toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Selaphiel
Well-known member
Two consenting adults have the right to form a legally recognized union, since there is no rational reason that suggests that they should not be able to do that.
They can adopt children and they can support children. There is no a priori reason to suspect that they are better or worse parents than a heterosexual couple. There is no evidence that suggests that they are either.
what are these rights based on?
and
are there any limits to them?
like
a brother marrying a brother
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
. . . this has all been covered in the last 1600+ posts (100+ pages) chrys . . .
. . . your proving to everyone you're a :troll: . . .
. . . and should be :banned: for it.
Selaphiel
Well-known member
This has been explained to you ad infinitum by both rexlunae and Town Heretic. I see no need to repeat what they have said.
I did not read through the last 40 pages without learning something. I'm unwilling to discuss this issue with you until you can provide some reasons and/or evidence for your views on this topic at hand.
:first:
I see no reason to exclude homosexual couples from marriage. If you want to call that protecting them, then I guess I do.
do you have a reason why they should get married?
Selaphiel
Well-known member
I have given you my reasons and I referred you to other posts for your attempt to change the actual question at hand.
They want to, because they find it meaningful in one way or another. That is all the reason they need, there is no reason to not allow it.
Sure. Because they desire to enter into that contract, binding them to another person. That's all that is required, other than capacity, for any heterosexual couple and it's all that should be required here.
I guess I'm a sucker for equality.
they are not equal conditions or situations
so it is okay for a brother to marry a brother?
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
. . . two brothers can get married . . .
. . . but . . .
. . . only if two white guys can too . . .
. . . :chuckle:.
This is what I've pointed out about your practice of dodging and not really answering. I give you an argument, rooted in equality before the law, and you reach for the most grotesque potential imaginable to attempt to taint by association what you cannot reasonably address else.
I've set out, factually, how the marriage contract needn't produce or concern itself with children. I have also set out how, were that to be considered, the homosexual couple could through adoption or surrogacy produce and provide for children. I've noted the argument against discriminatory practice. The only way you can object to homosexual marriage is by applying your religious dogma, the very thing you would and have objected to strongly when attempted by Islamic fundamentalists.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
. . . which has repeatedly been shown to you to be irrelevant to marriage . . .
. . . because . . .
. . . infertile men and women cannot have children either.
. . . are you married?
. . . do you have children?
I understand that feeling. I don't much like change that is thrust upon me. But my feelings don't make much of a difference. I try to find a way to survive change.
- Status