I support this, change my mind.

Happy_Killbot

@Spot What I'm asking is: What does it mean for couples to be considered equal?

I think the difference between how we are thinking about this is about how we define "Marriage equality" Where for you it is based on physical equality, while the rest of us are talking about legal equality.

smoothie

@Spot oh my....

Spot said:

The point is that people should stop saying that they are equal when that is obviously not the case. Homosexual behavior does nothing but harm society. Why do you think that homosexuals should have the rights of husbands and wives?

Not every marriage results in children. Not every marriage is equal regardless of sexuality. Homosexuals should have the same rights because it is two consenting adults harming nobody at all. Again, it does not harm society when heterosexual marriages can result in no children aswell, and homosexual marriages can result in the creation of children in a non-direct way. It is only less than 10% of the population, I don't see why they should be forced not to marry other than ignorance?

Spot said:

Again, my original argument was specifically about gay marriages not being equal to heterosexual marriages. That is why I pointed out that both types of "marriage" cannot birth the same effects. Society will exist as long as males and females are reproducing with each other. But if homosexual behavior is all that is practiced, society will cease to exist. That was my original point. Since homosexuality is a choice, they can obviously mate with the opposite sex. I don't dispute that.

Again, the existence of artifical insemination and surrogracy disproves that point. No matter anybody's sexuality, children can still be born through those methods. If everybody was heterosexual and everyone had children, I argue that it would collapse society much faster due to overpopulation. Nobody argues that, because it is ridiculous and people generally don't have a bias against 90% of the population.

Define what you think this "choice" is? Do you think acting on sexuality is a choice? Then heterosexuality is a choice aswell, and heterosexuals can mate with the same-sex if society forced them to. Just making that clear. I personally don't regard sexuality as a "choice" when no human would be sexual if their brain did not develop a sexual attraction, which exists for both heterosexual and homosexual attraction. I assume you mean the sexual act itself, which is a choice, true.

Spot said:

I don't think there is a such thing as "marriage equality." There is marriage and then there are gay people that try to act like married couples.

You are entitled to your opinion, however, what makes it so different other than some bible interpreations? It is two people loving eachother and wanting to spend a large chunk of their life together, and enjoy legal benefits. The only difference is the genders, which I don't think matters when artifical insemination and surrogacy exists and still produces children.

Spot said:

I am not sure if I understand your question. When gay activists use the word "inequality," they are implying gay marriages should be considered equal even though this is not true biologically speaking. From my perspective, there is no marriage inequality since no relationship is equal to the one shared between a man and a woman. 

Equal, by the law, and not discriminated against. This is what activists fight for. There was marriage inequality in the united states, and still is in a ton of countries. Inequality when it comes to discrimination and laws.

Spot

Happy_Killbot said:

@Spot What I'm asking is: What does it mean for couples to be considered equal?

I think the difference between how we are thinking about this is about how we define "Marriage equality" Where for you it is based on physical equality, while the rest of us are talking about legal equality.

Any law can be passed depending on who is in charge. Getting a democrat in office that says that the "marriages" are equal does not make them equal. Why would you call them equal when you acknowledge that there is "biological inequality?"

Spot

@smoothie

Before I respond to your post, I have a quick question for you. How did you break up the quotes when you responded to me? I have been trying to figure out how to do that for a while now.

Happy_Killbot

@Spot Because this is the basis of all liberal democracies, and the foundation for all the legal proceedings in the US.

Why should we treat people differently under the law based on biological differences?

Would it be acceptable then, to only let good-looking people have children and forcibly sterilize ugly people and bar them from marriage and relationships?

MayCaesar

Spot said:

Again, my original argument was specifically about gay marriages not being equal to heterosexual marriages. That is why I pointed out that both types of "marriage" cannot birth the same effects. Society will exist as long as males and females are reproducing with each other. But if homosexual behavior is all that is practiced, society will cease to exist. That was my original point. Since homosexuality is a choice, they can obviously mate with the opposite sex. I don't dispute that.

I am not sure I understand what you mean by "homosexual behavior". Homosexual marriage is just that: a legal contract between two individuals of the same gender. What they do before or after signing that contract has nothing to do with the contract itself per say. It is possible, for example, for two heterosexual men to sign a marriage contract and move on with their lives, never seeing each other again.

I think you are reading too much into what marriage is. Marriage is not a life-long commitment; marriage is not a declaration of sexual exclusivity (although often it may be implied); marriage is not an agreement to have or to be able to have biological children. Marriage, at the end of the day, is just a paper declaring a new legal status for the involved parties.

