extra" benefits, through taxes or whatever, simply for cohabitating with another person. Hetero, or Homo. As far as legal issues
I'm not willing to go that far. I think we both would agree that families are an important part of the foundation that builds society. The government through the benefits simply is giving an incentive for people to come together to start a family. Just like some industries get tax breaks to come to a certain state or cigarettes get slapped with a sin tax to disincentivize (90% sure that's not a word) smoking.
That being said, I'm sympathetic to your philosophy on the matter. I do see some benefit to the current structure though.
Posted on 4/26/13 at 4:25 pm to Duke
Families have traditionally been a result of biological coupling. Homosexuality goes against evolution, and the propagation of the species. Affording this group benefits, when they cannot build on the foundation of society, by procreating isn't a wise financial move by Gov't.
Posted on 4/26/13 at 4:28 pm to Alahunter
quote:
Affording this group benefits, when they cannot build on the foundation of society, by procreating isn't a wise financial move by Gov't.
They can adopt and have a child via surrogate. They can and do build on that foundation of society.
Posted on 4/26/13 at 4:29 pm to Duke
Which brings up more moral issues.
Posted on 4/26/13 at 4:31 pm to Alahunter
quote:
Which brings up more moral issues.
I suppose it does, though I personally have no moral qualm with what I posted.
The circle continues on...
Posted on 4/26/13 at 4:34 pm to Duke
Yep. Which is why I think the issue should be addressed, in the manner I suggested. It would be the correct path to solving all the issues. Much like gun control, if people would quit attacking the 2nd Amend. and law abiding citizens, and enforce the laws already on the books, many of the problems would be solved.
Posted on 4/26/13 at 4:36 pm to Alahunter
quote:
Families have traditionally been a result of biological coupling. Homosexuality goes against evolution, and the propagation of the species. Affording this group benefits, when they cannot build on the foundation of society, by procreating isn't a wise financial move by Gov't.
Plenty of things go against evolution. Is absolute Darwinism the answer to everything? Let's bring back forced sterilization then if that is the case.
Posted on 4/26/13 at 4:37 pm to Alahunter
quote:
Affording this group benefits, when they cannot build on the foundation of society, by procreating isn't a wise financial move by Gov't.
So is allowing women over the age of 55 to marry a poor financial move by the government? They can't procreate.
Posted on 4/26/13 at 4:39 pm to jbond
You realize I was talking about tax benefits and the like, right? And my stance is that married couples shouldn't receive any over a single unmarried individual, right?
Page 14 of 18
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News