Marriage discrimination struck down in Arkansas.

[Silver]

There are 153 million orphaned children in this world, and for some reason, Christians are obsessed with making more children.

Faith breeds irrationality in more ways than one.

[Losty]

Homosexual couples are more likely to adopt than heterosexuals and their children are at a statistical advantage for success in many areas, especially education. Evening out the balance a little would mean less orphans and more intelligent future voters.

There are 153 million orphaned children in this world, and for some reason, Christians are obsessed with making more children.

This is called grasping at straws when they know there is no rational argument to defend their bigotry.

[Heywood]

A homosexual relationship is of equal value to a heterosexual one because the value of either is predicated on their love and commitment to one another, and granting marriage to both ensures legal protections and rights that unmarried couples do not enjoy. Any argument contrary to this is an exercise in bigotry.

Unless there is some intellect dictating such, there is no reason whatsoever nature would just have it that homosexual unions and heterosexual unions are equivalent. You are just rationalizing that they are equivalent....and I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem when you try to impose your rationalizations on the people of Arkansas.

In my state the people chose to recognize gay marriage. I am okay with that decision. I wouldn't be okay with it if some judge forced it upon us.

[Losty]

A homosexual relationship is of equal value to a heterosexual one because the value of either is predicated on their love and commitment to one another, and granting marriage to both ensures legal protections and rights that unmarried couples do not enjoy. Any argument contrary to this is an exercise in bigotry.

Unless there is some intellect dictating such, there is no reason whatsoever nature would just have it that homosexual unions and heterosexual unions are equivalent. You are just rationalizing that they are equivalent....and I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem when you try to impose your rationalizations on the people of Arkansas.

In my state the people chose to recognize gay marriage. I am okay with that decision. I wouldn't be okay with it if some judge forced it upon us.

[Heywood]

Unless there is some intellect dictating such, there is no reason whatsoever nature would just have it that homosexual unions and heterosexual unions are equivalent. You are just rationalizing that they are equivalent....and I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem when you try to impose your rationalizations on the people of Arkansas.

In my state the people chose to recognize gay marriage. I am okay with that decision. I wouldn't be okay with it if some judge forced it upon us.

So if some judge decides that you have a right to shoot gingers that makes it okay? In a democracy, all rights are voted on. Your rights under The Constitution and the The Bill of Rights came into existence via a vote. Maddow is an idiot.

[Losty]

So if some judge decides that you have a right to shoot gingers that makes it okay? In a democracy, all rights are voted on. Your rights under The Constitution and the The Bill of Rights came into existence via a vote. Maddow is an idiot.

This is not a pure democracy. Rights given in the constitution are rights that are not supposed to be voted on. I will refrain from saying who I believe to be an idiot

[SteelCurtain]

The bottom line is, Heywood, in order for your argument to be valid, you have to show a reason why allowing homosexual marriages will decrease the value to society that heterosexual marriages offer, or at the very least how it will decrease the number of heterosexual marriages that occur. Because your 'value to society' argument sort of hinges on it.

[Rampant.A.I.]

According to your NAZI doctrine...jews should be killed.

"your NAZI doctrine"? Godwin's Law, Blowme.

Heywood.

Heywood.

Hitler was Catholic.

---

So if some judge decides that you have a right to shoot gingers that makes it okay? In a democracy, all rights are voted on. Your rights under The Constitution and the The Bill of Rights came into existence via a vote. Maddow is an idiot.

You are the one arguing for unequal rights between groups of humans.

You're defeating your own argument here. See why we don't vote on what rights specific groups of people get?

Equal rights? Ring any bells? If no, just shake your head faster until you hear it.

A homosexual relationship is of equal value to a heterosexual one because the value of either is predicated on their love and commitment to one another, and granting marriage to both ensures legal protections and rights that unmarried couples do not enjoy. Any argument contrary to this is an exercise in bigotry.

Unless there is some intellect dictating such, there is no reason whatsoever nature would just have it that homosexual unions and heterosexual unions are equivalent. You are just rationalizing that they are equivalent....and I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem when you try to impose your rationalizations on the people of Arkansas.

In my state the people chose to recognize gay marriage. I am okay with that decision. I wouldn't be okay with it if some judge forced it upon us.

Right. Except it is natural behavior.

For these animals, there is documented evidence of homosexual behavior of one or more of the following kinds: sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, or parenting, as noted in researcher and author Bruce Bagemihl's 1999 book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity.
...
Bagemihl's research shows that homosexual behavior, not necessarily sex, has been observed in about 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.[5][6]

See link for full list of species.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a...l_behavior

[Ryantology]

So if some judge decides that you have a right to shoot gingers that makes it okay? In a democracy, all rights are voted on. Your rights under The Constitution and the The Bill of Rights came into
existence via a vote. Maddow is an idiot.

That's funny, because the Delcaration says that certain rights are unalienable. The Constitution does not grant anybody rights. It recognizes the fact that we have those rights, and always should have had those rights. That was the entire point. And, that is the entire point of the marriage equality fight. Same-sex couples should have never been denied the right to marry in the first place. This isn't giving special rights, this is fixing a historical mistake.

Would you think it would be okay if the voters decided that we had the right to shoot gingers? (which is a stupid example because that right violates the rights of others, and marriage equality violates nobody's rights)

[Heywood]

The bottom line is, Heywood, in order for your argument to be valid, you have to show a reason why allowing homosexual marriages will decrease the value to society that heterosexual marriages offer, or at the very least how it will decrease the number of heterosexual marriages that occur. Because your 'value to society' argument sort of hinges on it.

Negative Steel,

The claim is homosexual marriages are equivalent to heterosexual marriages. There is no natural/intrinsic reason this needs to be the case so it likely isn't(unless there is a God who designed it so). The burden is upon you to come up with reasons why we should pretend it is equivalent.

Don't get me wrong, there are lots of good reasons to act as if the two kinds of union are equivalent. However the fact they are not equivalent is also reason enough not to give them the same status. Let the people decide what they want to do and not some judge who makes rulings based on flawed thinking.