I gave two examples for how the corrent marriage system isn't fit for gay couples and it should be enough.
Not really, I can't think of more than one, and even then it's not a good example or supporting point, it was barely touched, and boils down to "gay people shouldn't get tax breaks"
For darvinistic, its a scientific term for how nature explains things. Like Darvin explained things, that im not going to get into if they are right or no, I was using the term
DarWinistic. I had thought you might mean that, there was no guy named "Darvin" it's "Darwin"
For the 6% tons of sources but it really doesn't matter if its 2%, 10% or whatever so I'm not going to wast time finding a source, hell maybe I was even a few percent off.
If you're going to make a specific claim, back it up, don't just say, "You should know"
devorse were the husbant keeps paying the wife.
Oh here's reason that's not quite a reason #2! So, you have it stuck in your head that the mother has to be the one to take care of the kids?
Goblin, there's more to it than tax breaks. There are things that marriage also entitles, like if your spouse is in a coma, you speak for them, or just being recognized as a couple, things like that. You do realize that all of your arguments are based on human nature, not gay people in particular? It's far from out of the question that a heterosexual couple married to get a tax break.
For duel-sexuality- yes its bisexuality in English. Here's my poor and way below average English skills in this forum.
Yeah that's not a requirement for a child to turn out gay.
tax benefits, devorse were the husbant keeps paying the wife.
Gay couples should be allowed to raise a family if they so desire so they should get the tax breaks so there go your for point of pigheadedness. As I had already pointed out your views on marriage are archaic, you make it sound as if other arrangements couldn't be worked out. Such arrangements could actually end up benefiting the system to break away from dogmatic views that should be broken away from anyway. So giving this could actually have unforeseen positive effects on the law in cases of divorce.
I didnt liked Darwins father too. Be my guest.
That made absolutely no sense what so ever. But since you asked here are my links, feel free to read them at your leisure but likely ignore them and remain in your ignorant state where I and others will have to beat you with facts at a later date when the topic more specific to evolution crops up.
Is that an OK, you'll read it, or you agree, or your dismissing it? Be more specific considering the vast quantities of evidence he just presented to you
Is that an OK, you'll read it, or you agree, or your dismissing it? Be more specific considering the vast quantities of evidence he just presented to you
Its not a challenge to look for. But to reach yourself between these existing vast interprations.
Is that an OK, you'll read it, or you agree, or your dismissing it? Be more specific considering the vast quantities of evidence he just presented to you
I agree with jefferysinspiration. It's supposed to help with family life, and it does. So when gay couples marry they should have the same rights in case they want to start a family.
@ Goblin - pretty much summed up for you ^
Nothing to do with apartments, why would that come into it?
It's money for childrens welfare. I thought i'd made that clear but apparently not. Money is often supplied to help family life - as in to help educational needs etc.
Every one should be able to wed. It's been said before but i'll say it again. No one should be denied the right to be married and misserible. But just economically it would be worth it. States should be drooling at the prospect of revenue from marriage and divorce whether it be same sex or not.
