Prove my homosexuality harms you or your family

[Segep]

Go ahead, I dare ya.



I want you to illustrate in excruciating detail how my relationship with my partner and us raising a child together has directly harmed YOU or YOUR family. Moreover, I want you to prove how it would harm you if I were able to visit my partner in the hospital without bringing a lot of paperwork proving that we're a family, or if I and my son were able to easily get insurance coverage on my partner's health care plan, or if I were able to ensure that my son was able to stay with him if something should happen to me.



Since we lost all sight of the original topic in the "choice or genetic" thread and it has devolved into how gays are bringing about the destruction of society.



Prove it.

[Coyote]

*chirp* *chirp* *chirp*

[saggyjones]

I am 100% for gay marriage. I believe that gay people can raise kids just as well as straight people, but others may disagree, and that is the only logical argument I can think of. The reason I don't support polygamy is because I think it harms children. If I thought the same of gay marriage, I wouldn't support it either. I'm not defending people who don't want you to get married, I'm just clarifying the only rational argument they can possibly have.

[Segep]

I am 100% for gay marriage. I believe that gay people can raise kids just as well as straight people, but others may disagree, and that is the only logical argument I can think of. The reason I don't support polygamy is because I think it harms children. If I thought the same of gay marriage, I wouldn't support it either. I'm not defending people who don't want you to get married, I'm just clarifying the only rational argument they can possibly have.

Well, I'd like to see them prove that I have harmed my child or their child. If they can prove that--then and only then will I back down.



*chirp* *chirp* *chirp*



lol@Coyote

[Coyote]

You've frightened them off :(

[jb_1430]

Toy cap guns dont harm society, but thats not a reason to issue permits to carry the cap gun.
Strange logic, if it does not harm society, it should be licensed and regulated???

[jb_1430]

Revealing all this ranting about the issue and the rights denied your family, and yet your partner hasnt adopted your child????


Go ahead, I dare ya.

I want you to illustrate in excruciating detail how my relationship with my partner and us raising a child together has directly harmed YOU or YOUR family. Moreover, I want you to prove how it would harm you if I were able to visit my partner in the hospital without bringing a lot of paperwork proving that we're a family, or if I and my son were able to easily get insurance coverage on my partner's health care plan, or if I were able to ensure that my son was able to stay with him if something should happen to me.



Since we lost all sight of the original topic in the "choice or genetic" thread and it has devolved into how gays are bringing about the destruction of society.



Prove it.

[heyjude]

The objections people have about gay marriage are rediculous given the state of straight marriage. I charge them to fix themselves before they start harping on what they think might be wrong with someone else.

And the same is true of people who are gay, raising children. The record of straight childrearing sucks. The children that I see are rude, crude, violent, aggressive, arrogant, and foul mouthed. They use the f word before and after every word they speak. The boys dress like prisoners, and the girls, like cheap street walkers. The have the same moral proirities as any other animal in heat. Hi schools today have day care for the children of the school children.

What do you think gays could do to make it worse?

[Coyote]

Revealing all this ranting about the issue and the rights denied your family, and yet your partner hasnt adopted your child????

Why shouldn't Segep be able to visit his partner in the hospital without bringing a lot of paperwork proving that they're a family, or be able to easily get insurance coverage on his partner's health care plan, or ensure that his son was able to stay with his partner if something should happen him?

All these rights are automatically given to married heterosexual couples.

Why should homosexual couples be discriminated against?

[heyjude]

Because Christians are engaging in religio-fascism. They are going to force their beliefs down all Americans throats if it kills us all.

[Segep]

Toy cap guns dont harm society, but thats not a reason to issue permits to carry the cap gun.
Strange logic, if it does not harm society, it should be licensed and regulated???

Toy cap guns? That's really the best you can do?

So you admit it does no harm. Why all the fuss, then? What have you possibly got to gain by subjecting my family to second class status?

I think I intimidate you. I think you're afraid of being recruited. Isn't that, after all, why you argue so vehemently against gay marriage?

[Segep]

Revealing all this ranting about the issue and the rights denied your family, and yet your partner hasnt adopted your child????

The child's biological mother would not stand for that. It is she, after all, who has the most rights granted to her in this situation. My partner and I don't have any, remember? After all, we're not a real family....

As I write this she has withdrawn her support for his choice in living arrangements and has forced him to move back with her and his abusive and meth-using stepfather (who once abandoned him at the age of 9 at 2:00 am in an inner city fast food restaurant while he went looking for his next fix--and thereafter forgot about him). Because the legal system shares your views I have no standing to challenge her in court. He has returned to her home against his wishes and better judgment. He leaves behind many friends and relatives who love him dearly and are devastated to see him forced to go.

But I'm sure you're glad of this. After all, he's with a real family now. And I know you have his best interests at heart, don't you?

[jb_1430]

Toy cap guns? That's really the best you can do?

So you admit it does no harm. Why all the fuss, then? What have you possibly got to gain by subjecting my family to second class status?

I think I intimidate you. I think you're afraid of being recruited. Isn't that, after all, why you argue so vehemently against gay marriage?


???? I pity you pathetic little worm.

[jb_1430]

The child's biological mother would not stand for that. It is she, after all, who has the most rights granted to her in this situation. My partner and I don't have any, remember? After all, we're not a real family....



Sooo your partner is in the same position regarding the child, that she would be if she were a man and you were married. Making your arguements based on the family meaningless.

[jb_1430]

Same reason my girlfriend wouldnt be able to visit me, STUPID HOSPITAL RULES


Why shouldn't Segep be able to visit his partner in the hospital without bringing a lot of paperwork proving that they're a family, or be able to easily get insurance coverage on his partner's health care plan, or ensure that his son was able to stay with his partner if something should happen him?

All these rights are automatically given to married heterosexual couples.

Why should homosexual couples be discriminated against?

[Coyote]

Same reason my girlfriend wouldnt be able to visit me, STUPID HOSPITAL RULES

If she was married to you, she could. That's the whole point. Marriage.

[jb_1430]

or ensure that his son was able to stay with his partner if something should happen him?



A non issue. The father wont let her "partner" adopt HIS child.

[jb_1430]

Because the legal system shares your views I have no standing to challenge her in court. He has returned to her home against his wishes and better judgment. He leaves behind many friends and relatives who love him dearly and are devastated to see him forced to go.



Exact same position you would be in if you were married, soooo Im not sure of your point in relation to gay marriage.

[Segep]

???? I pity you pathetic little worm.

LOL

That's the first time you have directly insulted me.

I must have struck a nerve. :D

[jb_1430]

LOL

That's the first time you have directly insulted me.

I must have struck a nerve. :D

Just correcting a mis perception on your part.

[jb_1430]

A non issue. The father wont let her "partner" adopt HIS child.

"her" or is it HIS. Awe... its always tough to keep it straight. Can I just use the androgeneous term "it"?

[Segep]

"her" or is it HIS. Awe... its always tough to keep it straight.

You're telling me. ;)

Can I just use the androgeneous term "it"?

I'm not sure who you're referring to. If it's the boy's mother, you have my blessing to use any term you want. I'm sure I've used a lot worse myself. Anyway, if I've been a tad hostile, it's because I've been fighting a lot of bigotry and attitude coming from the stepfather (who likes to insult me in front of my son). I never, ever thought my ex-wife was the type of person who would buy into this garbage, but...what do you know. I was wrong.


So I guess you want clarification. np.

My ex-wife and I had a son together 15 years ago. He lived with me and my partner for the last year (after begging his mother for the last 7 years to be able to come live with me), but had to go back with his mother and stepfather a couple weeks ago. He is a very thoughtful and compassionate child and he doesn't have the heart to openly defy her wishes. He knows I understand.

[jb_1430]

My ex-wife and I had a son together 15 years ago.

Was that a conscious choice or some compulsion of biology or genetics?

[Coyote]

You're telling me. ;)



I'm not sure who you're referring to. If it's the boy's mother, you have my blessing to use any term you want. I'm sure I've used a lot worse myself. Anyway, if I've been a tad hostile, it's because I've been fighting a lot of bigotry and attitude coming from the stepfather (who likes to insult me in front of my son). I never, ever thought my ex-wife was the type of person who would buy into this garbage, but...what do you know. I was wrong.


So I guess you want clarification. np.

My ex-wife and I had a son together 15 years ago. He lived with me and my partner for the last year (after begging his mother for the last 7 years to be able to come live with me), but had to go back with his mother and stepfather a couple weeks ago. He is a very thoughtful and compassionate child and he doesn't have the heart to openly defy her wishes. He knows I understand.


