[aberdeenwriter]

I'm thinking of writing a piece on how Gay Marriage jeopardizes, threatens or weakens the institution of Traditional Marriage and I invite a cross section of opinions BUT ONLY IF YOU HAVE A REASON(S) for your opinion.

This requires some thought, ok?

For the record, I believe gays are born that way (who in their right MIND would CHOOSE an orientation which is so reviled?) and if God didn't want them to be gay, he wouldn't have made them so.

Also, I believe in time we will look back to our discrimination of Gays with the same kind of shame we now feel when we consider our nation's history of discrimination against: blacks, jews, women, Irish, Japanese, the physically/mentally challenged and etc.

One more thing...

I know the question will come up as to MY sexual orientation.

To that question I'll respond by saying: If the German gentiles had shown solidarity with their Jewish brothers and sisters and declared, "I AM A JEW," when they were being sent off to the ovens, the Holocaust couldn't have happened.

Er...well, at least not until the Nazi's checked the men for circumscision.

But you get my drift.

So please tell me, in your opinion:

"How does Gay Marriage threaten Traditional Marriage?"

[Spoogepieces]

Because gay marriage will always result in one step-parent and one genetically related parent? (assuming a child is involved)

Otherwise, if you consider couples with no children from marriage then there's no real difference.

I frankly don't care as it's a non-issue for me but if I had to pick an issue then perhaps that would be it. At least with a traditional marriage even if it ends in divorce the child still has a real mother and real father.

[Spliffdaddy]

To be fair - a child always has a real mother and a real father.

[Spoogepieces]

But not in a gay marriage. Either adoption is required or a surragate mother/sperm donor in order for two men or two women to "have" a child. In all cases is the child ever going to know who their real father or mother is? I think that's a terrible situation to put a child in frankly.

[spacefreak]

Studies overwhelmingly show that children raised in a traditional mother-father environment develop far less problems than those raised in non-traditional environments.

I support civil unions, but would prefer that the term marriage remain defined as it has been for centuries - a union between a man and a woman.

If it weren't about the children, we'd have no reason to do all these studies on divorce rates. Nobody would care how many adults are together or not if it weren't for the effect on child development.

It is in our nation's interest to promote marriage as a union between a man and a woman, because it is in our nation's best interest to promote (what statistics show is) the best possible child-raising environment.

[TeknoTurd]

^ what he said. Let them get the financial benefits from being recognized as a couple by the government, but don't throw innocent children into the mix.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Studies overwhelmingly show that children raised in a traditional mother-father environment develop far less problems than those raised in non-traditional environments.

links?

i've seen statistics (and know of real life situations) where things have worked out perfectly and with no "problems". also "non-traditional" doesn't necessarily mean "gay marriage" (i.e. single household) etc.

[Cody Dawg]

I think that the terms "marriage" and "union" should be utilized.

If gays want to have a legal "union" then that's fine.

But, leave the term "marriage" to two people of opposite genders, please.

Give both the people who want to have a "union" and a "marriage" (gays and heteros) the same rights.

Just don't offend the traditional folks by awarding the term "marriage" to gays.

That way the gays who want to have a legal bond/union will probably be a lot closer to success insofar as legitimizing their union.

After all, equal rights has been their platform for a while...not the actual label.

My humble opinion, that's all.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I support civil unions, but would prefer that the term marriage remain defined as it has been for centuries - a union between a man and a woman.

BUT, marriage has been defined for centuries as a religious concept. No government entity
came up with the idea; it IS a religious idea drawn primarily, in the Western World, from the
Christian Church. So, let marriages stay where they belong, under the purview of religious
organizations. The state can issue a civil union for EVERYONE and those that want a
marriage can go to their religion of choice and try and get one. If the religion they
practice won't provide them with a marriage license because they are in a same-sex union
they the couple has to decide whether or not they wish to continue practicing that faith.

[realitybath]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
BUT, marriage has been defined for centuries as a religious concept. No government entity
came up with the idea; it IS a religious idea drawn primarily, in the Western World, from the
Christian Church. So, let marriages stay where they belong, under the purview of religious
organizations. The state can issue a civil union for EVERYONE and those that want a
marriage can go to their religion of choice and try and get one. If the religion they
practice won't provide them with a marriage license because they are in a same-sex union
they the couple has to decide whether or not they wish to continue practicing that faith.

marriage predates organized religion.
mostly because monogamy predates even the human species, so you can be guaranteed that people were essentially getting married many thousands of years ago..
people have been practicing homosexuality since before christianity existed(or any other organized religion for that matter), with both positive and negative aspects.

