A serious request for information regarding gay relationships of any sort

[Clem is Me]

If you believe homosexuality is wrong, then you must believe it is harmful on some level. Therefore, it presents a threat to your family.

If I believe religeon is wrong can we get an amendment banning the religeous from being married?

 

[Clem is Me]

And marriage is not an issue of liberty! Civil unions cover the "liberty" aspect. Marriage is something totally different.

If that is true then no marriage should be recognised by our government. All men (persons) being equal, all persons deserve to have their marriage recognised by the government with all the rights and responsibities this includes.

 

[HouseApe]

By accepting homosexual unions as the equal of marriage, society further devalues the meaning of the term.

How so?

While not all marriages produce offspring -- and while homosexual couples may adopt or employ surrogate parents -- the purpose of marriage in all societies is to provide a continuity of culture from one generation to the next. As cited above, marriages are about blending families together, they are not exclusively about two people getting the warm fuzzies for one another.

And how would homosexual marriages not achieve the above stated goals?

Nothing works as well as a stable heterosexual marriage to provide stablity and continuity to a culture.

Have any support for this statement?

Look where gay marriage has been pushed and accepted abroad. Look at how crappy their overall standards of morality are. They're native populations are plummeting and their cultures are slowly being taken over by those who do not share their values, particularly the value of gay marriage.

Any support for this statement?

 

[stray bullet]

If I believe religeon is wrong can we get an amendment banning the religeous from being married?

Can we still have civil unions?

The fact is, civil unions answer the request by gay couples for rights. Marriage is simply an unnecessary addition which only attempts to make homosexuality look normal, acceptable.

I don't really have a problem with civil unions, but I don't see a reason for actual gay marriage. I feel favoring it would only put my future children at further risk of homosexuality really, as well as future generations in general.

 

[Clem is Me]

Can we still have civil unions?

The fact is, civil unions answer the request by gay couples for rights. Marriage is simply an unnecessary addition which only attempts to make homosexuality look normal, acceptable.

I don't really have a problem with civil unions, but I don't see a reason for actual gay marriage. I feel favoring it would only put my future children at further risk of homosexuality really, as well as future generations in general.

But, as we have seen, your discomfort about future generations does not constitute a threat, at least not according to the origional post, which I believe to be in line with the constitution. So the answer you have demonstrated to the origional post is "no". I appreciate your time.

 

[stray bullet]

But, as we have seen, your discomfort about future generations does not constitute a threat, at least not according to the origional post, which I believe to be in line with the constitution. So the answer you have demonstrated to the origional post is "no". I appreciate your time.

The Constitution is about rights. Gay marriage is not about rights. Gay marriage is about social acceptance. Therefore, the Constitution and the idea of American liberties are not applicable. The Constituion isn't about granting rights to group to make society think what they do is ok.

All favoring homosexual marriage would do is say, "It is ok", which many people aren't willing to do.

 

[Clem is Me]

The Constitution is about rights. Gay marriage is not about rights. Gay marriage is about social acceptance. Therefore, the Constitution and the idea of American liberties are not applicable. The Constituion isn't about granting rights to group to make society think what they do is ok.

All favoring homosexual marriage would do is say, "It is ok", which many people aren't willing to do.

Equality. Liberty. Freedom. You have heard of these things, right? If I have a right to claim a marriage, so does any other person who is my equal. If you want the government to cease to recognise marriage and instead recognise civil unions, that's cool with me. I will divorce my wife and get unioned ASAP, although we didn't have a religeous ceremony so perhaps the state will grant me a CU by default.

This thread is not about that, though. Thanks again.

 

[stray bullet]

Equality. Liberty. Freedom. You have heard of these things, right? If I have a right to claim a marriage, so does any other person who is my equal. If you want the government to cease to recognise marriage and instead recognise civil unions, that's cool with me. I will divorce my wife and get unioned ASAP, although we didn't have a religeous ceremony so perhaps the state will grant me a CU by default.

This thread is not about that, though. Thanks again.

Gays have a right to marry, just not members of the same sex.
Marriage isn't a ruleless 'right'- it is a right everyone has but includes specific rules. These include not having any other marriages, being the appropriate ages and not being of the same sex.

