West Point's Cadet Chapel hosts first same-sex wedding

[razeontherock]

So in your opinion, which would be better; a same-sex married couple in a stable and loving relationship who adopts, or a different-sex married couple that is two drug addicts?

False dilemma. It's more than hard enough to adopt in this Country. I don't see too many drug addicts able to do it.

How would you rank those situations in terms of suitability for the kids involved?

In the E & M folder, this might be a reasonable question, in a different thread. I can't call it relevant here though. Grasping for relevance, we live in an imperfect world, where pain is inescapable. Adding to that, is cruelty.

Such is the request for SSM

Besides even that, though, you've already brought up the idea that same-sex couples can't conceive. So they wouldn't have kids. Why would the detrimental effects on kids you say would be caused by non-traditional SSM couples have any bearing on their ability to get married?

Social impact. I truly don't think it would show up on paper in one generation. I don't see how you can say that the cultural norms you are raised with have no influence. They do, and this is well-documented. Further, it's not conclusive but seen as highly likely that this also affects sexual orientation.

It's appaaaaalllling to me that this doesn't dawn on you, and you need me to point it out [/Sam the Eagle, from the Muppet Show]

 

[Skaloop]

Ask why being the same sex stopped the first couple that tried from getting married

Outdated legal definitions of marriage.

 

[razeontherock]

I reject your classification of marriage.

Is this the whole issue?

I reject your classification of marriage.

No, I reject your classification of marriage.



The idea to do away with Gov't recognition of "marriage" altogether, and replace it with something else, (whether civil union or something else) seems to be borne of seeing this as an impasse.

 

[razeontherock]

And what do you think is their obviously nefarious goal? You right wing folks sure can come with some doozies when it comes conspiracies.

Strawman # 3,724 that I've seen on CF, today.

Now, I've asked a question, many times, and no one has answered it. Homosexuals could get legal protection of their tangible rights such as financial, property and visitation, with little resistance. That's not enough. Why not?

 

[GenetoJean]

Strawman # 3,724 that I've seen on CF, today.

Now, I've asked a question, many times, and no one has answered it. Homosexuals could get legal protection of their tangible rights such as financial, property and visitation, with little resistance. That's not enough. Why not?

They are fighting for equal rights.

 

[Skaloop]

False dilemma. It's more than hard enough to adopt in this Country. I don't see too many drug addicts able to do it.

I never said they adopted. I said the gay couple adopted. The drug addict couple is married with kids of their own. Which child would be in better shape?

In the E & M folder, this might be a reasonable question, in a different thread. I can't call it relevant here though. Grasping for relevance, we live in an imperfect world, where pain is inescapable. Adding to that, is cruelty.

Such is the request for SSM

Still, your argument is weakly against allowing same-sex couples to adopt, not against SSM.

Social impact. I truly don't think it would show up on paper in one generation. I don't see how you can say that the cultural norms you are raised with have no influence. They do, and this is well-documented. Further, it's not conclusive but seen as highly likely that this also affects sexual orientation.

It's appaaaaalllling to me that this doesn't dawn on you, and you need me to point it out [/Sam the Eagle, from the Muppet Show]

Of course cultural norms have influence. But how is a general societal acceptance of same-sex relationships and marriage going to affect cultural norms and the kids raised under those norms in a negative way?

There is absolutely no evidence that a broader acceptance of homosexuality has any bearing on sexual orientation. Greater freedom to express said orientation sure, but not on the prevalence of the orientation itself. Not that it would necessarily be a bad thing even if you were right and SSM would result in more gay people.

It's appalling to me that you have mentioned several times things like respect and tolerance for homosexuals but have shown nothing but disrespect and intolerance for them and their relationships and their desires.

 

[Skaloop]

Is this the whole issue?

I reject your classification of marriage.

No, I reject your classification of marriage.



The idea to do away with Gov't recognition of "marriage" altogether, and replace it with something else, (whether civil union or something else) seems to be borne of seeing this as an impasse.

Nope, I say government gets marriage, people like you who reject to having the same term as same-sex marriages can have uncivil unions. Same rights and stuff, but different name.

 

[razeontherock]

So you are willing to grant same-sex couples every single possible tangible right, advantage, and standing involved with marriage, but just not call it marriage?

YYyeeepp

Why are you now abandoning the children? If same-sex couples have all the tangible things in a civil union rather than a marriage, then they can adopt and raise kids.

