Poll of the Day > Atheists got what they want: Christians lose their rights to homosexuals

(+) Yeah! (+)

:-(
---

Marriage should be treated as a right not a privilege, which is what Christians wanted it to be
---

Until separation of church and state is actually enforced I don't think atheists will get what they want.

Andromicus posted...

Marriage should be treated as a right not a privilege

No it shouldn't.

What marriage SHOULD be treated as is a private ceremony/ritual/bond and not as a function of governmental authority that gives tax breaks and other benefits to couples over individuals.


---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Andromicus posted...

Marriage should be treated as a right not a privilege

No it shouldn't.

What marriage SHOULD be treated as is a private ceremony/ritual/bond and not as a function of governmental authority that gives tax breaks and other benefits to couples over individuals.

for many nations (the US included) it is in our best interest to promote procreation.

you just sound like an angry foreveralone (which you have said you are, havent you?)
---

Troll_Police_ posted...

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Andromicus posted...

Marriage should be treated as a right not a privilege

No it shouldn't.

What marriage SHOULD be treated as is a private ceremony/ritual/bond and not as a function of governmental authority that gives tax breaks and other benefits to couples over individuals.

for many nations (the US included) it is in our best interest to promote procreation.

you just sound like an angry foreveralone (which you have said you are, havent you?)

Is it, though? Don't we have way too many people as it is, already?
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

What marriage SHOULD be treated as is a private ceremony/ritual/bond and not as a function of governmental authority that gives tax breaks and other benefits to couples over individuals.

The first is religious marriage, the second state marriage, they are two different things that have the same name for historic reasons. People always like to act like laws that apply to the one, also apply to the other.
---

Troll_Police_ posted...

you just sound like an angry foreveralone (which you have said you are, havent you?)

No, though I have mentioned that I'm a foreverunmarried (which stems from my distaste for how the institution is treated in the US as a whole). I've been in a relationship with the same girl for almost 20 years now.

Marriage should be ceremonial and not contract law. If the latter is what you want, just have civil unions be a thing. Most of the problems people actually have with marriage as it currently exists stem from the blurring of lines between ritual and legality.


---

LinkPizza posted...

Troll_Police_ posted...

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Andromicus posted...

Marriage should be treated as a right not a privilege

No it shouldn't.

What marriage SHOULD be treated as is a private ceremony/ritual/bond and not as a function of governmental authority that gives tax breaks and other benefits to couples over individuals.

for many nations (the US included) it is in our best interest to promote procreation.

you just sound like an angry foreveralone (which you have said you are, havent you?)

Is it, though? Don't we have way too many people as it is, already?

the planet is overpopulated, but the US is pretty huge and sparsely populated. we have the space, unlike many overpopulated countries in asia
---

Troll_Police_ posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Troll_Police_ posted...

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Andromicus posted...

Marriage should be treated as a right not a privilege

No it shouldn't.

What marriage SHOULD be treated as is a private ceremony/ritual/bond and not as a function of governmental authority that gives tax breaks and other benefits to couples over individuals.

for many nations (the US included) it is in our best interest to promote procreation.

you just sound like an angry foreveralone (which you have said you are, havent you?)

Is it, though? Don't we have way too many people as it is, already?

the planet is overpopulated, but the US is pretty huge and sparsely populated. we have the space, unlike many overpopulated countries in asia

Yeah we have the space, but we definitely don't have the resources.
---

This is an outrage....!

Why aren't Christians allowed to be gay?
---

Confused what rights are allegedly being lost?

Lokarin posted...

This is an outrage....!

Why aren't Christians allowed to be gay?

Once a month, you manage to make me laugh
---

IronBornCorps posted...

Confused what rights are allegedly being lost?

Their right to discriminate.
---

But if the christians can't have the homosexuals, who can?!
---

Troll_Police_ posted...

for many nations (the US included) it is in our best interest to promote procreation.

Which you can do without prohibiting gay couples from marrying.

That, and given the current state of the foster care system (read: there's more than one kid in it), there's plenty of reason to want to encourage non-procreating couples to get together and start families.
---

VeeVees posted...

IronBornCorps posted...

Confused what rights are allegedly being lost?

Their right to discriminate.

Indeeeed

adjl posted...

Troll_Police_ posted...

for many nations (the US included) it is in our best interest to promote procreation.

Which you can do without prohibiting gay couples from marrying.

