A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate

[BluePhantom]

As a conservative, I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Supporting gay marriage only proves the left is anti Christian. Tell me I am not conservative, YOU WOULD BE FLAT OUT WRONG!!!!

Pfft...that has nothing to do with being a conservative and everything to do with being a bigot with homophobic tendencies. See that Romney icon in my signature? I aint exactly "Mr. Liberal" here. Ask Boop. She'll tell you.

Conservatives respect the constitution. In fact one of the main things conservatives will claim is that they want....nay they insist that the Constitution is a literal document that should be strictly enforced. So I have to wonder what kind of a "conservative" you are that you would reject one of the most fundamental planks in the conservative platform (enforcing the constitution) when it comes to homosexuals. A conservative would say "I may not agree with this or that that these people are doing over there, but I defend their right to do so under the Constitution"

 

[WinterBorn]

Slippery slope fallacy. Accepting gays on par with heterosexuality is a slippery slope you don't seem to mind. That is a really slippery there. You seem to buy this sophisticated con job gays are espousing. Do YOU equate homosexuality with your parent's love? You think SO? I feel sorry for anyone that does. I don't mean any disrepect to you, but that is how I feel.

My parents had a horrible relationship. It's kept me single most of my adult life.

My sister has been with her partner for going on 20 years. There is nothing sick about their relationship. In fact, they face all the same little bickering squabbles, highs and lows that most couples face.

I am sorry to hear that. I have had this debate late at night with relatives around the fireplace, about such and such this or that relative that is gay, that relative that is transsexual and so on. My parents were not saints. They fought. Gays love each other, I think. Nothing wrong with love. I don't see homosexuals on par with heterosexuals. I just can't do it. Hetrosexuals, our parents, they transend this debate in a way gays can't.

In what ways, exactly? You are trying to make a point, but you are saying nothing that shows anything except your own lack of knowlege.

I know my ex-wife and her partner love each other. The only difference between them and any couple raising kids is that their genitals match. That has absolutely nothing to do with raising kids. I never saw my parents naked and I never saw them have sex. So what possible difference could it make whether they are gay or straight?

 

[MaryL]

My parents had a horrible relationship. It's kept me single most of my adult life.

My sister has been with her partner for going on 20 years. There is nothing sick about their relationship. In fact, they face all the same little bickering squabbles, highs and lows that most couples face.

I am sorry to hear that. I have had this debate with late at night with relatives around the fireplace, about such and such this or that relative that is gay, that relative that is transsexual and so on. My parents were not saints. They fought. Gays love each other, I think. Nothing wrong with love. I don't see homosexuals on par with heterosexuals. I just can't do it. Hetrosexuals, our parents, they transend this debate in a way gays can't.

No, they really don't. People are people, period. There is nothing to be gained by trying to label them as "less than."

I never said that nor implied that. I don't want anyone to get hurt here. Homosexuality isn't on par with our parent's love. I think, common sense is such a simple thing. We Americans ALL have the same rights, no more, no less. I don't feel cheated that I can't marry another woman. I just am not feeling discriminated against, I am not seeing HOW this is some offense to human rights. I am at a loss for words here.

 

[WinterBorn]

As a conservative, I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Supporting gay marriage only proves the left is anti Christian. Tell me I am not conservative, YOU WOULD BE FLAT OUT WRONG!!!!

Pfft...that has nothing to do with being a conservative and everything to do with being a bigot with homophobic tendencies. See that Romney icon in my signature? I aint exactly "Mr. Liberal" here. Ask Boop. She'll tell you.

Conservatives respect the constitution. In fact one of the main things conservatives will claim is that they want....nay they insist that the Constitution is a literal document that should be strictly enforced. So I have to wonder what kind of a "conservative" you are that you would reject one of the most fundamental planks in the conservative platform (enforcing the constitution) when it comes to homosexuals. A conservative would say "I may not agree with this or that that these people are doing over there, but I defend their right to do so under the Constitution"

THIS!!!

The reason I am conservative has nothing to do with worrying about who is sleeping with who.

That so many conservatives claim to want less gov't interference and more freedom, and then they want the gov't to decide which sexual orientation is worthy of benefits and which should be labeled perverted, is pure hypocrisy. If you want less gov't, that means no gov't in the bedroom, not just no gov't in the boardroom.