The old settle-one-issue-and-raise-a-completely-different-one-trick! [/Maxwell Smart]

But your primary argument against same-sex marriage, is that it would be harmful to children! You've gone from protecting children to semantics as your basis for rejecting SSM.

Perhaps you don't recall, but in any of the multitudinous abortion threads we've participated in, I raise our problematic adoption system. Please notice this is a separate issue. Both are complex enough, and our communication is more than strained enough, to warrant not having all arguments at once.

Thank you

Children growing up in an environment where the working definition of "marriage" remains un-changed since the founding of the Country in no way transforms into the picture you're suddenly deciding you want to paint. Not unless you have a magic wand anyway; did you get that last Thursday?

It's even more ridiculous when you realize that you can't prevent people from calling their same-sex civil union a marriage. Couples who get a civil union are going to describe themselves as married. I and many others are going to describe them as married. The kids are going to hear them referred to as married. They're going to have all the tangible and legal rights of marriage, and it's going to be called marriage, so why get caught up in a word?

Gee you're right, I should buy a pick up truck and tie all the homosexuals I can to the bumper sos I can drag em thru the streeets. Hyuck hyuck

 

[razeontherock]

You Christians (and Catholics especially) can teach your kids whatever you want about homosexuality. Why should your objections to it influence secular law?

Too late.

You can now try to pretend that the 14th Amendment was written with this issue in mind. Heck, I expect some activist Judges will re-write history that way anyway.

 

[razeontherock]

the morality of ssm is not to be talked about here per management. Surely we can dicuss this without it being a moral issue

Laws are nothing other than legislated morality. Besides, I think it's the morality and/or practice of homosexuality that isn't to be promoted, per CF rules.

So the topic of legalizing SSM can't even be broached w/o raising the morality of it. Now you have the issue of teaching children that ethically speaking, Adam and Steve = Adam and Eve. Woe to the parents that do that! Y'all are really trying to bring God's Judgment down upon this formerly great Nation.

You really think you're going to quell that with a simple "nu-uh?"

 

[razeontherock]

I'm not mocking anything. Just wondering why you're so concerned about homosexual sin through some intangible way corrupting the children, but not about all the other sins parents commit.

Strawman #3,725

 

[Ringo84]

Ask why being the same sex stopped the first couple that tried from getting married

I'm asking you, since you're the one who claims that same-sex couples can't be married. What is your rationale?
Ringo

 

[razeontherock]

If you are concerned about children living in a hostile environment, then you should support efforts to address the hostile environment

Exactly! That is why SSN should NOT be normalized in this Nation. This is a secular reason.

 

[razeontherock]

But the world is your petri dish? It's not social engineering when social conservatives do it? Oh please...

You are the one trying to destroy the basis of this society since it's inception, not me

 

[razeontherock]

I would believe that they were concerned about children living in broken homes if they showed interest in addressing the problem: broken homes. Instead they pretend that the problem is homosexuality.

I know. Its pretty transparent, right?

Nope. Still have it wrong. By now, that must be on purpose

 

[Ringo84]

You are the one trying to destroy the basis of this society since it's inception, not me

...OK. And same-sex marriage destroys the "basis of society" how, exactly?
Ringo

 

[razeontherock]

Millions of Americans got and get married without entering into a covenant with God, so no, that's not what marriage is.

Not a single couple got married w/o it, whether they realize it or not. That's the beauty of a Sacrament! You are attempting to tamper with what you do not understand.

They can, sure. Why should they? Why do you value a word (a word that's changed definitions many time, a word that has a legal, secular meaning as relevant as its religious meaning) more than people?

Marriage has remain unchanged since the inception of this society. You fail to show otherwise

 

[razeontherock]

Outdated legal definitions of marriage.

You still are talking about re-defining marriage, while denying doing it. You should at least try to be sneaky about it

 

[razeontherock]

They are fighting for equal rights.

I attempted to verbalize that any rights within Gov't jurisdiction can become equal, with relatively little opposition. These would include financial, property, and visitation. And any other reasonable thing not discussed yet.

What is NOT under Gov't jurisdiction is people's views and attitudes, or their Covenant with God. There is obviously great resistance on these points, over something that the overwhelming majority of the US population feels strongly about. Gov't rights don't enter into any of those things.

I fail to understand why you don't take the ground you can, and call it a win? It looks like exceptionally poor strategy to me.

 

[Ringo84]

Again: marriage has been redefined many times throughout history:

http://ryanjmcginnis.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/biblical-image-of-marriage.jpg
Ringo