That is sad :(

[Segep]

Was that a conscious choice or some compulsion of biology or genetics?

Both, though we were not trying specifically to have a child.


(here it comes, lol)


But wait. Let's not get our threads confused. If you want to argue about that one we have to return to the "choice or genetics" thread.

[vyo476]

Toy cap guns dont harm society, but thats not a reason to issue permits to carry the cap gun.
Strange logic, if it does not harm society, it should be licensed and regulated???

You have the right to carry a toy cap gun. There isn't any point in licensing it because it's already legal. You do not, presently, have the right to marry someone of the same gender.

[vyo476]

???? I pity you pathetic little worm.

Here it is, folks. This is the great jb_1430 for you. Take a good look and decide for yourself if he's unbiased enough to logically discuss homosexuality.

[heyjude]

He may have another problem that I have noticed amoung straight men. Women will go for almost any man. Old German saying: "There has never been a man so low, that a woman or a dog could not love him." Men on the other hand are pickier.

Although they deny it, a lot of straight guy seem to me, to be very afraid that another guy wouldn't have them on a bet. They are fat, have beer bellies, are bald, missing teeth, dress like slobs. Men may end up with that, but seldom start with it. Women do.

[jb_1430]

Both, though we were not trying specifically to have a child.

(here it comes, lol)

But wait. Let's not get our threads confused. If you want to argue about that one we have to return to the "choice or genetics" thread.

Well, I guess this isnt a gay marriage thread either but I would point out its a good demonstration of one of the purposes of marriage that was present in your hetero relationship and isnt present with your current relationship.
And ALL your complaints of disparate treatment are not arguements for gay marriage, they are arguements to change laws, Insurance policy, Employer policy, Hospital policy etc. The arguement that you should be able to visit your "partner" applies equally to my girlfriend and I, whether we are married or not, living together or not. Your arguements that you should be able to take advantage of his health benefits would aslo apply if you and an unmarried girlfriend were raising your son.
If two platonic roomates are in fact raising, supporting and parenting a child they should get ALL the same benefits rights and privilidges you insist that you should have. In fact I know a brother and sister that have lived under the same roof, raising her son for the last 12 years since her husband died.
B U T ! ! ! That doesnt mean I think governent should encourage, license and regulate roomates, or brothers and sisters getting together to raise babies. AND.... now Im sure you cant comprehend why anyone would NOT want to encourage gay lovers to hook up and raise some kids.. but I dont think government has any business doing so any more than with brothers and sisters or roomates. Kids raised by both their biological parents, that should be the goal, its a good thing and I dont have a problem with government encouraging it and regulating it. The way society is evolving, its going to happen less and less regardless, I dont think government needs to rush that process along. Gay sex is going to become more and more accepted and prevalent, I just dont think government needs to rush that process along. Pre marital sex, extra marital sex and sex completely outside of marriage are ALL becoming more prevalent. Call me old fashioned but I just dont think its within governments role to encourage license or regulate ANY of these things.

[Coyote]

And ALL your complaints of disparate treatment are not arguements for gay marriage, they are arguements to change laws, Insurance policy, Employer policy, Hospital policy etc. The arguement that you should be able to visit your "partner" applies equally to my girlfriend and I, whether we are married or not, living together or not. Your arguements that you should be able to take advantage of his health benefits would aslo apply if you and an unmarried girlfriend were raising your son.

Not really. In the case of you and your girlfriend, you can easily remedy the situation by marrying your partner. People like Segep cannot.

[jb_1430]

Here it is, folks. This is the great jb_1430 for you. Take a good look and decide for yourself if he's unbiased enough to logically discuss homosexuality.

????? I pity you as well pathetic little worm and I dont believe I even know what is your preference.

[jb_1430]

You have the right to carry a toy cap gun. There isn't any point in licensing it because it's already legal. You do not, presently, have the right to marry someone of the same gender.

Nonsense, gay people get married all the time. Even here deep in the heart of Texas. Its perfectly legal, just like a toy gun. Just no license. No need.

[jb_1430]

Not really. In the case of you and your girlfriend, you can easily remedy the situation by marrying your partner. People like Segep cannot.

??? So can Segap. I prefer not to be married. Segap prefers men. We could both choose to step out of our preference or not.

[Coyote]

??? So can Segap. I prefer not to be married. Segap prefers men. We could both choose to step out of our preference or not.


Segep can not marry his partner.

You can.

You have a choice. He does not.

[Mare Tranquillity]

???? I pity you pathetic little worm.

Spoken like a true follower of Christ!

[jb_1430]

Spoken like a true follower of Christ!

Not sure of your point as I am an atheist. Perhaps as a self absorbed homosexual you merely imagined that only a Christian would deny you and your "partner" wedded bliss?

[Segep]

Gay sex is going to become more and more accepted and prevalent, I just dont think government needs to rush that process along.

Sexual orientation is not a fad.

Pre marital sex, extra marital sex and sex completely outside of marriage are ALL becoming more prevalent.

No, they've always been there. Now people are just more open about it.


And you still haven't proven how my relationship has harmed you in any way.

[Segep]

Perhaps as a self absorbed homosexual you merely imagined that only a Christian would deny you and your "partner" wedded bliss?

LOL

Nice going. Just when I thought you couldn't possibly display more ignorance.

[jb_1430]

And you still haven't proven how my relationship has harmed you in any way.

???? I never said it has? You were whining about benefits.

[vyo476]

????? I pity you as well pathetic little worm and I dont believe I even know what is your preference.

I am a straight man who favors the equality of all, even those who are different from me.

Mark, I have a question. Thus far, you're primary argument has been that there is no good reason to allow homosexuals to marry, other than that they want to. If this is true - why do you care so much? Why not just let them do it?

[Segep]

???? I never said it has? You were whining about benefits.

Check the thread title. You're the one whining about government benefits like it harms you personally.

[jb_1430]

Check the thread title. You're the one whining about government benefits like it harms you personally.


eeehhh check your first post you opened the thread with.


Moreover, I want you to prove how it would harm you if I were able to visit my partner in the hospital without bringing a lot of paperwork proving that we're a family, or if I and my son were able to easily get insurance coverage on my partner's health care plan, or if I were able to ensure that my son was able to stay with him if something should happen to me.

[Segep]

eeehhh check your first post you opened the thread with.

Sure. Can do.

***

I want you to illustrate in excruciating detail how my relationship with my partner and us raising a child together has directly harmed YOU or YOUR family. Moreover, I want you to prove how it would harm you if I were able to visit my partner in the hospital without bringing a lot of paperwork proving that we're a family, or if I and my son were able to easily get insurance coverage on my partner's health care plan, or if I were able to ensure that my son was able to stay with him if something should happen to me.

***

Prove it.

OK, I checked it. I read it carefully. Did you?

???? I never said it has?

Then why the are you posting in my thread? If you can't prove I've harmed you, or how my having government recognition via marriage of my relationship with my partner (and the attendant benefits) would harm you, you have no purpose here other than take up space. Step up or step out.

[jb_1430]

Sure. Can do.



OK, I checked it. I read it carefully. Did you?



Then why the are you posting in my thread? If you can't prove I've harmed you, or how my having government recognition via marriage of my relationship with my partner (and the attendant benefits) would harm you, you have no purpose here other than take up space. Step up or step out.

I was responding to the 2/3rds of your post comitted to whining about benefits. And while you believe that government should license and regulate activities if it causes no harm to do so, I think government has to have a valid reason for doing so in the first place.

[Segep]

I will not respond to you in this thread until and unless you can prove some sort of harm.

[Mare Tranquillity]

I was responding to the 2/3rds of your post comitted to whining about benefits. And while you believe that government should license and regulate activities if it causes no harm to do so, I think government has to have a valid reason for doing so in the first place.

