| Author | Message | ||
     Strokizator |
Gays can't demand protected minority status on one hand and then claim they're the same as everyone else on the other. Buellinmke, my wife's 24 yo grandson is gay (not flaming but he does swish a bit when he walks). He's been "different" since birth and I always suspected he'd become a gay adult. He had no choice in the matter. Makes no difference to me, I give him just as much $hit as the rest of the kids. He's got a BF but they're respectful when they come to my house. Live and let live. | ||
| 99savage |
The sanctifying sodomy drive has had precisely the effect I predicted when it began. http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/13/94252 41-where-is-mr-or-mrs-right-matrimony-suffers-slum p-report-shows Young males get married to prove they are responsible HETROSEXUALS. - Throw homosexuals in the mix and there is no reason for a young male to get married, it no longer establishes manhood. The damage has been done & there is no going back. - The only chance we have, and it is a very slim one, is to get the government out of the marriage business entirely. Annul the existing marriages & let us go to our attorneys & draw up contracts. (Message edited by 99Savage on December 14, 2011) | ||
| Guell |
Young males get married to prove they are responsible HETROSEXUALS what? ive known quiet a few people who got married because they wernt responsible. Wedlock sucks as far as i know. Although gays cant exactly get into that situation lol | ||
| Blake |
Not purple, You stated "Just because people are not the same does not mean that they are not or should not be treated equal." A vague statement, but now you say that "I've not said that it's the same but I said that they should be treated equal." If something is not equivalent, for from it, then why should it be treated as if it were? What non-emotional basis is there under law for doing so? Why do I oppose redefining the word marriage? 1. The union of a man and woman being the only union able to procreate is VERY special and unique in that it is gifted with the innate ability to join naturally and create new life; I thus feel that the very special, unique, and gifted union of man and women absolutely deserves recognition as such, thus it's own word to clearly and unmistakable identify it. Why is that a problem? 2. Our government in their constitutional duty to promote the general welfare for all Americans saw fit to offer support to married couples because they wanted to better enable the most successful and most common means of producing and raising future generations of successful Americans, through marriage and family. That remains the case today. That reasoning does not apply to homosexual couples. It fails both on promoting general the welfare and the core feature involved in that reasoning, raising children. While some homosexual couples may adopt and raise children, they are few and a tiny minority even among homosexual couples, thus a tiny minority of a tiny minority. So when it comes to promoting the general welfare, there is little justification for a blanket application of marriage status financial benefits to all homosexual couples. To do so would constitute an undue and unjust cost upon productive taxpayers with little to no benefit to the nation's general welfare. 3. Demographic data from some homo-marriage endorsing european nations shows that such a radical expansion of what constitutes marriage has diminished how folks in general value marriage, the inevitable consequence has been a significantly diminished prevalence of marriage among heterosexuals. 4. My preference is to err on the side of facts, reason, justice, and caution, versus blind emotion. What has caused the moral decay of our society over the past fifty years? I speak of divorce rate, drug abuse, unwed motherhood, inner city decay... A bunch of emotion-based, I'll-conceived and many unjust policies. I could be wrong that a redefinition of marriage to include homosexual unions will hasten the moral decay of our society. I'm not wrong about the points raised in paragraphs 1 and 2. If any of the points raised is valid, the issue ought cease to bother any of us. 5. I firmly support looking after the actual rights of all Americans. Redefining a word to suit the feelings of some is not a right. Forcing society to endorse that homosexual behavior is equal to and indistinguishable from the union of a man and woman is scandalous. It is nothing but a lie. Good policy is not based upon a falsehood; bad policy is. Justice is not based upon a lie, injustice is. 6. The prevalence of serious disease, drug abuse, depression, and suicide runs rampant among male homosexuals, FAR exceeding anything in the general population. It just isn't a lifestyle that ought to be endorsed by society as equivalent to normal behavior. So there are my reasons. What are your reasons for wanting to impose such a radical change upon society? | ||
| Blake |
Joe, Your brother's is a great case for homosexual marriage. Unfortunately it is not representative of the situation in general; it is atypical, unusual. We ought not base policy for radical change on the unusual, but rather the typical, the prevalent, the general case. I'd be firmly in favor of offering such responsible parents full SS death benefits if they agree to the increased tax rate as well. At least three of the homosexuals I know and call friend changed their preference, one even had normal marriage and a child. It's silly to claim that someone was homosexual from birth. From puberty might be believable. There just is no telling what causation might be in play during infancy and adolescence. It is certainly not the case that all fit the same mold. See bisexuals and prison homosexuals for example. None of that is pertinent to the legal case, only the emotional one. | ||
