Gay Civil Union Discussion

[Lost heros]

Can you please, please explain to me why people who do not believe in God should follow laws set by one religion's interpretation's of what this hypothetical God thinks?

Well I'm sorry for trying to lower the chances of people like you going to hell.

I'm sorry, but your mistaken. You see, people who justify their actions with 'if you don't do this, you are going to hell' are the only people going to hell. God told me in a dream.

[Sunawan]

Why are you evangelizing to people who aren't of your faith?

Talk about arrogance times eleven.

Be pretty redundant to evangelise to people who already believe what you do, wouldn't it? Literally preaching to the choir.

Well preaching to a choir is still probably more productive (or not) than evangelizing those who can't be bothered.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Both are minorities. Are you trying to say that you only support civil rights when they benefit you?

Pedophiles and mass murderers are also minorities. Are you saying that if a minority believes they are entitled to something, they should receive it simply because they are a minority?

So minorities are pedophiles and murderers because they are minorities.

Top logic.

[Oneracon]

Both are minorities. Are you trying to say that you only support civil rights when they benefit you?

Pedophiles and mass murderers are also minorities. Are you saying that if a minority believes they are entitled to something, they should receive it simply because they are a minority?

No.

I'm saying that equality before and under the law is granted to all people regardless of the colour of their skin, the place they were born, with whom they sleep, etc. If two consenting adults wish to enter into a legally recognized relationship, it doesn't matter what sex they are.

[Auralia]

Yes. The article you cited clearly states that "the widespread pattern of children being raised from infancy in two-parent gay or lesbian homes is relatively recent." Any conclusion about the impact of gay parenting on children is premature.

And yet you have concluded that it is inferior to "traditional" family structures.

Well, research has shown that depriving a child of his or her mother or father causes problems. However, one could argue that the issue was that the child lacked two parents, not a mother or father per se. That would suggest that mothers and fathers are equivalent, though, which seems unlikely.

[Othelos]

Can you please, please explain to me why people who do not believe in God should follow laws set by one religion's interpretation's of what this hypothetical God thinks?

Well I'm sorry for trying to lower the chances of people like you going to hell.

"Lower chances"? There's only one thing that stops people from going to heaven.

[Farnhamia]

Both are minorities. Are you trying to say that you only support civil rights when they benefit you?

Pedophiles and mass murderers are also minorities. Are you saying that if a minority believes they are entitled to something, they should receive it simply because they are a minority?

Pedophiles, in some instances, and mass murderers are also criminals. That lets them out of that entitlement thing. Bad analogies are bad.

And back to discussing civil unions for gays, okay, people? New Molsonia's evangelism and bad analogies for homosexuality are not the topic.

[Othelos]

And yet you have concluded that it is inferior to "traditional" family structures.

Well, research has shown that depriving a child of his or her mother or father causes problems. However, one could argue that the issue was that the child lacked two parents, not a mother or father per se. That would suggest that mothers and fathers are equivalent, though, which seems unlikely.

So I'm assuming you would be opposed to a the idea of, say, a child raised by his father and uncle.

[Oneracon]

And yet you have concluded that it is inferior to "traditional" family structures.

Well, research has shown that depriving a child of his or her mother or father causes problems. However, one could argue that the issue was that the child lacked two parents, not a mother or father per se. That would suggest that mothers and fathers are equivalent, though, which seems unlikely.

Mothers and fathers are equivalent.

[Ifreann]

And yet you have concluded that it is inferior to "traditional" family structures.

Well, research has shown that depriving a child of his or her mother or father causes problems. However, one could argue that the issue was that the child lacked two parents, not a mother or father per se. That would suggest that mothers and fathers are equivalent, though, which seems unlikely.

Sexism too? Aren't you just a delight.

[Auralia]

Pedophiles and mass murderers are also minorities. Are you saying that if a minority believes they are entitled to something, they should receive it simply because they are a minority?

No.

I'm saying that equality before and under the law is granted to all people regardless of the colour of their skin, the place they were born, with whom they sleep, etc. If two consenting adults wish to enter into a legally recognized relationship, it doesn't matter what sex they are.

Legal recognition of relationships is a privilege, not a right, though. We don't grant special legal protection for all relationships (e.g. friends), only those that serve a particular state interest.

[Pandeeria]

And yet you have concluded that it is inferior to "traditional" family structures.

Well, research has shown that depriving a child of his or her mother or father causes problems. However, one could argue that the issue was that the child lacked two parents, not a mother or father per se. That would suggest that mothers and fathers are equivalent, though, which seems unlikely.

