Previous 11 - 20 Next
David, The state has no interest in breaking up any concenting adult human couple. Where they encourage, and in fact, make it difficult for them to separate is a differnt issue. Children are that issue. I already adressed the vestigial benifit infirtal couples have. I have many friends who are gay and thank them for their civil contibution, but do not want to grant them specific benifits for which they are not eligible. Ken, I believe gay couples should be allowed to adopt, because growing up in a family is better than the other alternatives. However, preference should be granted to stable hetro couples. I would love to see gay adoption not exist because all the children are with stable hetero family, but until we heterosexuals step up to the plate and take care of all the kids, it is better than foster care.
In only affect all of society and all tax payers, and all citizens........ Well, it affects pretty much everyone, so let's not be flippant and get it right.
Yes, thank you! You recognize that words change and lose their original meaning. That is what we are trying to prevent here. Please re-read your last answer and then go back to your original assertion. They are completely incongruent.
David, they do have the same right when they have the ability to produce the same benefit. I support extending benefits to gay couples who have legal, mutually adopted and are raising children, because they provide a similar benefit to the state. I do not support proving benefits ("payments") to those who do not work for me ("provide more law abiding tax payers"). You seem to miss the only and fundamental reason the state has any interest at all in marriage. IF you leave it out your position is completely logical, rational and fundamentally fair. However to leave out the only compelling state interest in the conversation has lead you to a faulty conclusion.
David, you did not answer the question. However your response indicates that you do indeed recognize that the word "gay" was fundamentally and irrevocable change from its original meaning by the homosexual community co-opting it for their minor increase in usage.
David, This is not a religious issue, but an issue of mutual benefit from the state to the couple. As an employer do you support giving the same paycheck to those who work for you as those who do not?
All the marriage benefits are tax payer subsides to the couples in question. So the real question is why would a couple who does not provide the state a benefit get paid?
David, It takes time for the full impact to be realized. Just tell me, when you and your wife are having a good day feeling happy and joyful, do you tell all around you that you fell very "gay"? Why not? Do you not still use the original meaning or not?
The only reason the state has any interest in marriage at all is that it is the best vehicle to produce more law abiding tax payers. The state has zero interest in love, sex, or any other part of human relationship. The fact infertile couples sill enjoy marriage rights is vestigial to the first and only reason.
it will only be fundamentally and completely changed from to something absolutely different, losing all of its specific meaning.
In response to:

Chicken Little 'Science'

Reed42 Wrote: Apr 17, 2014 5:25 PM
Well we could believe the crowd with near zero track record of accuracy (look up the log of AGM predictions and number that are true) or the side with nearly perfect accuracy (otherwise known as "denighers").
Previous 11 - 20 Next