I am not sure why you keep bringing up the point about homosexual behavior being all that is practiced in a society, when we both know that this is not and will never be the case.

Spot

Happy_Killbot said:

@Spot Because this is the basis of all liberal democracies, and the foundation for all the legal proceedings in the US.

Why should we treat people differently under the law based on biological differences?

Would it be acceptable then, to only let good-looking people have children and forcibly sterilize ugly people and bar them from marriage and relationships?

The law should not ignore basic biology because it hurts a person's feelings. Acknowledging the differences between males and females is very important. You will not get a healthy society if the family unit is destroyed. When it comes to marriage, the government gives couples certain benefits. Assuming you want the government involved, there would be no good reason to give homosexuals the rights that belong to husbands and wives. 

MayCaesar

Spot said:

Any law can be passed depending on who is in charge. Getting a democrat in office that says that the "marriages" are equal does not make them equal. Why would you call them equal when you acknowledge that there is "biological inequality?"

A marriage between a black heterosexual couple, and a marriage between a white heterosexual couple, are not equal either, yet the law treats them as equal. 

There is always some inequality in different cases, simply because there are no two absolutely identical individuals on this planet. The question is what type of inequality you find relevant to the discussion at hand and why. I, for one, am not convinced that treating a heterosexual marriage differently from a homosexual marriage makes any sense as far as the law goes.

Happy_Killbot

@Spot Homosexual couples do not destroy the family unit at all. As i have already demonstrated, it is possible for homosexual couples to raise children, either through adoption of the use of a surrogate.

Not all heterosexual couples have kids anyways, would not they be more at fault then for destroying the family unit when deciding to remain childless, even more so than a gay couple who adopts?

Besides this, if the government gets to decide who can and can not have relationships, what makes you assume that you would be allowed to? They might decide that only a select few people can have kids as part of their job, because that would be more efficient. At this point, the government would raise the kids outside of the family. My point is, if the government gets to decide it would be better and more efficient to just factory-farm people. Hardly sounds ideal doesn't it?

Spot

MayCaesar said:

Spot said:

Any law can be passed depending on who is in charge. Getting a democrat in office that says that the "marriages" are equal does not make them equal. Why would you call them equal when you acknowledge that there is "biological inequality?"

A marriage between a black heterosexual couple, and a marriage between a white heterosexual couple, are not equal either, yet the law treats them as equal. 

There is always some inequality in different cases, simply because there are no two absolutely identical individuals on this planet. The question is what type of inequality you find relevant to the discussion at hand and why. I, for one, am not convinced that treating a heterosexual marriage differently from a homosexual marriage makes any sense as far as the law goes.

Marriage has nothing to do with skin color. Where do you think rights comes from?

Assuming that the government should be involved in this debate, why would it call a relationship marriage that has no intention/ability to produce children? That is really bizarre. In any case, would you agree that children are generally better off with a mother and a father?

Spot

MayCaesar said:

Spot said:

Again, my original argument was specifically about gay marriages not being equal to heterosexual marriages. That is why I pointed out that both types of "marriage" cannot birth the same effects. Society will exist as long as males and females are reproducing with each other. But if homosexual behavior is all that is practiced, society will cease to exist. That was my original point. Since homosexuality is a choice, they can obviously mate with the opposite sex. I don't dispute that.

I am not sure I understand what you mean by "homosexual behavior". Homosexual marriage is just that: a legal contract between two individuals of the same gender. What they do before or after signing that contract has nothing to do with the contract itself per say. It is possible, for example, for two heterosexual men to sign a marriage contract and move on with their lives, never seeing each other again.

I think you are reading too much into what marriage is. Marriage is not a life-long commitment; marriage is not a declaration of sexual exclusivity (although often it may be implied); marriage is not an agreement to have or to be able to have biological children. Marriage, at the end of the day, is just a paper declaring a new legal status for the involved parties.

I am not sure why you keep bringing up the point about homosexual behavior being all that is practiced in a society, when we both know that this is not and will never be the case.

Your definition of marriage is not supported by history. It also makes marriage rather pointless. If that is how you really view marriage, I don't see why you would care if homosexuals had the right to marry since the institution itself is meaningless using your definition. I have explained the point about homosexual behavior many times. It was only made to show that the two types of "marriages" are not equal. And homosexual behavior is two members of the same-sex getting romantically involved.

