Republican senator announces support for gay marriage

[Prodigal_Son1]

Start another thread.

 

[epan]

This is complete nonsense. FDR put the Japanese in internment camps. Obama has been supportive of the Patriot act and even drone assassinations until Rand Paul pushed him back. Self-proclaimed liberals despise ‘diversity’ when it comes to people who have views other than their own. And pushing for gun control is, like it or not, an attack on civil liberties - as are attacks on ‘hate speech’.

What you seem to want to say here is that the GOP has done things you dislike and which lead to repression of civil liberties, etc. But the GOP != ‘Conservative’ and the DNC != ‘liberal’. When Republicans push for socialism, they are behaving ‘liberal’, not conservative - even if that socialism is largely with respect to business.

No, that’s not true at all. Go ahead, try to support the claim. It will not work.

Your sense of US history is incorrect.

Also untrue. Reagan did not allow ‘unfettered capitalism’ - to deregulate is not to advance some Randian society. Corporate welfare is a left-wing, not a right-wing, view - even when the GOP is endorsing it. Likewise, even the GOP does not endorse ‘economic Darwinism’ - first of all, it would extend to everyone, not just ‘average citizens’. Second, the GOP largely is entirely in favor and praising of charity intiatives for the underprivileged. The fact that they prefer private citizens to do this rather than the government does not change this view.

You shift between talking about how complicated and muddy things are when liberals are being criticized. But when conservatives are being criticized, suddenly everything is clear to you. I suggest your understanding is muddier than you admit.

and who is muddy now? read your post again.

your lack of historic perspective is really nothing to brag about.

as i stated, there are exceptions, but the sweep of modern history is to proscribe civil rights on the right side, and to expand them on the left.

if you disagree, then explain why the left supports gay marriage, and the right opposes it.

the left trend is the steady expansion of the definition of civil rights. how can any thinking person disagree with that statement?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Rep. Matt Salmon: Gay son hasn’t changed my views on gay marriage

In an interview aired over the weekend, Rep. Matt J. Salmon (R-Ariz.) told a local news station that his son’s homosexuality has not led him to change his position on gay marriage.

“I don’t support the gay marriage,” the congressman said. But Salmon emphasized that he loved and respected his son and did not consider homosexuality a choice.

“My son is by far one of the most important people in my life. I love him more than I can say,” an emotional Salmon told 3TV. “It doesn’t mean that I don’t have respect, it doesn’t mean that I don’t sympathize with some of the issues. It just means I haven’t evolved to that stage.”

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) recently endorsed gay marriage, saying his son’s homosexuality inspired him to change his position.

A staunch social conservative, Salmon voted for the Defense of Marriage Act and for a ban on gay adoptions in Washington, D.C. His wife, Nancy Salmon, led the Arizona chapter of the group United Families International during an unsuccessful 2006 fight to ban gay marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships in the state constitution. (A narrower marriage amendment was passed two years later).

“We respect each others’ opinions and we just know that on certain issues we have to agree to disagree,” the congressman’s son, Matt R. Salmon, told The Post. “I love my father and realize that he can have the opinions that he has, and they might differ from mine, but that doesn’t change the way I feel about him.”

Discussions of gay issues are “not a huge part of our relationship,” the younger Salmon said. “I definitely share my feelings, but I don’t pressure him to change his opinion because I know that given our relationship there’s no real need to do that. We each know where we stand.”

Salmon also expressed disappointment in those who have reacted to the interview by leaving “hate speech” on his father’s Facebook page. “If he’s going to change his mind it’s going to come from a place of love,” Salmon said. “All they’re doing is fighting intolerance with intolerance.”

 

[SamH]

and who is muddy now? read your post again.

your lack of historic perspective is really nothing to brag about.

Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, but not their own facts.

 

[SuperLuigi]

and who is muddy now? read your post again.

your lack of historic perspective is really nothing to brag about.

as i stated, there are exceptions, but the sweep of modern history is to proscribe civil rights on the right side, and to expand them on the left.

if you disagree, then explain why the left supports gay marriage, and the right opposes it.

the left trend is the steady expansion of the definition of civil rights. how can any thinking person disagree with that statement?

