Previous 21 - 30 Next
No it doesn't. The nature of the relationship is not changed by AI. Homosexual relationships cannot result in procreation without outside help, such as AI.
Nevertheless, homosexual couples cannot procreate without outside help. If they do so with outside help, e.g., AI, the nature of their relationship has still not changed.
I don't understand how you can claim homosexuality as natural. Despite nature's obvious design, aberrations and mutations occur. A better approach is a simple observation of the reproductive process. Even though not all heterosexual relationships result in offspring, the nature of the relationship is such that procreation certainly can result absent some infirmity that prevents it. The nature of homosexual relationships is such that they can never result in reproduction on their own.
Whether a marriage bears children is irrelevant. What is important is the nature of the relationship. Heterosexual relationships are the only ones that can result in procreation. Homosexual relationships cannot result in procreation. That defines the difference. The fact that some heterosexual relationships do not result in procreation or even cannot do so because of some infirmity is irrelevant; the nature of the relationship is the same as any other heterosexual relationship.
The fact that some homosexual relationships are found in some animals other than humans is not conclusive to me one way or the other. I think a simple observation of the human (and other animal) sex organs makes it obvious that their primary purpose is procreation. Since it takes a man and a woman to procreate, that heterosexual relationship is unique and cannot be duplicated by any couple of the same sex. That heterosexual relationship is at the core of marriage, and is a relationship no homosexual couple can truly achieve. I say give homosexual couples any peripheral rights they want that are similar to the rights married couples have, but they cannot be truly married and their relationships are not the same as heterosexual relationships.
While those things are true, they really don't relate to the essence of marriage and the differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. It would be possible, in fact fairly easy, to grant all the rights/privileges you mention and more to any two or more people who request them without recognizing their relationships a marriage. And, if the government decides to call all sorts of relationships "marriage", including homosexual ones, that won't make those relationships marriages in my book. Marriage is a unique relationship between a man and a woman. I think polygamy is closer to marriage than any homosexual relationship can be.
First, I doubt the number is accurate. Second, it doesn't matter anyhow. Obamacare forced many individual insurance policies to be cancelled and requires that people have health insurance, so it's surprising the number isn't higher, much higher. Third, the numbers aren't the most important part. More importantly, what kind of insurance are people buying and what are the costs? Can they get reasonable care under the policies (many stories say no), how much are the premiums, and how much are the deductibles? I can't see these numbers making much difference in how the electorate views Obamacare.
I like it! Heck, I'd double their pay to get term limits, more if it that's what it takes. The ironic part about it is that Moran represents a suburban D.C. district. His district is any easy commute from Capital Hill.
I think you're giving the leftists too much credit. I don't think they're smart enough to realize that an "assault rifle" is just another semi-automatic rifle, not basically different from tons of other rifles. They seem to think that an assault rifle is inherently different. If that were not the case, why would they ever think of banning assault rifles?
Amnesty is going to be a really tough fight, especially in the long term. There are so many powerful forces aligned in favor of amnesty. I think the argument against it that will attract the most support is that it will make poor Americans worse off. I think there are stronger arguments, logically speaking, but the harm to poor Americans may be the easiest one to sell. Many of the bleeding hearts might even buy it.
Probably few if any of you remember the Food Stamp Program's predecessor and how the Food Stamp Program was started. I do; I was in government at the time. Before Food Stamps, we had the commodity distribution program. Excess food commodities that the government had purchased to prop up farmers were being distributed to needy people. They weren't fancy but were nutritious; lots of cheese, milk, and beans, not too much meat. Many people complained that the commodities weren't very appetizing, probably a fair comment. So, support began for a program to allow poor people to use government money to buy food at normal grocery stores. It was immediately apparent that the grocery lobby was behind this support. Of course, liberals loved the idea, and the Food Stamp Program was born. But it was support from the grocers that got it passed. Seems to me to contain an element of corporate welfare. I'm in favor of feeding poor people; I don't think we should let people starve because they have no money. But I really don't like corporate welfare. There has to be a better way; in fact, I think a modernized, improved, commodity distribution program would be better than the Food Stamp Program.
Previous 21 - 30 Next