Prove my homosexuality harms you or your family

[vyo476]

YOU have shown NOTHING to indicate that this also is the case with homosexual couples.

And you've shown nothing to indicate that it isn't the case. Tell me, do heterosexuals have to prove that they'll be good parents before they are allowed to breed?

 

[jb_1430]

And you've shown nothing to indicate that it isn't the case. Tell me, do heterosexuals have to prove that they'll be good parents before they are allowed to breed?

???? well, I havent shown anything to indicate that children raised by the local rotary club do not do better than children who are not, that doesnt lead me to conclude that we should promote, license and regulate the raising of children by rotary clubs.

 

[vyo476]

???? well, I havent shown anything to indicate that children raised by the local rotary club do not do better than children who are not, that doesnt lead me to conclude that we should promote, license and regulate the raising of children by rotary clubs.

Promoting, licensing, and regulating heterosexual marriage is not having the affect you seek - for about half the people you would seek it for.

We're not even talking about stopping promoting, licensing and regulating heterosexual marriage.

We're talking about promoting, licensing, and regulating homosexual marriage, which doesn't have anything at all to do with heterosexual marriage. Since your heterosexual marriage isn't causing kids to be raised by their biological parents - and in fact is allowing millions of American children to wind up in the foster care system - something has to be done so that those children are raised under better circumstances than the foster care system can provide.

The point is that the kids are raised under the best circumstances possible, right, Mark? Because you make it sound like it has to be a choice between best and worst.

 

[jb_1430]

The point is that the kids are raised under the best circumstances possible, right, Mark? Because you make it sound like it has to be a choice between best and worst.

????No. Government promotes marriage and the raising of children by biological parents, because it creates an advantage for children. It doesnt prevent other arrangements for the raising of children.

 

[vyo476]

????No. Government promotes marriage and the raising of children by biological parents, because it creates an advantage for children. It doesnt prevent other arrangements for the raising of children.

Would not the promotion of raising children in a family rather than a foster care system also create an advantage for the children? If you want to create advantages for children, empower more people to adopt.

You speak as if the only way to "create an advantage" for children is to promote their raising by their biological parents. This fails to take into account the exceptionally large number of children who simply aren't being raised by their biological parents - how do we create advantages for them?

 

[jb_1430]

Would not the promotion of raising children in a family rather than a foster care system also create an advantage for the children? If you want to create advantages for children, empower more people to adopt.

You speak as if the only way to "create an advantage" for children is to promote their raising by their biological parents. This fails to take into account the exceptionally large number of children who simply aren't being raised by their biological parents - how do we create advantages for them?

All arguements to extend benefits to people raising children, other than married biological parents. Just dont see the purpose in singling out gay couples, out of all the non biological parents in the world, for special treatment.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

All arguements to extend benefits to people raising children, other than married biological parents. Just dont see the purpose in singling out gay couples, out of all the non biological parents in the world, for special treatment.

Instead of struggling so hard to exclude people why don't we just include everyone in these special rights that heteosexuals already enjoy, let's make it so that ANY CONSENTING ADULTS can raise their children in the safest way possible, within the confines of the legal marriage contract. Marriage brings stability into people's lives, married people live longer than single ones, so why not let everyone get married if they can find someone who will enter into the legal contract of marriage with them? Seems really easy to me--simple, straight forward, and there doesn't have to be the endless bickering about religious dogma.

The children of non-biological parents deserve the best we can do for them, don't they? So let's give everyone raising children all the legal protections currently enjoyed by heterosexual parents.

 

[vyo476]

So let's give everyone raising children all the legal protections currently enjoyed by heterosexual parents.

I don't see why not to.

 

[jb_1430]

I don't see why not to.

I suspect this could be done, and if it didnt include a marriage license, you all would still be whineing just as much.

 

[vyo476]

I suspect this could be done, and if it didnt include a marriage license, you all would still be whineing just as much.

Because allowing one group to "marry" and not allowing another group to "marry," even if both groups have equal rights, is strongly reminiscent of the "separate but equal" days. Perhaps that ideology is one you enjoy.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I suspect this could be done, and if it didnt include a marriage license, you all would still be whineing just as much.

Why wouldn't it include a marriage license? So what you're saying is that queers don't deserve to be full citizens even if they have children? Their children don't deserve the same protections as heterosexuals' children? How do you justify that in your own head?

Are you dim? It's not the "marriage" license, it's legal equality. Black people don't want to be white, they want to be equal to whites in the eyes of the law. Gay people don't want to be straight, they want to be equal in the eyes of the law.

 

[jb_1430]

Why wouldn't it include a marriage license? So what you're saying is that queers don't deserve to be full citizens even if they have children?

??? Uuuuh??? here in America you dont need to be married to be a full citizen, even if you have children or not. .

Their children don't deserve the same protections as heterosexuals' children? How do you justify that in your own head?

????uuuh? you dont need a marriage license to secure any rights.

Are you dim? It's not the "marriage" license, it's legal equality. Black people don't want to be white, they want to be equal to whites in the eyes of the law. Gay people don't want to be straight, they want to be equal in the eyes of the law.

Equal protection requires treating people in the same circumstances equally. You dont issue a fishing or hunting license to someone who wants to play golf.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

??? Uuuuh??? here in America you dont need to be married to be a full citizen, even if you have children or not. .
????uuuh? you dont need a marriage license to secure any rights.

Can you read? The GAO says that a legal marriage license confers more than 1000 special rights and privileges that are denied to all unmarried people. Without the license you cannot get these rights and privileges. No license, no perks. Got it? Only gay people are legally denied the opportunity to get these perks since they are the only ones legally denied marriage.

??? Equal protection requires treating people in the same circumstances equally. You dont issue a fishing or hunting license to someone who wants to play golf.

Many golfers have hunting and fishing licenses. If they come and ask for the licenses you don't deny them, do you? Gay people are asking, why are you denying them?

 

[jb_1430]

So let's give everyone raising children all the legal protections currently enjoyed by heterosexual parents.

I suspect this could be done, and if it didnt include a marriage license, you all would still be whineing just as much.

Can you read? The GAO says that a legal marriage license confers more than 1000 special rights and privileges that are denied to all unmarried people. Without the license you cannot get these rights and privileges. No license, no perks. Got it? Only gay people are legally denied the opportunity to get these perks since they are the only ones legally denied marriage.

Thanks for demonstrating my point so completely.