The government needs to recognize marriages in order to keep track of them. That is why we gave government that religious role in the first place.
Now gays want a part of it under the guise of 'rights'- ok, but we have defined marriage. The only reason to take that is simply to say their relationships are just a normal.

 

[Clem is Me]

Gays have a right to marry, just not members of the same sex.
Marriage isn't a ruleless 'right'- it is a right everyone has but includes specific rules. These include not having any other marriages, being the appropriate ages and not being of the same sex.

The government needs to recognize marriages in order to keep track of them. That is why we gave government that religious role in the first place.
Now gays want a part of it under the guise of 'rights'- ok, but we have defined marriage. The only reason to take that is simply to say their relationships are just a normal.

Yes yes, thank you.

 

[robot23]

While not all marriages produce offspring -- and while homosexual couples may adopt or employ surrogate parents -- the purpose of marriage in all societies is to provide a continuity of culture from one generation to the next. As cited above, marriages are about blending families together, they are not exclusively about two people getting the warm fuzzies for one another.

makes no sense as to why gay marriages are bad

 

[informedforGod]

Gays have a right to marry, just not members of the same sex.
Marriage isn't a ruleless 'right'- it is a right everyone has but includes specific rules. These include not having any other marriages, being the appropriate ages and not being of the same sex.

The government needs to recognize marriages in order to keep track of them. That is why we gave government that religious role in the first place.
Now gays want a part of it under the guise of 'rights'- ok, but we have defined marriage. The only reason to take that is simply to say their relationships are just a normal.

Considering that marriage is an institution spanning more than 3,000 yrs, being restricted to men and women the whole time, wouldn't the burden of proof here lie with those who are for gay marriage? Just a question.

 

[informedforGod]

whoops, sorry stray bullet, I did not mean to quote your post there, disregard the fact it is there. An accident. I'm addressing the general question at hand, not your specific comments. Once again, mistake, sorry.

 

[Clem is Me]

Considering that marriage is an institution spanning more than 3,000 yrs, being restricted to men and women the whole time, wouldn't the burden of proof here lie with those who are for gay marriage? Just a question.

Not when the default is liberty for all.

 

[stray bullet]

Not when the default is liberty for all.

What liberty does gay marriage provide that civil unions do not?

 

[Clem is Me]

What liberty does gay marriage provide that civil unions do not?

Look, SB, dude, I answered that a while ago. Thanks again.

 

[informedforGod]

Not when the default is liberty for all.

Liberty for all . . . a position of anarchy perhaps, are you suggesting liberty for rapists, child molesters, beastists, incest, murderers and racists. Or do I misunderstand you?

 

[Clem is Me]

Liberty for all . . . a position of anarchy perhaps, are you suggesting liberty for rapists, child molesters, beastists, incest, murderers and racists. Or do I misunderstand you?

You misunderstand me, very, very badly. Have you been reading this thread?

 

[Volos]

By accepting homosexual unions as the equal of marriage, society further devalues the meaning of the term.

One might note that the same was said of interracial marriage a generation ago. Yet strangely enough legal recognition of interracial marriage did not ‘devalue’ marriage at all.

It doesn't matter if heterosexuals are already doing damage to the institution; that's a separate issue that needs to be addressed elsewhere.

Clem asked specifically how legal recognition of same sex marriages would damage his marriage or harm his family. You have failed to provide a dingle example of just how Clem’s marriage/family would be harmed in any way. Please don’t try to misdirect the debate away from your failing.

Without a doubt gays and lesbians may form long lasting stable loving relationships; those relationships are not marriages.

Sorry our marriage are marriages and your choice to embrace personal prejudice and pretend otherwise does not change this.

Marriage is the bonding of a male and a female into a unique synthesis. You can't have steel without carbon and iron, you can't have marriage without a male and a female.

Once again you are claiming that marriage is and can only exist between one man and one woman. You have made this claim multiple times before in multiple forms, each time you have been asked to provide evidence for your claim but as of this time you have yet to do so.

While not all marriages produce offspring -- and while homosexual couples may adopt or employ surrogate parents -- the purpose of marriage in all societies is to provide a continuity of culture from one generation to the next. As cited above, marriages are about blending families together, they are not exclusively about two people getting the warm fuzzies for one another.