If the your logic was followed through, you'd just get gay religions(segregation), and/or specific open policy religions (ie. some United Churches in Canada.

Not that i'm saying that's bad. Fine with me(second choice preferable). But hey, atheists need a choice too, and they ain't gonna start a church to create that choice!

I'm not gay(just as a reference for those who want to see 'where' my point of view is coming from).

and i agree with spacefreak, except for his first and last sentences.
I can see alot of situations where it would actually be preferrable to have a gay couple raising a kid rather than their real parents. (heres one: both parents are pedophilic crack addicts).
Also, it could alleviate orphan problems.

Finally, i see nothing wrong with, if it does come to pass, gay parents in general having to prove that it is a positive thing having them raise kids. Its obviously occured in the past, but if its to become a large and accepted part of society, i see no problem with having some sort of general (community-wide) test phase.
I'm sure the gay community would be able to throw their combined support into an initiative like that, which would probably increase its success rates.

The right would have a hard time with that though.

On the other hand, Socrates thought that nobody should know who their parents were, and that the familly unit should be dissolved.
He was pretty ugly though.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by realitybath:
Thoughtful post SNIPPED

Fair enough on the marriage pre-dating religion issue. Although "organized,
state-sanctioned marriage" IS a religious construct dating form the early Middle Ages.

My concern is still that some people seem to want the state to sanction
civil unions for same-sex couples and marriages for opposite-sex couples.
That draws my ire because it is the state saying to one group we want to
treat you differently than another group and that is not acceptable to me.
If the state is going to sanction the union of two people I want it to treat
those two people the same whether or not they are the same sex. So,
either everybody gets a marriage or everybody gets a civil union.
It doesn't matter to me.

[sambeau]

Two dads - two large incomes (often), a very tidy house, nice modern furniture, designer clothes from an early age, no doubt an unlimited supply of sexy female babysitters and two guys who can actually talk to your girlfriends.

What more could a young boy want..

(apart from a mother)

[realitybath]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
Fair enough on the marriage pre-dating religion issue. Although "organized,
state-sanctioned marriage" IS a religious construct dating form the early Middle Ages.

My concern is still that some people seem to want the state to sanction
civil unions for same-sex couples and marriages for opposite-sex couples.
That draws my ire because it is the state saying to one group we want to
treat you differently than another group and that is not acceptable to me.
If the state is going to sanction the union of two people I want it to treat
those two people the same whether or not they are the same sex. So,
either everybody gets a marriage or everybody gets a civil union.
It doesn't matter to me.

actually, i just realized i was wrong about something;
I don't think atheist would care about just having 'civil union' through the state. So, ya, since the rights would be the same, i guess my objection on that point was irrelevant.

[Spliffdaddy]

you make a good point, sambeau.

[Millennium]

It is not something I can in good conscience support or oppose. This is not to say I am emotionally neutral on the subject, but I do not feel I can take a stand either way without compromising not just my moral beliefs but my beliefs in terms of sociology. At the same time, I can provide no hard evidence of anything I say; I can only note historical trends, and that is not a valid basis on which to make laws.

I will only say this: when it comes to the idea of gay marriage and the weakening of traditional marriage, I do think there is a relationship between the two, but that the gay-marriage movement is a symptom, not a cause, of this weakening. Another such symptom -one which gay-marriage advocates love to trot out anyway- would be Britney Spears' infamous 50-hour fiasco. As such, there is no point in resisting gay marriage on a legal level: it won't solve anything. The actual cause of this trivialization -and I don't claim to know what that is- needs to be found and dealt with. Unfortunately, that seems to be an area nobody is willing to go. I suspect that whatever is found -assuming anyone ever seriously looks- it won't be pleasant.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I will only say this: when it comes to the idea of gay marriage and the weakening of traditional marriage, I do think there is a relationship between the two, but that the gay-marriage movement is a symptom, not a cause, of this weakening.

I don't understand the logic here. That gays and lesbians want so much to be married ought to be a reminder to straights that marriage is a precious and important thing, something not to be taken for granted, not to be taken lightly, and not to be abused. By reminding people of that, gay marriage will strengthen marriage. It's not a symptom of the weakening of marriage. It is part of the backlash against the weakening of marriage.

[ebuddy]

Well stated Simey!

[dcolton]

Originally posted by sambeau:
Two dads - two large incomes (often), a very tidy house, nice modern furniture, designer clothes from an early age, no doubt an unlimited supply of sexy female babysitters and two guys who can actually talk to your girlfriends.

What more could a young boy want..

