Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
As for a better home, it's been proven that children do far better in a poor home with loving parents than a rich home adoption where such a child maybe considered a object of possession...
The raising of that child, one would think, is best served when the male and female aspects of behavior are part of the nurturing process of that child... This is not possible in a homosexual relationship; where either both act as one sex or where one is a mere characture of the other sex at best...
Adoption is a convention, ergo, it's also artificial. However, a child is the product of a natural process of a fertalized egg. The raising of that child, one would think, is best served when the male and female aspects of behavior are part of the nurturing process of that child... This is not possible in a homosexual relationship; where either both act as one sex or where one is a mere characture of the other sex at best...
I have to give the guy a ton of credit for putting his face on youtube and giving his feelings on the subject. I highly doubt any liberal here has the same amount of courage.
And before you say, sure I would say, I back homosexual unions. That doesn't take courage, especially when all your friends are agreeing with you. You'd get pats on the back.
This guy doesn't seem so stupid as to not realise every liberal on a highly liberal forum would attack his video.
So, make a video that you are for homosexual unions and put it on a forum that's very highly fundamentalist.
Then come back here and talk.
Even though this is not necessarily what people believe and this has not been voted on, they seek to allow gay marriage by the logic that procreation is not part of marriage...
Requisite is different that what I said. It is a shifting of language used to make a logical argument, but the logic shift is unnecessary. There is no reason to make marriage all about procreation to defeat logically the gay marriage argument.Legally and practically, procreation very clearly is not a requisite for marriage. What is there to "believe" or "vote on" about it?
Requisite is different that what I said. It is a shifting of language used to make a logical argument, but the logic shift is unnecessary. There is no reason to make marriage all about procreation to defeat logically the gay marriage argument.
The White House has recently released a statement stating that it believes we have marriage discrimination. According to a current lawsuit procreation isn't a part of marriage as far as they are concerned. Even though this is not necessarily what people believe and this has not been voted on, they seek to allow gay marriage by the logic that procreation is not part of marriage... Indeed, even among those who would not mind gay marriage being legal, this would not be considered true... and thus, it is unlikely that gay marriage activists would want an actual vote on their lawyer's 'conclusion.'
Marriage is a 'preferred state' for procreation. 'Open to life' is a preferred state for marriage. This still is pretty much true even though we have some cultural erosion, mostly on the degree of 'openness to life.'"Part" is a pretty ambiguous word.
Then again, since marriage is not required for procreation, and procreation is not required for marriage, in what sense can one argue from a legal standpoint that procreation is "part" of marriage? Both are circumstances that are often undertaken together with the same person, but there's nothing that legally binds one practice to the other.
Changing marriage to be just about love and community support is not really a good reflection of what marriage is in society or how its important and effective in society. If this was the case, gays would not be as interested. People love each other all the time, but it is only when sex is involved do people normally want to get married, and in the case of heterosexuals that normally involves at least some chance of pregnancy.Interesting. Though marriages are more about relationships than procreation.
Statistically yes - this is why the two frequently occur together. But, as I said, there is nothing that causes one to require the other. Therefore, how does this line of thought concern homosexuals who wish to marry?Marriage is a 'preferred state' for procreation. 'Open to life' is a preferred state for marriage. This still is pretty much true even though we have some cultural erosion, mostly on the degree of 'openness to life.'
You lost me. Are you saying we should use a double standard when discussing the possibility of children, or are you saying that no double standard exists?This is why it's necessary to use absolute terms like shifting the discussion to be around elderly or barren couples, but, again, there is no need to do so, in fact, I would say, doing so doesn't make sense either.
You are correct - hatred is not necessary. Mental gymnastics are all that is required to oppose gay marriage and support the current marriage model. Many people, unfortunately, hold just such a position.The point is that hatred for gays and illogical discrimination is not needed to reject the idea of gay marriage. Some people don't realize this and become ashamed as gay marriage activist present their case.
No gymnastics are required. Apparently, all I have to do is say I "you lost me." and I can assert that mental gymnastics are necessary to disagree with me.Statistically yes - this is why the two frequently occur together. But, as I said, there is nothing that causes one to require the other. Therefore, how does this line of thought concern homosexuals who wish to marry?
You lost me. Are you saying we should use a double standard when discussing the possibility of children, or are you saying that no double standard exists?
You are correct - hatred is not necessary. Mental gymnastics are all that is required to oppose gay marriage and support the current marriage model. Many people, unfortunately, hold just such a position.
That's a very naive point of view. There are plenty of valid heterosexual marriages world-wide where the couple either (a) cannot have children or (b) does not want children. Your entire argument is based on a false premise. Either that, or if you removed sex from marriage, heterosexual couples would not be as interested.Changing marriage to be just about love and community support is not really a good reflection of what marriage is in society or how its important and effective in society. If this was the case, gays would not be as interested. People love each other all the time, but it is only when sex is involved do people normally want to get married, and in the case of heterosexuals that normally involves at least some chance of pregnancy.
That isn't naive. That's the same old argument. You are playing, once again, the lowest common denominator argument for gay marriage. Your logic requires me to accept a lowest common denominator definition for marriage, even though many other definitions would fit marriage, including the one I've proposed.That's a very naive point of view. There are plenty of valid heterosexual marriages world-wide where the couple either (a) cannot have children or (b) does not want children. Your entire argument is based on a false premise. Either that, or if you removed sex from marriage, heterosexual couples would not be as interested.
On the "spiritual" level, marriage is nothing more than a commitment between two people. It's about love.
On the legal level, marriage is nothing more than a contract creating a union between two people. It's about community support.
Nowhere on a marriage license will you find the terms "sex" or "pregnancy." Nowhere in the standard wedding vows will you hear the word "children." So, since the purpose of marriage in our society is to legally bind two people who are in love, what possible argument against same-sex marriage could there be?
People love each other all the time, but it is only when sex is involved do people normally want to get married, and in the case of heterosexuals that normally involves at least some chance of pregnancy.
Changing marriage to be just about love and community support is not really a good reflection of what marriage is in society or how its important and effective in society. If this was the case, gays would not be as interested. People love each other all the time, but it is only when sex is involved do people normally want to get married, and in the case of heterosexuals that normally involves at least some chance of pregnancy.
You are using an argument similar to that used in the California decision, which used a least common denominator definition of marriage, but did not draw equivalence, instead, it used a protected class argument as reason to add people into the marriage system for their protection, because it would be good for them. This is a logic that I reject.I'm not sure what you mean. People constantly have sex with no thoughts of marriage. Always have. Always will. The reasons people marry are many and varied, but one of the most basic I think, is simply the hope to have a committed life partner, companion, and help-mate. And this can apply to both same and opposite sex couples.
Gays and lesbians have an issue with marriage because society gives certain privileges to legally recognized opposite-sex unions. And that the prevailing and ascendant reason why such privileges are denied to same-sex couples is because of an ancient tradition-bound taboo. Which is inconsistent with a society required to treat all persons equally under the law.
Further, it is not true it is simply a matter of tradition bound taboo, but is clearly about a basic public good.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?