pandd wrote:
Kangoogle wrote:
Not at all - making something a right involves one person not two. The "right" to have gay sex on the proviso of consent makes it not a right in practise, rights have to be universal.
What an absurd, convoluted load of nonsense. A right to do X in situation Y is a right to do X in situation Y, that is obvious and tautological.
Nope - rights are tied to individuals, not couples and beyond...
Quote:
Quote:
Marriage is supposed to be for having children - which would extend into gay adoption rights (my main opposition for many reasons, namely the involvement of a non-consenting child). This is the main reason for kicking off about redefining marriage, what is wrong with a civil partnership?
What marriage is supposed to be for seems to depend on who is doing the supposing. However if your supposition was correct, post-menopausal women would not be permitted to marry, but they are. Further most adoptions involve non-consenting children and there is no evidence whatsoever that children would be harmed by being adopted by homosexual parents rather than heterosexual parents, all other things being equal.
Whoa - kind of illustrates your total lack of understanding of adoption here. In brief, these children (already with severe identity issues in most cases) are going to get bullied to s**t - well lets guess, for identity nonetheless. (if you missed here, they are going to get bullied for gay parents).
Quote:
Society benefits from stable pair-bonded units. There is evidence that such units and the families they often generate/create tend to be more likely to contribute economically (both through earning/consuming and attempting to save/invest), and to be less likely to engage in socially destructive and/or criminal activities. The kinds of activities and attitudes fostered by socially recognized and sanctioned pair bonded units tend to be more constructive and beneficial to their society than the behavior generated by those who remain outside such units. It is in society's interests to extract the greatest benefit from homosexual people by recognizing and sanctioning their pair-bonded relationships just as we do with heterosexuals. This is best for society, is what is wanted by those most directly concerned, and harms no one who does not willfully choose to concern themselves with controlling or elitist behavior of the kind that it seems undesirable to promote in a free and loosely egalitarian society.
All I can say here is its nonsense.
06 Jan 2009, 7:39 am