(apart from a mother)

To be able to live a life without having to tell his schoolmates why he has two daddy's that sleep in the same bed.

To live a life where he is not exposed to sodomy as a normal sexual practice.

To have two parents that share his genes.

A nurturing mother to handle his emotional needs.

Normalcy

A life where 2 large incomes and neat stuff don't matter much because of the love between a man and a woman.

To be able to go to a PTA meeting without shame or embarassment. Or a baseball game. Or a footbnall game. Or a birthday party.

A life without classmates making fun of him.

A normal childhood

A chance to learn morality.

A chance to learn religion (not a watered down version of God changed specifically to justify sodomy).

A REAL family life.

The list goes on and on.

[realitybath]

Originally posted by dcolton:

A chance to learn religion (not a watered down version of God changed specifically to justify sodomy).

huh? i'm not religious, so maybe i'm wrong, but i thought jesus was a sodomite.

you know, that whole 'love your fellow man' sort of message.

although i guess jesus is only second in command.

[Cody Dawg]

To be able to live a life without having to tell his schoolmates why he has two daddy's that sleep in the same bed.

To live a life where he is not exposed to sodomy as a normal sexual practice.

To have two parents that share his genes.

A nurturing mother to handle his emotional needs.

Normalcy

A life where 2 large incomes and neat stuff don't matter much because of the love between a man and a woman.

To be able to go to a PTA meeting without shame or embarassment. Or a baseball game. Or a footbnall game. Or a birthday party.

A life without classmates making fun of him.

A normal childhood

A chance to learn morality.

A chance to learn religion (not a watered down version of God changed specifically to justify sodomy).

A REAL family life.

You've got some good points.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by realitybath:
huh? i'm not religious, so maybe i'm wrong, but i thought jesus was a sodomite.

you know, that whole 'love your fellow man' sort of message.

although i guess jesus is only second in command.

Jesus does love his fellow man. Can't you love someone and still condemn their actions?

[realitybath]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Jesus does love his fellow man. Can't you love someone and still condemn their actions?

Sure you can!
Doesn't mean your right though.

what happens if they condemn your condemnation?
How do things ever get solved between equals?

[Cody Dawg]

Jesus as a sodomite?

This thread is getting weird.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I don't understand the logic here. That gays and lesbians want so much to be married ought to be a reminder to straights that marriage is a precious and important thing, something not to be taken for granted, not to be taken lightly, and not to be abused. By reminding people of that, gay marriage will strengthen marriage. It's not a symptom of the weakening of marriage. It is part of the backlash against the weakening of marriage.

Drivel. You are in deep search for a positive outcome when it comes to gay marriage. Perhaps if you said the thought of gay marriage strengthens traditional marriages I would agree. But as soon as we cross that line of moral degradation and allow people to marry for tax breaks, we break the very essence of marriage.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I don't understand the logic here. That gays and lesbians want so much to be married ought to be a reminder to straights that marriage is a precious and important thing, something not to be taken for granted, not to be taken lightly, and not to be abused. By reminding people of that, gay marriage will strengthen marriage. It's not a symptom of the weakening of marriage. It is part of the backlash against the weakening of marriage.

I don't mean to speak for him, but what Millennium said and what you're saying aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. If the traditional ideal of marriage in the U.S. was "male and female virgins together for life," then gay marriage is certainly symptomatic of a liberalization of the concept. Other symptoms would be no-fault divorce, cohabitation, polygamy, premarital sex, etc. That doesn't mean that gays don't take marriage seriously, only that the culture in general has taken a more liberal approach to relationships and marriage. If it hadn't, even discussing gay marriage would be unthinkable. Only 20 years ago, mere heterosexual cohabitation was considered unthinkable in many parts of the country - my girlfriend's employer even had an official policy against it.

At the same time, I understand the argument that many gays want to strengthen, not weaken, the institution. Maybe the term "weaken" sounds more like a value judgment than "liberalization," in which case I understand your response.

I don't think gay marriage will have an effect either way. I expect that they'll marry and divorce at the same rates as everyone else.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I don't mean to speak for him, but what Millennium said and what you're saying aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. If the traditional ideal of marriage in the U.S. was "male and female virgins together for life," then gay marriage is certainly symptomatic of a liberalization of the concept. Other symptoms would be no-fault divorce, cohabitation, polygamy, premarital sex, etc. That doesn't mean that gays don't take marriage seriously, only that the culture in general has taken a more liberal approach to relationships and marriage. If it hadn't, even discussing gay marriage would be unthinkable. Only 20 years ago, mere heterosexual cohabitation was considered unthinkable in many parts of the country - my girlfriend's employer even had an official policy against it.

