- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Co-existence vs. Tolerance
Co-existence vs. ToleranceFollow
Gbaji you truly are an obtuse cu[b][/b]nt.
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Kelvyquayo, pet mage of Jabober wrote:
Does that not set a double standard?
Since infertile couples still enjoy the benefits.... and gays can adopt children...
Since infertile couples still enjoy the benefits.... and gays can adopt children...
Sure. But without testing for fertility, name for me the smallest set of couples that includes everyone who could possibly produce a child.
If your answer is: "All couples consisting of one male and one female", you'd be right.
Which is exactly why that's the requirements we place on marriage.
Get it?
Adoption is irrelevant because the child has already been generated. We want to encourage people to form socio-economic units best capable of supporting a child *before* they produce children (ideally). Thus we create the legal status of marriage. If someone chooses to adopt a child, that's their own business. It does not change the fact that the child already exists prior to adoption. There's no need to create incentives for gay couples to marry because they *could* adopt. Anyone *can* adopt, right? You're essentially saying that we should provide the benefits of the legal status of marriage to everyone because anyone might adopt at some future time. But then that ruins it's value as an incentive for hetero couples to get married before having children in the first place doesn't it? Kinda becomes circular really...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
Get it?
So the entire thing rests on the ability of same sex couples to procreate.
Sounds pretty shallow to single out that one thing against the financial benefits of legal marriage.
Is it wrong to force values on people anyway? Doesn't matter anyway, their house, their rules.
God knows ****** haven't figured out any ways to have biological offspring.
Not to mention the fact that you keep insisting that you have the power to dictate what marriage is about. Bummer is, you don't, no matter how many paragraphs you take to spout your bullsh[/i]it, it's still bulls[i]hit.
Gbaji, the thing you're not getting is that you lose this argument every time you partake in it. You always have. You always will.
Not to mention the fact that you keep insisting that you have the power to dictate what marriage is about. Bummer is, you don't, no matter how many paragraphs you take to spout your bullsh[/i]it, it's still bulls[i]hit.
Gbaji, the thing you're not getting is that you lose this argument every time you partake in it. You always have. You always will.
Kelvyquayo, pet mage of Jabober wrote:
Quote:
Get it?
So the entire thing rests on the ability of same sex couples to procreate.
Sounds pretty shallow to single out that one thing against the financial benefits of legal marriage.
Really? Why do you say that?
Think it through. Let's pretend for a moment that we lived in a world where no children existed. New people magically appeared fully grown with no need to raise them or care for them. Would marriage exist?
More importantly, would there be a need to provide *any* of the legal benefits of marriage? Sure. People could profess their love for eachother and choose to live together and share their lives together. But would we ever bother to actually create a legal status for marriage?
If you honestly stop and think about it, it should become abundantly clear that the entire purpose of marriage has to do with procreation. Why are you saying it's "shallow" to view it that way? What support do you have that it exists for any other reason? Heck. Can you even provide another reason for it's existence? And if you cant, then why assume my reason is wrong?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
The last time I checked, the only reason said rights did not extend to same sex couples is because homosexual marriage is a blasphemous act set forth by the bible; adopted by the government; and of course, force fed to the public.
fishermanbmr wrote:
The last time I checked, the only reason said rights did not extend to same sex couples is because homosexual marriage is a blasphemous act set forth by the bible; adopted by the government; and of course, force fed to the public.
Non Sequitur Fallacy. Because some people believe homosexuality is "blasphemous" does not prove that restriction of marriage to heterosexuals is based on that belief.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
it should become abundantly clear that the entire purpose of marriage has to do with procreation. Why are you saying it's "shallow" to view it that way? What support do you have that it exists for any other reason? Heck. Can you even provide another reason for it's existence? And if you cant, then why assume my reason is wrong?
I may naught be a smoort man, but I know wuht LOVE is.
Quote:
Non Sequitur Fallacy. Because some people believe homosexuality is "blasphemous" does not prove that restriction of marriage to heterosexuals is based on that belief.
It is not a belief, it is a fact, and a law. Same sex couples do not attain the rights and privilages as hetro sexual couples in marriage because is is seen as a blasphemous act as set forth by the bible ie, christianity; adopted by the government, and force fed to the public.
WTF do you think the ongoing debate over same sex marriage is all about?
a) the right to marry someone of the same sex
b) getting equal rights and privilages as hetero sexual married couples
fishermanbmr wrote:
Quote:
Non Sequitur Fallacy. Because some people believe homosexuality is "blasphemous" does not prove that restriction of marriage to heterosexuals is based on that belief.
It is not a belief, it is a fact, and a law. Same sex couples do not attain the rights and privilages as hetro sexual couples in marriage because is is seen as a blasphemous act as set forth by the bible ie, christianity; adopted by the government, and force fed to the public.
WTF do you think the ongoing debate over same sex marriage is all about?
a) the right to marry someone of the same sex
b) getting equal rights and privilages as hetero sexual married couples
You stupid FOOL
Ever hear of Speration of Church and State!?
the government ***** on your gods
Quote:
Ever hear of Speration of Church and State!?
That has absolutely nothing to do with the subject.
the government controls legality of marriage as well as rights and privilages it entails....for hetero sexual couples, as well as homosexual couples.
show me where it does not.
Quote:
the government controls legality of marriage as well as rights and privilages it entails....for hetero sexual couples, as well as homosexual couples.
ok, and waht the hell does that have to do with blasphemy?
Quote:
ok, and waht the hell does that have to do with blasphemy?
If you read what I originaly wrote, which I had to repeat once already mind you, you would not have asked that.
the connection between marriage, the law, and christianity is all woven together and one stems from the other. let me reapeat it one more time, I will just re quote myself out of laziness...
Quote:
Same sex couples do not attain the rights and privilages as hetro sexual couples in marriage because is is seen as a blasphemous act as set forth by the bible ie, christianity; adopted by the government, and force fed to the public.
And I have to repeat this how many times?
Quote:
connection between marriage, the law, and christianity is all woven together
perhaps on some non-essential level,
but you're wrong. Waht does Christianity have to do with tax benefits?
Quote:
perhaps on some non-essential level,
but you're wrong. Waht does Christianity have to do with tax benefits?
but you're wrong. Waht does Christianity have to do with tax benefits?
You are like an analytical broken record. Think and understand...
The foundations of marriage have been set forth within the sanctom of christianity. The bible therefor says same sex marriage is a blashemous act. That means it is immoral and to some extent, unethical.
The governments adoption of laws and granted rights to marriage is based on ethical beliefs set forth from christanity, hence why there is such a civil debate over same sex marriage. As the law stands, rights and privilages (such as your tax break issue)are ONLY granted to heterosexual married couples. This further incinerating the same sex issue, "why do they not get the same rights and privilages?" Why? Because the ******* government says so, that is the law as it stands today. That is why same sex couples are trying to get the law changed.
Well, if you ran the government then it would pass, because the reasons that They give are purely economical.
yea and if you believe that, then you can also believe when the governmnet says intellegent design and creatonism are two different things.
Recent Visitors: 208
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (208)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Co-existence vs. Tolerance
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC