Gay Marriages

[Anonymouse]

Well if you put it that way then the issue is once again neutral with no purpose for discussion: "Who is to say what is wrong or right?" "How do we know what we really know?"

I believe that biologically homosexuality does not work. You or anyone else can disagree with that but if we are arguing here on the basis of fairness s and logic then homosexuality being "proper" does not fit into that realm of appropriateness. Let us stick to the more relevantly purpose of it. Let us debate this without regressing to middle school/ high school type insults.

Most of loser's and everyone else standing for homosexuality is really asserting points beyond the premises of this discussion. I mean, yes they are good points but that is not the case here. The fact that there are relatively few homosexuals (statistically because that is all we can go by since that iall we know and can have a somewhat valid enough census) answers a common type of objection to many people's tendencies that stand for homosexuality.

Just observe: http://www.sexualhealth.com/content/...%20Orientation

Bisexuals as well are confused people who can also copulate with the rest of the bunch. Let us not forget that overall, homosexuality isn't just a political and moral issue anymore; it is also about genetically altered people who are badly hurting psychologically and can go one way but they chose the other route due to the mental defect.

As for the marriage, two aspects to marriage lay: the legal and the spiritual. Marriage is more than a social convention. It is not like being "best friends" with somebody, because heterosexual marriage usually results in the production of children. Marriage is a legal institution in order to offer protection of children and etc. through wedlock.

Now, since homosexual couples are by nature unable to reproduce, they do not NEED this legal protection or the benefits of marriage to provide a safe place for the production and raising of children. Apart from the sexual aspect of a gay relationship, what they have is really "best friend" or concubine status, and that does not require legal protection either.

You are confusing my position. From a libertarian point of view, I cannot infringe upon the private lives of two homosexuals, it would be unethical. I cannot impose my opinions on them, nor can I use coercion or aggression to get them to agree with me. Under this position, I can only persuade people to agree with me. That is why I supported the argument that marriage should not be a matter of the State, but a private matter. My views regarding the immorality of homosexuality, had nothing to do with that, and was, for the most part, a deviation.

[loseyourname]

You tell me. Those outlandish accusations and fallacies are what drove most in here to complicate this more than it already is. I told you from the start I forbid it for those reasons and the fact that is it overly self-beneficial to one side and only one side without a purpose. You just kept looking for loop holes and resorted to "why do you hate them?" Then that drifted to "why condemn their acts and not all you are not fair."

Relax buddy. I don't know what this persecution complex is of yours, but I have no problem with your position. I just wanted to know what it is. Thanks for making it clear finally. It was hard to tell because you didn't seem to be applying it judiciously, but as long as you are, so be it. I just wanted to make sure that your position is consistent. I could care less beyond that. Go crack open a beer and watch the Lakers dynasty end.

[loseyourname]

From a libertarian point of view, I cannot infringe upon the private lives of two homosexuals, it would be unethical. I cannot impose my opinions on them, nor can I use coercion or aggression to get them to agree with me. Under this position, I can only persuade people to agree with me. That is why I supported the argument that marriage should not be a matter of the State, but a private matter.

Exactly. Beyond that, it's nothing but a matter of personal rights.