The whole idea behind the idea of freedom in America was to let people do what they wanted AS LONG AS NO HARM CAME TO OTHERS BECAUSE OF IT. We should continue that tradition by allowing all consenting adults to be full citizens and participate fully in the benefits, privileges, and responsibilities of marriage since there is no reason to exclude them. Except religious hate and bigotry, of course.:)

[jb_1430]

The whole idea behind the idea of freedom in America was to let people do what they wanted AS LONG AS NO HARM CAME TO OTHERS BECAUSE OF IT. We should continue that tradition by allowing all consenting adults to be full citizens and participate fully in the benefits, privileges, and responsibilities of marriage since there is no reason to exclude them. Except religious hate and bigotry, of course.:)

LOLOLOL!!! yeah, treat them as if they could actually procreate. By government mandate, elevate billy boning bobby in the but with that of procreation and the raising of children. Two reasons, religious hate AND biology. The difference that completely escapes all of you is that hetero sexual couples make babies, homosexual couples do not. My trusty Desert Eagle handgun is licensed and regulated because it can kill people. My toy cap gun is not, because it cannot. And EVEN THOUGH, there really wouldnt be any harm in issuing toy handgun, conceal and carry permits, there really wouldnt be any point. You know, other than making those who carry concealed toy handguns feel better about themselves.


SKINNER v. STATE OF OKL. EX REL. WILLIAMSON, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)

We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=316&invol=535


And since poor Mr Skinner was to have his balls cut off, I think we can conclude they were not concerned about any future potential mr Skinner might have to recieve his spouses social security benefits but instead procreation.
There is sufficient evidence to show that children who are raised by their biological parents do better than children who are not.
Show me ANY evidence that children who are raised by homosexual couples do better than children who are not and youll have an arguement.

[Segep]

After that last post, I changed my mind. I can't let a leap of logic like that go unchallenged.

LOLOLOL!!! yeah, treat them as if they could actually procreate.

*sigh*. You can't get it through your head, can you? You keep saying that procreation is the defining characteristic of a licensed, government institution called marriage. And again, I must ask you, what about sterile couples? Do they deserve to obtain marriage licenses, and if so, why? There is absolutely no possible way for them to procreate. Next, you say that sperm and eggs alone are enough. What if the woman has had her ovaries removed and has no eggs? Should she be denied a marriage license? Answer me.


By government mandate, elevate billy boning bobby in the but with that of procreation and the raising of children.

Why can't you discuss thing like a mature adult without throwing in the idiotic, juvenile commentary? No one takes you seriously at all when you do that.

The difference that completely escapes all of you is that hetero sexual couples make babies, homosexual couples do not. My trusty Desert Eagle handgun is licensed and regulated because it can kill people. My toy cap gun is not, because it cannot. And EVEN THOUGH, there really wouldnt be any harm in issuing toy handgun, conceal and carry permits, there really wouldnt be any point. You know, other than making those who carry concealed toy handguns feel better about themselves.

This is the thing I couldn't let pass. I am going to put this stupid "toy cap gun" theory of yours to rest once and for all.

Explain to me how a marriage between a man and a woman is harmful or lethal in any way. Yet they are regulated and licensed by the government. Are you telling me that if my 60 year old neighbors next door, both a man and a woman past their childbearing age, decide to get married that they could potentially harm or kill someone? Is that why the government has been regulating marriage all these years? Think about it. There is no relevance at all between real guns, toy guns, and marriage.

There is sufficient evidence to show that children who are raised by their biological parents do better than children who are not.

Then why haven't they outlawed divorce?

Show me ANY evidence that children who are raised by homosexual couples do better than children who are not and youll have an arguement.

Show me ANY evidence that children who are raised by homosexual couples do worse than children who are not and you'll have an argument. Otherwise you're just pissing in the wind.

[jb_1430]

After that last post, I changed my mind. I can't let a leap of logic like that go unchallenged.

*sigh*. You can't get it through your head, can you? You keep saying that procreation is the defining characteristic of a licensed, government institution called marriage. And again, I must ask you, what about sterile couples? Do they deserve to obtain marriage licenses, and if so, why? There is absolutely no possible way for them to procreate. Next, you say that sperm and eggs alone are enough. What if the woman has had her ovaries removed and has no eggs? Should she be denied a marriage license? Answer me.


Whats your point? And I never said procreation is the "defining charachteristic". It is the charachteristic of intimate sexual relationships between a man and a woman that is the purpose of licensing and regulating the relationship. And the fact that sterile couples are allowed to marry isnt an arguement that gay couples should.

[numinus]

Go ahead, I dare ya.



I want you to illustrate in excruciating detail how my relationship with my partner and us raising a child together has directly harmed YOU or YOUR family. Moreover, I want you to prove how it would harm you if I were able to visit my partner in the hospital without bringing a lot of paperwork proving that we're a family, or if I and my son were able to easily get insurance coverage on my partner's health care plan, or if I were able to ensure that my son was able to stay with him if something should happen to me.



Since we lost all sight of the original topic in the "choice or genetic" thread and it has devolved into how gays are bringing about the destruction of society.



Prove it.

No. It doesn't harm me one bit.

It is, from its very nature, your own private affair.

And for the same reason that the state cannot interfere in your own private affair, so can you not oblige the state to imbue it with legal impetus.

Capice?

[Segep]

No. It doesn't harm me one bit.

It is, from its very nature, your own private affair.

And for the same reason that the state cannot interfere in your own private affair, so can you not oblige the state to imbue it with legal impetus.

Capice?

Obviously you don't "capice", "Tony". You just said it doesn't harm you a bit and that it's my own private affair.

Then stay out of it, and stay out of this thread.

[jb_1430]

Obviously you don't "capice", "Tony". You just said it doesn't harm you a bit and that it's my own private affair.

Then stay out of it, and stay out of this thread.

???And yet you simultaneously demand that government to get into it.
Do you really think the institution of marriage that has evolved throughout history, did so out of concern that two people are stimulating each others genitals to the point of orgasm, and nothing to do with the fact that when a man and a woman rub theirs together, a baby might pop out 9 months later? And that therefore it should apply equally to gays? Nonsense. The marriage laws were written when there was no way to genetically verify who are the biological parents or any way to verify the fertility of a couple. Silly to think that because we now have the ability to screen out infertile couples, that we must.
Why should the law presume that if a lesbian bears a child, that her partner is the biological parent? Or if a gay man comes up with a baby biologically related to himself, why would we presume his gay lover is also the biological parent? WE DONT!! because in both cases there is the REAL biological parent to consider. Im just waiting for cases to occur in Mass., when a Lesbian, cheats on her wife and gets pregnant, and the laws going to presume that the woman cheated on, is the biological parent. Could make for some messy divorces. She could demand more of the marital property OR joint cutody of a kid that she has no biological connection to whatsoever. Imagine your situation Segap. If instead of a difficult ex wife who is biologically related to the child that you have to contend with in the raising of your child, it was instead your ex husband, totally unrelated to the child biologically, but with the same rights your current ex wife exercises.

[Segep]

Blah blah blah. All these "what if's". You still haven't proved that it hurts you in any way. Why all the mental masturbation?

[jb_1430]

Blah blah blah. All these "what if's". You still haven't proved that it hurts you in any way. Why all the mental masturbation?

I ask my questions to demonstrate thay you cannot answer.

[ilikeboobs]

I have 2 problems with homos pushing for marriage to be redefined:

1. For 2000+ years it's been between man and woman. Suddenly they think their ideas are better than the wisdom of all those years?

2. They're unwilling to extend those marriage rights to other groups - people that want to marry their pets, their kids, polygamists...how come HOMOS can have the rules changed to suit their needs but not anyone else?


More to your point, though...your homo union hurts me and my family because we have to see you holding hands and kissing and being a freak couple. That emotionally scars me and my kids. How's that for hurt. Don't think it's legit? Why are thousands of lawyers asking for damages for their clients WHICH ALMOST ALWAYS INCLUDE emotional distress?

Take that, homos.
:D

[Mare Tranquillity]

I have 2 problems with homos pushing for marriage to be redefined:

1. For 2000+ years it's been between man and woman. Suddenly they think their ideas are better than the wisdom of all those years?
I like it, you just used one of the most common arguments for the continued slavery of black people and the subjugation of women. Good job!

2. They're unwilling to extend those marriage rights to other groups - people that want to marry their pets, their kids, polygamists...how come HOMOS can have the rules changed to suit their needs but not anyone else?
Don't blame gay people for this, gay people didn't write the laws about marriage and define it as "consenting adults" only--you heterosexuals did that all on your own.

More to your point, though...your homo union hurts me and my family because we have to see you holding hands and kissing and being a freak couple. That emotionally scars me and my kids. How's that for hurt. Don't think it's legit? Why are thousands of lawyers asking for damages for their clients WHICH ALMOST ALWAYS INCLUDE emotional distress?Take that, homos.
Your argument is ridiculous but it's one I've heard many times. Did you know that it was used against crippled people? And against mentally ill people? And people with substandard mental development? It was also used to argue against black people being able to go to white schools, churches, and businesses. You really ought to read a little more history before getting on the discussion sites and using that kind of anachronistic nonsense. You haven't used any of the Nazi arguments yet though...

