> Justinian I wrote:

> How about the state does not recognize marriage or confer any benefits for it?

Agrees!

> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

> > Justinian I wrote:

> How about the state does not recognize marriage or confer any benefits for it?

Agrees!

im torn with this. because it does raise taxes, and i dont like raising taxes, but it also frees marriage from government regulation. im good either way.

> Chris_Balsz wrote:

> >>Angst? Do you think my sexuality is nothing more than some purile teenage need to be different? <<
You mentioned people killing themselves over angst about their sexuality.

[That's not angst, that is conflict caused by a strong desire to confrom.]

>>Do you think my sexuality is a choice?<<
Yes
so's mine

[So how old were you when you 'chose' heterosexuality? How did you make this monumental, life altering decision? Seriously, I think we could all benfit from this. No, really, I want to know... sorry if I sound like a crank.]
__________
__________

> Blind Guardian wrote:

>>Angst? Do you think my sexuality is nothing more than some purile teenage need to be different? Do you think my sexuality is a choice?<<

I think it is a mental disorder. Many brilliant and accomplished (even famous) psychologists agree with me. I'm not saying this proves my position--I'm merely saying that getting a majority of publishers to not publish this opinion today doesn't prove your case to any extent either. And I prefer the psychologists on this questions over the publishers. This does not fall under the category of "choice," but still does not afford it the equality you ask this question to demand.<

[I love talking to you: pure honesty, no bullshit games. Usually
Technically you are right; the cause of 'sexual deviance' (you like that?) is in the brain itself, some form of physical difference that can only be properly studied after death. For example m-to-f Transsexuals have been proven to have physically female brains.
Although we technically agree I am baffles as to how something that is not choice should lead to a denial of basic equality.]

>>So, just out of idle curiosity, why do you believe that black people deserve civil rights, but not homosexuals?<<

The question is on what grounts do you compare the color of a man's skin not determining his inherent dignity with the claim that differences in functionality are not differences in functionality? There is no comparison and your attempt is only insulting to every minority who has ever had to fight for his/her rights. You have made no case against the objections and questions I and many others have raised. You attack straw men and make odd meaningless comparisons and claim outrage at an injustice against homosexuals. All without responding to our questions or objections. <

[A difference in sexual functionality is reason to deny dignity? So where do you draw the line? Do you think those guys who can't get it up unless the woman is built like a brick shit-house should also be denied? What about guys who can't get it up unless their wife wears rubber?
See, the reason you are getting shoddy, non-specific answers that you are happy with is that your reasons for denial, and there for your questions, are equally so: "I don't care if you've been together for 50 years, you can't have the same rights as me and my wife, because you take it up the bum, and my wife doesn't."]

>>When a straight couple (in the UK) are together for five unbroken years or more they are deemed to be in a common law marriage and get the same financial benefits as a church wedded couple.
Homosexuals do not get these same benefits, no matter how long they are together, they don't even have the right to visit their partner in hospital because they're not family.<<

I have no objection to visitation rights and some tax benefits. I agree that visitation rights ought be granted just as they are with heterosexual couples. Live and let live; it's none of my business who your mate is and who you want visiting you. Taxes are more complicated because the benefit to society is not equal. Even in the case of childless couples, that's a matter of coincidence not form.<

[Sweet! That's all *I* want, too... I guess that means that this part of the discussion is over. ]

>>Homosexuals are better for the economy.<<

Made up.
[you wish]

Pointing out that some parents are really awful parents does not make homosexual couples ideal parents.
[when did I say that? quote me exactly]

It does not mean that homosexual couples can raise children as well as heterosexual couples.
[I'm not saying that homosexuals make better parents just because they're homosexual, and you know it.]

Rather than make your case all I've seen is the claim that, since heterosexual couples can be bad parents, then anyone better than a trashy child-molester must therefore be given adoption rights.
[Again: When did make such a claim?]

Aditionally, I've never busted a nut inside a girl without a condom (without her using birth control) by accident.
[Not surprised to hear that]

[...] but the fact is that most heterosexual couples do NOT have their children by "accident."
[So you have incontrovertible proof that heterosexuals never ever ever ever ever ever have children by accident? I seriously doubt that.]

You guys sound retarded acting like the benefit of planning makes homosexuals advantageous over heterosexuals. Maybe you're all just virgins so this whole conversation is all foreign to you.

Planning makes EVERYONE better.... christ alive you're thick sometimes... X(

typical childish responses by Fokker.

"[when did I say that? quote me exactly]"

when did he say that you said that?

"
[I'm not saying that homosexuals make better parents just because they're homosexual, and you know it.]"

when did he say that you said that?

"[Again: When did make such a claim?]"

when did he say you said that?

see how easy it is to make those bullshit responses? grow the [banana phone!] up.

"You haven't answered my question. I want to know what extra rights they want."

activists for Gays rights have demanded for more rights, in societies where there are no rights straights have that Gays dont have. i dont remember them specifically listing the rights they want.

"They demand equal rights, which means that they don't need to specify them."

The demand the right to marry people of the same sex; no one has that right currently, straight or Gay.

> avogadro wrote:

> "They demand equal rights, which means that they don't need to specify them."

The demand the right to marry people of the same sex; no one has that right currently, straight or Gay. <

I'm fairly sure such a law would also extend the right to straight people if they so wished.

> there was no twist; there are no rights that Straight people
> have that Gays dont, and Gays are asking for special treatment.

The RIGHT to MARRY.

And the various economical and medical benefits.

> And the various economical and medical benefits. <

Has anyone else noticed how Avogadro is avoiding this part of the discussion like it's a rapist?

He ignored my point too.

Man + Man = poop in a urethra
Woman + woman = fishy business
Man + woman = Baby

Married couples are given tax incentives because their relationships benefit society. Why would the government through money at an investment that doesn't do anything. Gay marriage is a money pit. Delusional politicians are trying to convince the public that same-sex marriages aren't allowed because people hate gay people. Same-sex marriage isn't supported because its a bad investment. Get the fairy-tale love crap out of your mind and think about the money.