| Blake |
I don't think you folks who can't see a valid reason for society to promote and help support marriage have thought the issue through. No reason to promote responsible accountable behavior beneficial to the raising of successful children? No valid reason for us to do that? So then when dad dies at age 45, after mom's stayed home to raise the family, no transfer of Dad's SS benefits to the family? Or are you saying it should be done by some other means? I know, phase out the corrupted govt run SS scheme and let folks invest as they see fit, then the issue is dead. Family, friends, church, community ought be the ones helping to support mom and kids, not the fed govt, or should it. This one seems to fit the general welfare mandate, no? | ||
| Guell |
I know, phase out the corrupted govt run SS scheme and let folks invest as they see fit, then the issue is dead. Family, friends, church, community ought be the ones helping to support mom and kids, not the fed govt sounds like a wonderful idea to me | ||
| Griffmeister |
No matter what, marriage is the no.1 cause of divorce. In fact I think nearly 100% of divorced couples were married! | ||
| Notpurples2 |
You stated "Just because people are not the same does not mean that they are not or should not be treated equal." A vague statement, but now you say that "I've not said that it's the same but I said that they should be treated equal." If something is not equivalent, for from it, then why should it be treated as if it were? What non-emotional basis is there under law for doing so? Men and women are not the same but in the eyes of the law they are equal. We accept that we are equals but also understand there are differences. Gay relationships are different than straight relationships but they are no less equal. Why do I oppose redefining the word marriage? 1. The union of a man and woman being the only union able to procreate is VERY special and unique in that it is gifted with the innate ability to join naturally and create new life; I thus feel that the very special, unique, and gifted union of man and women absolutely deserves recognition as such, thus it's own word to clearly and unmistakable identify it. In the grand scheme of things a male and a female of a species procreating is not a special and unique thing. The male and female staying together as a pair to raise the child is more unique but not limited to humans. We seem to view marriage differently to a degree. I see it as the joining of two people's lives to create a family, even if the family is just those two people. You keep speaking of it as a way for a man and a woman to create a family by bringing new life. In a way that really seems to devalue those who by choice or not have childless marriages. This might not be what you intend but it's how you're coming across to me by stressing the importance of procreation. Why is that a problem? 2. Our government in their constitutional duty to promote the general welfare for all Americans saw fit to offer support to married couples because they wanted to better enable the most successful and most common means of producing and raising future generations of successful Americans, through marriage and family. That remains the case today. That reasoning does not apply to homosexual couples. It fails both on promoting general the welfare and the core feature involved in that reasoning, raising children. While some homosexual couples may adopt and raise children, they are few and a tiny minority even among homosexual couples, thus a tiny minority of a tiny minority. So when it comes to promoting the general welfare, there is little justification for a blanket application of marriage status financial benefits to all homosexual couples. To do so would constitute an undue and unjust cost upon productive taxpayers with little to no benefit to the nation's general welfare. First the welfare. I don't see how the aspects of welfare for gays would worsen if they are allowed to marry. For many many years homosexuality has been "underground." Gay men and women were discouraged from being open. They had to hide a big part of themselves. This encouraged bad behaviors and promiscuous, anonymous, and unsafe sex. Allowing and even encouraging gay couples to become monogamous and even marry should only help to discourage such bad behaviors. Second Children and Taxes: The minority of gay couples wanting to have children may be small but is that any reason to deny or restrict them from doing so as a married couple? Also, you've previously described the financial benefit of marriage as more of a burden or a tax? Which is it? If the majority of gay couples are going to be childless dual income families that are taxed at a higher rate than if they were filing single then wouldn't that generate revenue? Sure, some will be able to work the system to give themselves a tax break but heterosexual couples do that too. 3. Demographic data from some homo-marriage endorsing european nations shows that such a radical expansion of what constitutes marriage has diminished how folks in general value marriage, the inevitable consequence has been a significantly diminished prevalence of marriage among heterosexuals. I haven't seen those studies. If you could site them, I'd like to read them. I wonder how direct the decrease in marriage relates to the increase in gay marriage and were any other possible contributing factors mentioned? Also how does the marriage rate compare to other nations that do not allow gay marriage. Are they all holding steady or rising or are they also decreasing? 