|
daswig -
No one would label you a bigot if you did not act like one. This latest post of yours, although not on the surface bigotted, is an attempt at excusing the act of limiting the rights of gays. In that sense, it is almost a complete divergence from your previous posts in this thread which have focused exclusively on the various forms of the act of sex. You received the, accurate, label of bigot for your opinions that gay couples are above and beyond the "normal" perverted nature of breeder couples and therefore should not be given the same rights as breeder couples.
Now your tune is that the gov't is attempting to promote reproduction. This is clearly an attempt on your part at logically excusing your known bigotry. The gov't is not in the business of promoting reproduction - if it were, a heterosexual couple who have created a child would receive benefits, not simply the generic heterosexual couple, who may or may not be reproducing. Additionally, you ignored the aspect of adoption. If it were the case that the gov't was promoting reproduction (though it is not) the gov't would also assuredly promote adoption by providing benefits to couples, regardless of sexuality, who adopt - it saves the gov't from having to care for orphaned children and puts orphaned children in an environment (whether that be with a hetero or gay couple) that is far more capable of producing a "quality" adult than an orphanage. But the gov't does not give benefits to couples who adopt, beyond the minimal benefits the gov't already provides for couples (heterosexual) who have children. Marriage is an entirely seperate issue to children in the eyes of the gov't. The support for marriage is based on the false pretense of some underlying religion to our gov't. And it is propogated in this day by bigots, particularly those who produce 8 paragraphs attempting to excuse their bigotry.
|