Actually you made it relevant. Here:

> People prone to mental illness not being discouraged from practicing a homosexual lifestyle weeds out those psychologically deficient individuals from the gene pool who might otherwise persue hetersexual sexuality and produce offspring. <

So by donating sperm homosexuals (and their "illness" as a result) bypass your... let us call it sexual-darwinism.

Homosexuality isn't a disease though. Unless you're a psychiatrist you don't get to label it as a disease. It's just a difference from the majority, much like left-handedness.

I just want to get back on the whole discrimination issue and people bringing up that it's not discrimination because:
a) everyone can marry someone of the opposite sex.
-> whereas 2 consenting adults of the opposite sex CAN marry, 2 consenting adults of the same sex can't. This is in fact a difference in rights for same sex couples. Saying they can marry someone of the opposite sex is still disallowing them to marry the one they love. And don't bring up crap like "i can't marry > insert hot model < im being discriminated against" cause you COULD if she wanted to .
In the case of people wanting to marry their pet or a child, first off the child or animal can't give their consent according to the law, and second off homosexuality SHOULDNT be put in the same category as pedophiles or zoophiles. It should be accepted in society. The people coming up with this argument seem to feel that gay people are like pedophiles or zoophiles and that means you're BIGOTS nothing less.

b) gay people cannot create offspring
-> so cant infertile people or old people. marriage isnt about offspring, its about devotion to each other.

c) sodomy is unnatural, dangerous
-> straight people do sodomy too. Also the risks of the mechanical act of sodomy are quite small if u use lube. The real danger would be STD's but that's where protection comes in and encouraging one partner relationships (by, for example allowing gay marriage )
also, everything in our lives is pretty unnatural: computers, our food, our houses. Why on earth would nature be a reason to forbid gay marriage?

d) gay people shouldnt have the tax benefits married people get
-> from what i understoodd theres no tax benefit for marriage vs civil union
and if there were, again, discrimination.

>homosexuality SHOULDNT be put in the same category as pedophiles or zoophiles. It should be accepted in society.

I think you got it wrong. Homosexuality does fit in with pedophiles and zoophiles. They all desire sex with things they can't reproduce with. Maybe they should all be accepted by society.

Saying "kids or animals can't give consent under the law" is no argument, because gays can't consent to marry each other under the law too.

> consent as in: legal condition whereby a person can be said to have given consent based upon an appreciation and understanding of the facts and implications of an action (using this the same way "age of consent" is used). Since children and animals legally don't have the (full) ability to do this, my argument stands.

Anal sex is measurably more likely to lead to rupture than vaginal intercourse.

> 1) this isnt life threathening, it heals and 2) who cares, if people know the risks.. you might aswell forbid wearing high heels because the risk of falling is bigger. let people take their own risks.

If staying up all night playing the computer is a defining characterisitc of a protected class not a neurosis or a choice, then firing people for napping on the job is discrimination, and if you don't agree you're a BIGOT.  QED.

> napping on the job leads to decreased productivity and is a violation of your contract. Being gay, having a homosexual relationship or marriage doesn't do harm to anyone but perhaps bigots who feel they should have more rights. QED.

I think you got it wrong. Homosexuality does fit in with pedophiles and zoophiles. They all desire sex with things they can't reproduce with. Maybe they should all be accepted by society.

> so sex with a woman on the pill is like being a pedophile. Or old people having sex are like zoophiles. Or.. sodomy with a woman is "unnatural". Come on your argument is a load of crap and you know it. There's a world of difference between 2 gay people who are both adults, and children or animals being molested. Putting them in the same category just because they have 1 thing in common, while they differ on the most important point there is, the ability to make a good decision, is just.. wrong amd completely bogus.

>>Saying "kids or animals can't give consent under the law" is no argument, because gays can't consent to marry each other under the law too.

> consent as in: legal condition whereby a person can be said to have given consent based upon an appreciation and understanding of the facts and implications of an action (using this the same way "age of consent" is used). Since children and animals legally don't have the (full) ability to do this, my argument stands.<<

No, because you suddenly FEEL that's more vital a law than laws against homosexuality doesn't mean I have to share your feelings or be "disproved".

>>Anal sex is measurably more likely to lead to rupture than vaginal intercourse.

> 1) this isnt life threathening, it heals and 2) who cares, if people know the risks.. you might aswell forbid wearing high heels because the risk of falling is bigger. let people take their own risks.<<

You complained there wasn't medical evidence anal sex is any worse, and a rupture where bodily fluids enter the bloodstream CAN BE life threatening.  What you meant was "there's no medical evidence I consider politically significant" which I can't argue, since political rules can require you to believe medical absurdities.

>>If staying up all night playing the computer is a defining characterisitc of a protected class not a neurosis or a choice, then firing people for napping on the job is discrimination, and if you don't agree you're a BIGOT.  QED.

> napping on the job leads to decreased productivity and is a violation of your contract. Being gay, having a homosexual relationship or marriage doesn't do harm to anyone but perhaps bigots who feel they should have more rights. QED.<<

Extending benefits and discounts to people who aren't legally married is surely a higher cost.  I think paying out money you shouldn't have to is a "harm".  Pay me $5 for that answer or fess up to your bigotry.  Also I'll sue you.

>>Homosexuality isn't a disease though. Unless you're a psychiatrist you don't get to label it as a disease. It's just a difference from the majority, much like left-handedness.<<

That is your opinion and I respect your right to it. But it is or is not a disease regardless of my profession.

>>whereas 2 consenting adults of the opposite sex CAN marry, 2 consenting adults of the same sex can't. This is in fact a difference in rights for same sex couples.<<

No. Both have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. There are inherent benefits to society in heterosexual marriage that are not present in homosexual unions. We've been over this.

>>Saying they can marry someone of the opposite sex is still disallowing them to marry the one they love. <<

Marriage is not an institution based in love. I love hot wings but I don't need a government institution involved. Marriage serves a big purpose in society. It's not JUST about love and the law is not concerned with the love part of it.

>>b) gay people cannot create offspring
-> so cant infertile people or old people. marriage isnt about offspring, its about devotion to each other.<<

AND it's about offspring and raising our young. Infertile people and old people cannot raise children as a result of coincidence, not form.

I don't know about just in CA, but I had to do some grad research on a lot of marraige/divorce statistics a few months ago. Divorce costs are just a hundred billion or few for the USA. I'll let you know if I find the specifics.

I think someone plagiarized Fokker! I came across this while browsing on FaceBook, and according to the time stamp, it was posted 10 hours ago, yet Fokker made this post back in early December. This what the topic I found said:

Why Gay Marriage Should be Illegal

1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans

11) Civil Unions are almost the same as marriage, they are seperate but equal, and everyone knows how well that worked out with the white and black children having seperate but equal schools

http://www.facebook.com/board.php?uid=41852908556#/topic.php?uid=41852908556&topic=6586

>1.  It doesnt effect you unless your gay

Oh don't even start this thread again. The basic argument was that relationships which can't under any natural circumstances produce more tax paying citizens should not receive tax breaks. Please don't respond to this post. Everything you posted has already been beat dead. Let this topic die.

"The basic argument was that relationships which can't under any natural circumstances produce more tax paying citizens should not receive tax breaks."

Can this be argued here or in another thread?

So you are saying that a couple married for years will loose their tax break if either the man or woman looses their ability to reproduce? What about old couples, do they loose their tax breaks?

lol and if thier someones child goes on to be a non-paying citizen who goes to jail, is thier paretns tax break reversed and do they owe money?

I just had a thought, do homosexuals qualify for Common Law relationships?