At the same time, I understand the argument that many gays want to strengthen, not weaken, the institution. Maybe the term "weaken" sounds more like a value judgment than "liberalization," in which case I understand your response.

I don't think gay marriage will have an effect either way. I expect that they'll marry and divorce at the same rates as everyone else.

I see what you are saying, but I would make an analogy that I think clarifies where I am coming from. At one time in our nation's history, the franchise was limited to male property owners over the age of 21. Gradually, the franchise has been extended to more and more Americans to the point where today it is something that any warm body with American citizenship and more than 18 birthdays gets. All the previous requirements have been abandoned, and as a consequence, the percentage of the population able to vote has gone up dramatically.

Arguably, widenening the scope of the franchise has reduced the prestige of being a franchise holder. It's just not that special any more to be able to vote. As a consequence, some voters take their ability to vote lightly. Of course, others do not.

But it can't really be argued that the impetus to broaden the franchise from white, male, property owners over the age of 21 is to weaken the franchise. The impetus was quite the opposite. The franchise has been made more valuable to society the wider it has been spread.

I see marriage in very much the same way. Anything can be made valuable by artificially restricting access. But the value to society is increased by more access to the institution. That is because marriages encourage stable relationships. It is in society's interests to promote stability as widely as possible.

As for the net effect on society, I think the effects will still be a net positive. Some gays will no doubt divorce. But some will remain married. Today, none can marry. Therefore, the number of married will go up.

At the same time, I expect to see a bit of a decline over time of sham heterosexual marriages of the McGreevey variety. I don't think that such sham marriages will be any loss. Homosexuals ought not to be tricking heterosexuals to marry them in order to try to fool society. It is unfair to themselves, their opposite sex spouses, and especially the children of such "beard" weddings. Moving away from that ugly tradition toward honest relationships would be another net positive.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I will only say this: when it comes to the idea of gay marriage and the weakening of traditional marriage, I do think there is a relationship between the two, but that the gay-marriage movement is a symptom, not a cause, of this weakening. Another such symptom -one which gay-marriage advocates love to trot out anyway- would be Britney Spears' infamous 50-hour fiasco. As such, there is no point in resisting gay marriage on a legal level: it won't solve anything. The actual cause of this trivialization -and I don't claim to know what that is- needs to be found and dealt with. Unfortunately, that seems to be an area nobody is willing to go. I suspect that whatever is found -assuming anyone ever seriously looks- it won't be pleasant.

I don't think there's any big mystery to it. The old model wasn't working, so it got changed in order to suit people's real lives instead of vice versa. Mobility, economic independence for women, longer lifespans, mechanization of the home, affluence, urbanization, etc., have all contributed.

I think one problem is that people worship an ideal that never really existed. The institution was more structured, but if it had worked as well as many seem to think, it wouldn't have changed.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I think one problem is that people worship an ideal that never really existed. The institution was more structured, but if it had worked as well as many seem to think, it wouldn't have changed.

exactly right. and the ideal we all "worship" isn't really that old either. just a couple of hundred years. up until then "marriage" was more of a "business deal" than anything else. especially for women it was no "walk in the park".

[daimoni]

.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by daimoni:
Not to take away from the handful of thoughtful posts already in this thread, but this topic has been hashed and rehashed ad nauseam and will only attract the same trolls and hate mongers bleating the same epithets over and over.

That said, there is a literal gold-mine of opinionated posts to be had... and all it takes is using the 'Search' feature. Seriously. Try it. You might be surprised.

The trolls and hate mongers are already here. Sad.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by dcolton:
To be able to live a life without having to tell his schoolmates why he has two daddy's that sleep in the same bed.

To live a life where he is not exposed to sodomy as a normal sexual practice.

To have two parents that share his genes.

A nurturing mother to handle his emotional needs.

Normalcy

A life where 2 large incomes and neat stuff don't matter much because of the love between a man and a woman.

To be able to go to a PTA meeting without shame or embarassment. Or a baseball game. Or a footbnall game. Or a birthday party.

A life without classmates making fun of him.

A normal childhood

A chance to learn morality.

A chance to learn religion (not a watered down version of God changed specifically to justify sodomy).

A REAL family life.

The list goes on and on.

What business is it of his schoolmates is he has two daddies sleeping in the same bed? You seem to be interested in it, but most people don't care.

Sodomy isn't practiced by heterosexuals? I think you know better, but you need something to prop your arguments up, so anything will do.

