The problems with homosexuality

TheBig3 · 11-12-2010, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toao

That's funny, because that state seems to believe it's ok for the federal government to tell someone dying of cancer they can't smoke something that will ease the pain of chemo, and be grown in their own back yard, for free. So that comment is incredibly weak.

Actually, executive order under the current administration dictates state law must be respected. I would think being a Californian, you'd know that. I'm guessing because you voted McCain - you don't.

~~someonecompletelyrandom~~ · 11-12-2010, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog

Actually, executive order under the current administration dictates state law must be respected. I would think being a Californian, you'd know that. I'm guess because you voted McCain - you don't.

*sitcom oooOOOoooh*

TheBig3 · 11-12-2010, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conan

*sitcom oooOOOoooh*

what?

~~someonecompletelyrandom~~ · 11-12-2010, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog

what?

AudienceSounds.com - Virtual Studio Audience Soundboard.

Click on Oooh.

adidasss · 11-13-2010, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toao

If you can't grasp the concept of it being an example, than you probably aren't really going to understand the basic debate. Once again, slowly. A straight man can't choose to marry a man either, so it really isn't discrimination. I love my dog, but should I be able to marry it? Sure, you can't marry a dog, but why?
It is between a man & a woman. If they make it ok for a man to marry a man, then what's stopping it from being that a man can marry two women. Or a goat, & so on.

What our esteemed Bostonian has tried to tell you is that the point of marriage and equality is that you can marry the person you love. Obviously, since straight people can marry people they love and gay people can't, there is no equality.

Also, marriage is a social and legal contract, regulated by the state because it, not the church, believes it has certain benefits, such as promoting stable relationships. As a contract, it can only be entered into by consenting adults, which excludes dogs, goats and other entities not able to give their consent.

As far as gay marriage leading to polygamy, the main difference at this point is practicality. Marriage can easily be expanded to include the reality of a lot of gay people's lives without significantly changing the basic framework of marriage. Polygamous marriages would create a whole slew of legal complications, such as inheritance, property division, custody of children etc. Not to mention that most polygamous relationships stem from backward social/religious groups. Theoretically, it's not too far fetched to conceive of such relationships which would be based on mutual love and understanding, in practice, it's probably an exception from the rule which is why it isn't likely such relationships will be condoned by western countries any time soon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toao

The other thing is perpetuation of the species. And two males can't reproduce.

Neither can a lot of straight couples, are you proposing introducing fertility tests as a condition for a valid marriage license?

Quote:

Do you really think the Catholics will ever give into it, or the mormons, or any of the other majors? The Jews might, but then it makes no sense about their other stuff. My wife is jewish, and they wouldn't do it.

It doesn't take a "church person" to figure out the church isn't going to have it.

Nobody cares what the church wants here and nobody is forcing the churches to change their views on marriage, we're talking about the civil institution of marriage, regulated by the state, which, unlike the churches, has a duty to treat all of its citizens equally.