Your argument only makes sense if your left hand can take on the role of a stepparent and raise a child, and if your left hand faced discrimination on a daily basis. This isn't about "feeling better about myself". I feel great. It's about my family being valid, recognized, and given the same protections my heterosexual neighbors have. It's about my children being given the same opportunities as your children. Unless you can sit there with a straight face and prove your kids are more worthy than mine, your argument falls apart.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Unamerican and Wrong
- Thread starter r0beph
- Start date
Your argument only makes sense if your left hand can take on the role of a stepparent and raise a child, and if your left hand faced discrimination on a daily basis. This isn't about "feeling better about myself". I feel great. It's about my family being valid, recognized, and given the same protections my heterosexual neighbors have. It's about my children being given the same opportunities as your children. Unless you can sit there with a straight face and prove your kids are more worthy than mine, your argument falls apart.
Werbung:
I dont have any kids. I know a 35 yr old widow of 10 years who had her Father move into her house 9 years ago to help take care of the three kids.
Are you going to argue that somehow your relationship is more worthy of government endorsement because one of you is sticking yer dick in the other, and my friends father is not?
Your crudeness aside, yes, that is what I am arguing. Her father is in no danger of losing the kids should she die, nor would he have a problem visiting her in the hospital or managing her affairs.
ilikeboobs
Well-Known Member
Oooohhh so pretend she is a a divorcee. If she dies her ex would get the kids. Just as if you died, your ex would get yours. Same treatment for people in the same situation. (If I recall your divorced, living with your "partner"... or am I confusing you with another dog avatar?). Your issues are with adoption laws and hospital visitation policy, not marriage law.
What if I don't want my ex getting the kid? What if my kid wants to stay with my partner? What if my kid considers us a family even if you don't? Don't his feelings matter at all?
No, it's me...as you no doubt have realized by now since we both post at another forum where I've recently changed my name to Segep.
What if I don't want my ex getting the kid? What if my kid wants to stay with my partner? What if my kid considers us a family even if you don't? Don't his feelings matter at all?
No, it's me...as you no doubt have realized by now since we both post at another forum where I've recently changed my name to Segep.
If you were married to your partner, your ex would still get custody. Just as when a parent dies, the step parent doesnt get the children, the other surviving biological parent gets custody. All these issues you bring up have nothing to do with marriage. It seems now you also want to remove from the law the preference for the parental rights of biologiocal parents over non biological parents. Them damned breeders get all the breaks.
This is the third time I have seen the above nonsense in different fora. It amazes me that people go to such trouble trying to convince themselves of the merits of an absurd proposition.
A man is a man and a woman a woman and a marriage the union of a man and a woman. Nothing difficult to understand at all.
You recognize that it's nonsense, yet still recite the mantra? That doesn't make sense. Of course, it's nonsense. That's why there is no argument against allowing gay marriages.
There are tons of rational arguments - nothing resembling the ones in the thread starter. It is nothing but a bunch of strawman arguments that doesn't even try to hide the fact.
And those would be??
Marriage establishes a juridical entity in accordance with a WOMAN'S RIGHT TO MOTHERHOOD and is the basis of ALL FAMILY RELATIONS.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with what you imagine it to be.
And all family relations must, of course, exclude homosexuals. It is much better for society if gays have to go and find sex on the street somewhere than settle down with another gay and form a family.
A woman's right to motherhood? Where did that one come from? I don't remember seeing anything in the Constitution about that. Did I miss something?
What do I imagine it to be? I had no idea you were a mind reader.
Of course not. Homosexuals have biological parents too, no? That is what's its all about - the natural fecundity of the human species.
You certainly did miss something.
Motherhood is defined in the universal declaration of human rights, the us being a signatory to this document.
One need not be a mind-reader to discern that your idea of marriage does not conform with the principles for which it was meant to be.
Werbung:
Of course, the gays could have a family life by continuing to live with their biological parents for their entire lives. I'm not so sure that is what the gays would want, or their parents, or anyone else, but that is a solution.
Does that mean that lesbians also have a right to motherhood? Are you arguing that lesbian couples should have a right to adopt, or to have children by artificial insemination? If that is the case, wouldn't it be better for the children if their mothers were married, rather than just living together?
Marriage from a strictly legal point of view gives the couple some basic rights that people just living together don't have. Gays could simply have a ceremony and declare themselves married, with no government sanction at all. Can you see why they wouldn't choose that option?
