Well, love doesn't need marriage to be love, now does it?
Your rebuttal is flawed and lacks coherent details.
Your rebuttal is flawed and lacks coherent details.
Infertile couples have the right to get married. Older individuals who can't reproduce have the right to get married. People with absolutely no desire to reproduce have the right to get married.
But same gendered couples don't have that right simply on the grounds they're the same gender. They have absolutely everything in common with opposite gendered couples that are infertile, old, or will simply chose to never have children EXCEPT for the fact they're of the same gender.
To infer that you aren't disagreeing with the idea of a same gendered marriage simply because of your own bigotry and bias is baseless in and of itself.
But same gendered couples don't have that right simply on the grounds they're the same gender. They have absolutely everything in common with opposite gendered couples that are infertile, old, or will simply chose to never have children EXCEPT for the fact they're of the same gender.
To infer that you aren't disagreeing with the idea of a same gendered marriage simply because of your own bigotry and bias is baseless in and of itself.
"Infertile couples have the right to get married. Older individuals who can't reproduce have the right to get married. People with absolutely no desire to reproduce have the right to get married."
1. Yes, a medical problem does not disqualify a person from being able to exercise their rights.
2. Old age - something that everyone will reach, assuming nothing kills them before that - does not disqualify someone from exercising their rights.
3. Motive is impossible to determine or measure, and more often than not, the couple changes their mind later.
"But same gendered couples don't have that right simply on the grounds they're the same gender."
Your statement is flawed. Rights are not extended to couples, but individuals. No individual has the right to marry someone of the same sex, regardless of their own personal sexual orientation.
"They have absolutely everything in common with opposite gendered couples that are infertile, old, or will simply chose to never have children EXCEPT for the fact they're of the same gender."
False. Same-sex couples omit one of the sexes from their make-up, which implies that persons of the sex that has been omitted are unneeded, replaceable, or second rate. This is a negative message to send to children, and a negative message that society should not support. Same-sex couples are also not equal to opposite-sex couples because fathers cannot be mothers, and mothers cannot be fathers.
An analogy to better explain:
You have a baseball team. Baseball teams require equipment, at least gloves, bats, and a ball. The also require outfielders and in-fielders. An opposite-sex couple is like a normal baseball team. They have all of the required equipment and all of the required team members. They occasionally win games.
Infertile couples are exactly like the team above, except they always lose. Some of their team members may have physical abnormalities or impairments, but that doesn't stop them from trying.
Elderly couples are the baseball team consisting of older members exclusively. They also never win games.
Same-sex couples are a baseball team with either bats or gloves, but never both, infielders or outfielders, but never both. They can never win a game, and they're really not a baseball team. But they continue to insist that they are, and throw a fit when the umpire informs them that they cannot play, because they refuse to follow the exact same rules as everyone else and do not have the required equipment and team players.
"To infer that you aren't disagreeing with the idea of a same gendered marriage simply because of your own bigotry and bias is baseless in and of itself."
I don't understand your statement. But for the record, bigotry is a meaningless word to me. It seems to be a word that people throw around when they're upset and wish to avoid intellectual dialogue.
Links:
www.mercatornet.com/articles/v…
1. Yes, a medical problem does not disqualify a person from being able to exercise their rights.
2. Old age - something that everyone will reach, assuming nothing kills them before that - does not disqualify someone from exercising their rights.
3. Motive is impossible to determine or measure, and more often than not, the couple changes their mind later.
"But same gendered couples don't have that right simply on the grounds they're the same gender."
Your statement is flawed. Rights are not extended to couples, but individuals. No individual has the right to marry someone of the same sex, regardless of their own personal sexual orientation.
"They have absolutely everything in common with opposite gendered couples that are infertile, old, or will simply chose to never have children EXCEPT for the fact they're of the same gender."
False. Same-sex couples omit one of the sexes from their make-up, which implies that persons of the sex that has been omitted are unneeded, replaceable, or second rate. This is a negative message to send to children, and a negative message that society should not support. Same-sex couples are also not equal to opposite-sex couples because fathers cannot be mothers, and mothers cannot be fathers.
An analogy to better explain:
You have a baseball team. Baseball teams require equipment, at least gloves, bats, and a ball. The also require outfielders and in-fielders. An opposite-sex couple is like a normal baseball team. They have all of the required equipment and all of the required team members. They occasionally win games.
Infertile couples are exactly like the team above, except they always lose. Some of their team members may have physical abnormalities or impairments, but that doesn't stop them from trying.
Elderly couples are the baseball team consisting of older members exclusively. They also never win games.