Happy_Killbot

@Spot I'm going to put this here preemptively: The assumption that a mother and a father make better parents than having two of the same sex is false.

https://theconversation.com/factcheck-are-children-better-off-with-a-mother-and-father-than-with-same-sex-parents-82313

It is true that having more than one parent is beneficial to children, but what is not true is the assumption that the gender of the parents is somehow important. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors took a joint effort to raise children, that is to say the kids were raised by the tribe as a whole rather than by just two parents. Our conception of marriage is completely artificial and not entirely natural.

MayCaesar

@Spot

I do not know. Have you never heard of marriages involving sterile individuals, or marriages of old people who are not able to produce children? What makes you think that marriage is supposed to involve childbirth?

No, I do not agree with that. I believe that children are generally better off with better parents, regardless of their gender.

We do not live in history; we live now. If you want to rely on history, you could go all the way back to the times when marriages were arranged by parents, and the married individuals had no say in the matter. Hardly something to emulate today.

Oh, I do not care about marriage rights at all; I find the whole institution a pure formality. I am simply pointing out the flaws in your argument.

Dee

@Spot

****** The point is that people should stop saying that they are equal when that is obviously not the case. 

I’m asking you to point out what constitutes an “equal marriage” , can you do so? 

****Homosexual behavior does nothing but harm society. 

How does it “harm” society? 

*****Why do you think that homosexuals should have the rights of husbands and wives?

Because they are human beings entitled to the same rights and privileges as others? Using your “logic” blacks should also have no rights because they are not “equal” to whites as their skin colour is different right? 

Spot

Happy_Killbot said:

@Spot Homosexual couples do not destroy the family unit at all. As i have already demonstrated, it is possible for homosexual couples to raise children, either through adoption of the use of a surrogate.

Not all heterosexual couples have kids anyways, would not they be more at fault then for destroying the family unit when deciding to remain childless, even more so than a gay couple who adopts?

Besides this, if the government gets to decide who can and can not have relationships, what makes you assume that you would be allowed to? They might decide that only a select few people can have kids as part of their job, because that would be more efficient. At this point, the government would raise the kids outside of the family. My point is, if the government gets to decide it would be better and more efficient to just factory-farm people. Hardly sounds ideal doesn't it?

Homosexual "marriages" cannot produce children and they deprive children of a mother/father. You can't pretend that gay marriages are equal to heterosexual marriages. As for sterile people, they have various medical reasons that prevent them from having children regardless of who they are attracted to. On the other hand, gay people are biologically prevented from having children. There is a difference there. Besides, most people do not find out they are sterile until after they are married. 

Spot

Happy_Killbot said:

@Spot Homosexual couples do not destroy the family unit at all. As i have already demonstrated, it is possible for homosexual couples to raise children, either through adoption of the use of a surrogate.

Not all heterosexual couples have kids anyways, would not they be more at fault then for destroying the family unit when deciding to remain childless, even more so than a gay couple who adopts?

Besides this, if the government gets to decide who can and can not have relationships, what makes you assume that you would be allowed to? They might decide that only a select few people can have kids as part of their job, because that would be more efficient. At this point, the government would raise the kids outside of the family. My point is, if the government gets to decide it would be better and more efficient to just factory-farm people. Hardly sounds ideal doesn't it?

Yes, the government should prevent certain people from having relationships. It should prevent adults from marrying children and it should prevent men/women from having multiple spouses. The government should also prevent people from marrying animals and so on...

Spot

Happy_Killbot said:

@Spot I'm going to put this here preemptively: The assumption that a mother and a father make better parents than having two of the same sex is false.

https://theconversation.com/factcheck-are-children-better-off-with-a-mother-and-father-than-with-same-sex-parents-82313

It is true that having more than one parent is beneficial to children, but what is not true is the assumption that the gender of the parents is somehow important. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors took a joint effort to raise children, that is to say the kids were raised by the tribe as a whole rather than by just two parents. Our conception of marriage is completely artificial and not entirely natural.

Your first claim is 100% false. I would have to take a closer look at the study your article is citing. Most of those studies are jokes. Have you seen the statistics that show what happens to children raised without a father figure? The "it takes a village to raise children" idea is not true. Have you seen what happens to children in Africa when that idea is implemented? Why do you assume that people are interchangeable as parents but not as sex partners?

Spot

MayCaesar said:

@Spot

I do not know. Have you never heard of marriages involving sterile individuals, or marriages of old people who are not able to produce children? What makes you think that marriage is supposed to involve childbirth?