Children in divorced families often have parents who don't share their genes. Love is what counts. A child who is born of an alcolholic or drug crazed mother (and there are lots of them), needs love more than "sharing genes."

Nurturing and emotional bonding can be provided by two fathers or two mothers. Been proven.

Unfortunately for you, you don't get to define Normalcy. That's a useless term to begin with; what's normal to me is not necessarily normal to you, and vice versa. Straw man argument.

Income and neat stuff mean nothing, whether you're two men, two women, or a man/woman combination, unless there's love in the family. Straw man argument.

Going to birthday parties, etc. without shame and embarassment is easy. You're in charge of your emotions (well, some of us are); if you let yourself be embarrased, it's your fault, not somebody else's. Society is, despite your wishes, becoming more accepting of homosexuals. If someone doesn't like a homosexual at a PTA meeting, it's their own problem (and their own attendant issues that they should deal with). Straw man argument.

There will always be classmates who make fun of people because of their differences, whether it's red hair, big ears, glasses, shortness, tallness, obesity, whatever. The people who poke "fun" at others are the ones with issues. Straw man argument.

Once again, you can't define what a "normal" childhood is. We all have our own experiences.

Morality is a subjective issue. You can't define that either. Different cultures have different definitions of it.

Religion is a subjective issue. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of religions. You really have an issue with sodomy, don't you?

Two mommies, or two daddies, can provide just as REAL of a family life as two straight people, who wind up getting divorced 50% of the time. Stop believing the myth of the perfect family; it doesn't exist. Leave It To Beaver and Lassie were not reality programs.

I could go on and on and on (you know that) as well.

[dcolton]

We'll start off with your first, close minded and hateful comment:

The trolls and hate mongers are already here. Sad.

I didn't know disagreeing with the great Karl G equates to hate. Oh well...

Originally posted by KarlG:
What business is it of his schoolmates is he has two daddies sleeping in the same bed? You seem to be interested in it, but most people don't care.

I guess you were home schooled. Kids are mean and this is just one thing for other kids to take out on the son/ daughter of a same sex couple. Of course, the kid will probably be messed up already, so kids with traditional families picking on kids with same sex parents will be nothing more than an excuse to further push the gay agenda.

Sodomy isn't practiced by heterosexuals? I think you know better, but you need something to prop your arguments up, so anything will do.

Let's put it this way. Hetero couples can have a normal sexual relationship with the ability to pro-create a child that is of both parents. Gay couples can only have sex for pleasure...and that sends a message to children about casual sex.

Children in divorced families often have parents who don't share their genes. Love is what counts. A child who is born of an alcolholic or drug crazed mother (and there are lots of them), needs love more than "sharing genes."

Gays can't be alcoholics are drug fiends? Why are you trying to attribute all negative aspects to heteros while you hold gays up to the highest possible esteem?

Nurturing and emotional bonding can be provided by two fathers or two mothers. Been proven.

By whom? Last I noticed, there aren't too many gay couples with live in children. Yeah, a gay person can have a child then change teams, but the fact is that the children ususally live with the normal parent

Unfortunately for you, you don't get to define Normalcy. That's a useless term to begin with; what's normal to me is not necessarily normal to you, and vice versa. Straw man argument.

Normal is something 80% (more in this case) of the people practice. If 9 out of 10 people are hetero and 1 out of 10 is gay...which is normal?

Income and neat stuff mean nothing, whether you're two men, two women, or a man/woman combination, unless there's love in the family. Straw man argument.

I was simply replying to the posters comments.

Going to birthday parties, etc. without shame and embarassment is easy. You're in charge of your emotions (well, some of us are); if you let yourself be embarrased, it's your fault, not somebody else's. Society is, despite your wishes, becoming more accepting of homosexuals. If someone doesn't like a homosexual at a PTA meeting, it's their own problem (and their own attendant issues that they should deal with). Straw man argument.

Not at all. Who would want to raise their children in a hostile environment? Well, I guess we already know the answer to that since gays don't seem to care how their actions and agenda negatively affect those around them. It is called selfishness.

There will always be classmates who make fun of people because of their differences, whether it's red hair, big ears, glasses, shortness, tallness, obesity, whatever. The people who poke "fun" at others are the ones with issues. Straw man argument.

See above. It is called caring about your offspring. Of course, if gays have children, the child can only be the offspring to one parent. I guess it goes back to selfishness.

Once again, you can't define what a "normal" childhood is. We all have our own experiences.

Well, a normal childhood isn't trying to decide which daddy to call mommy or vice-versa.

Morality is a subjective issue. You can't define that either. Different cultures have different definitions of it.

