Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
Nope, because it's possible for an infertile couple to produce a child, thanks to modern science. There is absolutely, positively no way for a homosexual couple to produce children. What I can't understand is that if marriage isn't about producing children, then why wouldn't you agree to gay marriage without the child-producing benefits?
|
If I remove the uterus of a woman, or tie up a man's vas deferens, there is
NO WAY they are making a baby, regardless of the advances of modern science. They can still get married. Do you believe they shouldn't be allowed to do so?
Yes, they are statistically a small portion of heterosexual marriages.
We've already established that gay people are a small percentage of our population.
Quote:
|
The notion that everyone is treated equally is great in concept, but absolutely unatainable in praotce. You still neglect the fact that, as you sit here and read this thread, you're benefiting from a certain group of people not having the same privileges as you do.
|
Hey, at least that's not vague.
We talking illegal aliens, we talking exploited foreign labor, people who have been banned from the public library, what?
Quote:
|
If you could ask the Supreme Court whether or not they believe that everyone should have the exact same rights and privileges as everyone else, they'll flat out tell you no. The fact that one group is discriminated against for the good of the majority is an integral part of any society.
|
And this is germane how? What they will tell you is that everyone should have the exact same rights, unless there is a strong and compelling interest of the state to deny those rights. The proponents of gay marriage are saying there is no such compelling interest. You have failed to demonstrate that there is one.
Quote:
|
I haven't told anyone not to care. I find it funny that you tell me not to care because it doesn't concern me yet you don't take your own advice. Oh, and just for the record, there's a difference with empathy and agreeance. I can empathize all day long with homosexuals; That doesn't mean that I'm going to agree with gay marriage.
|
That's not the point. See earlier plethora of posts. Without an actual account of why it would be harmful to society, (ie. compelling interest issue again), what that means is IL doesn't like gay marriage. No one really cares whether you agree with or like gay marriage.I think this argument is about the legality of it (again). I don't agree with or like casseroles. I don't think they should be illegal.
Quote:
|
Simply because I oppose gay marriage doesn't mean that I have a problem associating or making friends with homosexuals.
|
My grandfather didn't mind hanging out with black people. He just didn't want them to have the same rights that white people had. He was a racist. His point of view has gradually become less accepted, and legally his position was overturned. The same thing is happening right now with homosexuals.
Quote:
|
I never said that no one could care about anything which doesn't directly affect them. Just don't tell me that I can't care about whether or not gay marriage is legalized because it doesn't affect me when the same also applies to you. That just makes you a hypocrite.
|
No one said you can't care about it. It has been said that I (and others) don't understand why you care about keeping it illegal. Care about it til the cows come home. See earlier posts on this subject. There are about ten-fifteen of them.
Quote:
|
By the way, our forefathers were bigots and slave-owners (In case you didn't know).
|
And they founded a country, within their society's understanding, which was based on a set of general principles that espoused a respect for the freedom, liberty and justice (for all) of every citizen (and even people not citizens, but we've really moved away from that these days. "All men are created equal doesn't not mean all American citizens, but that's another topic). The more we've learned and evolved, the more inclusive our society has become. This is just one of the more recent cases. I'll be that polygomy will be legalized soon too, but once again - that's a separate thread.
edit: I just wanted to reiterate
Gilda's point: gay people can and are having kids right and left.
To pick up an earlier point that I think we were discussing primarily with
Ustwo concerning homosexuality and population control: I personally feel that people may be acted on by social pressures (much like game theory stuff, as far as I understand it) that may result in an increase in a tendency towards homosexual behavior, which could be considered something of a natural form of population control. However, this affect would be probably fairly small, due to the small percentage of homosexuals and the fact that we have more than just our instictual level of existance. Thus although in a biological vacuum a gay couple can't have children, there are obviously ways for them to overcome this limitation. And the whole point is sort of irrelevant to gay marriage, but I personally find it interesting to muse about.