I see you got no source there. There are quite a bit of organizations that would disagree with you.

[Neutraligon]

Auralia, I assume you would prevent post menopausal women from marrying, correct?

[Oneracon]

No.

I'm saying that equality before and under the law is granted to all people regardless of the colour of their skin, the place they were born, with whom they sleep, etc. If two consenting adults wish to enter into a legally recognized relationship, it doesn't matter what sex they are.

Legal recognition of relationships is a privilege, not a right, though. We don't grant special legal protection for all relationships (e.g. friends), only those that serve a particular state interest.

I agree. We should be adding a condition to marriage licenses that all couples who enter marriages must have at least one child.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Well, research has shown that depriving a child of his or her mother or father causes problems. However, one could argue that the issue was that the child lacked two parents, not a mother or father per se. That would suggest that mothers and fathers are equivalent, though, which seems unlikely.

Sexism too? Aren't you just a delight.

No, see, he is trying to say that women and men are not the same because that would challenge traditional values of marriage.

Which is also fucking stupid.

[Auralia]

Well, research has shown that depriving a child of his or her mother or father causes problems. However, one could argue that the issue was that the child lacked two parents, not a mother or father per se. That would suggest that mothers and fathers are equivalent, though, which seems unlikely.

Sexism too? Aren't you just a delight.

It's not sexism to recognize that men and women are different but complementary, and so both are needed for proper child development. It's called new feminism.

[Pandeeria]

No.

I'm saying that equality before and under the law is granted to all people regardless of the colour of their skin, the place they were born, with whom they sleep, etc. If two consenting adults wish to enter into a legally recognized relationship, it doesn't matter what sex they are.

Legal recognition of relationships is a privilege, not a right, though. We don't grant special legal protection for all relationships (e.g. friends), only those that serve a particular state interest.

So you're saying that your relationship must serve the state for it too have recognition? Doesn't that sound like, oh I don't know... Fascist?

[Neutraligon]

Sexism too? Aren't you just a delight.

It's not sexism to recognize that men and women are different but complementary, and so both are needed for proper child development.

Provide sauce for this pasta

[Olthar]

Well, research has shown that depriving a child of his or her mother or father causes problems. However, one could argue that the issue was that the child lacked two parents, not a mother or father per se. That would suggest that mothers and fathers are equivalent, though, which seems unlikely.

Mothers and fathers are equivalent.

Of course they're not. Clearly, mothers and fathers are different because one has a vagina while the other has a penis, and those are very important when raising children.

[Auralia]

Mothers and fathers are equivalent.

Of course they're not. Clearly, mothers and fathers are different because one has a vagina while the other has a penis, and those are very important when raising children.

Mothers and fathers also have different parenting styles, and play different roles in a child's development.

[Lost heros]

Legal recognition of relationships is a privilege, not a right, though. We don't grant special legal protection for all relationships (e.g. friends), only those that serve a particular state interest.

I agree. We should be adding a condition to marriage licenses that all couples who enter marriages must have at least one child.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. That means all married that don't want kids or can't have kids can't get married. That is ridiculous discrimination against people based on personal preferences or biological occurrences.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Sexism too? Aren't you just a delight.

It's not sexism to recognize that men and women are different but complementary, and so both are needed for proper child development.

Okay, that has a pretty weak biological argument because yes, women and men's bodies and chemical structures are a tiny bit different; however, that doesn't go hand in hand with the fact that women and men are different in every aspect, as women can also develop strength and other attributes men have both physically and in personality and vice-versa,

I mean, really, it was cute, but it isn't precisely something anyone particularly cares in the big scheme of things.

[Pandeeria]

Of course they're not. Clearly, mothers and fathers are different because one has a vagina while the other has a penis, and those are very important when raising children.

Mothers and fathers also have different parenting styles, and play different roles in a child's development.

I think each person has different parenting styles. Also, being raised by two fathers or mothers has no negative effects.

[Auralia]

Legal recognition of relationships is a privilege, not a right, though. We don't grant special legal protection for all relationships (e.g. friends), only those that serve a particular state interest.

So you're saying that your relationship must serve the state for it too have recognition? Doesn't that sound like, oh I don't know... Fascist?

Then all modern societies must be fascist, because marriage receives special legal protection while standard friendships do not.

[Lost heros]

Of course they're not. Clearly, mothers and fathers are different because one has a vagina while the other has a penis, and those are very important when raising children.

Mothers and fathers also have different parenting styles, and play different roles in a child's development.

So, men have to be the breadwinners, while women have to be stay at home moms. This isn't sexist at all.