No, I do not agree with that. I believe that children are generally better off with better parents, regardless of their gender.

We do not live in history; we live now. If you want to rely on history, you could go all the way back to the times when marriages were arranged by parents, and the married individuals had no say in the matter. Hardly something to emulate today.

Oh, I do not care about marriage rights at all; I find the whole institution a pure formality. I am simply pointing out the flaws in your argument.

Your entire argument just fell apart. If marriage is meaningless, there is no reason for you to fight for "marriage equality." What is the obsession with sterile people in this thread? They have medical issues that prevent them from having kids regardless of what/who they are attracted to. One historical and obvious purpose of marriage is to produce children. Gay marriages cannot do that and they always deprive children of a mother/father. Also, you can believe/hope that gender does not matter when it comes to parenting, but it doesn't make it true.

Dee

@Spot

***** Homosexual "marriages" cannot produce children and they deprive children of a mother/father. 

So what? How can they deprive children they cannot have? 

****You can't pretend that gay marriages are equal to heterosexual marriages. 

What makes a marriage equal? You’ve chickened out of addressing my earlier reply so can you give it a shot?

****As for sterile people, they have various medical reasons that prevent them from having children regardless of who they are attracted to. 

What if the couple don’t want children I’m married and my wife and I never desired children , so what’s your grand plan force people to have children would that make you any happier?

****On the other hand, gay people are biologically prevented from having children.

And?

 ***There is a difference there. 

And?

*****Besides, most people do not find out they are sterile until after they are married.  

And? 

Happy_Killbot

@Spot If you think this study is false, then what about this one?

https://www.livescience.com/17913-advantages-gay-parents.html

When you compare straight couples to single parent relationships, and the extrapolate that to include homosexual relationships you draw a false dichotomy. The evidence suggests that gay couples are actually better at raising children than heterosexual relationships!

You say the study is false but you would have to take a closer look is shorthand for: "You are wrong because I feel that you are wrong, but I don't know why"

Facts don't care about your feelings.

The village raises the children idea arises both from simple logic and observation of native tribes. At some point, people did not know that sex led to childbirth because that is learned knowledge. Therefore, a father would have no way of knowing if a child was his or not. This means that the traditional family structure is not the norm you may think it is.

Spot

Dee said:

@Spot

****** The point is that people should stop saying that they are equal when that is obviously not the case. 

I’m asking you to point out what constitutes an “equal marriage” , can you do so? 

****Homosexual behavior does nothing but harm society. 

How does it “harm” society? 

*****Why do you think that homosexuals should have the rights of husbands and wives?

Because they are human beings entitled to the same rights and privileges as others? Using your “logic” blacks should also have no rights because they are not “equal” to whites as their skin colour is different right? 

I do not believe in "marriage equality." Nothing can compare to the relationship that men and women have with each other. Homosexual behavior causes sexual diseases to spread. There is no such thing as "safe sex" when it comes to homosexuality. This is specifically true for males. Statistics also show that homosexuals are more likely to die early, be obese, use drugs, etc. It destroys the family unit which also hurts society. Homosexuals have way too many partners in their lifetime. Obviously, their relationships fail because they were not designed to be with each other. In any case, homosexual behavior does nothing good for society. It ruins the family unit, deprives children of a mother/father, spreads diseases which are costly I might add. A gay relationship is nothing like a real marriage. An no, skin color has nothing to do with marriage. Where do you think rights come from?

Spot

MayCaesar said:

@Spot

I do not know. 

I forgot to respond to this sentence. If you can't say where rights come from then you have no reason to believe that gays should have the rights that belong to husbands and wives.

Happy_Killbot

@Spot Did you know that child marriage is legal in 48 US states?

https://www.unchainedatlast.org/child-marriage-legal-in-every-state/

Marriage rights don't apply to animals ans inanimate objects because they are not citizens.

Both of these are irrelevant because homosexuals born in the US are citizens, and it doesn't matter if they are children in most states anyways.

Happy_Killbot

@Spot
Spot said:

MayCaesar said:

Your entire argument just fell apart. If marriage is meaningless, there is no reason for you to fight for "marriage equality." What is the obsession with sterile people in this thread? They have medical issues that prevent them from having kids regardless of what/who they are attracted to. One historical and obvious purpose of marriage is to produce children. Gay marriages cannot do that and they always deprive children of a mother/father. Also, you can believe/hope that gender does not matter when it comes to parenting, but it doesn't make it true.

You seriously don't understand the relevance of the sterility argument?