4. My preference is to err on the side of facts, reason, justice, and caution, versus blind emotion. What has caused the moral decay of our society over the past fifty years? I speak of divorce rate, drug abuse, unwed motherhood, inner city decay... A bunch of emotion-based, I'll-conceived and many unjust policies. What specific policies? How do they directly relate to this moral decay? I believe there's way more factors causing "moral decay" than any civil-rights policies from the past 50 years (I consider gay marriage/civil-union to be a civil rights issue... actually I think it would be more along the lines of a civil liberty, since marriage falls into that category.) I could be wrong that a redefinition of marriage to include homosexual unions will hasten the moral decay of our society. I'm not wrong about the points raised in paragraphs 1 and 2. If any of the points raised is valid, the issue ought cease to bother any of us. I think you're wrong that it will hasten "moral decay." I don't see how allowing a group of people to have a stable, productive, and legally binding form of relationship would cause moral decay. In fact I think it should discourage some of the stereotypical activity that you see as harmful. 5. I firmly support looking after the actual rights of all Americans. Redefining a word to suit the feelings of some is not a right. Forcing society to endorse that homosexual behavior is equal to and indistinguishable from the union of a man and woman is scandalous. It is nothing but a lie. Good policy is not based upon a falsehood; bad policy is. Justice is not based upon a lie, injustice is. I agreed that gay marriage is not the same as traditional marriage. But it's like a Granny Smith Apple is not the same as a Red Delicious. We're talking different types of apples, not apples and oranges. It is different because one is man woman the other is man-man and another is woman-woman. Even traditional marriages are all different in their own ways. Not all couples have kids, some have one, some have 19, some do it for love, some out of tradition, some for a green card. Yet they all get the same rights and privileges in the eyes of the law.... well the green card couples need to be careful. What makes man-woman > man-man or woman-woman if the only constant difference between their relationship is the combination of their genders. Each couple can have vastly different (or the exact same) sexual practices, personal relationships, child raising methods, ect. ect. The only thing that a gay couple can't do that a straight couple can do is have have penis-vagina intercourse with each other. With genetic research I betting that it won't be long before gay couples will also be able to have children that are biologically their own. (a genetic combination from a same-sex couple) 6. The prevalence of serious disease, drug abuse, depression, and suicide runs rampant among male homosexuals, FAR exceeding anything in the general population. It just isn't a lifestyle that ought to be endorsed by society as equivalent to normal behavior. Again I don't see how allowing marriage for gays would increase this. I really believe that it would only decrease all those things, not dramatically but slowly and surely as monogamy and marriage become more common and encouraged in the gay community. So there are my reasons. What are your reasons for wanting to impose such a radical change upon society? If you've read my responses than I've already answered this question. But basically I think that homosexuals deserve liberties just like everyone else, including the ability to marry whom they choose. Personally, I hope that they are able to compromise and get civil-unions legalized in all our states. I don't think you really have a problem with that as you've already said: If homosexual couples wish to legally contractually define their relationship to facilitate conveyance of property upon death, or to guarantee a right for hospital visitation, power of attorney, then I have zero objection. I'm pretty sure all that is already available to them. If creating a new one stop shop type of law will make all that easier and they want to call it a civil union, that's fine with me. I support it." But right now that's only possible in a few states. Most states won't allow it and up until recently some states even had sex laws that made homosexuality illegal (I had to check this because the laws are still on the books in some states but have been overruled by a supreme court decision in 2003) (Message edited by notpurples2 on December 15, 2011) | ||
| Pwnzor |
Sometimes I feel like...  | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Men and women are not the same but in the eyes of the law they are equal. We accept that we are equals but also understand there are differences. Gay relationships are different than straight relationships but they are no less equal. I agree, but the goal isn't to gain equal rights under the law but to gain broader acceptance of a lifestyle. Without the historical, cultural, and religious aspects added to the legal transaction, ALL marriages are civil unions. We call it marriage because that is what it was before there was any sort of government involvement. Marriage is a legal contract. In fact, as part of our wedding ceremony, my wife and I had our fathers to sign as witnesses on the marriage certificate instead of a ceremonial unity candle, unity rope, pouring of the sand, etc. Gay advocacy groups flatly rejected civil unions not because this designation failed to grant 100% of the rights and privileges granted to heterosexual couples but because this designation failed to provide the level of societal acceptance of lifestyle sought by these groups. I have no problems calling all joining, gay and straight, civil unions in the eyes of the government, but I do not recognize gay unions as marriage. The end goal is incorporation and reciprocation. The fight is in getting enough states to recognize "gay marriage". | ||
