Civ_king, please break up posts.
Perhaps the schools do not believe that "cures" exist.
Umm. That's impossible. Religions generally believe homosexuality to be a choice, albeit a sinful one. Therefore, it can be "cured" in their world view.
So, if you want "freedom and rights" why aren't equivalent civil unions enough?
My union should be equal in name and substance by the grace of the secular deity, the government.
Either give gays equal marriage, or give everyone a civil union instead and make marriage a term with no legal meaing. Full equality.
If a democracy can have 50%+1 of the population vote to take away the rights of the rest, hell yes I do. I believe in checks and restraints on the popular will. The support gay marriage bans enjoy just reinforces my commitment to direct, unfettered democracy being a horrific system of government.
Iran is also a democracy but a flawed one that needs serious fixing.
Different brain chemistries do not mean a gay man is going to be successful at breast-feeding
Breastfeeding isn't legally mandated, so I don't see the problem here. Straight couples buy bottles all the time.
And I'll bet you ten bucks a child would have a better life under gay parents without precious breastfeeding than they would in the bloody orphanage.
Why do you want to foist your opinions onto other people?
My forcing is a different beast than any anti-homosexual kind: I believe in equality, maximising the pursuit of happiness, and protecting us all from eachother. The opposition believes it's the government's job to uphold morality despite morality varying based on who you ask.
Because they would be demeaning other people.
Umm... if I find the perfect boyfriend, and we get married, and we spend the rest of our lives 'til death do us part, how the heck does that demean anybody else's relationship?
The only person who can "demean" a relationship is the people in it.
So basically your argument is based on what you feel and deriding what others feel.
My argument maximises happiness, and appeals to logic rather than a book that we can't even prove is based in fact. Or tradition, which can still be ridiculous no matter how old or young it is.
IMO any behavior that significantly reduces lifespan should be discouraged
Your argument therefore is against reckless sex, not homosexuality.
Plus, discouraging is different from getting the state to say "no." You're free to raise your children to believe homosexuality's a sin, that sex is wrong unless it produces children, etc. But don't dare tell me via your liason, Uncle Sam, that I can't have a marriage equal to yours with the person I love, nor can we raise children together.
Because in the current form civil unions don't carry all of the legal benefits of marriage.
Never mind it's still ridiculous to differentiate at all even if they are truly equal. Unless your "logic" is to make one union more "holy" than another, which has no place in the halls of government.
So it is inherently unequal that men and women have separate stalls and prisons?
The sexes are a very different kettle of fish, especially as far as prisons and the army are concerned: pregnancy, anyone?
Women seem to feel their privacy is invaded by having men in their bathrooms, so I don't see the problem here - everyone has a right to privacy.
You can still be wed until death do you part.