It’s not as clear cut as that. Key democrat constituencies such as African-Americans are more or less split on the issue, and Orthodox Jews and Muslims are staunchly opposed.

The key is young people, who regardless of political background are perhaps the most meaningful supporters.

As far as the left in general goes, psh, they just want more votes, and the only reason Obama even came out publicly in favor of it was because GLBT were withholding cash.

The left is all about expanding government in the name of “rights” and “helping” people.

If the real reasons came out for some of the candidates, they wouldn’t win any national elections.

 

[SuperLuigi]

You are correct. I do associate the right with the potential to fascism when taken to the extreme, which is why it should not properly be called conservatism. And, I associate the left with the potential for anarchy, at the other extreme.

This is not the same as saying that Reagan was a fascist, any more than it is the same as saying that Obama is an anarchist.

From a purely political science point of view, it is impossible for a small-government conservative to be a fascist.

 

[epan]

From a purely political science point of view, it is impossible for a small-government conservative to be a fascist.

Only, he expanded the Federal Government at an unprecedented rate. How in the world did you decide that he was for “small-government”? Was that by what he said, or was it by his actions. There was a big difference.

 

[josh987654321]

Epan, because you know alot about the law, I would very much like to run this theory before you, to get your opinion on it, to see if it is a plausable track to go down in opposing same sex marriage.

Discrimination is the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things.

Now given the sexual nature of a homosexual union compared to a hetrosexual one, to try and argue for equality when it comes to marriage, would be an unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, unjust and prejudicial treatment being to equate two things that are obviously unequal.

Therefore, homosexual unions being recognised as marriage is a discrimination against hetrosexual marriage.

So by this logic, to legalise homosexual marriage, would be to legalise and enforce discrimination.

So to legalise discrimination should be logically unlawful.

Anyway would really like people to tweak this kind of reasoning or let me know of their idea’s, as using this kind of reasoning could help us oppose same sex marriage with regards to civil law, I don’t think we should deny homosexuals the union by law, but we should be definatly be denying them ‘marriage’ with regards to the law.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[rossum]

Epan, because you know alot about the law, I would very much like to run this theory before you, to get your opinion on it, to see if it is a plausable track to go down in opposing same sex marriage.

Discrimination is the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things.

Reasonable so far.

Now given the sexual nature of a homosexual union compared to a hetrosexual one, to try and argue for equality when it comes to marriage, would be an unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, unjust and prejudicial treatment being to equate two things that are obviously unequal.

Consider people over six feet tall and people who are shorter. These two categories of people are obviously different – they are of different heights. Is is discrimination to have the same single category of marriage for these two types of people when they are so obviously different?

Mere difference does not require different forms of marriage. You you need to show a just reason for needing a difference in marriage. If there is no just reason, then discrimination would be unjust, as per your definition.

What does civil marriage entail. Taxes: is there a just reason to treat same sex partners differently to opposite sex partners for tax purposes? Property? Hospital visitation? Health plans? Insurance? I cannot think of one of the various legal implications of marriage that can justly be applied to opposite sex partners but not to same sex partners.

What about children? The question there is how opposite sex childless couples are treated. Is there any just reason for treating childless couples differently because they are same sex or opposite sex. If the partners have children is there any just reason to treat same sex couples and their children differently from opposite sex couples?

Can discrimination sometimes be justified? Yes, for example when appointing a maths teacher it is justified to discriminate against people with no mathematics qualifications and no teaching experience.

In other cases discrimination is not justified, such as refusing marriage licences to people over six feet tall.

Therefore, homosexual unions being recognised as marriage is a discrimination against hetrosexual marriage.

But it is a justified discrimination. Allowing tall people to get married is a discrimination against short people according to your argument. Mere difference does not establish unjust discrimination.

So by this logic, to legalise homosexual marriage, would be to legalise and enforce discrimination.

It is your logic that is faulty. Mere difference is not enough.

rossum

 

[josh987654321]

Reasonable so far.

Consider people over six feet tall and people who are shorter. These two categories of people are obviously different – they are of different heights. Is is discrimination to have the same single category of marriage for these two types of people when they are so obviously different?