This is nothing same gendered married couples cannot accomplish.

Nothing works as well as a stable heterosexual marriage to provide stablity and continuity to a culture.

evidence?


In 2001 two researchers, Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, compiled the data form these varrioaus studies and then returned to the families that were origianly studied for follow up interviews.

“(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?” Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz The American Sociological Revie, April 2001.



They found that the various studies found “no differences on any measures between the heterosexual and homosexual parents regarding parenting styles, emotional adjustment, and sexual orientation of the child(ren)” parents or their children.”

And:



”studies find no significant differences between children of lesbian mothers and children
of heterosexual mothers in anxiety, depression, self-esteem, and numerous other measures of social and psychological adjustment. The roughly equivalent level of psychological well-being between the two groups holds true in studies that test children directly, rely on parents’ reports, and solicit evaluations from teachers. The few significant differences found actually tend to favor children with lesbian mothers Given some credible evidence that children with gay and lesbian parents, especially adolescent children, face homophobic teasing and ridicule that many find difficult to manage (Tasker and Golombok 1997; also see Bozett 1989:148; Mitchell 1998), the children in these studies seem to exhibit impressive psychological strength.”


The end result being thath studies have and continue to show thath childrenraised by same sex couples are happy and well adujusted and are not significanltly different from peers raised by oposite sex couples.

When marriage is devalued, families split up, children are raised without fathers, and very quickly crime rates, drug/alcohol abuse rates, illegitimacy and divorce rates begin rising, while the children receive poorer educations and are more emotionally vulnerable.

Which does not explain why you advocate discrimination against families, if you were truly concerned about this you would be advocating the stability and the legal protections that marriage provides for all people.

Adding gay marriage to this culture would only continue to devalue marriage as an institution.

evidence?

Again you make this claim…but you provide nothing to back it up.

It would further reduce the impression that marriage is something bigger than the two people involved and by extension make it less important in the eyes of succeeding generations.

Yet this is exactly what you are advocating. You are making the physical and spiritual bonding of two people bigger and exclusive to individuals you chose to accept while denying it to those you do not. By using marriage as a means of promoting discrimination you are the one diminishing it.


Look where gay marriage has been pushed and accepted abroad. Look at how crappy their overall standards of morality are. They're native populations are plummeting and their cultures are slowly being taken over by those who do not share their values, particularly the value of gay marriage.

As I've said before, if there were no other fronts in the cultural war, gay marriage would be a minor issue. But it's not the only leak in the canoe, so to speak. We've got lotsa problems that need attending to, and gay marriage is just a tiny little leak that we can close off quickly right now before it grows larger and not have to worry about again while we tend to other, more serious problems.

What can be more important than the fight against discrimination? The fight against hate and prejudice? The fight for equality and justice for all people? there is none more important.

Now, you (rhetorical) wanna talk about tax breaks and property rights for couples and households that aren't conventional marriages, nooooooo problem. Well be happy to discuss that and come up with something that will benefit all unmarried couples, not just the gay ones.

Not about unmarried couples. This is about the legal recognition of married couples.

 

[Volos]

The fact is, civil unions answer the request by gay couples for rights. Marriage is simply an unnecessary addition which only attempts to make homosexuality look normal, acceptable.

it is normal

I don't really have a problem with civil unions, but I don't see a reason for actual gay marriage. I feel favoring it would only put my future children at further risk of homosexuality really, as well as future generations in general.

Sexual orientation is not a risk, it is not a choice, choosing to live honestly and openly is a choice however and I think that his what you truly fear that if one of your children were homosexual that he/she would choose to be honest about it.

 

[Volos]

The Constitution is about rights. Gay marriage is not about rights. Gay marriage is about social acceptance. Therefore, the Constitution and the idea of American liberties are not applicable. The Constituion isn't about granting rights to group to make society think what they do is ok.

Quite wrong. Legal recognition of our marriages is all about civil rights. Having legal recognition of my marriage means civil rights social acceptance is independent of that. society either accepts us as is or it chooses to hate us for not pretending to be something we are not. Sexual orientation is not about any action or behavior anymore than race is about behaviors.

One would note that the constitution does provide civil rights and legal protections for behaviors specifically the behavior of religion.