quote:

Originally posted by liberalhugger:
Oh come on, marriage bennefits society right?

Yep. It provides a positive (most of the time) environment to raise a child and help raise the next generation.

quote:

I do not think that allowing gay marriage will damage the economy noticably at all.

Alright proof. I know it will damage the economy because the government already hands out a good amount of marriage benefits, but they get the next generation of citizens, soldiers, taxpayers, and voters in return. What do gay couples give back to the government? Come on, its simple economics.

quote:

That seems to be your only arguing point and it is sad. Why let heterosexuals marry then?

First of all, heterosexual marriage is not the question. Second of all, because heterosexual couples can produce children naturally. That child is mouth to feed and a body to clothe, and drives the baby goods industry, a multi billion dollar industry. What, again, do homosexual couples give back to the government of the economy that they don't do as singles.

quote:

And the logic I used wouldn't really apply to drugs because it is within the government's duties to protect citizens from reasonable dangers to their health.

It is a reasonable danger to their health. We're in the middle of an AIDS pandemic, and the government and media still says sodomy and gay bathhouses are okay. AIDS does discriminate, and its killing off America's gays at quite the rate.

quote:

Drugs fall into that catagory while freedom of expression, pre marital sex, and gay marriage- the examples I listed- do not.

I was simply answering your question about Republicanism.

Oops, well the second two pretty much cover the first one... the first one was more of a organized 'main rights' thing...

Here it is again, but this time I won't screw up...

The Task Force

quote:

Liberals don't let tiny things like "facts" get in the way of their arguments.

Don't start.

quote:

Even if you do use that, gay couples would be no less "bennificial" as you say. Though I am not sure what benefits precisely your talking about.

Are you asking what benefits go with marriage? I'll post some sources for that, maybe reactionary or red (who have been the main, but not only, opposers in some arguments of this matter) will actually reply to this, instead of passing over it or letting the argument die...

Benefits:

[URL=Even if you do use that, gay couples would be no less "bennificial" as you say. Though I am not sure what benefits precisely your talking about.]The Task Force[/URL]

Government Accountability Office

Another Task Force one

The GAO office of the United States government reports that 1,138 benefits/rights are being denied to same sex couples. And this nation is supposed to be equal. (or at least that's what the founding fathers wanted (or all the signers of the Declaration of Independence, anyway)).

quote:

But it does harm the government economically. The government will have to hand out billions of dollars in benefits to married gays while getting nothing in return

Oh come on, marriage bennefits society right? I do not think that allowing gay marriage will damage the economy noticably at all. That seems to be your only arguing point and it is sad. Why let heterosexuals marry then?

And the logic I used wouldn't really apply to drugs because it is within the government's duties to protect citizens from reasonable dangers to their health. Drugs fall into that catagory while freedom of expression, pre marital sex, and gay marriage- the examples I listed- do not.

I find it extremely annoying when liberals say we are ******* around in people's private matters.


We didnt start this culture war. By demanding that the government give them marriage status, they were inviting the government to interfere in their lives.

quote:

Originally posted by redrepublican:
the government cannot interfere with what ou want to do. Fine. WE all know that. No one at this point in time is proposing legislation to stop our sexual relations.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

quote:

Ever head of Lawrence vs. Texas?

Liberals don't let tiny things like "facts" get in the way of their arguments.

AS i have stated many times and reactionary simply stated,

the government cannot interfere with what ou want to do. Fine. WE all know that. No one at this point in time is proposing legislation to stop our sexual relations.

Ever head of Lawrence vs. Texas?

quote:

I only support the GOP when they support conservatism.

'zactly. Well put

quote:

Originally posted by liberalhugger:
A small majority, huh? Interesting.

Ya got me there.

quote:

The government would not be approving of homosexual behavior.

Why not? If the gov't legalized drugs, that would mean the gov't is saying that drugs are okay.

quote:

Just like the gov. may or may not approve of sex before marriage doesn't mean that it's going to be illiegal.

These are too totally different situations. The government has no business in the bedroom, but it does have business in areas that can greatly effect its Treasury.

quote:

Same as the freedom to read or say what we please, the gov. doesn't necessarily endorse or condone the subject matter.

The government is tied to this position by the First Admendment.

quote:

We just have the legal freedom to persue what we wish as long as it harms no one, harrassment wise or physically.

But it does harm the government economically. The government will have to hand out billions of dollars in benefits to married gays while getting nothing in return.

quote:

I find it curious that the original priciples of Republicans included private rights and less gubernatorial interference. However your certaintly all for interference over how adults love each other.

First of all, I'm a conservative, I only support the GOP when they support conservatism. Second of all, conservatives support morality, but no one is trying to make homosexuality illegal.

quote:

Society gives marraige benefits because marriage gives benefits to society.

Right, I'm sure so many of the dysfunctional hetero couples that are so frequent bennifet society greatly.

Even if you do use that, gay couples would be no less "bennificial" as you say. Though I am not sure what benefits precisely your talking about.

quote:

Its simple. If the government allows same sex marriage, it will be the same as the government approving homosexual behavior. What advantage to the government is there to alienate those who create the next generation in the interests of a small majority?

A small majority, huh? Interesting.

The government would not be approving of homosexual behavior. Just like the gov. may or may not approve of sex before marriage doesn't mean that it's going to be illiegal. Same as the freedom to read or say what we please, the gov. doesn't necessarily endorse or condone the subject matter. We just have the legal freedom to persue what we wish as long as it harms no one, harrassment wise or physically.

I find it curious that the original priciples of Republicans included private rights and less gubernatorial interference. However your certaintly all for interference over how adults love each other.

Society gives marraige benefits because marriage gives benefits to society.

Its simple. If the government allows same sex marriage, it will be the same as the government approving homosexual behavior. What advantage to the government is there to alienate those who create the next generation in the interests of a small majority?

Same Ironman

my belief is a man and a man or a woman or a woman should be allowed something in the sort of a civil union, not necessarly marriage, but almost the smae thing with only a few things/rights denied to the civil union rather than a marriage.

but about the trangender bit, i think its wrong to let transgender marry if gays cannot

i totally agree with you!why should transgenders be allowed to marry but not homosexuals?