Tall and Short people are obviously different, but in regards to marriage and other things they are not, if we wwre talking about the hight of a roof than than yes, but we arn’t, because those differences are not relevant to marriage, however in regards to the sexual nature of these two different unions, it is very relevant to marriage.

Mere difference does not require different forms of marriage. You you need to show a just reason for needing a difference in marriage. If there is no just reason, then discrimination would be unjust, as per your definition.

There is a real difference in relation to marriage, it is not a mere unrelated difference, the sexual nature clearly means that the two unions being equated together under the word marriage is an unjust or prejudicial treatment.

What does civil marriage entail. Taxes: is there a just reason to treat same sex partners differently to opposite sex partners for tax purposes? Property? Hospital visitation? Health plans? Insurance? I cannot think of one of the various legal implications of marriage that can justly be applied to opposite sex partners but not to same sex partners.

You say for tax purposes, I understand, I don’t think we should deny homosexual union’s some of those benefits, however in regards to marriage, we must be denying them marriage, call a homsoexual union whatever you like, just don’t use marriage because it is discrimination.

What about children? The question there is how opposite sex childless couples are treated. Is there any just reason for treating childless couples differently because they are same sex or opposite sex. If the partners have children is there any just reason to treat same sex couples and their children differently from opposite sex couples?

You know I think there is just reason to treat the two unions differently when it comes to children, however it’s a separate issue, Im talking about marriage, and in regards to marriage the law must be denying them that word, because it’s discrimination to legalise homosexual marriage, they should be trying to legalise a homosexual union if it’s about certain right’s, not marriage.

Can discrimination sometimes be justified? Yes, for example when appointing a maths teacher it is justified to discriminate against people with no mathematics qualifications and no teaching experience.

Yes for example, when trying to equate two very different unions under the same word as marriage, their sexual nature dictates that the two unions are vastly different in regards to marriage.

In other cases discrimination is not justified, such as refusing marriage licences to people over six feet tall.

Again, Hight has nothing to do with marriage, however the sexual nature does, and Im not talking about ability to procreate as that would conflict our own definitions as you have said, Im talking about, in one union, the sexual nature is the designed use of the body and in the other is not, such as anal intercourse is in no way a designed use of our bodies.

This is why we say the acts of homosexuality are disordered and immoral, if you disagree with that, than fine, but don’t try and say that they are equal in regards to their sexual nature and marriage, because they simply are not.

But it is a justified discrimination. Allowing tall people to get married is a discrimination against short people according to your argument. Mere difference does not establish unjust discrimination.

Hight has nothing to do with marriage, sexual nature does, like I said not just procreate, more what parts fit where.

It is your logic that is faulty. Mere difference is not enough.

rossum

Not mere difference, relevant difference.

You also said what about those who’s ‘parts’ have been damaged such as war veterans, but that would be more like a celibate marriage, as they cannot have sexual relations, unlike a homosexual union that can have sexual relations, because those sexual relations are very different and therefore it’s not marriage for a homosexual union.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[rossum]

Tall and Short people are obviously different, but in regards to marriage and other things they are not, if we wwre talking about the hight of a roof than than yes, but we arn’t, because those differences are not relevant to marriage, however in regards to the sexual nature of these two different unions, it is very relevant to marriage.

This is where we differ fundamentally. I do not see that the differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals is of any significance to the legal definition of civil marriage.

Suppose that the government decided to completely separate religious marriage from civil marriage, abolishing civil marriage entirely and replacing it with “Domestic Civil Partnership”. Obviously new laws would be drawn up covering the legal aspects of these new DCPs. The new laws would cover both opposite sex DCPs and same sex DCPs. What differences would there be between same sex DCP laws and opposite sex DCP laws? I cannot see a need for any differences. Laws covering taxation, property, children and all the rest would be identical for the two types of DCP. In fact there would only be one type of DCP used by everyone. The impact of the difference between heterosexual and homosexual on DCPs would be the same as the impact of differing heights on marriage: none at all.

