Prove my homosexuality harms you or your family

[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!

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.