The Homosexual Dilemma

[Lilah]

Why do gays NEED to adopt children, again? this itself seems like a phony argument that becomes a self fulfilling rationalization, along the lines of: Gays need rights because they have children so we need to protect that, because they LOVE their children and their spouses....That is the most irrational cyclical argument floating out in internet land. Gays can't HAVE children, there for, they don't need parental rights, which is all marriage comes down to. Period, it is that simple.

Gays DO have children...I've had five. Why are our families less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?

Also, can you please name for us the state or locality that requires procreation in order to apply for a civil marriage license? Can you cite one instance of a civil marriage license being revoked due to the couple's inability or refusal to procreate?

Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage. What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.

You are one heartless form of human flesh. Too many women are unable to bear children; therefore, thanks to today's technology, they are able to use other means to process their eggs. Shame on you for manifesting your egomaniacal, abysmally smug, self-righteous, judgmental thinking into hate speech.

You didnt actually understand his comment, did you? Be honest.

Parse it for me, please

 

[g5000]

Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage.

The claim is frequently made that marriage tax breaks are to encourage procreation.

What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.

This is a bigoted bare assertion with no supporting evidence. Please support this idiotic claim with evidence that gay parent households are any more abusive than heterosexual households.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why do gays NEED to adopt children, again? this itself seems like a phony argument that becomes a self fulfilling rationalization, along the lines of: Gays need rights because they have children so we need to protect that, because they LOVE their children and their spouses....That is the most irrational cyclical argument floating out in internet land. Gays can't HAVE children, there for, they don't need parental rights, which is all marriage comes down to. Period, it is that simple.

Gays DO have children...I've had five. Why are our families less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?

Also, can you please name for us the state or locality that requires procreation in order to apply for a civil marriage license? Can you cite one instance of a civil marriage license being revoked due to the couple's inability or refusal to procreate?

Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage. What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.

You are one heartless form of human flesh. Too many women are unable to bear children; therefore, thanks to today's technology, they are able to use other means to process their eggs. Shame on you for manifesting your egomaniacal, abysmally smug, self-righteous, judgmental thinking into hate speech.

You didnt actually understand his comment, did you? Be honest.

Parse it for me, please

So that's a no.

The argument here runs like this: The state has an interest in fostering some kinds of relationships over other kinds of relationships. Specifically heterosexual relationships tend (note the word tend) to produce future generations of citizens, which is why the state fosters it. Homsoexual relationships tend (note the word tend) not to. Ergo the state has a proper interest in discriminating between the two The fact that some heterosexual couples are childless and some homosexual couples have children or some sort is irrelevent because we arent making a rule that is absolute, only making rules for the general population.

 

[g5000]

You didnt actually understand his comment, did you? Be honest.

We understand all too well.

You, too. Prove that gay parents are more abusive than straight parents.

Go ahead.

 

[g5000]

So that's a no.

The argument here runs like this: The state has an interest in fostering some kinds of relationships over other kinds of relationships. Specifically heterosexual relationships tend (note the word tend) to produce future generations of citizens, which is why the state fosters it. Homsoexual relationships tend (note the word tend) not to. Ergo the state has a proper interest in discriminating between the two The fact that some heterosexual couples are childless and some homosexual couples have children or some sort is irrelevent because we arent making a rule that is absolute, only making rules for the general population.

Wow. It just gets dumber and dumber.

Are you really this retarded?

I guess I should not be surprised that a bigot is retarded enough to believe that people will stop making kids if the government doesn't interfere in their marriages and institute a behavioral modification program to reward them with cash for fucking and procreating.

I guess you retards think the human race almost died out before all this government involvement in marriage, eh?

The illegitimacy rate must have been much higher before the government came along and encouraged people to get married. And the divorce rate, too, since there was no incentive to stay married until the government started paying people to stay married. It's a good thing the government got involved in marriage and brought those rates down, eh?

 

[hipeter924]

The homosexualism is not a dilemma, it's a sin, it's immoral and wrong behaviour. Period. America will fall because of gays.

Any failure(s) can and will be traced back to miscreants like you.

Well, holding back scientific advancement would destroy America for sure, as stem cells and artificial insemination increase life spans or birth rates. Under a crazed theocracy, life saving methods would be 'heresy' as would the use of most technology.