To me, this shows that all you are really arguing about is the actual word “marriage”. This is a rather trivial point to argue. Civil marriage has already moved away from Catholic marriage – as with allowing divorce. It is just that it retains the word “marriage” rather than moving to a new word like “DCP”

I have said before that marriage has had many different definitions over time from different religious and civil authorities. Marriage has never been static, it has always been changing; and in modern societies there are different parallel forms of partnership, all called marriage. It is a losing battle to try to force all these parallel and different things covered by different authorities into a single entity. A Moslem man may go to his local Mosque and marry his third wife. That marriage is recognised within his community, but is not recognised by the state. Just one example of a different parallel form of marriage using a different authority.

The word “dog” does not refer to a single entity, it refers to a large number of different entities of differing shapes, sizes and colours. The word “marriage” is similar, it refers to a number of different entities with differing properties. In the past it referred to an even larger number of different entities. One word can refer to many different things. “Marriage” is such a word.

rossum

 

[josh987654321]

This is where we differ fundamentally. I do not see that the differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals is of any significance to the legal definition of civil marriage.

Well, in regards to a few minor things such as tax breaks, I can agree with you, but you fail to see the important issue’s where they fundamentally differ, which would be in the issues relating to children (e.g. treating a hetrosexual union equal to a homosexual union when adopting out children) and when it comes to teaching homosexuality and hetrosexuality (it would be absolute insanity to teach kids in schools the miss use of the body such as homosexuality in detail as they do hetrosexuality) these are just the few I can think of.

Suppose that the government decided to completely separate religious marriage from civil marriage, abolishing civil marriage entirely and replacing it with “Domestic Civil Partnership”. Obviously new laws would be drawn up covering the legal aspects of these new DCPs. The new laws would cover both opposite sex DCPs and same sex DCPs. What differences would there be between same sex DCP laws and opposite sex DCP laws? I cannot see a need for any differences. Laws covering taxation, property, children and all the rest would be identical for the two types of DCP. In fact there would only be one type of DCP used by everyone. The impact of the difference between heterosexual and homosexual on DCPs would be the same as the impact of differing heights on marriage: none at all.

Ah, there we go, you see for the law to implement your idea of DCP’s would be a very smart thing for them to do, but I don’t think they are as smart as you are Rossum.

Your idea of DCP’s is what they should have been doing long ago, so that homosexuals were fighting for homosexual DCP’s, not marriage and you are right alot of this is over the word marriage as we can see through all the bull **** those supporting it are spinning us, as homosexual’s don’t really care about marriage, heck anyone in a “Civil Marriage” doesn’t care too much for the meaning of marriage, homosexuals care about other’s views of their unions, they want their lifestyle accepted as a societal norm.

However even with DCP’s they would still need to distinguish between homosexual DCP’s and hetrosexual DCP’s, and it would be kinda dumb to call them both DCP’s when they are very different, you see Laws covering taxation and property may be equal for both unions, however Laws regarding Children will and should not be equal for obvious reason as I have stated before in my posts.

To me, this shows that all you are really arguing about is the actual word “marriage”. This is a rather trivial point to argue. Civil marriage has already moved away from Catholic marriage – as with allowing divorce. It is just that it retains the word “marriage” rather than moving to a new word like “DCP”

Like I said, moving to DCP’s would be the smartest thing that anyone could do regarding the law, and yes you are right, this is over marriage, and yes, to you this seems trivial, but to people who know what marriage is, the true value and importance of marriage like me and many others, this is not trivial, run the idea of DCP’s past those arguing for same sex marriage and see if you get an accepting response, I can almost guarntee that you wont, and it’s the same thing anyway right Rossum?

Open your eye’s beyond the law Rossum, this is and will always be primarily about the word marriage, you see it as trivial because for those who don’t place much value on the word marriage as it deserves, it is trivial, man, none of this is about marriage anyway, what does a non-believer care about if their union is called a marriage or not? why would they care about the word marriage? it is all about acceptance for a homosexuals union, for their lifestyle being promoted as a societal norm to be equated with a hetrosexual unions lifestyle, in which because of their sexual nature both unions are vastly different.

Homosexuals are using and abusing the law, it’s not about civil marriage Rossum, it’s way more than that and you are naive to think otherwise.

