Prove my homosexuality harms you or your family

[Mare Tranquillity]

I was responding to the 2/3rds of your post comitted to whining about benefits. And while you believe that government should license and regulate activities if it causes no harm to do so, I think government has to have a valid reason for doing so in the first place.

The whole idea behind the idea of freedom in America was to let people do what they wanted AS LONG AS NO HARM CAME TO OTHERS BECAUSE OF IT. We should continue that tradition by allowing all consenting adults to be full citizens and participate fully in the benefits, privileges, and responsibilities of marriage since there is no reason to exclude them. Except religious hate and bigotry, of course.

 

[jb_1430]

The whole idea behind the idea of freedom in America was to let people do what they wanted AS LONG AS NO HARM CAME TO OTHERS BECAUSE OF IT. We should continue that tradition by allowing all consenting adults to be full citizens and participate fully in the benefits, privileges, and responsibilities of marriage since there is no reason to exclude them. Except religious hate and bigotry, of course.

LOLOLOL!!! yeah, treat them as if they could actually procreate. By government mandate, elevate billy boning bobby in the but with that of procreation and the raising of children. Two reasons, religious hate AND biology. The difference that completely escapes all of you is that hetero sexual couples make babies, homosexual couples do not. My trusty Desert Eagle handgun is licensed and regulated because it can kill people. My toy cap gun is not, because it cannot. And EVEN THOUGH, there really wouldnt be any harm in issuing toy handgun, conceal and carry permits, there really wouldnt be any point. You know, other than making those who carry concealed toy handguns feel better about themselves.

SKINNER v. STATE OF OKL. EX REL. WILLIAMSON, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)

We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=316&invol=535

And since poor Mr Skinner was to have his balls cut off, I think we can conclude they were not concerned about any future potential mr Skinner might have to recieve his spouses social security benefits but instead procreation.
There is sufficient evidence to show that children who are raised by their biological parents do better than children who are not.
Show me ANY evidence that children who are raised by homosexual couples do better than children who are not and youll have an arguement.

 

[Segep]

After that last post, I changed my mind. I can't let a leap of logic like that go unchallenged.

LOLOLOL!!! yeah, treat them as if they could actually procreate.

*sigh*. You can't get it through your head, can you? You keep saying that procreation is the defining characteristic of a licensed, government institution called marriage. And again, I must ask you, what about sterile couples? Do they deserve to obtain marriage licenses, and if so, why? There is absolutely no possible way for them to procreate. Next, you say that sperm and eggs alone are enough. What if the woman has had her ovaries removed and has no eggs? Should she be denied a marriage license? Answer me.

By government mandate, elevate billy boning bobby in the but with that of procreation and the raising of children.

Why can't you discuss thing like a mature adult without throwing in the idiotic, juvenile commentary? No one takes you seriously at all when you do that.

The difference that completely escapes all of you is that hetero sexual couples make babies, homosexual couples do not. My trusty Desert Eagle handgun is licensed and regulated because it can kill people. My toy cap gun is not, because it cannot. And EVEN THOUGH, there really wouldnt be any harm in issuing toy handgun, conceal and carry permits, there really wouldnt be any point. You know, other than making those who carry concealed toy handguns feel better about themselves.

This is the thing I couldn't let pass. I am going to put this stupid "toy cap gun" theory of yours to rest once and for all.

Explain to me how a marriage between a man and a woman is harmful or lethal in any way. Yet they are regulated and licensed by the government. Are you telling me that if my 60 year old neighbors next door, both a man and a woman past their childbearing age, decide to get married that they could potentially harm or kill someone? Is that why the government has been regulating marriage all these years? Think about it. There is no relevance at all between real guns, toy guns, and marriage.

There is sufficient evidence to show that children who are raised by their biological parents do better than children who are not.

Then why haven't they outlawed divorce?

Show me ANY evidence that children who are raised by homosexual couples do better than children who are not and youll have an arguement.

Show me ANY evidence that children who are raised by homosexual couples do worse than children who are not and you'll have an argument. Otherwise you're just pissing in the wind.

 

[jb_1430]

After that last post, I changed my mind. I can't let a leap of logic like that go unchallenged.

*sigh*. You can't get it through your head, can you? You keep saying that procreation is the defining characteristic of a licensed, government institution called marriage. And again, I must ask you, what about sterile couples? Do they deserve to obtain marriage licenses, and if so, why? There is absolutely no possible way for them to procreate. Next, you say that sperm and eggs alone are enough. What if the woman has had her ovaries removed and has no eggs? Should she be denied a marriage license? Answer me.

Whats your point? And I never said procreation is the "defining charachteristic". It is the charachteristic of intimate sexual relationships between a man and a woman that is the purpose of licensing and regulating the relationship. And the fact that sterile couples are allowed to marry isnt an arguement that gay couples should.

 

[numinus]

Go ahead, I dare ya.



I want you to illustrate in excruciating detail how my relationship with my partner and us raising a child together has directly harmed YOU or YOUR family. Moreover, I want you to prove how it would harm you if I were able to visit my partner in the hospital without bringing a lot of paperwork proving that we're a family, or if I and my son were able to easily get insurance coverage on my partner's health care plan, or if I were able to ensure that my son was able to stay with him if something should happen to me.



Since we lost all sight of the original topic in the "choice or genetic" thread and it has devolved into how gays are bringing about the destruction of society.



Prove it.

No. It doesn't harm me one bit.

It is, from its very nature, your own private affair.

And for the same reason that the state cannot interfere in your own private affair, so can you not oblige the state to imbue it with legal impetus.