Read Anthem by Ayn Rand, even if you don't like her philosophy, as it pictures a world where religious theocrats and 'altruists' run everything.

 

[The Rabbi]

So that's a no.

The argument here runs like this: The state has an interest in fostering some kinds of relationships over other kinds of relationships. Specifically heterosexual relationships tend (note the word tend) to produce future generations of citizens, which is why the state fosters it. Homsoexual relationships tend (note the word tend) not to. Ergo the state has a proper interest in discriminating between the two The fact that some heterosexual couples are childless and some homosexual couples have children or some sort is irrelevent because we arent making a rule that is absolute, only making rules for the general population.

Wow. It just gets dumber and dumber.

Are you really this retarded?

I guess I should not be surprised that a bigot is retarded enough to believe that people will stop making kids if the government doesn't interfere in their marriages and institute a behavioral modification program to reward them with cash for fucking and procreating.

I guess you retards think the human race almost died out before all this government involvement in marriage, eh?

You really are one stupid piece of shit, arent you? Don;t lie. We know it's true.

 

[The Rabbi]

You didnt actually understand his comment, did you? Be honest.

We understand all too well.

You, too. Prove that gay parents are more abusive than straight parents.

Go ahead.

Straw man. I never claimed that.

 

[g5000]

What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.

It's like I keep saying.

Behind the mask of every anti-gay marriage bigot is a Westboro Baptist. You just have to keep them talking long enough for the mask to slip.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The argument here runs like this: The state has an interest in fostering some kinds of relationships over other kinds of relationships. Specifically heterosexual relationships tend (note the word tend) to produce future generations of citizens, which is why the state fosters it. Homsoexual relationships tend (note the word tend) not to. Ergo the state has a proper interest in discriminating between the two The fact that some heterosexual couples are childless and some homosexual couples have children or some sort is irrelevent because we arent making a rule that is absolute, only making rules for the general population.

So different-sex couples are exempt from the procreation "rule".

However that is a standard that will be required of same-sex couples.

Ya, that logic doesn't work. Especially since there are laws that require different-sex couples to be infertile before they are allowed to Civilly Marry.


>>>>>

 

[g5000]

You didnt actually understand his comment, did you? Be honest.

We understand all too well.

You, too. Prove that gay parents are more abusive than straight parents.

Go ahead.

Straw man. I never claimed that.

Well, well, well. It looks like YOU are the one who didn't know what SaintMichaelDefendThem was saying.

 

[The Rabbi]

What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.

It's like I keep saying.

Behind the mask of every anti-gay marriage bigot is a Westboro Baptist. You just have to keep them talking long enough for the mask to slip.

More stupid shit from today's shit-talker. Hey, shit talker, you think you can actually respond to the post, or are you too fucking stupid to even comprehend what he wrote?

 

[The Rabbi]

The argument here runs like this: The state has an interest in fostering some kinds of relationships over other kinds of relationships. Specifically heterosexual relationships tend (note the word tend) to produce future generations of citizens, which is why the state fosters it. Homsoexual relationships tend (note the word tend) not to. Ergo the state has a proper interest in discriminating between the two The fact that some heterosexual couples are childless and some homosexual couples have children or some sort is irrelevent because we arent making a rule that is absolute, only making rules for the general population.

So different-sex couples are exempt from the procreation "rule".

However that is a standard that will be required of same-sex couples.

Ya, that logic doesn't work. Especially since there are laws that require different-sex couples to be infertile before they are allowed to Civilly Marry.


>>>>>

That post made no sense. There is no "procreation rule." You made that up.

 

[g5000]

So that's a no.

The argument here runs like this: The state has an interest in fostering some kinds of relationships over other kinds of relationships. Specifically heterosexual relationships tend (note the word tend) to produce future generations of citizens, which is why the state fosters it. Homsoexual relationships tend (note the word tend) not to. Ergo the state has a proper interest in discriminating between the two The fact that some heterosexual couples are childless and some homosexual couples have children or some sort is irrelevent because we arent making a rule that is absolute, only making rules for the general population.

Wow. It just gets dumber and dumber.

Are you really this retarded?

I guess I should not be surprised that a bigot is retarded enough to believe that people will stop making kids if the government doesn't interfere in their marriages and institute a behavioral modification program to reward them with cash for fucking and procreating.

I guess you retards think the human race almost died out before all this government involvement in marriage, eh?

