The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Actually it is how the system works. In order to have a license to be a plumber, one must show the ability to plumb as well as prove your good moral character. The purpose of granting a marriage license is to promote childbearing. Gays can't bear children unless they deviate from their "normal" behavior so they are simply disqualified. For the sake of argument if they could bear children they should have to prove their good moral character first.
 
WinterBorn said:
I believe the state should not be involved in marriage at all. The easiest way to solve this problem is to remove the state from the religious context of "marriage", and confine its power to a more secular union. Everyone who wants the benefits will get a licence for a "union" from the state. If they ALSO want a religious "marriage" they can do so thru the religious authority of their choice. And it will be up to each religious organization to determine whether they allow gays to marry or not.
Click to expand...

The above is my position on the issue as well.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Actually it is how the system works. In order to have a license to be a plumber, one must show the ability to plumb as well as prove your good moral character. The purpose of granting a marriage license is to promote childbearing. Gays can't bear children unless they deviate from their "normal" behavior so they are simply disqualified. For the sake of argument if they could bear children they should have to prove their good moral character first.
Click to expand...

Does any straight couple have to prove their moral character? Do single moms have to prove they have good moral character? But people who adopt do have to show this. And I have no problem with it because it is a standard for everyone who adopts.

Gays can have children without deviating from their normal behavior. Its called artificial insemination.



The purpose of marriage is promoting child bearing?? Cite? So you are willing to have the gov't refuse to issue marriage licences to people who are sterile or are to old to have children?
 
Superfreak said:
The above is my position on the issue as well.
Click to expand...

I am amazed at how people dislike the idea of having separate religious marriages (for the religious ceremony) and a civil licence for anyone to receive gov't benefits.
 
A normal couple isn't behaving immoral nor are they predisposed to child molestation.

The fact that you deny that you got zinged is hilarious.
 
WinterBorn said:
I am amazed at how people dislike the idea of having separate religious marriages (for the religious ceremony) and a civil licence for anyone to receive gov't benefits.
Click to expand...

too many on both sides are too emotionally attached to their positions to now accept such a concept.

My cousin (who is gay) and I got into a discussion about it and he also agrees the above would be the best solution. The funny thing is, I am agnostic and he is Catholic (even though the church doesn't particularly care for his lifestyle) in every respect except sexual orientation.
 
Damn Yankee said:
A normal couple isn't behaving immoral nor are they predisposed to child molestation.

The fact that you deny that you got zinged is hilarious.
Click to expand...

Nor is a gay couple behaving immoral nor are they any more predisposed to child molestation. Those are just bullshit comments made by someone afraid to come out of the closet.
 
Damn Yankee said:
It's called: "using absurdity to point out absurdity". Since your IQ is below 100 you have an excuse to miss that. But it's hilarious that you don't have a problem with the liberal argument that I demonstrated was absurd.
Click to expand...

It is hilarious that you think I would stoop to your level to respond to your patent absurdity, but since you have an I.Q. of 100, I am not surprised. Among the many things I have said which you have never responded to is a challenge to take an I.Q. test. Remember? If you are going to ignore my challenge shut up about my I.Q. The odds of yours being higher are almost statisticaly nil.
 
Return of Dune said:
It is hilarious that you think I would stoop to your level to respond to your patent absurdity, but since you have an I.Q. of 100, I am not surprised. Among the many things I have said which you have never responded to is a challenge to take an I.Q. test. Remember? If you are going to ignore my challenge shut up about my I.Q. The odds of yours being higher are almost statisticaly nil.
Click to expand...
Dude, I'm not going to waste my time on every stupid challenge that a troll makes. The fact that you're a dumbass is evident in every one of your posts, and your latest gaffe here just another shining example. :)
 
Superfreak said:
I am not the one bashing gay people.... which is typically a sign of fear and or loathing due to some personal issues with the topic.
Click to expand...
Oh here we go with the "you don't support gays so you must be gay" logic. Nice try, dumbass.

Can you point out a single post where I have "bashed" gays?
 
Damn Yankee said:
Dude, I'm not going to waste my time on every stupid challenge that a troll makes. The fact that you're a dumbass is evident in every one of your posts, and your latest gaffe here just another shining example. :)
Click to expand...

That fact that you are a bigot who has an unjustly high oipinion of himself is equally evident and you know I am not a troll so saying that I am makes you a liar as well.
 
Damn Yankee said:
A normal couple isn't behaving immoral nor are they predisposed to child molestation.

The fact that you deny that you got zinged is hilarious.
Click to expand...

Homosexuals are not behaving in an immoral way, nor are the "predisposed" to child molestation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top