Let me put this in other words...

There are two people who live together who have unprotected sex regularly. After several years of living like this, neither of them gets pregnant. So what can we conclude?

A ) They are a homosexual couple.
B ) They are a heterosexual couple, but at least one of them is sterile.
C ) Either of these things is possible.

You can not tell! So if the purpose of marriage is just to raise kids, then sterile couples should be barred from marriage.

Spot

Dee said:

@Spot

***** Homosexual "marriages" cannot produce children and they deprive children of a mother/father. 

So what? How can they deprive children they cannot have? 

****You can't pretend that gay marriages are equal to heterosexual marriages. 

What makes a marriage equal? You’ve chickened out of addressing my earlier reply so can you give it a shot?

****As for sterile people, they have various medical reasons that prevent them from having children regardless of who they are attracted to. 

What if the couple don’t want children I’m married and my wife and I never desired children , so what’s your grand plan force people to have children would that make you any happier?

****On the other hand, gay people are biologically prevented from having children.

And?

 ***There is a difference there. 

And?

*****Besides, most people do not find out they are sterile until after they are married.  

And? 

If the couples adopt children they are depriving them of a mother/father. I have already said that I do not believe in marriage equality. I don't understand how I could make that more clear. The inability to produce children is an important point for numerous reasons. However, I originally brought it up to show that gay marriages are not equal to heterosexual marriages.

Spot

Happy_Killbot said:

@Spot If you think this study is false, then what about this one?

https://www.livescience.com/17913-advantages-gay-parents.html

When you compare straight couples to single parent relationships, and the extrapolate that to include homosexual relationships you draw a false dichotomy. The evidence suggests that gay couples are actually better at raising children than heterosexual relationships!

You say the study is false but you would have to take a closer look is shorthand for: "You are wrong because I feel that you are wrong, but I don't know why"

Facts don't care about your feelings.

The village raises the children idea arises both from simple logic and observation of native tribes. At some point, people did not know that sex led to childbirth because that is learned knowledge. Therefore, a father would have no way of knowing if a child was his or not. This means that the traditional family structure is not the norm you may think it is.

You are not citing studies. You are citing articles that mention studies that I cannot read. And homosexual researchers have admitted that most of those studies are biased. They are also contrary to the thousands of studies that show the benefits of having a mother and a father. People have always known that sex leads to childbirth. It is not rocket science. You can't just make up history. Again, do you know what happens to children in Africa when they are raised by a "village?" Long story short, it doesn't work.

Dee

@Spot

***** I do not believe in "marriage equality." 

Yes , you don’t believe in rights I got that 

****Nothing can compare to the relationship that men and women have with each other. 

Your subjective opinion based on just that 

*****Homosexual behavior causes sexual diseases to spread. 

Again your subjective opinion 

****There is no such thing as "safe sex" when it comes to homosexuality.

Again your subjective opinion 

 ****This is specifically true for males. 

Read above 

****
Statistics also show that homosexuals are more likely to die early, be obese, use drugs, etc.

Nonsense 



****It destroys the family unit which also hurts society.

Again another opinion based on nothing 

 ****Homosexuals have way too many partners in their lifetime. 

A sweeping generalization yet again 

****Obviously, their relationships fail because they were not designed to be with each other. 

You really hate them don’t you?

****In any case, homosexual behavior does nothing good for society. 

Sweeping generalization again 

****It ruins the family unit, deprives children of a mother/father, spreads diseases which are costly I might add

Accusations based on bigotry and hatred nothing else  

. ****A gay relationship is nothing like a real marriage.

How so? What’s a “real marriage”? 

**** An no, skin color has nothing to do with marriage.

But a black married to a White is “unequal” using your logic 

**** Where do you think rights come from?

Thankfully not from you who wish to deny based on someone’s sexuality 

Happy_Killbot

@Spot Do you have any evidence to support your claims that the studies are biased, the people doing the studies say they are biased, and African children raised in villages are not as well off because of being raised by the village, and not because of, i don't know, the lower standard of living?

You are just making stuff up because I backed you into a corner and now you are getting defensive.

Spot

Happy_Killbot said:

@Spot Did you know that child marriage is legal in 48 US states?

https://www.unchainedatlast.org/child-marriage-legal-in-every-state/

Marriage rights don't apply to animals ans inanimate objects because they are not citizens.

Both of these are irrelevant because homosexuals born in the US are citizens, and it doesn't matter if they are children in most states anyways.