[Segep]

I ask my questions to demonstrate thay you cannot answer.

I think you ask them because you know you can't prove that it hurts you, and you're hoping I won't notice.

[Segep]

IMore to your point, though...your homo union hurts me and my family because we have to see you holding hands and kissing and being a freak couple. That emotionally scars me and my kids. How's that for hurt. Don't think it's legit? Why are thousands of lawyers asking for damages for their clients WHICH ALMOST ALWAYS INCLUDE emotional distress?

Take that, homos.
:D

Well hearing his dad called a homo, faggot or worse by the rest of society and his own family causes my son and I both emotional distress. Where's our damages?

[jb_1430]

I think you ask them because you know you can't prove that it hurts you, and you're hoping I won't notice.

Hurts me??? I never claimed you did. Im the one that feels pitty, not pain.

[9sublime]

I have 2 problems with homos pushing for marriage to be redefined:

1. For 2000+ years it's been between man and woman. Suddenly they think their ideas are better than the wisdom of all those years?




People thought the earth was flat for a long time. I guess that we should still believe that because the amount of time they believed in it is a clear indicator of the fact that they were right.



More to your point, though...your homo union hurts me and my family because we have to see you holding hands and kissing and being a freak couple. That emotionally scars me and my kids.



I could say the same for an ugly straight couple. I don't like seeing them kissing in the street, but I don't go away emotionally scarred and trying to ban the marriage of ugly people. Do you? Because by your logic you should...

[Segep]

Hurts me??? I never claimed you did. Im the one that feels pitty, not pain.

Don't bother feeling pity for me. I am the one who pities you for wasting all your time and bandwidth trying to argue a point that you clearly don't have.

[jb_1430]

Don't bother feeling pity for me. I am the one who pities you for wasting all your time and bandwidth trying to argue a point that you clearly don't have.

Ive made my points. I neither dispute the fact that you dudes who like to bugger each other in the but, doesnt really 'harm" me, or that it is your "own private affair." Neither are an arguement that it follows that we should license and regulate this but buggering.

[9sublime]

Lets resort to using a degarding name for their sexual practice to undermine their sexuality. Nice one.

[Coyote]

Lets resort to using a degarding name for their sexual practice to undermine their sexuality. Nice one.

You have to keep in mind the source from which it spews. I've no doubt he has his own inflatable boinking sheep.

[vyo476]

Ive made my points. I neither dispute the fact that you dudes who like to bugger each other in the but, doesnt really 'harm" me, or that it is your "own private affair." Neither are an arguement that it follows that we should license and regulate this but buggering.

Once again, assuming that marriage is all about sex. Sex, sex, sex.

Could it be that marriage is actually about joining two people who are in love to form a stronger partnership?

[top gun]

I'll jump in with this opinion.

First off... to me the word married only means two people who have chosen to be in a loving, monogamous relationship. If we want to put some kind of a "religious" meaning to it then the word marriage might also mean between a man and a woman.

But I'm not big on religious meanings dictating legal issues. So at the very least whatever it is called under the law... Civil Union... whatever, it should have the exact same legal standing as heterosexual marriage.

Then after the "Civil Union" ceremony the parties involved can call themselves married because the two definitions are interchangeable. Like buffalo & bison... same thing... different name.

[ilikeboobs]

Your question, to be honest, is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you gayness hurts anyone or not. This is a matter of societal norms. And this norm, that homos shouldn't marry, has been more of a civilizational norm for more than 2000 years.

That aside, there are many societal norms that some groups are never going to like. For example:

NAMBLA doesn't like that society frown on adults having sex with young boys.
Michael Vick's ilk doesn't like that society frown on dog fighting.
PETA doesn't like that society finds eating meat is no big deal.

The list goes on and on. None of the above "hurts" me in anyway. But even if something DID hurt me, it wouldn't matter. Society has spoken.

[ilikeboobs]

... butt buggering.


HA HA HAAAAA!
You're awesome. :p

[jb_1430]

Once again, assuming that marriage is all about sex. Sex, sex, sex.

Could it be that marriage is actually about joining two people who are in love to form a stronger partnership?

Soooo you think a husband is presumed by law to be the biological father of any children his wife bears because they "are in love"? Are marriages between close family relations forbidden by law because they cant love each other?
Without sex there would be no purpose for licensing and regulating.

[jb_1430]

For what purpose? ..... you know, other than helping gays feel a little better about themselves.


I'll jump in with this opinion.

First off... to me the word married only means two people who have chosen to be in a loving, monogamous relationship. If we want to put some kind of a "religious" meaning to it then the word marriage might also mean between a man and a woman.

But I'm not big on religious meanings dictating legal issues. So at the very least whatever it is called under the law... Civil Union... whatever, it should have the exact same legal standing as heterosexual marriage.

Then after the "Civil Union" ceremony the parties involved can call themselves married because the two definitions are interchangeable. Like buffalo & bison... same thing... different name.

[9sublime]

Your question, to be honest, is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you gayness hurts anyone or not. This is a matter of societal norms. And this norm, that homos shouldn't marry, has been more of a civilizational norm for more than 2000 years.

That aside, there are many societal norms that some groups are never going to like. For example:

NAMBLA doesn't like that society frown on adults having sex with young boys.
Michael Vick's ilk doesn't like that society frown on dog fighting.
PETA doesn't like that society finds eating meat is no big deal.

The list goes on and on. None of the above "hurts" me in anyway. But even if something DID hurt me, it wouldn't matter. Society has spoken.

Society spoke. They said the Earth was flat. They were wrong. Things changed.

Doctors used to vote on what they thought was the problem with a patient etc. hundreds of years ago, and the winning vote won, regardless of wether they knew it to be true or not

We need conservatives in this world, but we dont need ones like you whos reasoning is unbelievably backward, or without progression at best.

Gay marriage is a matter of opinion on top of that, so what society said is not even fact or solid.

[jb_1430]

We need conservatives in this world, but we dont need ones like you whos reasoning is unbelievably backward, or without progression at best.



No matter how much "progression" our society goes through, gay couples will still not create their own children.

[9sublime]

That has nothing to do with marriage. You can marry and not have kids. I'm just asking what the problem is with them marrying.

[jb_1430]

That has nothing to do with marriage.

Well, it's obvious that you've convinced yourself of this.

[9sublime]

I'm saying that having kids has nothing to do with marriage. How about we ban infertile couples from getting married...

Face it, your a homophobe. Only Christians and Homophobes have a problem with gay marriage. Sure, I find gay sex pretty repulsive, and I cant say I enjoy watching two men kissing, but at the same time, who am I to judge them on their sexual prefernce and who am I to stop them from getting married?

You don't like them because they are different, and you are too insecure about them to let them get married because you somehow think that if they do marry then all of society is going to fall down.

What would you do if your best man friend turned around to you tomorrow and told you he was gay? Would you deny him the right to be with the one he loved, and complete that relationship by getting married to them? If thats what they want, who the bloody hell are you to tell them they cant get married.

[jb_1430]

That has nothing to do with marriage. You can marry and not have kids. I'm just asking what the problem is with them marrying.


Actually, procreation has everything to do with marriage. Youve simply convinced yourself otherwise. There is no "problem" with me marrying my dog. Thats not an arguement for the government to begin licensing such relationships.

[9sublime]

Why do people always drag up the issue of marrying their animals? I actually think you have convinced yourself that marriage involves creation of new life.

Marriage, to me, is between two humans, because a man is supposed to have equal rights to a woman, and to my knowledge a dog is not meant to have equal rights to a human. Thus, it is only fair that a man and man or woman and woman can do the same as a man and a woman.

And so, if procreation is the basis for marriage, according to your logic, infertile couples have no right to marriage.

You cannot find a problem with gay marriage, its just you think that you can get one up on gays if you can marry and they cant.

[jb_1430]

I'm saying that having kids has nothing to do with marriage. How about we ban infertile couples from getting married...


Actually, it has EVERYTHING to do with having kids. It is the purpose of the institution itself. Without procreation their would be no need for government licensing and regulation. And nobody is banning anybody from getting married. The government only licenses and regualtes heterosexual marriages.
I wouldnt have any opposition to not licensing marriages of infertile couples.
Although application of this restriction would likely be cumbersome and cost prohibitive. Probably discourage couples from getting married thus defeating the purpose of the laws. Given a choice I would advocate the more convienient method of offering licenses to all heterosexual couples. Encouraging them to marry because they could procreate.



