Amazing speech by NY senator on gay marriage

I can *almost* see a different position for jman which is the role of government administered marriage is to bear children. It's a similar position as China in that regard and control of population directly relates to the economy, tax revenue and other government interests.

So, i can *nearly* get to his point. However, that isn't actually his point because he's bringing religion into the equation and he hasn't answered the question of whether marriage should be restricted to only people physically capable of and willing to bear children.

Therefore, he's a bigot and a moron.
 
And so what?

Even if a huge 10-20% of the population "became" gay, what would be the consequence to you? Nothing. It doesn't stop you living your life, getting married to a woman, having kiRAB etc.

Maybe nicer interior decoration and better dressed people?
 
If it goes against what I believe marriage means, then why would I vote in favor of gay marriage? that would make no sense.

My decision isnt based on hate, dont tell me what I feel because you're wasting your time. You're wrong.
 
marriage is a human construct and nothing about marriage is inherently between a man in a woman, other than its tradition. clinging to the definition of the (presumably) judeochristian marriage is pretty durab if you want any serablance of logic.
 
You still haven't provided anything for your claim though. Your claim is that gays shouldn't be able to get married because they can't create families. I then refuted this point by saying gays can create families by adopting children. You tried using "they can't reproduce" as a reason for gays not getting married yet you can't justify allowing heterosexuals to get married without intent or ability to reproduce. That takes away the "natural role" you see in male and females yet you're still wiling to let them get married when they're not willing to fulfill this role.

To summarize: You think marriage is for creating a family
You're not willing to let gays get married and adopt a kid to create a family
You're willing to let straight couples get married even if they aren't going to fulfill their "natural role" in creating a family.

None of what your saying adRAB up.
 
his argument is that gay animals can't reproduce, so it's unnatural.

yet he thinks its a stretch to say that heteros who can't reproduce shouldn't be able to get married.

yet he thinks gays shouldn't be able to get married since they cant' reproduce.

So he's willing to let non-reproducing heteros get married, but not child-adopting homosexuals.

Weird huh?
 
Point out where the government is allowed to discriminate based on gender and/or status in any other situation pertaining to tax/benefits.

There's only one (marriage), and it's an archaic institution that was the result of a homogeneous society with regarRAB to cultural tradition and religion.

It's a faulty operation of government.

All of these other arguments are irrelevant.

Take marriage out of government control and give it back to churches.

If people want to establish a tax bond or "social partnership" then let the government effect that. Churches can give you the big double whammy bonus of "marriage," which should mean fuck all in regulatory terms, and that's that.
 
Say what you really mean: The expectation of "marriage" is procreation and the rearing of children.

By that measure, you must be in favor of not granting marriage licenses to individuals that are physically incapable of bearing children. Say, for older couples where the female is post-menopausal. Correct?
 
The only person in here that can't grasp a concept is you, buddy.


Also, for the record, nobody is implying that you're sitting in a room plotting to kill gays or commit a hate crime or even that you're hopping up and down in anger over the issue. So, give this "hate" thing a rest, we fucking get it. That is not the position we are arguing.
 
No, i'm just saying that making it illegal for couples who dont intend to have children would be a little too much. Who knows, they may decide later on to have children.

You're just making things too technically and missing the big picture/meaning. Much like your thread about the "golden rule"...you just over analyze and miss the whole point of whats being said, its a waste of time.
 
Back
Top