I have said before that marriage has had many different definitions over time from different religious and civil authorities. Marriage has never been static, it has always been changing; and in modern societies there are different parallel forms of partnership, all called marriage. It is a losing battle to try to force all these parallel and different things covered by different authorities into a single entity. A Moslem man may go to his local Mosque and marry his third wife. That marriage is recognised within his community, but is not recognised by the state. Just one example of a different parallel form of marriage using a different authority.

You are right, it should be a losing battle to try and force all these parallel and different things covered by different authorities into a single entity, I mean you said it, why is the law trying to do exactly that with the word marriage?

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

Continued from above post -

The word “dog” does not refer to a single entity, it refers to a large number of different entities of differing shapes, sizes and colours. The word “marriage” is similar, it refers to a number of different entities with differing properties. In the past it referred to an even larger number of different entities. One word can refer to many different things. “Marriage” is such a word.

rossum

The word ‘male’ doesn’t refer to a single entity, it refers to enitites of all different shapes, sizes and colours.

The word “marriage” is similar it refers to a number of different entities, but not with different properties, as that would be like saying the word “dog” refers to different properties, such as cats.

Now if cats want to be reffered to as dogs, because they want equality, than it would be illogical to equal cats and dogs under the same word as ‘dog’.

Marriage is between a man and a women, there you have your different entities differing in shapes, sizes and colours, however making it include two men or two women, changes the property of marriage, it equates two unions that are in no way equal with regards to their sexual nature, if you want equal rights than that is another story, but it would have to be a separate but equal kind of policy because the two unions simply arn’t equal and to say that they are with the word marriage is to be delusional.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Holly3278]

I am so sick and tired of so-called “Republicans” announcing their support for gay “marriage”. These people are not true Republicans if you ask me. In my opinion, if they want to support the abomination of gay “marriage” then they need to become Democrats. That said, I am not accusing all Republicans of this disgusting behavior but only certain Republican politicians such as the one mentioned in the article.

That said, I have personally chosen to associate myself with the Constitution Party until and unless the Republican Party comes to their senses and expels these people from their membership.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I am so sick and tired of so-called “Republicans” announcing their support for gay “marriage”. These people are not true Republicans if you ask me. In my opinion, if they want to support the abomination of gay “marriage” then they need to become Democrats. That said, I am not accusing all Republicans of this disgusting behavior but only certain Republican politicians such as the one mentioned in the article.

That said, I have personally chosen to associate myself with the Constitution Party until and unless the Republican Party comes to their senses and expels these people from their membership.

It’s not republican, or democrat. Some are ‘true’ politicians. Some can be affected by their love for family members. As for ‘true’ intentions, only One can see those.

 

[rossum]

Well, in regards to a few minor things such as tax breaks, I can agree with you, but you fail to see the important issue’s where they fundamentally differ, which would be in the issues relating to children (e.g. treating a hetrosexual union equal to a homosexual union when adopting out children) and when it comes to teaching homosexuality and hetrosexuality (it would be absolute insanity to teach kids in schools the miss use of the body such as homosexuality in detail as they do hetrosexuality) these are just the few I can think of.

Homosexuality is no more a misuse of the body than is a left hander misusing their left had to write with rather than the divinely intended use of the right hand for that purpose.

Ah, there we go, you see for the law to implement your idea of DCP’s would be a very smart thing for them to do, but I don’t think they are as smart as you are Rossum.

Unfortunately, neither is the Catholic Church. In the UK we have “Civil Partnerships”, which are the equivalent of a DCP. The Catholic Church is against them; see here.

it is all about acceptance for a homosexuals union, for their lifestyle being promoted as a societal norm to be equated with a hetrosexual unions lifestyle, in which because of their sexual nature both unions are vastly different.

Yes, it is about equality. The anti-same sex marriage side is having great difficulty in coming up with a non-religious reason for denying marriage to same sex couples. Bill O’Reilly was right when he talked about the anti side thumping the Bible. It is the only argument they seem to have.

Your arguments about children fail because you do not start from a position of equality. “We cannot allow children to be raised by left-handers because left-handers are unnatural and most children are right handed. Anyway, Satan is left handed!” (He is – look at some old pictures.)

rossum

 

[josh987654321]

Homosexuality is no more a misuse of the body than is a left hander misusing their left had to write with rather than the divinely intended use of the right hand for that purpose.

