You are mixing two different points as one. Children have nothing to do with marriage. There are many childless human relationships, are those marriages invalid? The whole institution of marriage as originally conceived revolved around the possibility that there MIGHT and probably would be children from a man-woman relationship. There is absolutely ZERO probability or possibility that a homosexual relationship would naturally spawn offspring.
Homosexuality is natural to those that are homosexual. Just because they are in the minority does not make it unnatural. It makes it unnatural to the majority. BINGO!!! There is a huge difference a man of your intelligence should easily grasp.
I could care less if you call it a Civil Rights issue. Don't deflect, you and SE1 are claiming it is a Civil Rights issue. It is discrimination pure and simple. If the majority people were gay and banned a man and a woman from getting married and recieving all the benifits that bestows, A Civil Union ceremony provides the same legal entitlements: why the DEMAND for a marriage -- except as an effrontery to the religious values of the rest of society? that too would be discrimination based on gender.That is a behavioral choice the LBGT community makes, and nothing prevents them from entering into a traditional man-woman relationship. So where is the discrimination? That is wrong IMHO. If you think different, so be it.
Deviant from the standard norm does not mean it is wrong. That's a different argument and not the one that is being made here. If just means they are in the minority. You keep getting caught up in this unnatural act as if unnatural can be voted on and the majority wins. But it is unnatural, and you are wrong: the majority does rule. Natural or unnatural is a private matter that varies from person to person. What they do BCD isn't the issue, it's the effrontery of the LBGT community DEMANDING that the rest of society accept their behavior as 'natural' and accommodate their DEMAND that 'marriage' be redefined.
That is what a real Conservative thinks, not imposing their views of natural/unnatural on others. I'm a bit suprised by your stance on this, educated people generally are more enlightened on this matter unless they are over 50-60, then old habits take over and common sense gets thrown out the window.Conservatives 'conserve' existing values and traditions. Originally Posted by WTF
- I B Hankering
- 05-11-2012, 03:54 PM
.
- WTF
- 05-11-2012, 04:15 PM
- I B Hankering
- 05-11-2012, 04:21 PM
- WTF
- 05-11-2012, 04:26 PM
See folks, it isn't that hard to disagree , agreeable.
Thanks IB for keeping it civil!
Thanks IB for keeping it civil!
- Sidewinder
- 05-13-2012, 05:59 AM
I'll give you something to jump my shit for.Precisely which bennies do you have in mind?
I am against gay's marrying,but support civil unions.
They should receive same bennies as married couples. Originally Posted by ekim008
Moreover, should they receive those bennies at the same price, or should the price reflect the (best estimates) of the actual risk, which may or may not be the same as for a heterosexual couple?
Example: We have lots of data about risk of married male and female drivers vs. unmarried male and female drivers, where "married" means "married to a person of the opposite sex". We do not have such data for "male driver married to male" or "female driver married to female". Is the risk for male driver married to male comparable to the risk for male married to female, or is it closer to single male? (Note that young single male is the highest risk category known.)
Similarly: We have lots of data about medical insurance risk of heterosexual married couples. We do not have such data for gay couples. We do know, however, that the risk of HIV infection is astronomically higher for gay males than for heterosexual males. Should this, or other factors, be taken into account in setting married health insurance rates? Why or why not?