I said the government should prevent adults from marrying children. I think state laws vary when it come to children that desire to marry young. I think the parents usually need to sign off on it. Who cares that animals and objects are not citizens? What if it makes a person happy? Do you have a bias against things that aren't citizens? What if the government made animals citizens? Then would it be okay with you?

Happy_Killbot

@Spot So if it is ok for children to marry under the law, but not for homosexuals to, why is this a problem?

Kids can't have there own children until after they get to a certain age either, your arguments are falling apart.

Spot

Happy_Killbot said:

@Spot
Spot said:

MayCaesar said:

Your entire argument just fell apart. If marriage is meaningless, there is no reason for you to fight for "marriage equality." What is the obsession with sterile people in this thread? They have medical issues that prevent them from having kids regardless of what/who they are attracted to. One historical and obvious purpose of marriage is to produce children. Gay marriages cannot do that and they always deprive children of a mother/father. Also, you can believe/hope that gender does not matter when it comes to parenting, but it doesn't make it true.

You seriously don't understand the relevance of the sterility argument?

Let me put this in other words...

There are two people who live together who have unprotected sex regularly. After several years of living like this, neither of them gets pregnant. So what can we conclude?

A ) They are a homosexual couple.
B ) They are a heterosexual couple, but at least one of them is sterile.
C ) Either of these things is possible.

You can not tell! So if the purpose of marriage is just to raise kids, then sterile couples should be barred from marriage.

That is a ridiculous argument. Marriage is by definition the union of a man and a woman. It also produces children and provides them with mothers and fathers. Gay relationships will never be like that. Sterile couples do not generally find out they are sterile until they are married. Furthermore, their union is still legitimate because it is between a man and a woman. Again, where do you think rights come from?

Happy_Killbot

@Spot GOVERNMENTS DO NOT GIVE RIGHTS!

ALL INDIVIDUALS ARE INHERENTLY FREE!

GOVERNMENTS ONLY TAKE RIGHTS AWAY!

If you disagree, I would be happy to have you as my slave.

Spot

Happy_Killbot said:

@Spot Do you have any evidence to support your claims that the studies are biased, the people doing the studies say they are biased, and African children raised in villages are not as well off because of being raised by the village, and not because of, i don't know, the lower standard of living?

You are just making stuff up because I backed you into a corner and now you are getting defensive.

The University of Michigan produced a study that found that the risk of death was higher in polygamous families. Here is the link to the article: https://phys.org/news/2011-09-child-doesnt-village.html. I will try to find the article about homosexual researchers admitting that most studies are biased. This bias is not hard to see though since the facts don't support those conclusions.

Spot

Happy_Killbot said:

@Spot So if it is ok for children to marry under the law, but not for homosexuals to, why is this a problem?

Kids can't have there own children until after they get to a certain age either, your arguments are falling apart.

Males and females are allowed to marry. No state law allows children to marry before child bearing age as far as I know. That would be a new one. I would definitely be against those laws. Again, where do you think rights come from? 

Happy_Killbot

@Spot If we look at the semantics here, we will see that it says just as good, your claim was that it quote:

"Again, do you know what happens to children in Africa when they are raised by a "village?" Long story short, it doesn't work."

You played yourself!

Spot

Happy_Killbot said:

@Spot GOVERNMENTS DO NOT GIVE RIGHTS!

ALL INDIVIDUALS ARE INHERENTLY FREE!

GOVERNMENTS ONLY TAKE RIGHTS AWAY!

If you disagree, I would be happy to have you as my slave.

If the government does not give people rights then where do they come from? 

Spot

Happy_Killbot said:

@Spot If we look at the semantics here, we will see that it says just as good, your claim was that it quote:

"Again, do you know what happens to children in Africa when they are raised by a "village?" Long story short, it doesn't work."

You played yourself!

You obviously did not read the entire article.

Happy_Killbot

@Spot Rights are inherent to all free men you dirty authoritarian!

The government does not give you or anyone rights, you can do whatever you want until a government comes by an says you can not!

F***ing Authoritarian!

Consider, if there was no government, what would prevent two people from marrying whoever they chose, even if that person is a the same sex as them?

The answer is nothing! Anyone can do as they can and do as they please until governments says they can not.

To the free world, authoritarian scum is an unforgivable enemy!

Happy_Killbot

@Spot obviously you didn't either. The second sentence reads: "In the African villages that I study in Mali, children fare as well in nuclear families as they do in extended families," said U-M researcher Beverly Strassmann, professor of anthropology and faculty associate at the U-M Institute for Social Research (ISR)

smoothie

@Spot

I don't understand why homosexual marriages should not be allowed to have children.