Like I said before, that analogy is just wrong, if they could have sexual relations with homosexuality as a desgined use of our bodies than your anaology would be correct, just like you can learn how to write with both your right hand and left hand, however you cannot learn to have sexual relations with homosexuality that give the same results as sexual relations with hetrosexuality, they are fundamentally different, for that analogy to work they would have to have no fingers on their left hand to hold a pen, than we could logically say that a left hander would be miss using their hand in trying to wirte with it, because they cannot hold the pen without fingers.

The right hand is the same as the left hand, therefore it can be done either way, homosexuality is not the same as hetrosexuality, therefore it cannot be done both ways, are you serious with that analogy?

Unfortunately, neither is the Catholic Church. In the UK we have “Civil Partnerships”, which are the equivalent of a DCP. The Catholic Church is against them; see here.

The Church is against the acts of homosexuality as it’s a miss use of our bodies, of Gods beloved creation, however it’s a futile argument considering you don’t care much for those reasons.

However atleast with homsoexual DCP’s, the Law is not trying to change the word marriage and if marriage is trivial to non-believers, than why do they want it so badly? why don’t they use homosexual DCP’s? if they used homosexual DCP’s they would have alot less opposition from the public, it would only make sense, it’s the logical thing to do regarding this argument, but they refuse to do it, why is that Rossum?

Yes, it is about equality. The anti-same sex marriage side is having great difficulty in coming up with a non-religious reason for denying marriage to same sex couples. Bill O’Reilly was right when he talked about the anti side thumping the Bible. It is the only argument they seem to have.

It is not thumping the bible, it’s the fact that the very nature of homosexuality means to use the body in a manner it was not designed to be used for.

This is why a homosexual union and a hetrosexual union are vastly different, one is the miss use of our bodies and the other is the designed use of our bodies, that’s not just religion talk … that’s common sense.

And before you object to this, I’ll have to go into detail which I don’t like doing, but for instance anal intercourse is in no way a designed use of our bodies is it?

That’s why we say that homosexuality is disordered and immoral to act on, if you disagree with that, than fine, but don’t say that a homosexual union is equal to a hetrosexual union when it comes to the sexual nature and marriage, because they arn’t and to say that they are is illogical and delusional.

Your arguments about children fail because you do not start from a position of equality. “We cannot allow children to be raised by left-handers because left-handers are unnatural and most children are right handed. Anyway, Satan is left handed!” (He is – look at some old pictures.)

rossum

Like I said, the left handers idea doesn’t work, the sexual nature of a homosexual union compared to a hetrosexual union are vastly different, so different that in no way can it be equated to a left hand Rossum.

I gave many arguments about why the two unions differ in regards to children, like I said, if someone told me that I would be no better off with a mum and a dad than with two mum’s or two dad’s I would be pissed off at them for their Ignorance, because I mean, common Rossum, a mum and a dad is the appropriate setting to raise children, doesn’t mean it can’t be done with two mum’s ot two dad’s or single parents, but to do it those other ways is to do it crippled, some kids are able to rise above their raisings but many cannot, and to intentionaly cripple a child is just wrong Rossum! and that’s what you are doing by saying that they are equal in regards to rasing children, you are intentionaly crippling children.

If you say that the two unions are equal when it comes to children, than you are saying that we don’t need a mum or a dad, so which don’t children need Rossum? a Mum? or a Dad? because it should be common sense that children need both a mum and a dad and that any other option is to cripple a child, which should only be done if absolutly nessecary, not intentionaly, the conveniance of adults is coming before the wellfare of children with this debate.

There are many hetrosexual marriage’s who adopt these children, it’s only right to discriminate between a hetrosexual union and a homosexual union when adopting children out.

Not saying it can’t be done any other way, but to do it any other way is to do it crippled, and to intentionaly cripple a child is wrong, it should only be done if absolutly nessecary.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Dawnia]

Homosexuality is no more a misuse of the body than is a left hander misusing their left had to write with rather than the divinely intended use of the right hand for that purpose.