Face it, your a homophobe. Only Christians and Homophobes have a problem with gay marriage.

LOLOL!! Face it, you have no arguement.

[vyo476]

Soooo you think a husband is presumed by law to be the biological father of any children his wife bears because they "are in love"?

How did you arrive at this? Adultery laws exist because husband and wife have legally pledged themselves to each other and violation of that contract is dishonest. Are you contending that adultery laws exist to make sure that all children borne by a married woman are biologically related to her husband?

In an ironic side note, your scenario is actually how the ancient Brits did it. Wives were shared amongst many men, but all children were considered to be the child of the husband.

Are marriages between close family relations forbidden by law because they cant love each other?

Incest has been taboo a lot longer than we've understood how it affects breeding. The ancient Romans had taboos against incestual relationships - I suppose that was on basis of the fact that they understood that such relationships would limit the gene pool?

Without sex there would be no purpose for licensing and regulating.

So sex is a requirement of marriage?

[vyo476]

jb, I wonder if you would care to refute some of the rebuttals at this site (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marint2.htm)? I would find it very illuminating if you'd give it a shot.

[jb_1430]

Why do people always drag up the issue of marrying their animals? I actually think you have convinced yourself that marriage involves creation of new life.


The institution of marriage, the cultural tradition, the religious institution and the legal, are ALL because of procreation. Government isnt involved in the first place because two people LUUUV each other, or because two people are stimulating each others genitals. Government is involved BECAUSE a hetero sexual couple stimulating each others genitals frequently creates a new life.


You cannot find a problem with gay marriage, its just you think that you can get one up on gays if you can marry and they cant.

????? I think maybe YOU are feeling one down on heterosexual couples because while they are considered by society as a whole to be at the very foundation of that society, endorsed by God and country, recognized by culture and the media for their worthy role in the continuation of the species, you are sometimes considered to just be a bunch a pervs gettin their rocks off, with as much benefit to society as me and my relationship with my left hand.
Like I said many times, other than helping gays feel a little better about themselves, I cant imagine what purpose the government would have in licensing and regulating such relationships.

[vyo476]

????? I think maybe YOU are feeling one down on heterosexual couples because while they are considered by society as a whole to be at the very foundation of that society, endorsed by God and country, recognized by culture and the media for their worthy role in the continuation of the species, you are sometimes considered to just be a bunch a pervs gettin their rocks off, with as much benefit to society as me and my relationship with my left hand.

Gee, I'm so glad my heterosexuality puts me at the foundation of a violent, hypocritical society.

What would an atheist care about being "endorsed by God"?

They're also recognized for breeding too much and creating a surplus of children who aren't cared for. Way to go, breeding heterosexuals!

Pervs gettin' their rocks off or legitimate citizens who are finally, after centuries of persecution, allowed to exist in a state that is natural for them? I think you know where I stand.

As for you and your left hand...well, I'm sure you're very happy together.

Like I said many times, other than helping gays feel a little better about themselves, I cant imagine what purpose the government would have in licensing and regulating such relationships.

And we've provided those reasons. If marriage is meant to encourage biological parents to raise their children, can't marriage be extended to encourage that those children are raised, period?

[jb_1430]

jb, I wonder if you would care to refute some of the rebuttals at this site (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marint2.htm)? I would find it very illuminating if you'd give it a shot.

Probably no more illuminating than all the other times Ive addressed the same arguements.
Just the first one.

1. Gays & lesbians make poor parents.

Ive never claimed any such thing. Weve been over this. Children who are raised by their biological parents do better than children who are not. Show me a study that says children raised by same sex couples do better than children who are not, and THEN you would have an arguement. Otherwise, your arguements would apply to ANY two people who might decide to raise a child. Why do we want to promote the raising of children by homosexual couples when there is no evidence whatsoever that there would be any advantage in doing so....you know, other than helping gays to feel a little better about themselves?

[vyo476]

Probably no more illuminating than all the other times Ive addressed the same arguements.
Just the first one.

1. Gays & lesbians make poor parents.

Ive never claimed any such thing. Weve been over this. Children who are raised by their biological parents do better than children who are not. Show me a study that says children raised by same sex couples do better than children who are not, and THEN you would have an arguement. Otherwise, your arguements would apply to ANY two people who might decide to raise a child. Why do we want to promote the raising of children by homosexual couples when there is no evidence whatsoever that there would be any advantage in doing so....you know, other than helping gays to feel a little better about themselves?

You've created a Straw Man. I never said children raised by same sex couples do better than children who are not. Perhaps you should have looked at number two on the site, "Children should be raised by their biological parents."

With a divorce rate approaching 50%, a large minority of children are parented by a genetically-unrelated adult at some time in their lives. This inevitably happens in the case of a step family. If the state is to deny gays and lesbians, on this basis, the right to marry the partner that they love and have made a commitment to, then the state should logically deny divorced persons with children the right to remarry the person that they love.

Child adoption is based on the belief that genetically-unrelated adults can love a child as their own, and do a good job raising the child. Millennia of experience has shown that this system works.

[jb_1430]

Could it be that marriage is actually about joining two people who are in love to form a stronger partnership?

Soooo you think a husband is presumed by law to be the biological father of any children his wife bears because they "are in love"? Are marriages between close family relations forbidden by law because they cant love each other?
Without sex there would be no purpose for licensing and regulating.


How did you arrive at this? Adultery laws exist because husband and wife have legally pledged themselves to each other and violation of that contract is dishonest. Are you contending that adultery laws exist to make sure that all children borne by a married woman are biologically related to her husband?


???? Who said anything about adultery laws? Husbands are presumed to be the biological father of their wives children because it is likely that they are. If a lesbian gets pregnant it wouldnt make much sense to presume her gay lover is the biological parent because not only is it not likely, it is impossible.

[9sublime]

The institution of marriage, the cultural tradition, the religious institution and the legal, are ALL because of procreation. Government isnt involved in the first place because two people LUUUV each other, or because two people are stimulating each others genitals. Government is involved BECAUSE a hetero sexual couple stimulating each others genitals frequently creates a new life.

What? You can have kids outside of marriage, and have no kids inside of marriage. Thus proving that not everybody regards marriage as the right to have kids.


????? I think maybe YOU are feeling one down on heterosexual couples because while they are considered by society as a whole to be at the very foundation of that society, endorsed by God and country, recognized by culture and the media for their worthy role in the continuation of the species, you are sometimes considered to just be a bunch a pervs gettin their rocks off, with as much benefit to society as me and my relationship with my left hand.
Like I said many times, other than helping gays feel a little better about themselves, I cant imagine what purpose the government would have in licensing and regulating such relationships.

You do understand I'm straight, not gay? Your stereotypical view of gay and straight people roles in society as perverts and good citizens respectivley just shows your pathetic view on the subject.

Yeah, maybe it is to make gays 'feel a little better', in a deeper sense than the way you put your sarcastic spin on it. It makes them feel equal, appreciated in society and that their relationship is complete and official.

You have still failed to show one single downside to society as a whole that gay marriage would bring that makes it worthy of not being legalized.

[vyo476]

???? Who said anything about adultery laws? Husbands are presumed to be the biological father of their wives children because it is likely that they are. If a lesbian gets pregnant it wouldnt make much sense to presume her gay lover is the biological parent because not only is it not likely, it is impossible.

You've gotten so wrapped up in promoting biological parentage that it's coloring every single point you make. The world's just that simple to you, isn't it?

All right. Let's go down the list.

First - No, two homosexuals cannot be the biological parents of a child. That doesn't mean they can't be the parents of a child. We have as much business encouraging adoption as we do encouraging the raising of a child by its biological parents.

Second - Yes, it is possible for at least one homosexual to be the biological parent of its child. Just ask Segep. Take a look at societal stats - there's a scary number of children being raised by only one parent these days. Many of them choose not to remarry; homosexuals do not have that choice.

Third - I thought you were bringing up adultery. Making sense of the post that I was responding to when I brought it up was rather difficult. Perhaps you can clarify what you meant by:

Soooo you think a husband is presumed by law to be the biological father of any children his wife bears because they "are in love"?

I was responding about adultery laws because, as I see it, a husband is presumed by law to be the biological father of any children his wife bears because if it were otherwise, she would have committed adultery.