Since the majority of American's are against gay marriage, I would say the morality issue is on my side.

Religion is a subjective issue. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of religions. You really have an issue with sodomy, don't you?

I have an issue with adults exposing sex to children...gay or str8. The case with gays, since there is no pro-creation, the idea of gay relationships can be seen as a relationship based solely on love (LMAO) or a relationship that is defined by sexual gratification where the only deterrent is disease, not childbirth.

Two mommies, or two daddies, can provide just as REAL of a family life as two straight people, who wind up getting divorced 50% of the time. Stop believing the myth of the perfect family; it doesn't exist. Leave It To Beaver and Lassie were not reality programs.

Once again, trying to justify gay marriage by attacking traditional marriage. Why?

I could go on and on and on (you know that) as well.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Gay couples can only have sex for pleasure...and that sends a message to children about casual sex.

OMFG!

i really can't believe all the comments you made. are you some kind of amish or quaker?

look, you've got a right to live your life the way you see fit, but please let the rest of us live ours in the 21st century, and not in the 16th.

thank you.

oh, and kudos to karl. he pretty much set things "straight".

[dcolton]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
OMFG!

i really can't believe all the comments you made. are you some kind of amish or quaker?

i really can't believe all the comments you made. are you some kind of homosexual, bisexual, satanist?

look, you've got a right to live your life the way you see fit, but please let the rest of us live ours in the 21st century, and not in the 16th.

As long as you don't force your skewed values on society, everything would be alright

thank you.

Thank you!

oh, and kudos to karl. he pretty much set things "straight".

Well, I don't think 'straight' would be the right choice of words!

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by dcolton:
i really can't believe all the comments you made. are you some kind of homosexual, bisexual, satanist?

yes, i'm a homsexual, pro-choice, anti-capitalist, sodomizing, pinko commie, big government, liberal democrat satanist.

oh, and, polly wanna cracker?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
yes, i'm a homsexual, pro-choice, anti-capitalist, sodomizing, pinko commie, big government, liberal democrat satanist.

oh, and, polly wanna cracker?

Aren't you supposed to be in school, or are you playing hookie? Neverless, as usual, you can't address the issues.

Polly want a cracker?

[OldManMac]

When people address the issues, you skirt around them, and never reply directly, except with more FUD.

Why are you so worried about what a tiny minority wants? If you really believe that a couple of percentage points of our enormous population is going to change everyone's sexual orientation, then you don't have a lot faith in people, and least of all, yourself.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Aren't you supposed to be in school, or are you playing hookie? Neverless, as usual, you can't address the issues.

"as usual"?

AS USUAL you just don't seem to be able to grasp the level of your backwardness and stupidity.

please, your stance on marriage and society is from 200 years ago. you need to get out a little bit more and come back to us when you've caught up.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by KarlG:
When people address the issues, you skirt around them, and never reply directly, except with more FUD.

What issues have I skirted. Seemed as if I answered each of your flawed points in my previous post(s)

Why are you so worried about what a tiny minority wants? If you really believe that a couple of percentage points of our enormous population is going to change everyone's sexual orientation, then you don't have a lot faith in people, and least of all, yourself. [/B]

You see, you lack the ability to pay attention you are so closed minded. I am not worried about a massive number of American's switching teams. I am worried about the overall morality of the US. I am worried about the effect of the Gay Agenda on American children.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Normal is something 80% (more in this case) of the people practice. If 9 out of 10 people are hetero and 1 out of 10 is gay...which is normal?

That's a terrible argument. There are many 'normal' things that people do which aren't commonplace (a.k.a. 8 out of 10 by his defintion). 6 out of 10 people are over-weight... if we can get that number up an additional 20%, will you consider that normal?

[RAILhead]

I think it's funny that someone asked everyone's opinion about gay marriage and then when someone gives it, everyone jumps on the person (no pun intended) because they don't like the answer.

My 2� is that there are FAAAAAAAAAAAAAR too many dadgum hot women in the world (and my wife is one of them -- you should see her legs ! w00t!) for a dude to be gay. Just too dadgum many. As for lesbians, I could understand that better simply because women, in general, are hot. Then, when you see a Real Life Lesbian� they look -- most of them -- like dudes. Something is obviously messed up.

That said, I don't think gays should be allowed to marry or get Govt benefits.

Maury

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Dakar:
That's a terrible argument. There are many 'normal' things that people do which aren't commonplace (a.k.a. 8 out of 10 by his defintion). 6 out of 10 people are over-weight... if we can get that number up an additional 20%, will you consider that normal?