| 86129squids |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbqv3MwwVd8 | ||
| Notpurples2 |
Ft, I kinda feel the same way. I'd like to see civil-unions allowed nationwide. If the legalities are the same then the rest is semantics, you can leave that up to the state to decide if they should call it a marriage or just a union. That said I can understand the desire for the gay community to want their unions to be called marriages and to be accepted as such. I really wish they would just fight for legal civil-unions. No one's can to stop them from then having their own ceremonies, calling it a marriage. Then, to them and their family and friends, they're married and in the eyes of the law they're married in all but name. Personally, I'd respect them as being married, because to me it's the same thing. However, If you don't want to see it that way then that's fine. (Message edited by notpurples2 on December 15, 2011) | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
To me that is the ONLY common ground and the only way to put this issue to bed. Unfortunately, the gay activist agenda gets in the way of real progress. | ||
| Froggy |
Blake/Ft_bstrd, I just want to say thank you for your posts on the subject. I am pro-gay marriage, but at least you two give some valid reasons other than a book written a couple millenniums ago said so. Before to me it seemed like it was a no-brainer to allow it, but at least I understand the other side of the coin now, not that I agree with your thoughts. | ||
| Froggy |
I just want to point out that adoption by gay couples is not legal everywhere, and that would factor into the numbers. I haven't seen any statistics on what percentage of gay couples have kids, but I believe it is greater than you think. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Given the alternative of NO parents, a gay couple is better. That said, it isn't optimal. A mother and a father in a stable committed relationship is best. A gay couple is subordinate to this opportune, but WAY better than an orphanage. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
I wonder if 2 monkeys could raise a human child?? | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Yeah, but society tends to frown on people who crap in their hands and throw it. | ||
| Hootowl |
"I wonder if 2 monkeys could raise a human child??" Are you calling my wife a monkey?  | ||
| Blake |
Curtis, Your rebuttal to my point #1 (the vital and unique natural union of a man & woman deserves its own specific name, "marriage"): >>> Men and women are not the same but in the eyes of the law they are equal. That is false. One example is that women are prohibited from serving in a front line combat unit such as tank or infantry. Women are housed in separate barracks, they are not allowed to cohabit in mens' barracks. Woman are currently allowed by law to authorize the murder an unborn baby, the product of conception by both man and woman; men have no say in that. Additionally, we see fit to call the two different sexes by different names, yes? Why do we do that? So after reasoned logical scrutiny, your premise is shown false and it's features are seen to bolster the truth of my point #1. Thank you. I'll add that to my quiver of debate points. So why is it a problem to reserve a special word to describe the unique union of a man and woman? You didn't answer that question, "why is that a problem?" Your rebuttals to my point #2 (certain financial benefits are offered by our fed gov't to promote the general welfare of our nation (a constitutional mandate), namely to promote the best possible means for creating and raising future generations of successful Americans, a marriage of man and woman): >>> First the welfare. I don't see how the aspects of welfare for gays would worsen if they are allowed to marry. You misunderstand the meaning of "provide for the general welfare..." mandate of the constitution, or maybe I failed to communicate that that was what I was addressing. The constitution in calling for gov't to "promote... the general welfare..." is not talking about individual welfare of individual people or even individual groups of people, but of the welfare of society at large, in "general". It is talking about the general welfare of our nation in its entirety. Thus your 1st paragraph response to my point #2 does not apply. >>> Second Children and Taxes: The minority of gay couples wanting to have children may be small but is that any reason to deny or restrict them from doing so as a married couple? I'm not arguing to prevent homosexual couples from adopting children. Why do you insist on throwing up these straw men to muddy the issue. The point is that the vast majority do not, thus there is no compelling reason to award homosexual couples in general the financial benefits intended to help support families and their children. It's simple logic. When the proportion of homosexual couples raising children approaches some significant percentage, then it might make sense to consider it. Until then, it doesn't and would be counter-productive. Your rebuttals to my point #3 (Homosexual marriage harms the perceived value