[jb_1430]

You've created a Straw Man. I never said children raised by same sex couples do better than children who are not. "

I never claimed you did. I said-

Show me a study that says children raised by same sex couples do better than children who are not, and THEN you would have an arguement.

You have no arguement. That's why your running to a straw man.

[jb_1430]

You've gotten so wrapped up in promoting biological parentage that it's coloring every single point you make. The world's just that simple to you, isn't it?

All right. Let's go down the list.

First - No, two homosexuals cannot be the biological parents of a child. That doesn't mean they can't be the parents of a child. We have as much business encouraging adoption as we do encouraging the raising of a child by its biological parents.



Why dont you simply address my points you are responding to instead of the same old tired arguements.
AND just what makes you think two queers should recieve special treatment above any other two people who might raise a child? Children raised by biological parents do better than those who are not. Thus the promotion of that relationship. If you could show me evidence that children raised by gay couples do better than those who are not, LIKE with biological parents, then you would have an arguement. Two gays are no more beneficial to raising kids than ANY two people who might raise a child. And yet you want special treatment for NO REASON whatsoever. Government laws need to serve some purpose, have some rational relation to that purpose.

[jb_1430]

What? You can have kids outside of marriage, and have no kids inside of marriage. Thus proving that not everybody regards marriage as the right to have kids.


I made no statements as to how anybody regards marriage, let alone "everybody". But of course, thats why you go there.

[jb_1430]

You have still failed to show one single downside to society as a whole that gay marriage would bring that makes it worthy of not being legalized.


While you seem to think government should promote and regulate any activity where there is no downside in doing so, I think government needs to have some purpose in doing so in the first place. I just dont see ANY benefit to society whatsoever to be had by promoting licensing and regulating gay relationships.

[9sublime]

So your argument against gay marriage is that it has no upside, and because of that it should not be licensed and regulated? Its not that you have a problem with it, its that you cant find a problem with it?

So you're basically saying "I don't have a point against gay marriage, but I can't find any for it, so I'm against it being legalized."

Unbelivable.

Maybe it will make gay people feel happy and a bit more accepted as to who they are? Theres one upside. Helping another part of humanity.

[jb_1430]

So your argument against gay marriage is that it has no upside, and because of that it should not be licensed and regulated? Its not that you have a problem with it, its that you cant find a problem with it?

So you're basically saying "I don't have a point against gay marriage, but I can't find any for it, so I'm against it being legalized."

Unbelivable.



I find it unbelievable that you think promotion of homosexuality is a role of government. For no other reason than it would help homos to feel better about themselves.

[vyo476]

Why dont you simply address my points you are responding to instead of the same old tired arguements.
AND just what makes you think two queers should recieve special treatment above any other two people who might raise a child? Children raised by biological parents do better than those who are not. Thus the promotion of that relationship. If you could show me evidence that children raised by gay couples do better than those who are not, LIKE with biological parents, then you would have an arguement. Two gays are no more beneficial to raising kids than ANY two people who might raise a child. And yet you want special treatment for NO REASON whatsoever. Government laws need to serve some purpose, have some rational relation to that purpose.

The issue is not whether or not kids are raised "better" by their biological parents. The issue is whether they have parents at all. The divorce rate hovers around fifty percent - how many of the kids from those unions are being raised by both biological parents? As of 2001, there were 542,000 children in America living in foster care, and the problem isn't getting better. Of those 542,000 kids, only 9% were adopted. The rest stayed in the foster care system.

You can sit there and bleat all you like about how we have to protect marriage to encourage the creation of family units, but guess what? It's not working. We should be allowing homosexuals to marry - with those benefits they'd be encouraged to create families of their own, which would reduce the number of children who have to slog out the foster care system.

This isn't about whether homosexual or heterosexual families are better. It's about whether any family at all is better than none. It isn't as though homosexuals who marry will take children away from heterosexual parents. There is no supply and demand for babies - increasing the number of adopters will not increase the number of abandoned children.

You are the one who doesn't have an argument, jb. Instead of addressing the real world issue - that there are a lot of kids out there who aren't being raised by parents, and that your present definition of marriage isn't doing jack **** to encourage their biological parents to raise them - you keep throwing out this "it's better if the biological parents raise them" argument. That argument holds no water so long as biological parents aren't raising their own children under your system.

[9sublime]

I find it unbelievable that you think promotion of homosexuality is a role of government. For no other reason than it would help homos to feel better about themselves.

Legalizing something doesn't mean they are promoting it.

[jb_1430]

You can sit there and bleat all you like about how we have to protect marriage to encourage the creation of family units, but guess what? [B]It's not working.

Never said any such thing.... but then again, thats why you are going there.

[jb_1430]

Legalizing something doesn't mean they are promoting it.

There are no laws prohibiting gay marriage. No need to legalize it. Licensing and regulating is promoting.

[Segep]

There are no laws prohibiting gay marriage. No need to legalize it. Licensing and regulating is promoting.

Are you kidding me? What is the Defense of Marriage Act? A Chinese takeout menu?



OK, so let me summarize your points so far:

1. You can't prove or even suggest that gay marriage harms you or anyone else.
2. Homos make you feel uncomfortable.
3. You don't give a **** about anyone but yourself.
4. Therefore gays and their families and children can go to hell.


And you wonder why gays and lesbians are so hostile towards people like you.

[vyo476]

Never said any such thing.... but then again, thats why you are going there.

Mark, your whole argument has centered around your belief that marriage is meant to encourage heterosexuals to get together and have children.

[jb_1430]

Freakin brilliant reparte einstein. "Defense of marriage act". Why dont you read it sometime. And read up on the current state of affairs in Mass. You dont have the slightest idea as to what you are talking about.


Are you kidding me? What is the Defense of Marriage Act? A Chinese takeout menu?



OK, so let me summarize your points so far:

1. You can't prove or even suggest that gay marriage harms you or anyone else.
2. Homos make you feel uncomfortable.
3. You don't give a **** about anyone but yourself.
4. Therefore gays and their families and children can go to hell.


And you wonder why gays and lesbians are so hostile towards people like you.

[jb_1430]

Mark, your whole argument has centered around your belief that marriage is meant to encourage heterosexuals to get together and have children.

Noooo einstein, never said any such thing. Gov. encourages heterosexual couples who are getting together to do so within a marriage, BECAUSE they frequently produce children.
Do you even read what I write? Unable to comprehend? or just merely compelled to respond?

[numinus]

Obviously you don't "capice", "Tony". You just said it doesn't harm you a bit and that it's my own private affair.

Then stay out of it, and stay out of this thread.

At last, a sliver of light in that otherwise dark skull of yours!

And since it is your 'own private affair', why are you asking the government to legislate it, eh?

[Segep]

LMAO

numinus and jb_1430,

I can always tell when I'm getting to you guys. You can't prove a damned thing whatsoever so in desperation you try to insult me instead....

Keep it up, it makes my day! :D

[Coyote]

At last, a sliver of light in that otherwise dark skull of yours!

And since it is your 'own private affair', why are you asking the government to legislate it, eh?

They legislate your private affairs...

[vyo476]

Noooo einstein, never said any such thing. Gov. encourages heterosexual couples who are getting together to do so within a marriage, BECAUSE they frequently produce children.
Do you even read what I write? Unable to comprehend? or just merely compelled to respond?

Hmmmm. Looking back, I suppose that was a misinterpretation. Still, the original point stands. Either the government is encouraging heterosexuals to get together and have children or the government is encouraging heterosexuals to get together because they have children. Either way - it isn't working.

[numinus]

They legislate your private affairs...

They do??!!

I wonder how?

[9sublime]

I'm still waiting for someone to give me an actual reason for not legislating gay marriage and make a lot of people happy.

[numinus]

I'm still waiting for someone to give me an actual reason for not legislating gay marriage and make a lot of people happy.

It is not the business of the state to provide its individual citizens their happiness.

It is enough that the state guarantees your right to the pursuit of YOUR OWN happiness.

Capice?

[numinus]

LMAO

numinus and jb_1430,

I can always tell when I'm getting to you guys. You can't prove a damned thing whatsoever so in desperation you try to insult me instead....

Keep it up, it makes my day! :D

And what exactly have you proven, hmmm?

That gay men have a right to motherhood??

And you're giving mare and coyote congratulatory pats on the back for a well done debate, I suppose.

Unbelieveable!

[9sublime]

It is not the business of the state to provide its individual citizens their happiness.