Wow, someone actually arguing a point. But, yes, if 80% of the people were overweight...how would it not be normal and commonplace?

[Dakar]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Wow, someone actually arguing a point. But, yes, if 80% of the people were overweight...how would it not be normal and commonplace?

For the record commonplace does not equal normal. Unless by normal you don't mean 'good' or 'non-harmful'.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Dakar:
For the record commonplace does not equal normal. Unless by normal you don't mean 'good' or 'non-harmful'.

Normal being a term that does not refer to anything in a negative or positive light. Normal is normal. So yes, gays could argue that normal isn't necessary right...but in this case, since the majority of Americans are against gay marriage...I would say that homosexuality is not normal.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Normal being a term that does not refer to anything in a negative or positive light. Normal is normal. So yes, gays could argue that normal isn't necessary right...but in this case, since the majority of Americans are against gay marriage...I would say that homosexuality is not normal.

However by your logic, you're falling into the trap of tyranny of the majority. Look at past changes in our history and it automatically follows that several rights we value today weren't 'normal' at the time.

That is why I refuse to accept that point. There is too much room for error.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by dcolton:
What issues have I skirted. Seemed as if I answered each of your flawed points in my previous post(s)



You see, you lack the ability to pay attention you are so closed minded. I am not worried about a massive number of American's switching teams. I am worried about the overall morality of the US. I am worried about the effect of the Gay Agenda on American children.

You answered my points with FUD.

You just contradicted yourself, and proved my point. If you're worried about the overall morality of the U.S., then it's because you have a fear, which is baseless, of your supposed Gay Agenda having an effect. You can't have it both ways. Like I said, you obviously have little faith in your fellow citizens, if you think their morality is endangered by such a small fraction of the population. I'll bet you're a riot at parties; "Bob and Nancy, do you know that your morality is endangered because Ken and Bill moved in down the street? I mean, you'd better lock up your children, because they're out to sodomize them, and turn them into queers, and god knows what else! We have to stop them! I've prepared some petitions, and I need you to go house to house, and warn everybody what a danger these people are to our community! I mean, this is outrageous, and has to be stopped immediately. The entire nation's morality is at stake here!"

What a riot!

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Dakar:
However by your logic, you're falling into the trap of tyranny of the majority. Look at past changes in our history and it automatically follows that several rights we value today weren't 'normal' at the time.

That is why I refuse to accept that point. There is too much room for error.

You are confusing 'normal' with public opinion. I could respond a little better if you would give me a specific example.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by KarlG:
You answered my points with FUD.

You just contradicted yourself, and proved my point. If you're worried about the overall morality of the U.S., then it's because you have a fear, which is baseless, of your supposed Gay Agenda having an effect. You can't have it both ways. Like I said, you obviously have little faith in your fellow citizens, if you think their morality is endangered by such a small fraction of the population. I'll bet you're a riot at parties; "Bob and Nancy, do you know that your morality is endangered because Ken and Bill moved in down the street? I mean, you'd better lock up your children, because they're out to sodomize them, and turn them into queers, and god knows what else! We have to stop them! I've prepared some petitions, and I need you to go house to house, and warn everybody what a danger these people are to our community! I mean, this is outrageous, and has to be stopped immediately. The entire nation's morality is at stake here!"

What a riot!

I want an America where institutions like marriage are based on love...not lust. I want an America where marriage is not a way to gain special rights, but a declaration of undying love, an intent to procreate, and make the community better through good and common morals. I don't fear the gay couple moving into the neighborhood, I fear what the gay teacher is teaching our children. I fear what "will and grace' are teaching our children. I fear my children thinking it is normal to have sex with the same gender. I fear gays exposing that sex to my children on tv, cable, the movies and in public parks. In other words, I don't fear gays...I fear their agenda to denegrate American society by hijacking the constitution and forcing their lack of values on everyone.

[cpt kangarooski]

aberdeenwriter--

I'm thinking of writing a piece on how Gay Marriage jeopardizes, threatens or weakens the institution of Traditional Marriage and I invite a cross section of opinions BUT ONLY IF YOU HAVE A REASON(S) for your opinion.

I don't think that same sex marriages have any negative effects upon opposite sex marriages. The number of opposite sex marriages seems to be relatively likely to be unaffected, as the persons interested in same sex marriages were probably not going to pursue opposite sex marriages if that were the only game in town. The same holds true as to the people interested in opposite sex marriages. In fact, the only likely outcome is that more people get married. This might lead to more marriages rashly entered into that culminate in marital strife, or divorce, or whatnot, but I doubt that there would be a higher proportion of such bad outcomes -- just greater numbers comensurate to the greater number of people marrying.