Capice?

 

[Segep]

No. It doesn't harm me one bit.

It is, from its very nature, your own private affair.

And for the same reason that the state cannot interfere in your own private affair, so can you not oblige the state to imbue it with legal impetus.

Capice?

Obviously you don't "capice", "Tony". You just said it doesn't harm you a bit and that it's my own private affair.

Then stay out of it, and stay out of this thread.

 

[jb_1430]

Obviously you don't "capice", "Tony". You just said it doesn't harm you a bit and that it's my own private affair.

Then stay out of it, and stay out of this thread.

???And yet you simultaneously demand that government to get into it.
Do you really think the institution of marriage that has evolved throughout history, did so out of concern that two people are stimulating each others genitals to the point of orgasm, and nothing to do with the fact that when a man and a woman rub theirs together, a baby might pop out 9 months later? And that therefore it should apply equally to gays? Nonsense. The marriage laws were written when there was no way to genetically verify who are the biological parents or any way to verify the fertility of a couple. Silly to think that because we now have the ability to screen out infertile couples, that we must.
Why should the law presume that if a lesbian bears a child, that her partner is the biological parent? Or if a gay man comes up with a baby biologically related to himself, why would we presume his gay lover is also the biological parent? WE DONT!! because in both cases there is the REAL biological parent to consider. Im just waiting for cases to occur in Mass., when a Lesbian, cheats on her wife and gets pregnant, and the laws going to presume that the woman cheated on, is the biological parent. Could make for some messy divorces. She could demand more of the marital property OR joint cutody of a kid that she has no biological connection to whatsoever. Imagine your situation Segap. If instead of a difficult ex wife who is biologically related to the child that you have to contend with in the raising of your child, it was instead your ex husband, totally unrelated to the child biologically, but with the same rights your current ex wife exercises.

 

[Segep]

Blah blah blah. All these "what if's". You still haven't proved that it hurts you in any way. Why all the mental masturbation?

 

[jb_1430]

Blah blah blah. All these "what if's". You still haven't proved that it hurts you in any way. Why all the mental masturbation?

I ask my questions to demonstrate thay you cannot answer.

 

[ilikeboobs]

I have 2 problems with homos pushing for marriage to be redefined:

1. For 2000+ years it's been between man and woman. Suddenly they think their ideas are better than the wisdom of all those years?

2. They're unwilling to extend those marriage rights to other groups - people that want to marry their pets, their kids, polygamists...how come HOMOS can have the rules changed to suit their needs but not anyone else?


More to your point, though...your homo union hurts me and my family because we have to see you holding hands and kissing and being a freak couple. That emotionally scars me and my kids. How's that for hurt. Don't think it's legit? Why are thousands of lawyers asking for damages for their clients WHICH ALMOST ALWAYS INCLUDE emotional distress?

Take that, homos.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I have 2 problems with homos pushing for marriage to be redefined:

1. For 2000+ years it's been between man and woman. Suddenly they think their ideas are better than the wisdom of all those years?

I like it, you just used one of the most common arguments for the continued slavery of black people and the subjugation of women. Good job!

2. They're unwilling to extend those marriage rights to other groups - people that want to marry their pets, their kids, polygamists...how come HOMOS can have the rules changed to suit their needs but not anyone else?

Don't blame gay people for this, gay people didn't write the laws about marriage and define it as "consenting adults" only--you heterosexuals did that all on your own.

More to your point, though...your homo union hurts me and my family because we have to see you holding hands and kissing and being a freak couple. That emotionally scars me and my kids. How's that for hurt. Don't think it's legit? Why are thousands of lawyers asking for damages for their clients WHICH ALMOST ALWAYS INCLUDE emotional distress?Take that, homos.

Your argument is ridiculous but it's one I've heard many times. Did you know that it was used against crippled people? And against mentally ill people? And people with substandard mental development? It was also used to argue against black people being able to go to white schools, churches, and businesses. You really ought to read a little more history before getting on the discussion sites and using that kind of anachronistic nonsense. You haven't used any of the Nazi arguments yet though...

 

[Segep]

I ask my questions to demonstrate thay you cannot answer.

I think you ask them because you know you can't prove that it hurts you, and you're hoping I won't notice.

 

[Segep]

IMore to your point, though...your homo union hurts me and my family because we have to see you holding hands and kissing and being a freak couple. That emotionally scars me and my kids. How's that for hurt. Don't think it's legit? Why are thousands of lawyers asking for damages for their clients WHICH ALMOST ALWAYS INCLUDE emotional distress?

Take that, homos.

Well hearing his dad called a homo, faggot or worse by the rest of society and his own family causes my son and I both emotional distress. Where's our damages?

 

[jb_1430]

I think you ask them because you know you can't prove that it hurts you, and you're hoping I won't notice.

Hurts me??? I never claimed you did. Im the one that feels pitty, not pain.

 

[9sublime]

I have 2 problems with homos pushing for marriage to be redefined:

1. For 2000+ years it's been between man and woman. Suddenly they think their ideas are better than the wisdom of all those years?

People thought the earth was flat for a long time. I guess that we should still believe that because the amount of time they believed in it is a clear indicator of the fact that they were right.

More to your point, though...your homo union hurts me and my family because we have to see you holding hands and kissing and being a freak couple. That emotionally scars me and my kids.

I could say the same for an ugly straight couple. I don't like seeing them kissing in the street, but I don't go away emotionally scarred and trying to ban the marriage of ugly people. Do you? Because by your logic you should...