Well, it kind of is, and regardless, its not individual happiness, its the entire gay community.

It is enough that the state guarantees your right to the pursuit of YOUR OWN happiness.

Capice?

I think its you who fails to 'capice', because by legalizing marriage they allow gays to pursue that happiness by getting married.

And you still haven't given a reason why gay marriage is a bad thing... Why does it bother you so much if the state legalizes and legislates it if its not a bad thing?

[jb_1430]

Well, it kind of is, and regardless, its not individual happiness, its the entire gay community.

I think its you who fails to 'capice', because by legalizing marriage they allow gays to pursue that happiness by getting married.

And you still haven't given a reason why gay marriage is a bad thing... Why does it bother you so much if the state legalizes and legislates it if its not a bad thing?

The raising of children by their biological parents is a GOOD THING, not merely not a bad thing. Validating your lifestyle so you can be happy, isnt the role of government.

[9sublime]

A generalization. What if their parents beat and abuse them? Just like not all biological parents are good parents, not all gay parents would be flagrant nudist child molesters.

[numinus]

Well, it kind of is, and regardless, its not individual happiness, its the entire gay community.

I suggest you avail yourself of some highschool civics classes because quite frankly, this statement demonstrates the height of absurdity.

I think its you who fails to 'capice', because by legalizing marriage they allow gays to pursue that happiness by getting married.

Legislated happiness?!

How wonderful! I can't wait what you'd come up with next!

And you still haven't given a reason why gay marriage is a bad thing... Why does it bother you so much if the state legalizes and legislates it if its not a bad thing?

Doesn't bother me one bit.

What bothers me is the clamor for a legislation that is irrelevant to the point of absurdity.

The law, in its majesty, simply doesn't suffer nonsense.

[vyo476]

The raising of children by their biological parents is a GOOD THING, not merely not a bad thing.

The raising of children by their biological parents is a good thing. Here's what follows.

1. The present legal definition of marriage is doing a **** job of convincing biological parents to raise their own children. Check.

2. The raising of children by adoptive parents rather than the foster care system is preferable. Check.

3. People, then, ought to be encouraged to get together and adopt children. Check.

Gay people ought to be allowed to marry, thereby creating a family structure that includes tax benefits, that would encourage them to start families of their own, for the sequential reasons enumerated above.

What negative affects would allowing homosexuals to marry have?

1. Allowing homosexuals to marry would in no way discourage heterosexuals from marrying.

2. Allowing homosexuals to marry would in no way discourage heterosexuals from raising their own children.

So...there are positive points to allowing homosexuals to marry. There are not negative points.

[jb_1430]

Your arguements would apply equally to any two people who choose to raise a child. Government promotes marriage because its good for children. You want the government to promote homosexual marriages because its good for homosexuals. i dont think children should be used as pawns so gay people can feel better about themselves.


The raising of children by their biological parents is a good thing. Here's what follows.

1. The present legal definition of marriage is doing a **** job of convincing biological parents to raise their own children. Check.

2. The raising of children by adoptive parents rather than the foster care system is preferable. Check.

3. People, then, ought to be encouraged to get together and adopt children. Check.

Gay people ought to be allowed to marry, thereby creating a family structure that includes tax benefits, that would encourage them to start families of their own, for the sequential reasons enumerated above.

What negative affects would allowing homosexuals to marry have?

1. Allowing homosexuals to marry would in no way discourage heterosexuals from marrying.

2. Allowing homosexuals to marry would in no way discourage heterosexuals from raising their own children.

So...there are positive points to allowing homosexuals to marry. There are not negative points.

[vyo476]

Your arguements would apply equally to any two people who choose to raise a child.

Yes, they do. Any two heterosexual people already can get married. Any two homosexual people can't. The arguments apply equally; the law doesn't.

Government promotes marriage because its good for children. You want the government to promote homosexual marriages because its good for homosexuals. i dont think children should be used as pawns so gay people can feel better about themselves.

Mark, I've shown the benefit to the children. Yes, it benefits homosexuals, but the bottom line here is that it benefits the kids too. If you want to remain blind to that, fine.

[jb_1430]

Yes, they do. Any two heterosexual people already can get married. Any two homosexual people can't. The arguments apply equally; the law doesn't.

Mark, I've shown the benefit to the children. Yes, it benefits homosexuals, but the bottom line here is that it benefits the kids too. If you want to remain blind to that, fine.

I personally know a father and daughter living together raising her child. A brother and sister doing the same since her husband died. All are heterosexual. Children raised by their biological parents do better than children who do not. YOU have shown NOTHING to indicate that this also is the case with homosexual couples.

[9sublime]

Children raised by their biological parents do better than children who do not.

This is a ridiculous statement! Do better at what? And do you even have any evidence or proof, or have you just convinced yourself of this and regarded it as truth?

[jb_1430]

This is a ridiculous statement! Do better at what? And do you even have any evidence or proof, or have you just convinced yourself of this and regarded it as truth?

Oh Im not going to chase down the links I have already provided. Just the first thing on google thats not from a Christian site(knowing that you wouldnt give any credibility because they are christian)



Children do best -- on nearly every measure -- when raised by their biological parents united to one another in an intact marriage....As a group, they enjoy better health, live longer, build more wealth, and suffer lower rates of illness, etc., than do otherwise similar single or divorced individuals.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/gay_marriage/q1.html


Ive also read of lower drop out rate, teen pregnancy, drug abuse and juvenile delinquency.
Revealing, that after all your advocacy for gay marriage, you dont even know what the evidence suggest regarding children and probably couldnt care less.

[vyo476]

I visited your link. Here's my refutation of what Mr. Sprigg had to say.

Marriage is the most important social act and involves much more than just the married couple. A new home is formed when a couple marries, are open to the creation of new life. Marriage also has beneficial social and health effects for adults and children, and these gifts benefit the community and the whole society.

I'd substitute "raising" of new life, but that's just me. Otherwise, yeah. I can go along with the rest of this.

Among marriage's benefits to society is an increased respect for and protection of human life, since married women are less likely to abort their children than are unmarried women.

This argument is predicated on the idea that abortion is murder. The last time I checked society hadn't come to an agreement on that yet.

Married-parent families contribute to safer and better communities with less substance abuse and crime among young people, as well as less poverty and welfare dependency.

I can't speak for poverty and welfare dependency, but having grown up in a suburban community, I'd say there's just as much crime - the criminals just don't get caught as often.

The legalization of homosexual civil "marriages" (which are intrinsically infertile) would extend and reinforce harmful social trends that have already divided sexual relations, childbearing, Mother with her childrenchildrearing, and marriage. The separation of sexual relations from marriage has led to an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases; the separation of childbearing from marriage has led to an explosion of out-of-wedlock births; and the separation of childrearing from marriage has led to the growth of single-parent households.

Notice the verb-tense usage. "Has" led to...In other words, these harmful affects have already taken place, without any redefinition of marriage.

Anthropologist Stanley Kurtz has demonstrated that legal recognition of homosexual unions in Scandinavia has reduced both the percentage of the population that marries and the percentage of children being raised by a married couple.

For one thing, that's Scandinavia, and comparing societal institutions of two very different societies is akin to the Apples vs. Oranges debate. For another thing, Mr. Kurtz was not taking into consideration any other factors that may have led to Scandinavia's current issues - he just said, "look, sixty percent of first-born children in Scandinavia are born out of wedlock - and they have gay marriage! The gays are to blame!"

And just how do you blame homosexuals for this? As our very own Mark has pointed out time and again, only heterosexuals can produce children. Are we blaming homosexuals for heterosexual failings now?

In addition, including homosexual relationships within the ideal of "marriage" would inevitably change social norms surrounding the institution. Research has shown that homosexual men, in particular, have many more sexual partners outside the primary relationship and have much shorter relationships than heterosexual marriages. This example would undermine all of society's commitment to sexual fidelity and lifelong commitment in marriage.

Go out to the local college campus. Take a good look around and come back and tell me with a straight face that heterosexual society has a commitment to sexual fidelity. Better yet, pick up a newspaper and read about what our vaunted celebrities are up to. They're societal figureheads and what are they up to these days? Here's a hint - "Oops...I Did It Again" does not refer to forgetting to pick up milk at the supermarket.

The thing is, homosexuals aren't allowed to get married. Maybe they will form lifelong commitments, maybe they won't. While they aren't, they're just as sexually free as anyone else, but if they are allowed to marry, they can understand the concept of staying loyal to their partner as well as any heterosexual can - which, granted, isn't so great these days, but once again, can you blame homosexuals for that?