of heterosexual marriage and thus its prevalence): >>> I haven't seen those studies. If you could site them, I'd like to read them. I wonder how direct the decrease in marriage relates to the increase in gay marriage and were any other possible contributing factors mentioned? Also how does the marriage rate compare to other nations that do not allow gay marriage. Are they all holding steady or rising or are they also decreasing? The End of Marriage in Scandinavia There are other reasons for declining marriage rates to be sure. You ask some excellent questions. I don't have the answers, but the article above does good job discussing the issue. I'd add that in recent decades just the prevalence of the issue and having it blasted down our throats for so long is all part and parcel of the same effect as if/when it were actually made law. Your rebuttals to my point #4 (we ought to employ extreme caution given the possible negative effect upon society and given historical evidence showing the catastrophic effect of other such sweeping, emotion-based ill-conceived social change policy) >>> What specific policies? The New Deal and The Great Society. Social Security entitlements, medicare, medicaid, and welfare (since somewhat reformed, thankfully), open borders. That of a corrupt Supreme Court which in 1962 legislated God and prayer out of public schools based on nothing but their own personal opinions, not a single cited precedent. IN one fell swoop they negated almost 200 years of solid precedent and opposed the well and oft-stated intent of our nation's founders. Then again in 1973 (I think) with the wrongly decided Roe versus Wade (the justices themselves admitted years later after learning the truth about abortion and viability of unborn babies) >>> How do they directly relate to this moral decay? Gov't endorsing immorality and departure from values, principles and ethics. >>> I believe there's way more factors causing "moral decay" than any civil-rights policies from the past 50 years I didn't cite a single "civil rights" policy or legislation. >>> (I consider gay marriage/civil-union to be a civil rights issue... actually I think it would be more along the lines of a civil liberty, since marriage falls into that category.) Well, that is the crux of the entire disagreement, isn't it. You believe that any union ought to be recognized as a "marriage" equal in all respects to the union of a man and woman. Your reasons for this are emotional, based on feelings; they are not factual as you admit that no other union is the same as (equivalent to) that of a man and woman. Because of your sense and empathy that people's feelings are being hurt, you wish to force all of society to agree with you. I call that tyranny. It certainly isn't liberty for me or anyone else who doesn't care to have his/her hard earned income taken and distributed to the partners of deceased homosexuals in the form of Social Security death benefits. >>> I think you're wrong that it will hasten "moral decay." We disagree. But I view homosexual behavior as immoral, so that is not surprising. >>> I don't see how allowing a group of people to have a stable, productive, and legally binding form of relationship would cause moral decay. In fact I think it should discourage some of the stereotypical activity that you see as harmful. Right, similar logic was employed to convince people that giving poor folks free money wouldn't promote poverty. Your premise is deceitful in that I am not arguing, nor is my point, that homosexuals should be prevented from "having a stable, productive, and legally binding form of relationship". So again you've muddied the discussion with a straw man. It's frustrating. It seems as though you don't care to even try to really thoughtfully consider or comprehend what I write. Homosexual monogamy among homosexual men is something so incredibly rare as to be almost a foreign concept. This according to actual studies of the issue. Your rebuttal to my point #5 (redefining a word is not a right, the argument for redefining marriage is based on a lie): >>> I agreed that gay marriage is not the same as traditional marriage. Finally. >>> But it's like a Granny Smith Apple is not the same as a Red Delicious. We're talking different types of apples, not apples and oranges. I disagree. What your analogy applies to are inter-racial marriages, only superficial differences. That is not the case with homosexual compared to normal marriage. There are deep, profound, structural and productive differences between the two. To pretend those differences don't exist is the lie. You've been horribly misled Curtis. The onslaught of propaganda from popular culture has been predictably successful, but it is all based on lies. Please step back, educate and re-evaluate. >>> The only thing that a gay couple can't do that a straight couple can do is have have penis-vagina intercourse with each other. You are not being honest, and you are intentionally trying to belittle the amazing gift of what a union of man and woman can indeed offer, the creation of new human life. I guess some don't see that as any big deal. How unfortunate. When sodomizing men is held as equal in the eyes of society as the natural joining/sharing between man and woman, evil truly has conquered that society. Your rebuttal to my point #6 (the male homosexual population is rife with disease, drug abuse, depression, and suicide, FAR exceeding anything in the general population. It just isn't a lifestyle that ought to be endorsed by society as equivalent to normal behavior): >>> Again I don't see how allowing marriage for gays would increase this. <sigh> I