Studies have shown that most have near equal child outcomes as heterosexual marriages. You label all studies saying so are led by "homosexual researchers", source?

Would you rather more children end up in foster homes with no parents at all? If it means protecting your vision of a "family unit"?

smoothie

Spot said:

I do not believe in "marriage equality." Nothing can compare to the relationship that men and women have with each other. Homosexual behavior causes sexual diseases to spread. There is no such thing as "safe sex" when it comes to homosexuality. This is specifically true for males. Statistics also show that homosexuals are more likely to die early, be obese, use drugs, etc. It destroys the family unit which also hurts society. Homosexuals have way too many partners in their lifetime. Obviously, their relationships fail because they were not designed to be with each other. In any case, homosexual behavior does nothing good for society. It ruins the family unit, deprives children of a mother/father, spreads diseases which are costly I might add. A gay relationship is nothing like a real marriage. An no, skin color has nothing to do with marriage. Where do you think rights come from?

@Spot

I did this with Rickey and I really have to do it with you too? Lets break down your stereotypes that somebow make me unfit to raise a child.

I am a gay man. I have never had an STD in my entire life. I have never taken illegal drugs nor been addicted to any. I am far from obese. I have only had a handful of partners and have settled on one partner right now probably for the next decade, I am far from promiscuous. This partner has also never had an STD. Our relationship will not "fail" because we are both males. It may not be biologically designed but really who cares? I have safer sex than probably most straight people.

Your stereotypes and "studies" do not label every gay person in a box. They are pointless in law. They certainly don't define me and most other gay people I know. Your same argument could be applied to black people "committing more crime cus study shows" and then banning every black person from owning a gun. This is not a logical argument and you know it.

Some straight people have HIV and AIDS too, actually demographically more since they make up more of the population. Straight marriages also have a higher rate of domestic assault and abuse. I will not argue to ban straight marriages and their ability to raise children because of this however, unlike some people.

Spot

Happy_Killbot said:

@Spot Rights are inherent to all free men you dirty authoritarian!

The government does not give you or anyone rights, you can do whatever you want until a government comes by an says you can not!

F***ing Authoritarian!

Consider, if there was no government, what would prevent two people from marrying whoever they chose, even if that person is a the same sex as them?

The answer is nothing! Anyone can do as they can and do as they please until governments says they can not.

To the free world, authoritarian scum is an unforgivable enemy!

You can assert you have rights, but it really doesn't mean much. Again, where do they come from or do you just make them up? I do not believe they come from the government by the way. I am just trying to figure out where you think they come from. 

Spot

Happy_Killbot said:

@Spot obviously you didn't either. The second sentence reads: "In the African villages that I study in Mali, children fare as well in nuclear families as they do in extended families," said U-M researcher Beverly Strassmann, professor of anthropology and faculty associate at the U-M Institute for Social Research (ISR)

Strassman found that "There's a naïve belief that villages raise children communally, when in reality children are raised by their own families and their survival depends critically on the survival of their mothers." Having the biological parents present is key to the children's survival. Furthermore, "Strassmann found that children's risk of death is higher in polygynous than in monogamous families. This reflects the hazard of living with unrelated females whose own children are competing with the children of co-wives for limited resources." Having extended family around is fine, however, they can't all try to be the parents of the children. That is when things go downhill. Strassman even mentions that grandparents "who did not live with the grandchildren sometimes did have a positive effect because they were not competing for scarce resources."

SkepticalOne

Spot said:

Gay relationships are not equal to heterosexual relationships. If everyone were gay, society would cease to exist. While this would never happen, it shows that the two types of relationships are not equal.

If everyone decided not to have kids (as *some* people do), humanity would cease to exist, but this is no reason to think individuals who have no kids are less valuable. People who do not have kids undeniably contribute to society in other ways (and the LGBT community would be a part of this).

Happy_Killbot

@Spot Rights don't "come" from anywhere, they just are. No person or entity grants you rights, when a government "gives" you right what is really happening is they are making exceptions to the rights they could take away.

For example, "you have the right to remain silent" means that no one is allowed to force you to talk. What this means is that you will not be tortured for information. Nothing was preventing you from not talking if you decided not to. If you did not have the right to remain silent, then that would mean the cops could force you to talk.

Above you said:
"If the government does not give people rights then where do they come from? " 

If you think they have a source, then clearly you miss the point of freedom entirely.