Same-sex couples are a baseball team with either bats or gloves, but never both, infielders or outfielders, but never both. They can never win a game, and they're really not a baseball team. But they continue to insist that they are, and throw a fit when the umpire informs them that they cannot play, because they refuse to follow the exact same rules as everyone else and do not have the required equipment and team players.
"To infer that you aren't disagreeing with the idea of a same gendered marriage simply because of your own bigotry and bias is baseless in and of itself."
I don't understand your statement. But for the record, bigotry is a meaningless word to me. It seems to be a word that people throw around when they're upset and wish to avoid intellectual dialogue.
Links:
www.mercatornet.com/articles/v…
Just as a note to anybody who reads these comments and notice that I didn't reply to "OctopusCharade." It's because they spend most of their time using insults or hyperbole to make statements, or they don't even address anything I stated.
They are also being a very poor, pathetic example of the LGBT community. I often get very ticked off at the LGBT community because I come across way too many of the bad apples. So when I come across one that purposefully tries to make the LGBT community look bad, I have chosen to try to ignore them. When OctopusCharade can choose a more appropriate, adult like behavior in their conduct, then I may begin the conversation with them again.
Until then, it's a waste of time and energy.
Note: If any /good/, /nice/, and /proper/ LGBT community (and allies) members want to just drop by and say hi, feel free. I need to see more of you around, 'cause I like you guys, and those bad apples are dang annoying.
holy shit you are the most homophobic, sexist, person ive seen in a long time. All right, fine, rights are extended to individuals. So, you're saying that an individual old person, and infertile person have the right to marry. However, an individual man or woman does NOT have that right simply because they're gay?
That's even worse that my former point because you ARE being down right homophobic in that instance to a great degree. You're not against the couple so much as you are against the individual who happens to be gay. Dancing around your homophobic point in an attempt to seem worldly and fair by saying NOBODY has the right to marry someone of the same gender is asinine and just repulsive. What you are saying is homosexuals can't get married to the people they love. Full stop. You're trying to flower it with seemingly intellectual text, but its filibustering and a down right disgusting attempt to hide your own bigotry and hostility. You're trying to mask your hate speech, but guess what? It's still hate speech.
Furthermore, homosexual relationships are not demeaning other relationships. To even infer that is disgusting. One's personal preference in their romantic choices do not extend to ruling out the opposite of such entirely. It's like saying if someone really liked blue eyes on their partner, regardless of orientation and sex, they're ruling out every human being with a different eye color implying that they aren't needed. Are you really saying that? Are you really that much of an idiot? JFC you really are the biggest idiot I've talked to in a long while.
Furthermore, Taking what you said, are you implying that single mothers, people who don't wish to have life long relationships, and single fathers are omitting the opposite gender? Because the world opinion on saying that would be to be appalled. So, if you aren't saying that you're a hypocrite who is once again trying to mask your deep rooted homophobia in fancy wordings in an attempt to seem like an intellectual. If you are saying that I'm sure the general consensus, even amongst your fellow homophobes, would be to be appalled with the disgusting notion.
Furthermore, Taking what you said, are you implying that single mothers, people who don't wish to have life long relationships, and single fathers are omitting the opposite gender? Because the world opinion on saying that would be to be appalled. So, if you aren't saying that you're a hypocrite who is once again trying to mask your deep rooted homophobia in fancy wordings in an attempt to seem like an intellectual. If you are saying that I'm sure the general consensus, even amongst your fellow homophobes, would be to be appalled with the disgusting notion.
That entire analogy is flawed, offensive, sexist, homophobic and minimizing the issue so you can pretend you aren't hurting people with your misguided opinion. Love and life are not a fucking game. To compare it to one is wrong. Regardless of sex, gender, and sexuality. To think it's not really makes you an ignorant slob.
Tbh you're a homophobic, sexist piece of ignorant trash and you REALLY need to reevaluate your life is you can turn serious life issues into a sport or game. Also, if you're really so seated in your fucked up opinions maybe you should speak to yourself instead of copy pasting from OTHER peoples fucked up opinions. YOU FEEL SO STRONGLY BUT CANT EVEN FIGHT FOR YOURSELF.
Tbh you're a homophobic, sexist piece of ignorant trash and you REALLY need to reevaluate your life is you can turn serious life issues into a sport or game. Also, if you're really so seated in your fucked up opinions maybe you should speak to yourself instead of copy pasting from OTHER peoples fucked up opinions. YOU FEEL SO STRONGLY BUT CANT EVEN FIGHT FOR YOURSELF.
lmao get fucked