didn't say that it would, so you've raised yet another straw man to muddy the discussion. What I said was that there is a clear and prevalent pattern of incredibly irresponsible, selfish and dangerous behavior among the male homosexual population. Given that, we ought not endorse such behavior by forcing society to view it as equal in all respect to that of the union of a man and woman. It isn't. You've been lied to. >>> I really believe that it would only decrease all those things, not dramatically but slowly and surely as monogamy and marriage become more common and encouraged in the gay community. What are you talking about, "encouraging" marriage in the homosexual community? Are you wanting the government to do that too? fact is that few of them marry anyway, see the Scandinavian report above. But I don't understand how you can base such a sweeping and radical societal change upon what you imagine or what you feel. Ought we not be informed by facts and by potential risks? It seems that proponents are all to willing to dismiss any concerns with nary a second thought. It's mind boggling to me. >>> But basically I think that homosexuals deserve liberties just like everyone else, Me too! >>> including the ability to marry whom they choose. Then you are not looking out for their liberties, rather you are aiming to require all of society to view homosexual unions as equal and indistinguishable from the union of a man and woman, which is a blatant lie. You are looking to redefine what it means to be married. If you had said that homosexuals ought to be free to engage in committed monogamous relationships with whomever they like, I would agree. >>> Personally, I hope that they are able to compromise and get civil-unions legalized in all our states. I don't think you really have a problem with that as you've already said: Unless they try to force me to help fund social security death benefits for the surviving partner of homosexual unions. I'll still disagree with the idea on moral grounds, but I'd not disagree on legal grounds. I'd have to see the actual legislation before I could agree with it. >>> But right now that's only possible in a few states. Most states won't allow it You've been lied to. There is not a state in the union that prohibits granting power of attorney, co-owner of estate, or naming beneficiaries, or willing property upon death to whomever one may like. What there may not be is a single convenient means to accomplish all the above. >>> and up until recently some states even had sex laws that made homosexuality illegal (I had to check this because the laws are still on the books in some states but have been overruled by a supreme court decision in 2003) Given the outrageous state of promiscuity and rampant disease among male's who engage in homosexual activity, it's surprising we don't see a resurgence in the prohibition of sodomy. The military still forbids it. We forbid a lot of behaviors for health reasons, bestiality for one. You can't poop on the sidewalk or even in your own yard; doing so is illegal as it presents a health risk to the community at large. Well, it's clear that sodomy among men does as well. I think it gets ignored because the health epidemic remains largely confined to the male homosexual population. I guess that may be a good case for ignoring it from a legal standpoint. It's a shame. Great conversation. Thanks for keeping it civil. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
"I wonder if 2 monkeys could raise a human child??" Of course, you didn't see Greystoke? you've never heard of Tarzan? Romulus & Remus the founders of Rome were raised by wolves, as the legend has it, but as that predates christianity by quite a number of years it can't be called immoral in christian terms. (Message edited by Mr_grumpy on December 15, 2011) | ||
| Notpurples2 |
That is false. One example is that women are prohibited from serving in a front line combat unit such as tank or infantry. Women are housed in separate barracks, they are not allowed to cohabit in mens' barracks. Woman are currently allowed by law to authorize the murder an unborn baby, the product of conception by both man and woman; men have no say in that. Additionally, we see fit to call the two different sexes by different names, yes? Why do we do that? Not false. You site military law. And many women want that right to fight on the front lines. What civilian laws are unequal between men and women? Also your point that men and women are housed in different barracks isn't an in equality. I would assume that the barracks are of equal quality. Women are allowed to authorize abortions for themselves, men are not. Are women allowed to authorize vasectomies? No. Those are personal rights effect each person's own body. Your arguments are not valid. If you read my arguments you know that I don't personally oppose calling gay marriage a civil-union. What I believe is that it should grant the same rights as marriage and thus be equal under law. | ||
| Blake |
Thanks Frank. I think what you are starting to realize is how badly our popular media and entertainment culture has lied to us all. They lie about and misrepresent their opponents beliefs and concerns, and they avoid telling the whole truth about the issue. I was shocked when I started looking into the hard facts. >>> I haven't seen any statistics on what percentage of gay couples have kids, but I believe it is greater than you think. According to the 2000 Census 92% of the estimated adult population of homosexuals and lesbians in the U.S. do not live with children. Of the 8% that do, many are from prior heterosexual relationships/marriages. Eight percent of 2.5% is 0.20% of the adult population in America. Yet this issue has been rammed down all our throats, lied about, mis-reported, and made a front page issue almost everywhere you look in popular culture. What ever happened to live and let live? I gotta ask my friends/neighbors what they think of the whole deal. They've been together for a long time now. | ||