You really are one stupid piece of shit, arent you? Don;t lie. We know it's true.

This is Rabbi's default response after getting his ass handed to him.

 

[The Rabbi]

You didnt actually understand his comment, did you? Be honest.

We understand all too well.

You, too. Prove that gay parents are more abusive than straight parents.

Go ahead.

Straw man. I never claimed that.

Well, well, well. It looks like YOU are the one who didn't know what SaintMichaelDefendThem was saying.

I know what he wrote. So what? I am not responsible for what other posters write. Deal with it, shit talker.

 

[g5000]

What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.

It's like I keep saying.

Behind the mask of every anti-gay marriage bigot is a Westboro Baptist. You just have to keep them talking long enough for the mask to slip.

More stupid shit from today's shit-talker. Hey, shit talker, you think you can actually respond to the post, or are you too fucking stupid to even comprehend what he wrote?

He is quite plainly saying that gay parents are abusive to children for the sole reason that letting your kids know you are gay is abusive.

It does not get more Westboro Baptist than that!

 

[The Rabbi]

So that's a no.

The argument here runs like this: The state has an interest in fostering some kinds of relationships over other kinds of relationships. Specifically heterosexual relationships tend (note the word tend) to produce future generations of citizens, which is why the state fosters it. Homsoexual relationships tend (note the word tend) not to. Ergo the state has a proper interest in discriminating between the two The fact that some heterosexual couples are childless and some homosexual couples have children or some sort is irrelevent because we arent making a rule that is absolute, only making rules for the general population.

Wow. It just gets dumber and dumber.

Are you really this retarded?

I guess I should not be surprised that a bigot is retarded enough to believe that people will stop making kids if the government doesn't interfere in their marriages and institute a behavioral modification program to reward them with cash for fucking and procreating.

I guess you retards think the human race almost died out before all this government involvement in marriage, eh?

You really are one stupid piece of shit, arent you? Don;t lie. We know it's true.

This is Rabbi's default response after getting his ass handed to him.

I've never had my ass handed to me. Certainly not by a shit talker like you who couldn't argue with a rock and win.

 

[The Rabbi]

What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.

It's like I keep saying.

Behind the mask of every anti-gay marriage bigot is a Westboro Baptist. You just have to keep them talking long enough for the mask to slip.

More stupid shit from today's shit-talker. Hey, shit talker, you think you can actually respond to the post, or are you too fucking stupid to even comprehend what he wrote?

He is quite plainly saying that gay parents are abusive to children.

OK. Do you know they're not?

 

[The Rabbi]

What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.

It's like I keep saying.

Behind the mask of every anti-gay marriage bigot is a Westboro Baptist. You just have to keep them talking long enough for the mask to slip.

More stupid shit from today's shit-talker. Hey, shit talker, you think you can actually respond to the post, or are you too fucking stupid to even comprehend what he wrote?

He is quite plainly saying that gay parents are abusive to children for the sole reason that letting your kids know you are gay is abusive.

It does not get more Westboro Baptist than that!

So demonstrate he is wrong. Go ahead.

 

[Syriusly]

Gays DO have children...I've had five. Why are our families less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?

Also, can you please name for us the state or locality that requires procreation in order to apply for a civil marriage license? Can you cite one instance of a civil marriage license being revoked due to the couple's inability or refusal to procreate?

Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage. What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.

You are one heartless form of human flesh. Too many women are unable to bear children; therefore, thanks to today's technology, they are able to use other means to process their eggs. Shame on you for manifesting your egomaniacal, abysmally smug, self-righteous, judgmental thinking into hate speech.

You didnt actually understand his comment, did you? Be honest.

Parse it for me, please

So that's a no.

The argument here runs like this: The state has an interest in fostering some kinds of relationships over other kinds of relationships. Specifically heterosexual relationships tend (note the word tend) to produce future generations of citizens, which is why the state fosters it. Homsoexual relationships tend (note the word tend) not to. Ergo the state has a proper interest in discriminating between the two The fact that some heterosexual couples are childless and some homosexual couples have children or some sort is irrelevent because we arent making a rule that is absolute, only making rules for the general population.

That sounds exactly like what it is- a rationalization for discrimination against gay couples.

Essentially applying one set of standards to a group that the majority identifies with- and applying a second set of standards to a group the majority doesn't identify with.

And that of course is why such arguments have been failing in court.