Aaaand my girlfriend and I are capeable of feeling the same love and commitment as homosexuals, we are capeable of being loving towards children as homosexuals. Get a point.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?
- Thread starter invest07
- Start date
- Status
Aaaand my girlfriend and I are capeable of feeling the same love and commitment as homosexuals, we are capeable of being loving towards children as homosexuals. Get a point.
Werbung:
Coyote
Well-Known Member
Is there any law preventing you from getting married?
BINGO!
So why is your relationship worth more than mine? Why should you be allowed to marry while I am not?
Some clarification is in order. Though we legally married in 2004, the California Supreme Court nullified it six months later. Now we are stuck with a domestic partnership, which doesn't carry the same legal weight.
Sperm and eggs.
Some comic relief in leiu of intelligent debate?
vyo476
Well-Known Member
So...you might get her pregnant. If you're being careful about the more intimate side of your relationship, that shouldn't be an accident - but it could be. So you get married to provide structure for the baby to be, even though you aren't ready for that commitment to each other (you may love each other, but you have obviously yet to marry - something is preventing you from doing so). You wind up in an unhappy marriage with a dysfunctional child. I've seen this scenario play itself out all too many times.
This cannot happen to homosexual couples. If homosexuals are to have children they must consciously decide to go to the lengths necessary to obtain them. Children are not and cannot be the bi-product of activities for other purposes that homosexual couples partake in.
So basically, my point is that while a large number of heterosexual couples get married prematurely because they're having children prematurely, homosexual couples will never have that problem. A homosexual couple must have decided consciously to start a family in order to do so. They must consciously be aware of the fact that they are committing themselves to the raising of a child.
Yet the law does not afford marital rights to homosexuals, thereby making it more difficult to start and raise a family. Perhaps this is looked on as fair by the homophobia crowd - since hetero couples might get forced into marriage by circumstance, they won't allow the couples who physically cannot be forced into such a position to marry at all.
Visitation rights for a convicted homosexual felon? Hmmm?
As for citizenship, a lot of foreigners marry for it (especially asians). Its a thriving cottage industry, in my opinion - something that the immigration authorities have gotten wind of.
And while I sympathize with the above's predicament, I can't say I blame the authorities for it.
LOL
I wonder why pediatiricians, and not child psychologists, would undertake such a study?
Kind of like asking a plumber to discuss the finer points of law.
As if people are idiots not to realize that this isn't the first time the AAP has invited controversy for their position.
The processing of visa applications is supposed to be DISCRIMINATORY.
I personally knew of a woman who was denied a tourist visa (to attend her 'american' parents' 50th year anniversary) because she was 25, unmarried and very attractive.
The reasoning employed by this idiot of a low-level, foreign service functionary, ostensibly, is that she would use here tourist visa to marry an american, thereby making her stay permanent.
The audacity of this ***** to treat a citizen of his host country (whose hospitality he enjoys) in such an insulting manner is standard fare among american expats.
I gave up expecting that from certain quarters a long time ago.
Reap what you sow.
The AAP have as much business criticizing the law as plumbers expounding quantum mechanics.
They're not talking about law. I can see you didn't read a word of it. They're talking about the overall health of children. Something you are obviously a world class expert on.
/sarcasm
So again you come back to the definition of "true" family as one that is capable of procreating.
How many kids do you have? Why are you wasting your time on the internet and not out having babies?
Mare Tranquillity
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 3,477
Just following your example, Num.
Werbung:
No more so than it does for any two unmarried people. And government doesnt make it difficult for homosexuals, unmarried couples, two family members, two platonic friends or any combination of unmarried adults who might want to raise a family, difficult to start and raise a family. It has instead decided to make it easier for biological parents to do so within the structure of marriage.
One could argue that government shouldnt even be involved with such matters, but it can be argued that government has a valid governmental interest in promoting the idea of the two people who created the child also raising the child.
When that doesnt happen, of course we want someone else to raise the kids. There is adoption. But thats not enough for the gays. They want special treatment.
I gave the example of an aquaintance of mine that has lived with his widowed sister for 12 years raising her kid. I know a widowed father who lives with his daughter and her child for 7 years. And if I accidently get my girlfriend pregnant as an atheist and free market capitalist I dont buy into religious institution of marriage that makes me the head of the household over her or the government imposed reduction of our relationship to a contractual transference of property rights. You would deny us the rights and benefits on what basis? In the case of the brother and sister or the father and daughter would you claim they are not special like you who stimulate each others genitals??? Do you really think that distinction makes you special like a man and a woman who have vaginal intercourse? Do you really think the religious and cultural institution of marriage and the government regulation that has evolverd around it is because genitals are being stimulated and has nothing to do with the fact that vaginal intercourse produces babies? On what rational basis do you justify discriminating against two unmarried people? Or what makes you think that somehow gay lovers are any more worthy of support than any two unmarried people, lovers or not?
Its all nothing more than an OH SO pathetic attempt by gays soooo desparately seeking validation for their homosexual lust. Desparately seeking equal status with hetero sexual lust that is responsible for the continuation of our existance in this world. Sorry, but what you guys do is right there with what I sometimes do with my left hand, as far as value to humanity or worthy of governmental endorsement and regulation.
- Status