MayCaesar

Spot said:

Your entire argument just fell apart. If marriage is meaningless, there is no reason for you to fight for "marriage equality." What is the obsession with sterile people in this thread? They have medical issues that prevent them from having kids regardless of what/who they are attracted to. One historical and obvious purpose of marriage is to produce children. Gay marriages cannot do that and they always deprive children of a mother/father. Also, you can believe/hope that gender does not matter when it comes to parenting, but it doesn't make it true.

Where am I fighting for anything? I am simply pointing out why your argument is inconsistent and illogical. An argument is an argument, its validity or invalidity is independent of who and why makes it.

You have not addressed any of my arguments. The "obsession" with sterile people is that they illustrate one of the flaws in your argument. There are also people that can have children, but choose not to. There are gays that can have children and do not, and gays that can have children and do. There are bisexual people. There are countless scenarios that you blatantly ignore that run against your narrative.

Once again: marriage is not about giving birth to children. I am not sure how much clearer I can make it. The marriage contract says absolutely nothing about children. If you are arguing against legalised homosexual marriage based on reproductive capabilities of various types of sex, then you are doing it wrong.

ZeusAres42

Spot said:

MayCaesar said:

@Spot

Why is that fact irrelevant? Your argument is literally based on the fact that homosexual couples do not reproduce. The fact that some heterosexual couples do not reproduce either undermines the distinction you are making.

These types of relationships are different, but they are not different in the aspect your argument makes an attribution to. Nor is that aspect relevant with regards to legality of marriage.

I fail to see what the fact that society would exist if all people were heterosexual, but would not if all people were homosexual, has to do with anything. Neither is the case in the real world.

Once again, my argument was to show that gay marriage is not equal to heterosexual marriage. I supported this by stating a biological fact. Yes, there are sterile people and they are the exception. You are missing the point. There is zero chance that any children could be produced by a gay relationship. The two relationships cannot birth the same effects. Sure, sterile people and eunuchs would be obvious exceptions. They cannot produce children regardless of whom they decide to get involved with. Therefore, they are irrelevant in this conversation. Besides, people that are sterile cannot have kids because of various medical reasons. When it comes to homosexuals, none of these medical issues will prevent them from having children. They simply do not have the ability to produce children period.

Marriage and reproduction are two completely different things. I mean should animals marry then because they can reproduce?

John_C_87

ZeusAres42 said:

Spot said:

MayCaesar said:

@Spot

Why is that fact irrelevant? Your argument is literally based on the fact that homosexual couples do not reproduce. The fact that some heterosexual couples do not reproduce either undermines the distinction you are making.

These types of relationships are different, but they are not different in the aspect your argument makes an attribution to. Nor is that aspect relevant with regards to legality of marriage.

I fail to see what the fact that society would exist if all people were heterosexual, but would not if all people were homosexual, has to do with anything. Neither is the case in the real world.

Once again, my argument was to show that gay marriage is not equal to heterosexual marriage. I supported this by stating a biological fact. Yes, there are sterile people and they are the exception. You are missing the point. There is zero chance that any children could be produced by a gay relationship. The two relationships cannot birth the same effects. Sure, sterile people and eunuchs would be obvious exceptions. They cannot produce children regardless of whom they decide to get involved with. Therefore, they are irrelevant in this conversation. Besides, people that are sterile cannot have kids because of various medical reasons. When it comes to homosexuals, none of these medical issues will prevent them from having children. They simply do not have the ability to produce children period.

Marriage and reproduction are two completely different things. I mean should animals marry then because they can reproduce?

Animals are not citizens of a Nation.

John_C_87

1.       Marriage (Man + woman ).

2.       Civil Union ( Man + Woman).

3.       Binivir ( Man + Man).

4.       UnosMulier(Woman + woman).

An alleged homosexual man can be legally married with a woman.

An alleged lesbian woman can be legally married with a man.

Two alleged homosexual men can be witnessed as a BiniVir.

Two alleged lesbian women can be witnessed as UnosMulier.

A woman who choses a sperm from a medical facility can be pronounced in a civil union with the donator of the sperm.

A person who inseminates a human egg with sperm for conception can be legally declared an additional parent of the child created.

A homosexual who is bound legally by BiniVir can be legally bound to a woman segregate who donates human egg to produce a child in civil union.

A lesbian who is bound by UnosMulier can be legally bound to a man segregate who donates human sperm to produce a child in civil union.

A preamble of United state constitutional common defense to the general welfare.