Bookmark
Pretty good point, but homosexuals can marry. A homosexual man can marry any eligible woman who is willing to marry him and and lesbian woman can marry any eligible man who wants to marry her.
Homosexuals who, instead of getting married to someone of the opposite sex, engage in relationships with people of the same gender CHOOSE not to get married.
Marriage “equality” is already the law of the land. They are trying to fundamentally redefine the meaning of marriage, not obtain, “equal rights”.
I don’t see any way they don’t get gay marriage through. Some activist judge someplace will sign off.
Then the attacks on religion will really start.
Seriously, you make a valid point, but logic and reasoning are not what sway leftists. They would come up with some counter argument, and whether it makes sense or not, it will satisfy them that their position is correct.
You’re close, but their counter-argument would be that once you have two ‘consenting’ adults, THEN their rights - as a couple - are being denied. IOW, they would argue that marriage is a right for two (at least), not for individuals.
The person you argue against could counter by saying that at least heterosexuals have the opportunity, theoretically, to find somebody willing to consent, then get legally married, whereas the homosexual does not have that full opportunity, as the law does not recognize same-sex “marriages”. It’s an interesting observation that may leave a few stumped, but I wouldn’t expect this to be an ace in the hole. I think we just need to get straight down to it and remind people that God designed the intrinsic nature of heterosexual marriages as being procreative. Copying someone’s post from a different thread on another website, I will say, “Whether or not there is infertility due to defect or age, the conjugal act is ordered toward procreation. It is, of its very nature, different from every other sexual pairing.” The debate, dominated by secularists, will of course disregard any such religious ideas, but we should not seek to water down our arguments to anything less; ultimately, this is about standing up for the truth, regardless of whether or not society as a whole decides to accept it or not. That’s not to discourage effective arguing and bringing up other good points, but it all ultimately boils down to an issue of the intended design of human sexuality.
Try: Gay marriages are not reproductive.
One thing the typical low-info lib doesn’t comprehend is the notion that “rights” are not granted by the government. Such things are privileges, and what the government gives, it can just as easily take away.
I just ask them if they are comfortable with the government keeping lists of who is gay. What’s the worst that could happen?
I can't do this unless other people agree to peaceably assemble with me.
Nice try, but you're going to have to use another tack.
How can a "right" be entirely dependent on the consent of another human being?
You have the right to hire me, but only if I consent to be hired - and I have the right to work for you, but only if you consent to hire me.
And to that I might add. Liberals like to say that someone is “born homosexual”. I said homosexual because I refuse to use the word the homosexual activists have stolen from the english language that means happy; they are anything but happy.
Now to the main point. If homosexuality is innate and you are either born straight or inclined to same sex attraction, why don’t you see two male wolves completely ignoring the females and having anal sex with each other? The same can go for any animal. It’s called nature and the way nature works. In homosexuality there is no survival of the species, and man is nothing more than than a highly intelligent animal. No animal is born homosexual. That includes man. It is an acquired trait, normally caused by not having a strong father or mother presence in the home. This is true for all the animal species. The male teaches the young male how to be an adult male. The female teaches the young female how to be an adult female. This is true in all animals. But braindead liberals think that men are only sperm donors and think they are born born homosexual or lesbian and if they want to have children just find a sperm donor. Liberalism is truly a mental disorder.
TO ALL: They (the “gays”) already have GAY Marriage....it’s just that EVERY priest is NOT required to perform the ceremony, and it does not come with STATE conferred benefits. So, what they really want is a NEW STATE/FEDERAL benefit for 3% of the population.
I want to divide by zero. It’s not fair stuffy mathmeticians tell me I can’t. You can divide by every other number. It’s just not fair to descriminate against zero.
Pretty sure they are saying they have the right to make the choice who they marry (same sex or not), not the right to have a spouse.
Liberty over equality.
I don’t know, sounds too logical.
Why is government in the business of certifying the bond between *any* people?
I say Marriage is a religious institution, and the government has no business in certifying it at all.
As far as government is involved (tax breaks) it should not be. Republicans want the government to certify relationships that they approve, and Dems want to add to that list.
The libertarian position is to get government out of certifying marriages entirely. No social engineering by the government.
Marriage is religious - keep government out of defining it. Defining marriage is up to your religion.
Ask the commie-lib™ if they believe polygamy is a "right", then when they answer "no, of course not", ask them why is it okay for two consenting adults (gay or straight) to get married by not three or more.
You will then get the answer "well that is because marriage as always been between two people, per tradition".
You may then swoop in for the logical kill, "oh you mean the same tradition that dictates marriage is between two people, which is the same one that states it is solely between a man and a woman"
Game, Point, Match !