That, and given the current state of the foster care system (read: there's more than one kid in it), there's plenty of reason to want to encourage non-procreating couples to get together and start families.

He was talking about promoting marriage by giving tax breaks. (marriages tend to lead to procreation a lot of the times)
---

adjl posted...

Troll_Police_ posted...

for many nations (the US included) it is in our best interest to promote procreation.

Which you can do without prohibiting gay couples from marrying.

That, and given the current state of the foster care system (read: there's more than one kid in it), there's plenty of reason to want to encourage non-procreating couples to get together and start families.

True. Plus, prohibiting gay marriage apparently doesn't make gay people straight. So, stopping gay marriage doesn't really help anything...
---

we have the space, but most people refuse to spread out. more than half the country lives on the east coast. people don't want to move. most of the babies born on the east coast will stay there and refuse to move west

Zikten posted...

most of the babies born on the east coast will stay there and refuse to move west

Those infants need to pull up their diaper straps and fulfill their manifest destiny
---

There's nothing in the news about it.

Zikten posted...

we have the space, but most people refuse to spread out. more than half the country lives on the east coast. people don't want to move. most of the babies born on the east coast will stay there and refuse to move west

The west is fine. It's the middle of the country that has nobody.
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Andromicus posted...

Marriage should be treated as a right not a privilege

No it shouldn't.

What marriage SHOULD be treated as is a private ceremony/ritual/bond and not as a function of governmental authority that gives tax breaks and other benefits to couples over individuals.

100% agree
---

XlaxJynx007 posted...

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Andromicus posted...

Marriage should be treated as a right not a privilege

No it shouldn't.

What marriage SHOULD be treated as is a private ceremony/ritual/bond and not as a function of governmental authority that gives tax breaks and other benefits to couples over individuals.

100% agree

Agree, but what does any of this have to do with the poll of the day?

^aww, little newbie boobie
---

LinkPizza posted...

Troll_Police_ posted...

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Andromicus posted...

Marriage should be treated as a right not a privilege

No it shouldn't.

What marriage SHOULD be treated as is a private ceremony/ritual/bond and not as a function of governmental authority that gives tax breaks and other benefits to couples over individuals.

for many nations (the US included) it is in our best interest to promote procreation.

you just sound like an angry foreveralone (which you have said you are, havent you?)

Is it, though? Don't we have way too many people as it is, already?

Not really, no. The US, like many Western countries, is approaching a demographic crisis where there's going to be a lot more old people than young. Old people are expensive - they consume more resources than any other group (particularly when it comes to health care), but they don't work and the amount of taxes collected from them is very minor and not nearly enough to offset their cost. As such, they need a young population to help sustain them and make up the difference.

Right now the US is making up some of that difference in immigration, but it is still advantageous to encourage procreation from within the country.

adjl posted...

That, and given the current state of the foster care system (read: there's more than one kid in it), there's plenty of reason to want to encourage non-procreating couples to get together and start families.

Keep in mind there's a difference between foster care and adoption.

Fostering is when you have a child that is temporarily separated from their parents. Maybe their parents do not have the finances to properly care for their child at the moment, or maybe they are going through a health crisis and do not have any family able to take those children in, or they are the subject of criminal charges and/or incarceration. Either way, foster parents are meant to be temporary guardians until such time as the biological parents are able to fulfill their responsibilities as caregivers. It's not really meant as a method to "start a family"; it's taking a child into your home who needs care at that particular time in their lives.

Adoption, on the other hand, is the biological parents permanently giving up or losing their rights to their children. In virtually all cases, adoption is permanent and irreversible (though, depending on the arrangement, the biological parents will often still be allowed and encouraged to maintain a relationship with their children, something known as the "Open Adoption" model). Fostering can lead to full-on adoption if it looks like the parents won't ever get their lives together, but it's not always the case.

And, contrary to what you might have heard, the adoption system is actually pretty solid in most western countries. While there are invariably kids in the system, nearly all of them are children with significant disabilities (physical or mental) or psychological conditions (sadly, frequently stemming from abuse) that require intensive, specialized care that most families do not have the resources to give. If you simply want to adopt a healthy child, you will frequently need to wait several years to do so, because there's far more people who want to adopt than kids who need adopting.

In my experience, same-sex couples usually opt for surrogacy (for men) or artificial insemination (for women), because it's faster than adopting.
---