| Notpurples2 |
You misunderstand the meaning of "provide for the general welfare..." mandate of the constitution, or maybe I failed to communicate that that was what I was addressing. The constitution in calling for gov't to "promote... the general welfare..." is not talking about individual welfare of individual people or even individual groups of people, but of the welfare of society at large, in "general". It is talking about the general welfare of our nation in its entirety. Thus your 1st paragraph response to my point #2 does not apply. My argument still stands; if the promotion of marriage in the gay community would decrease the activities you see as harmful then it promotes well-being of our society as a whole. If you simply see homosexually in itself as harmful to society (which it appears you do) then we just have to agree to disagree and there's no real reason for further discussion. | ||
| Notpurples2 |
I'm not arguing to prevent homosexual couples from adopting children. Why do you insist on throwing up these straw men to muddy the issue. The point is that the vast majority do not, thus there is no compelling reason to award homosexual couples in general the financial benefits intended to help support families and their children. It's simple logic. When the proportion of homosexual couples raising children approaches some significant percentage, then it might make sense to consider it. Until then, it doesn't and would be counter-productive. Correct me if I'm wrong but the vast majority of gay couples cannot under law adopt. Catch-22? | ||
| Hootowl |
"Not false. You site military law" The UCMJ does not prohibit women from service, and the only law the military owns. Look to congress for all others. | ||
| 86129squids |
Dang. "Given the alternative of NO parents, a gay couple is better." Thanks for sayin, Ft. For one thing, gays who commit to being parents are going to take their roles MUCH more seriously, given societal expectations of what a parent should be, whatever the flavor. The operative word there is "COMMIT". I just wish more XX/XY bumpin' uglies would work towards the positive. Doesn't always seem to be the case. Marriage. Civil unions. How can these constructs BENEFIT our society, and those who enter into them, leaving aside one's genitals and ancient dogma? As to the OP, I appreciate the way things played out for Romney and the fellas having breakfast. | ||
| Hootowl |
"Women are allowed to authorize abortions for themselves, men are not. Are women allowed to authorize vasectomies? No. Those are personal rights effect each person's own body." 1. Women are not aborting themselves. 2. When a man has a vasectomy, he is not killing another human being. 3. An abortion affects the woman's body, and one other. 4. The point, which you've clearly missed, is that both a man and a woman were involved in creating the life, but only the woman has a legal say in whether she hires someone to murder it. Hence, the man is treated differently under the law. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
If you read my arguments you know that I don't personally oppose calling gay marriage a civil-union. What I believe is that it should grant the same rights as marriage and thus be equal under law. I think we agree. I think that most of the complaint from Christians is the perceived tainting of a core institution. Were gay and lesbian groups pushing for civil unions on the basis of equality, I believe you'd find many faith groups if not allied in that pursuit at least much lest against them. I do not believe that homosexuality is the opportune way to live. Whether nature or nurture, it isn't the best possible way. Shacking up isn't either. Single mothers aren't. Orphans aren't. Neither are any of the other ways the people damage and impair themselves and others. I enjoy a good adult beverage. The bible doesn't expressly prohibit their consumption, but it does provide significant warnings as to its use. Not consuming alcohol is better than consuming them (if looking at the potential health and behavioral impacts), but I accept the trade off. Eating too much isn't the best way to live. Taking drugs isn't he best way to live. What is biblically outlined are optimums. Does God hate gays? No, not at all, but God does explain that sexual behaviors (immorality) are some of the most personally destructive because they are committed against one's self. If I steal, I have only stolen something. If I have gay sex and contract AIDS, I have given myself a death sentence. I view the religious and faith component of homosexuality differently than I do the civic and legal aspects. I believe gay couples should receive the same treatment under benefits and access as straight couples. I believe the gay lifestyle isn't the best way to live, but I don't want that lifestyle punished under our civil laws any more than I would want Christianity, or Judism, or straight marriage negatively impacted by civil laws. I believe this is the current trend under the "separation of Church and State". The laws, as applied, have greatly over reached. When the rights of individuals have been abridged simply because of where their paycheck comes from, the law has been over applied and has exceeded its mandate. |