(unless you are having sex in the boardroom)

 

[WinterBorn]

I am sorry to hear that. I have had this debate with late at night with relatives around the fireplace, about such and such this or that relative that is gay, that relative that is transsexual and so on. My parents were not saints. They fought. Gays love each other, I think. Nothing wrong with love. I don't see homosexuals on par with heterosexuals. I just can't do it. Hetrosexuals, our parents, they transend this debate in a way gays can't.

No, they really don't. People are people, period. There is nothing to be gained by trying to label them as "less than."

I never said that nor implied that. I don't want anyone to get hurt here. Homosexuality isn't on par with our parent's love. I think, common sense is such a simple thing. We Americans ALL have the same rights, no more, no less. I don't feel cheated that I can't marry another woman. I just am not feeling discriminated against, I am not seeing HOW this is some offense to human rights. I am at a loss for words here.

Mary, why does it matter to you whether the gov't recognizes gay marriage or not?

And how is the love of straight parents different than the love of gay parents?

 

[BluePhantom]

I never said that nor implied that. I don't want anyone to get hurt here. Homosexuality isn't on par with our parent's love. I think, common sense is such a simple thing. We Americans ALL have the same rights, no more, no less. I don't feel cheated that I can't marry another woman. I just am not feeling discriminated against, I am not seeing HOW this is some offense to human rights. I am at a loss for words here.

You don't see how it's an offense to human rights to allow one segment of society one set of rights and protections and another segment a different set based upon nothing more than opinion of what is "acceptable moral behavior"? You don't see something slightly unconstitutional about that? Good Lord.

 

[BluePhantom]

As a conservative, I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Supporting gay marriage only proves the left is anti Christian. Tell me I am not conservative, YOU WOULD BE FLAT OUT WRONG!!!!

Pfft...that has nothing to do with being a conservative and everything to do with being a bigot with homophobic tendencies. See that Romney icon in my signature? I aint exactly "Mr. Liberal" here. Ask Boop. She'll tell you.

Conservatives respect the constitution. In fact one of the main things conservatives will claim is that they want....nay they insist that the Constitution is a literal document that should be strictly enforced. So I have to wonder what kind of a "conservative" you are that you would reject one of the most fundamental planks in the conservative platform (enforcing the constitution) when it comes to homosexuals. A conservative would say "I may not agree with this or that that these people are doing over there, but I defend their right to do so under the Constitution"

THIS!!!

The reason I am conservative has nothing to do with worrying about who is sleeping with who.

That so many conservatives claim to want less gov't interference and more freedom, and then they want the gov't to decide which sexual orientation is worthy of benefits and which should be labeled perverted, is pure hypocrisy. If you want less gov't, that means no gov't in the bedroom, not just no gov't in the boardroom.

(unless you are having sex in the boardroom)

You are damned right. It's one of the most blatant examples of unbridled hypocrisy I have ever seen.

 

[BDBoop]

I am sorry to hear that. I have had this debate with late at night with relatives around the fireplace, about such and such this or that relative that is gay, that relative that is transsexual and so on. My parents were not saints. They fought. Gays love each other, I think. Nothing wrong with love. I don't see homosexuals on par with heterosexuals. I just can't do it. Hetrosexuals, our parents, they transend this debate in a way gays can't.

No, they really don't. People are people, period. There is nothing to be gained by trying to label them as "less than."

I never said that nor implied that. I don't want anyone to get hurt here. Homosexuality isn't on par with our parent's love. I think, common sense is such a simple thing. We Americans ALL have the same rights, no more, no less. I don't feel cheated that I can't marry another woman. I just am not feeling discriminated against, I am not seeing HOW this is some offense to human rights. I am at a loss for words here.

You're right. You didn't imply it. You flat-out said it. "I don't see homosexuals on par with heterosexuals."

 

[JakeStarkey]

If conservative thought is extinguished, America will become extinct.

You are not conservative, for no real conservative would limit a person's right to marry whom s/he would. It's that simple.

As a conservative, I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Supporting gay marriage only proves the left is anti Christian. Tell me I am not conservative, YOU WOULD BE FLAT OUT WRONG!!!!

