Quote:
|
Originally Posted by daswig
Please quote where I said that homosexual couples are "above and beyond the 'normal' perverted nature of breeder couples".
|
You didn't state it in those words, rather, you stated it in your first post of this thread and your subsequent follow up post. That you contradict yourself may confuse your opinion of what you have stated, but it does not confuse my opinion of what you have stated.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Yes, you are repeating yourself now. So apparently, since you are perverted, you oppose your own marriage just as you oppose the marriage due to perversion of gay couples. Since I doubt you oppose your own marriage but you do oppose gay marriage, you must be telling me that gay sex is above and beyond the perversion that you practice yourself. This is that contradiction I pointed out to you, twice now. This is your bigotry, whether you admit it to yourself or not.
Quote:
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.
|
This is illogical. If the gov't was not primarily interested in promoting what it views as morally appropriate behavior, it would heavily promote adoption, above and beyond the methods by which it promotes childless marriage. It is far more in the interest of gov't, as you have described, to provide more palatable environments for orphans than it is to promote the joining of a man and woman, who may or may not breed. An orphan already exists and can benefit immediately if the gov't actually intended to promote the well being of children in this manner. The effectively round-about manner of promoting marriage to promote "healthy" children is highly inefficient.
Quote:
As for your explicitly accusing me of being a bigot, well, there's only one response I can give you:
|
Obviously I'm not suprised. Just to note, I am not accusing you of anything. I am pointing out the accurate label for the opinions you have expressed.