Then bitch about A&E, not GLAAD. GLAAD was doing exactly as you recommended.
Then why are you opposed to gay marriage?
You need to do some reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
Phil was fired for his comments. Which is intimidation.
Firing or suing someone for their opinion is wrong.
Equal rights is the goal we all strive to obtain.
Well, it sounding like you were apologizing for him.
So when do you start administering the fertility tests to make sure nobody is cheating by adopting?
What planet are you on where the government imposes any terms of marriage other than age, number of partners, how closely related you are, and the quickly eroding gender limits?
Maybe it shouldn't.
That would solve the gay marriage debate right there.
As it is, though, marriage comes with certain benefits from the government. That being the case, it is immoral to deny them to same sex couples.
When did a 100% reliable fertility test become available?
Being able to understand why someone thinks or acts the way they do, and acknowledging those reasons, isn't apologizing for their behavior.
Good god you are another AT P&N logical fallacy abuser.
Thank you for playing.
So when do you start administering the fertility tests to make sure nobody is cheating by adopting?
So your argument is: "Marriage shouldn't exist therefore we should legalize same-sex marriage"?
I don't think I could possibly come up with a more retarded argument D:
should not exist as a government sponsored institution.
Actually it would seem that since there is no reason for marriage that dispersing government funds to married couples is inherently immoral(essentially theft). Expanding marriage to include same-sex couples is inherently increasing the amount of immorality and therefore immoral.
What you are arguing is akin to saying murder is wrong therefore I am going to become a serial killer D:
You asked:
The logical question then is there a cheap fertility test capable of determining to a sufficient degree of accuracy that someone is infertile.
You are upset because such a test does not exist. And therefore your whole question is practically irrelevant.
The discussion of morality of government benefits to married people is tangential to the talk about gay rights. What it boils down to is one group is given special privilege, while another is excluded.
Your analogy about murder is flawed as well. Murder is thought of as immoral by all reasonable people. Government benefits are not.
You are intentionally avoiding my point with your red herring because you have no answer for it.
You claimed pro-creation was a requirement of marriage, yet straight couples marry with no expectation of bearing children. This can be because of physical infertility, a life choice, the lack of chance to procreate before a death, or any number of personal decisions that .gov is not a part of, and never will be.
Your argument sucks, get a new one and come back. I'll play some more if I have time.
Then why are you opposed to gay marriage?
Actually if you read back you will see I repeatedly said marriage was about CONTROLLING procreation.
I am not opposing gay marriage.
I have used the pizza and hamburger examples in this thread. Maybe you did not see those examples? So I am going to repeat them just for you.
Do you like onions on your hamburger? How about pineapple on pizza? Is there anything you do not like?
If you go to a restaurant and they sell onions with their cheeseburgers, are you going to get pissed off and sue the place to force them to stop? Or maybe sue the restaurant to make them offer something on their pizza?
Chances are you are just going to deal with it and move on.
There is a corner store near my house that does not offer pineapple with their pizza. I like pineapple. Rather that protesting and suing the place to force them to offer pineapple, I just deal with it.
That is the whole purpose of marriage. If you are saying that is wrong you are arguing against marriage.
Murder, cannibalism, child abandonment, etc all happen in the "natrual world" too, so how dare we criminalize that behavior when it's natrural to "lower man" lifeforms.
Talk about trotting out a wrongheaded argument to justify homosexuality...an argument that can be used to justify virtually anything under the Sun.
I have used the pizza and hamburger examples in this thread. Maybe you did not see those examples? So I am going to repeat them just for you.
The government is not allowed to limit rights to only specific groups.
That is entirely the purpose of marriage. The entire purpose of marriage is to grant special rights to certain people; and according to liberals for absolutely no reason. So again by your logic you are arguing against marriage.
I don't see how you can possibly go from; marriage shouldn't exist therefore we should expand it to include same-sex couples.
You're right they do.
But the point was that the argument was placed about homosexual relationships in the "natural world" (as a side note... do we live in an "unnatural world"? What exactly is an "unnatural world" as by definition that would mean a world that doesn't exist in nature... and I don't think that exists outside of fantasies), where homosexual relationships exist.
I'm not saying that because animals murder humans should allow murder, or that we shouldn't have laws to criminalize that action. I'm simply pointing out that the argument about it being "unnatural" is a bullshit argument. If you want to argue about its morality (i.e. the should humans allow it), then that's different from arguing about it not existing in nature.
I am pretty sure I did multiple times.
By the logic liberals suggest the government imposes no requirements for a couple to get married in terms of fidelity, pro-creation, etc. And therefore marriage serves no purpose and should not exist as a government sponsored institution.
You are right. Here in the south being gay is nothing to be proud of. In most cases being gay gets the hell beat out of you.
What goes on here and up north are two different things.
and yet you still likely have very real gay communities around you, you just don't know about it.
I've never seen the animal kingdom argument as a valid one because, unlike them, we're governed by intelligence, not instinct and nature. In other words, we decide right and wrong based on our intelligence, NOT what goes on with animals.
We had a gay man run for city mayor, he lost.
Intelligence is not the exclusive domain of humans. We know that quite well.
murder, canabilism, child abandonment...these are survival strategies. Humans act on them as well, right or wrong. They aren't necessarily the preferred, or even common, order of things in certain critter communities, but they are made necessary when resources are scarce.
No one chooses to be gay--that is simple truth (seriously--go choose to be gay. do it. it should be easy, right? choose to be part of one of the most oppressed communities out there. let us know how it works out)
What you are doing is comparing survival strategy--response behavior--with someone's born identity. One can't not be black. One can't not be gay.
How is that relevant?