I think I just stepped in the Twilight Zone. Have you never cracked a good ol’ Anatomy & Physiology book?

 

[rossum]

Like I said before, that analogy is just wrong

The analogy is correct from my point of view. I see the difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality as being as insignificant as the difference between right handers and left handers. Are there differences? Yes there are. Are those differences significant enough to justify a different treatment in law? No they are not. Given that the law needs good reasons to treat people unequally, then it follows that the law should teat heterosexuals and homosexuals equally, in particular they should be treated equally in matters of marriage.

I also reject the word “design” in this context. That is indicative of a religious argument in a discussion on non-religions law.

The Church is against the acts of homosexuality as it’s a miss use of our bodies, of Gods beloved creation, however it’s a futile argument considering you don’t care much for those reasons.

We are not discussing Church law, we are discussing civil law.

It is not thumping the bible, it’s the fact that the very nature of homosexuality means to use the body in a manner it was not designed to be used for.

Again, I reject “design”, and I also reject “nature”. In this context both of these terms are religious/philosophical and since my religion/philosophy is different to yours I reject your use of those terms here.

And before you object to this, I’ll have to go into detail which I don’t like doing, but for instance anal intercourse is in no way a designed use of our bodies is it?

Anal intercourse is more common among heterosexuals than it is among homosexuals (remember that half of homosexuals are lesbians). Does the law treat heterosexual couples differently depending on whether or not they indulge in anal intercourse? No it does not, so you cannot use anal intercourse to justify different treatment of homosexuals under marriage law.

That’s why we say that homosexuality is disordered and immoral to act on

Again, you are using religious arguments to justify differences in civil law. I reject that type of argumentation. It is appropriate for discussing Church law; it is not relevant when discussing civil law.

I gave many arguments about why the two unions differ in regards to children

They do not. Children may be completely absent. They may be adopted. They may be from one partner, but not the other. They may be via IVF. In all those cases, homosexual marriages and heterosexual marriages can be equivalent. Does the law on heterosexual marriages differ between childless couples and couples with children? No it does not, so you cannot use that status to differentiate between opposite sex marriages and same sex marriages. Again, we get back to equality. In order to decide what to do with a same sex couple, look at the legal treatment of the equivalent opposite sex couple.

rossum

 

[_Abyssinia]

They do not. Children may be completely absent. They may be adopted. They may be from one partner, but not the other. They may be via IVF. In all those cases, homosexual marriages and heterosexual marriages can be equivalent. Does the law on heterosexual marriages differ between childless couples and couples with children? No it does not, so you cannot use that status to differentiate between opposite sex marriages and same sex marriages. Again, we get back to equality. In order to decide what to do with a same sex couple, look at the legal treatment of the equivalent opposite sex couple.

rossum

IVF and adoption should not be an accepted social policy for homosexuals, not because homosexuals can not love children they care for as parents but because children need a mother and a father and should not be deprived of having the balance that is needed to understand the different genders in a world which is not made up of only one gender. I have heard homosexual individuals in support of adoption or IVF discuss how their child will get the opposite gender influences in their lives from other family members or friends. They are inadvertently admitting that children need the balance of having different gender presences in their lives, but transient visitors can not make up the loss of a permanent presence of a mother or father

I am sure that distinct gender roles has been observed by science. There are differences in how a adult male parents and how adult female parents and and these differing roles are part of the balance that is needed ideally in raising children: fathers are more direct, mothers more descriptive and encouraging; girls who have good fathers in their lives are predisposed to have healthy relationships when they are adults because they understand how a man is supposed to act towards a woman. Boys who grow in a home with a mother and a father are predisposed to have healthy relationships with women as adults because they know how to act towards women from learning from their father and how women should act towards them that they learned from their mother. Mothers tend to avoid risk in their style as parenting whereas fathers tend to take more risks in their parenting style which balances out and provides children with expansion of understanding in the world in terms of the risk but protection from the adverse risk of too much risk. These are basic things and is why the ideal should be a mother and father and adoption, IVF and artificial insemination should not be encouraged for homosexuals. There are also ethical concerns for IVF and artificial insemination