I certainly do not believe for an instant that where same sex marriages are available that opposite sex persons who would be interested in marrying would refrain from doing so solely due to the availability of same sex marriages. Furthermore, even if there were anyone who would, I think that it would be their own problem, and not one that would be worth anyone else taking into consideration.

Spoogepieces--

In all cases is the child ever going to know who their real father or mother is? I think that's a terrible situation to put a child in frankly.

But same sex marriage likely has little to do with this. Adopted children will be in this same situation even if adopted by opposite sex parents (unless you advocate lying to the child about its biological parentage, which seems unlikely from your post), and I doubt that the availability of same sex marriage is really a factor in whether or not parents put their children up for adoption.

Likewise, it's possible for members of a same sex couple to have children (by adoption in some states, and by donor/surrogate/prior relationship means in AFAIK all states) even though the child is biologically only the child of one of the members. So I don't think that whether or not such couples can marry has any noticable impact either, other than at the most the couple having concern over the other parent not having parental rights at law.

spacefreak--

Studies overwhelmingly show that children raised in a traditional mother-father environment develop far less problems than those raised in non-traditional environments.

Well, if that's your basis for denying people the right to marry, why not deny it whenever any potential children they might raise would have a less than ideal environment? I suspect that all else being equal, children of wealthier parents do better than children of poor parents -- should we then refuse to let people marry unless their income is likely to remain over a certain threshold?

I think not. Particularly as it is perfectly possible to have children outside of marriage, and to marry without having children. They're not related.

If it weren't about the children, we'd have no reason to do all these studies on divorce rates. Nobody would care how many adults are together or not if it weren't for the effect on child development.

You want a bet? I think there's no end of busybodies that are against divorce regardless of any effect it might have, even if the effect were beneficial to children in a particular case.

It is in our nation's interest to promote marriage as a union between a man and a woman, because it is in our nation's best interest to promote (what statistics show is) the best possible child-raising environment.

No -- if it were our objective to provide the best possible child rearing environment, then we would not tie it to marriage, since that is not inevitably going to produce the result we want. We'd pursue child rearing regardless of the effect on marriage. E.g. people might be allowed to marry, but not be allowed to have children; other people might be allowed to have children, since they'd be good at it, and we wouldn't care if they got married or not.

Given that people have independent but fundamental rights to marry and to have children, I'd say that neither should be prohibited save in the comparatively rare cases where there are seriously compelling reasons to prohibit either. This is much more extreme than saying that they cannot provide the best environment; it would require proving that they almost certainly will provide the worst. There's a big difference between these.

Cody Dawg--

If gays want to have a legal "union" then that's fine.

But, leave the term "marriage" to two people of opposite genders, please.

Give both the people who want to have a "union" and a "marriage" (gays and heteros) the same rights.

So you advocate a regime of 'seperate but equal.' Do you have some basis for this, some examples of success stories of seperate but equal practices that have worked out well in the past? Myself, I think that it is not even possible to have things that are truly equal if they are separate, and all of our history seems to bear this out.

Just don't offend the traditional folks by awarding the term "marriage" to gays.

**** you. You have no right not to be offended. If you're that thin-skinned, it's your problem. I'm sure that there are plenty of bigots as to races, religions, genders, and so forth that don't like the fact that there isn't more discrimination against the group that they don't like. They should be ignored, because equal rights are more important than people being happy about it.

dcolton--

But as soon as we cross that line of moral degradation and allow people to marry for tax breaks, we break the very essence of marriage.

Marrying for a tax break is possible now. You would have to be a fool to think that there are no opposite sex sham marriages, not that I doubt your sincerity. Of course, such sham marriages are illegal now, and would of course be illegal under same sex regimes. Proving it can be a pain in the ass, but it's possible.

So I guess that as far as you're concerned, we crossed that line back in what, the 30's, when we started providing tax breaks for married couples at all. Or that as usual you managed to say nothing. Either works.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I want an America where institutions like marriage are based on love...not lust. I want an America where marriage is not a way to gain special rights, but a declaration of undying love, an intent to procreate, and make the community better through good and common morals. I don't fear the gay couple moving into the neighborhood, I fear what the gay teacher is teaching our children. I fear what "will and grace' are teaching our children. I fear my children thinking it is normal to have sex with the same gender. I fear gays exposing that sex to my children on tv, cable, the movies and in public parks. In other words, I don't fear gays...I fear their agenda to denegrate American society by hijacking the constitution and forcing their lack of values on everyone.

Maury