Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Manx
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.
|
Please quote where I said that homosexual couples are "above and beyond the 'normal' perverted nature of breeder couples". Have you actually ever READ the statutes regarding what is considered legal or "normal" sex? I have what I would consider to be a fairly "vanilla" sex life. Yet under the criminal code of the State that I live in, my tastes are probably 80% illegal, even though I'm married to the other party and am heterosexual. For example, oral sex is illegal. It doesn't matter what the combination is....man/man, man/woman, woman/woman, it's all statutorily banned. If the standard for what "normal" sex is constitutes "sex which is not illegal", then my sexual appetites are abnormal, which is why I self-classify as a pervert.
Quote:
|
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.
|
They're not in the business of ONLY promoting reproduction, they're also in the business of trying to keep families together. It's a multi-pronged issue. That's why, all other things being equal, a single mother with one child gets fewer financial "bennies" than a married couple with one child.
Adoption is viewed as a different issue, and a far less optimal solution than the child being with his or her biological parents. Yet even so, when one adopts a child, they do get certain financial bennies, such as the dependent status on their tax returns. If a married couple adopts, they get the full bennie package as if the child was indeed their own biological offspring.
Quote:
|
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.
|
So you're saying the bennies of marriage and children are suddenly "minimal"? If the combined bennies are so minimal, then why all the fuss over a fraction of them that comes with marriage?
As for your explicitly accusing me of being a bigot, well, there's only one response I can give you:
