Exactly what I said, the ability to do regular marriage and switch it with the ability to do a gay marriage that includes different laws. Wasn't I clear about that?
No you weren't clear.
Its not a fight for equal rights its a fight for economic benefits what I'm talking about - aka Money. Society throughout all of mankind history is grouped in families for a reason. Its a system that allows the man to take care of the wife so she can take care of her children.
That's a completely archaic and bias view of the family structure. There are many family units that don't work this way.
And yes it is about equal rights, heterosexual couples get to marry the people they love with all the legal benefits provided by the government by law. For gay marriage to be equal it also needs to meet these same requirements without things taken away.
For US law I'm talking about the tax benefits. There's even some bad comedy movie about how two guys decide to secretly wed just for the tax benefits.
So we should deny equal rights because some people might abuse the system what a complete load. People already abuse the system this way as it is with heterosexual marriage, adding gay marriage isn't going to make that big of a difference.
Does it mean everyone should get it? Make you're own system and you will have a lot less problems with religion.
What the hell are you talking about? Yes everyone should get the same benefits by law. The legal aspects of marriage have nothing to do with religion. Marriage as part of the religious aspect is just a ceremony, the couple still has to go get the legal documentation saying they are married. That's what's being fought for, the legal recognition. So you can take your religious beliefs on the matter and shove them back up what ever orifice you got them from. Because they hold no baring in this.
Do you have any proof of this? We have observations of homosexual behaviour in a massive multitude of animals, including humans (obviously), so I'd say it's natural.
how can it possibly be against human nature? the only was that could be true was if someone had engineered a gene that made people gay, or deliberately changed the chemical balance in a baby?
Being born gay is a natural process, so its definitely not unatural
As for Mage, I was very clear about it. How the hell did yo miss it? I said it like 3 times. Do I really need to quote them? All you do is bring up the same points and ignore my reply. For the rest, I already answered that so I can work out my copy-past skill but this time I'd pass.
For right to marriage in general I think its fine. Its not like their gay of perpus. Homosexuality is even explained in a darvinistic way by gay people being part of the duel-sexual people's genes. Duel sexual people have kids in a younger age (they get along better with woman) but die faster so that means they grow in numbers much faster then other people. On the other hand sometimes they bring kids that are completly gay, then they have no children and do not pass on their genes. So the outcome is the total duel sexual - gay community is always about 6% of the population thoughout human history, as long as their aren't prosecuted and killed like in Iran. So that's how i think nature explains the natural 6%.
Homosexuality is even explained in a darvinistic way by gay people being part of the duel-sexual people's genes. Duel sexual people have kids in a younger age (they get along better with woman) but die faster so that means they grow in numbers much faster then other people. On the other hand sometimes they bring kids that are completly gay, then they have no children and do not pass on their genes. So the outcome is the total duel sexual - gay community is always about 6% of the population thoughout human history, as long as their aren't prosecuted and killed like in Iran. So that's how i think nature explains the natural 6%.
Uh...Duel-Sexual? Darvinistic? How do Gay people bring kids that are gay if they can't reproduce? Natural 6%? I'd really like to see some sources.
As for Mage, I was very clear about it. How the hell did yo miss it?
No you weren't clear on the exact laws you wanted to restrict from them. As others had also been asking you to clarify. You kept saying they should have different laws or economic rights. This covers a number of fields in marriage.
For right to marriage in general I think its fine.
The part I have issue with is how you want it to be on unequal grounds.
As for the rest it was a bit hard to read.
"darvinistic" I've never heard of darvinistic before.
"Duel sexual people" Do you mean bisexuality or do you mean people with both genders? Either way it's not required in a parent for the child to be homosexual.
