While you seem to think government should promote and regulate any activity where there is no downside in doing so, I think government needs to have some purpose in doing so in the first place. I just dont see ANY benefit to society whatsoever to be had by promoting licensing and regulating gay relationships.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Prove my homosexuality harms you or your family
- Thread starter Segep
- Start date
While you seem to think government should promote and regulate any activity where there is no downside in doing so, I think government needs to have some purpose in doing so in the first place. I just dont see ANY benefit to society whatsoever to be had by promoting licensing and regulating gay relationships.
Werbung:
So your argument against gay marriage is that it has no upside, and because of that it should not be licensed and regulated? Its not that you have a problem with it, its that you cant find a problem with it?
So you're basically saying "I don't have a point against gay marriage, but I can't find any for it, so I'm against it being legalized."
Unbelivable.
Maybe it will make gay people feel happy and a bit more accepted as to who they are? Theres one upside. Helping another part of humanity.
So you're basically saying "I don't have a point against gay marriage, but I can't find any for it, so I'm against it being legalized."
Unbelivable.
Maybe it will make gay people feel happy and a bit more accepted as to who they are? Theres one upside. Helping another part of humanity.
I find it unbelievable that you think promotion of homosexuality is a role of government. For no other reason than it would help homos to feel better about themselves.
vyo476
Well-Known Member
The issue is not whether or not kids are raised "better" by their biological parents. The issue is whether they have parents at all. The divorce rate hovers around fifty percent - how many of the kids from those unions are being raised by both biological parents? As of 2001, there were 542,000 children in America living in foster care, and the problem isn't getting better. Of those 542,000 kids, only 9% were adopted. The rest stayed in the foster care system.
You can sit there and bleat all you like about how we have to protect marriage to encourage the creation of family units, but guess what? It's not working. We should be allowing homosexuals to marry - with those benefits they'd be encouraged to create families of their own, which would reduce the number of children who have to slog out the foster care system.
This isn't about whether homosexual or heterosexual families are better. It's about whether any family at all is better than none. It isn't as though homosexuals who marry will take children away from heterosexual parents. There is no supply and demand for babies - increasing the number of adopters will not increase the number of abandoned children.
You are the one who doesn't have an argument, jb. Instead of addressing the real world issue - that there are a lot of kids out there who aren't being raised by parents, and that your present definition of marriage isn't doing jack **** to encourage their biological parents to raise them - you keep throwing out this "it's better if the biological parents raise them" argument. That argument holds no water so long as biological parents aren't raising their own children under your system.
Legalizing something doesn't mean they are promoting it.
There are no laws prohibiting gay marriage. No need to legalize it. Licensing and regulating is promoting.
Are you kidding me? What is the Defense of Marriage Act? A Chinese takeout menu?
OK, so let me summarize your points so far:
1. You can't prove or even suggest that gay marriage harms you or anyone else.
2. Homos make you feel uncomfortable.
3. You don't give a **** about anyone but yourself.
4. Therefore gays and their families and children can go to hell.
And you wonder why gays and lesbians are so hostile towards people like you.
vyo476
Well-Known Member
Mark, your whole argument has centered around your belief that marriage is meant to encourage heterosexuals to get together and have children.
Freakin brilliant reparte einstein. "Defense of marriage act". Why dont you read it sometime. And read up on the current state of affairs in Mass. You dont have the slightest idea as to what you are talking about.
Noooo einstein, never said any such thing. Gov. encourages heterosexual couples who are getting together to do so within a marriage, BECAUSE they frequently produce children.
Do you even read what I write? Unable to comprehend? or just merely compelled to respond?
At last, a sliver of light in that otherwise dark skull of yours!
And since it is your 'own private affair', why are you asking the government to legislate it, eh?
Coyote
Well-Known Member
They legislate your private affairs...
Werbung:
vyo476
Well-Known Member
Hmmmm. Looking back, I suppose that was a misinterpretation. Still, the original point stands. Either the government is encouraging heterosexuals to get together and have children or the government is encouraging heterosexuals to get together because they have children. Either way - it isn't working.