So much for Mr. Sprigg. On to Mr. Kohler, whose arguments more closely resemble your own.

The social science evidence collected by our contemporaries bears out what our grandparents told us. Children do best -- on nearly every measure -- when raised by their biological parents united to one another in an intact marriage.

Yup. All well and good - the lucky kids are the ones whose parents stay together. Now how about the exceptionally large group of kids whose Daddy just screwed Mommy one night and then left, never to be heard from again? Or the ones who were born to addicts? Or the ones whose parents gave them up for adoption, for whatever reason? What about them?

Likewise, couples in an intact marriage do better than those who either are single or divorced. As a group, they enjoy better health, live longer, build more wealth, and suffer lower rates of illness, etc., than do otherwise similar single or divorced individuals. Marriage is a social good, the benefits of which, both quantifiable and otherwise, have been recognized by every society throughout human history. While it has its private aspects, marriage also is a public institution, which traditionally has been supported both by social norms and special legal recognition.

Ah, social norms. Let's not forget that acceptance of homosexuality is a social norm these days. Oops.

Despite all this, there is no denying that marriage, like our other institutions, has come under considerable stress. While the number of divorces has declined over the past decade or so, the rates nevertheless remain high. Moreover, the rate of marriages has declined to historically low levels. As a society, we seem completely to have forgotten what the institution means.

That sounds an awful lot like what I've been saing. Thank you, Mr. Kohler.

Marriage is a unique institution that acknowledges the complementary differences between men and women and that recognizes the need of children for both a father and a mother. No other relationship between or among people, regardless of how noble, performs the quite same functions. The culture of divorce has hurt marriage as an institution far more than anything else in this society.

Thank you again. You've just proved my point with this paragraph - which is an opinion and is not supported by fact. Everything from his definition of the reasons for opposite-sex marriage on down to his absurd assertion that heterosexual couples make better parents than homosexual couples is pure opinion, no fact. Thank you sincerely Mr. Kohler.

I'd say that's enough for now.

[vyo476]

YOU have shown NOTHING to indicate that this also is the case with homosexual couples.

And you've shown nothing to indicate that it isn't the case. Tell me, do heterosexuals have to prove that they'll be good parents before they are allowed to breed?

[jb_1430]

And you've shown nothing to indicate that it isn't the case. Tell me, do heterosexuals have to prove that they'll be good parents before they are allowed to breed?

???? well, I havent shown anything to indicate that children raised by the local rotary club do not do better than children who are not, that doesnt lead me to conclude that we should promote, license and regulate the raising of children by rotary clubs.

[vyo476]

???? well, I havent shown anything to indicate that children raised by the local rotary club do not do better than children who are not, that doesnt lead me to conclude that we should promote, license and regulate the raising of children by rotary clubs.

Promoting, licensing, and regulating heterosexual marriage is not having the affect you seek - for about half the people you would seek it for.

We're not even talking about stopping promoting, licensing and regulating heterosexual marriage.

We're talking about promoting, licensing, and regulating homosexual marriage, which doesn't have anything at all to do with heterosexual marriage. Since your heterosexual marriage isn't causing kids to be raised by their biological parents - and in fact is allowing millions of American children to wind up in the foster care system - something has to be done so that those children are raised under better circumstances than the foster care system can provide.

The point is that the kids are raised under the best circumstances possible, right, Mark? Because you make it sound like it has to be a choice between best and worst.

[jb_1430]

The point is that the kids are raised under the best circumstances possible, right, Mark? Because you make it sound like it has to be a choice between best and worst.

????No. Government promotes marriage and the raising of children by biological parents, because it creates an advantage for children. It doesnt prevent other arrangements for the raising of children.

[vyo476]

????No. Government promotes marriage and the raising of children by biological parents, because it creates an advantage for children. It doesnt prevent other arrangements for the raising of children.

Would not the promotion of raising children in a family rather than a foster care system also create an advantage for the children? If you want to create advantages for children, empower more people to adopt.

You speak as if the only way to "create an advantage" for children is to promote their raising by their biological parents. This fails to take into account the exceptionally large number of children who simply aren't being raised by their biological parents - how do we create advantages for them?

[jb_1430]

Would not the promotion of raising children in a family rather than a foster care system also create an advantage for the children? If you want to create advantages for children, empower more people to adopt.

You speak as if the only way to "create an advantage" for children is to promote their raising by their biological parents. This fails to take into account the exceptionally large number of children who simply aren't being raised by their biological parents - how do we create advantages for them?

All arguements to extend benefits to people raising children, other than married biological parents. Just dont see the purpose in singling out gay couples, out of all the non biological parents in the world, for special treatment.

[Mare Tranquillity]

All arguements to extend benefits to people raising children, other than married biological parents. Just dont see the purpose in singling out gay couples, out of all the non biological parents in the world, for special treatment.

Instead of struggling so hard to exclude people why don't we just include everyone in these special rights that heteosexuals already enjoy, let's make it so that ANY CONSENTING ADULTS can raise their children in the safest way possible, within the confines of the legal marriage contract. Marriage brings stability into people's lives, married people live longer than single ones, so why not let everyone get married if they can find someone who will enter into the legal contract of marriage with them? Seems really easy to me--simple, straight forward, and there doesn't have to be the endless bickering about religious dogma.

The children of non-biological parents deserve the best we can do for them, don't they? So let's give everyone raising children all the legal protections currently enjoyed by heterosexual parents.

[vyo476]

So let's give everyone raising children all the legal protections currently enjoyed by heterosexual parents.

I don't see why not to.

[jb_1430]

I don't see why not to.

I suspect this could be done, and if it didnt include a marriage license, you all would still be whineing just as much.

[vyo476]

I suspect this could be done, and if it didnt include a marriage license, you all would still be whineing just as much.

Because allowing one group to "marry" and not allowing another group to "marry," even if both groups have equal rights, is strongly reminiscent of the "separate but equal" days. Perhaps that ideology is one you enjoy.

[Mare Tranquillity]

I suspect this could be done, and if it didnt include a marriage license, you all would still be whineing just as much.

Why wouldn't it include a marriage license? So what you're saying is that queers don't deserve to be full citizens even if they have children? Their children don't deserve the same protections as heterosexuals' children? How do you justify that in your own head?

Are you dim? It's not the "marriage" license, it's legal equality. Black people don't want to be white, they want to be equal to whites in the eyes of the law. Gay people don't want to be straight, they want to be equal in the eyes of the law.

[jb_1430]

Why wouldn't it include a marriage license? So what you're saying is that queers don't deserve to be full citizens even if they have children?


??? Uuuuh??? here in America you dont need to be married to be a full citizen, even if you have children or not. .



Their children don't deserve the same protections as heterosexuals' children? How do you justify that in your own head?


????uuuh? you dont need a marriage license to secure any rights.


Are you dim? It's not the "marriage" license, it's legal equality. Black people don't want to be white, they want to be equal to whites in the eyes of the law. Gay people don't want to be straight, they want to be equal in the eyes of the law.

Equal protection requires treating people in the same circumstances equally. You dont issue a fishing or hunting license to someone who wants to play golf.

[Mare Tranquillity]

??? Uuuuh??? here in America you dont need to be married to be a full citizen, even if you have children or not. .
????uuuh? you dont need a marriage license to secure any rights.
Can you read? The GAO says that a legal marriage license confers more than 1000 special rights and privileges that are denied to all unmarried people. Without the license you cannot get these rights and privileges. No license, no perks. Got it? Only gay people are legally denied the opportunity to get these perks since they are the only ones legally denied marriage.


??? Equal protection requires treating people in the same circumstances equally. You dont issue a fishing or hunting license to someone who wants to play golf.

Many golfers have hunting and fishing licenses. If they come and ask for the licenses you don't deny them, do you? Gay people are asking, why are you denying them?

[jb_1430]

So let's give everyone raising children all the legal protections currently enjoyed by heterosexual parents.

I suspect this could be done, and if it didnt include a marriage license, you all would still be whineing just as much.

Can you read? The GAO says that a legal marriage license confers more than 1000 special rights and privileges that are denied to all unmarried people. Without the license you cannot get these rights and privileges. No license, no perks. Got it? Only gay people are legally denied the opportunity to get these perks since they are the only ones legally denied marriage.


Thanks for demonstrating my point so completely.