Get your terms and motivations correct, please. As a Christian, you might "believe marriage is between a man and a woman." As a Conservative, you would allow people to make their own choices.

You got a problem in understanding the terms.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is issue is always interesting. Gay rights. Hmm. What is next.? Peeping tom rights. Pedophile rights. Bestiality rights. Spare me all the sarcastic replies. YES. Homosexuality is a perversion. It is a mental illness. I know, some "scientists" say Homosexuality ISN'T a mental dysfunction. That is so ironic, this same medical profession used to tout smoking as healthy. They used leeches to cure aliments. Men that perform oral or anal intercourse on each other are not a good example of healthy behavior by anyone. Don't accept this as normal. It is NOT. And gays all have the same rights as anyone else here on ANY other issue... Americans don't all want to sanction their brand of perversion as an alternative to folks that have healthy relationships that produce children. Narcissistic hedonism and confused sexuality doesn't add up to a viable lifestyle that deserves respect. There is no solution to this issue accept gays realize that they are sick and stop throwing temper tantrums. And, That won't happen as long as folks deny common sense and reason for fleeting sensibilities.

MaryL is sick and throwing a temper tantrum. Get over yourself, sister. Universal marriage is inevitable.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Slippery slope fallacy. Accepting gays on par with heterosexuality is a slippery slope you don't seem to mind. That is a really slippery there. You seem to buy this sophisticated con job gays are espousing. Do YOU equate homosexuality with your parent's love? You think SO? I feel sorry for anyone that does. I donn't mean any disrepect to you, but that is how I feel.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q]Zach Wahls Speaks About Family - YouTube[/ame]


"Do YOU equate homosexuality with your parent's love?" Yes, I think homosexual parents can love their children just like heterosexual parents.


If you meant "Do YOU equate the love of a homosexual couple with the same love that can exist between infertile heterosexuals?" Then again the answer would be yes, and it really depends on the individuals involved. I think Zack's parents are probably much more in love and willing to commit to each other (IIRC, dispite one of them having MS) then say the "love" of Brittney Spears getting married for like - what - 56 hours? Or the love of Gingrich's serial affairs and marriage. Or Edwards affair on a wife dying of cancer.

If two people want to establish a family (and yes spouses are family with or without children) and commit to each other in a legal way then the government shouldn't discriminate based on gender.


>>>>

 

[Gremlin-USA]

I want to marry a girl.

Me too, as long as she is over 18, at my age maybe two 18 year olds would work


.

 

[JoeB131]

The gay marriage issue has never been about equal rights, marriage nor religion. It is about gay activists’ desire to change society's basic institutions out of the frustration that they are not included.

The proof is the term “gay marriage”. “Gay marriage” is an oxymoron. It is an attempt to “redefine” the word marriage. During all of recorded history, the word marriage (in every language) has been defined as the union between a man and a woman (or multiple women in some cases). Marriage has always been the foundation for families and it provides the means to care for the resulting children. Although there are some childless marriages, there would no necessity for the legal institution of marriage if not for the probability of raising children. Virtually every civilization in recorded history has instituted marriage to insure that both parents are legally responsible for raising their children.

Most all Americans that I know, whether conservative or liberal, whether agnostic or religious, are not opposed to civil unions between consenting adults. Civil unions give gays all of the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage without re-defining the word “marriage”. Many states, including California, currently have civil unions available for gay couples. Unfortunately, gay activists reject civil unions for no logical reason what-so-ever. Their reason is emotional, not logical. Gay activists claim that only the word “marriage” would give them true equality. IMHO, this is absurd. The only objection that most Americans have to gay marriage is the redefinition of the WORD “marriage”.

Therefore I suggest a reasonable compromise. Instead of re-defining the word marriage to include gays, we should create a new word to define gay marriage. I propose the word “garriage”. Gay couples can get “garried” while straight straight couples can get “married”. Many languages use different words for feminine and masculine genders. Some languages even assign genders for inanimate objects such as car or boat. In English we say him or her, he or she, count and countess, king and queen, etc. Since a gay union is technically different than straight union, there is no reason why we can’t use different words to define them.

Unfortunately gay activists will not accept this compromise under the guise of equality because they are unwilling to accept the fact that they ARE different in significant ways when it comes to marriage. They will compare using different words to define different unions as “separate but equal” which was a term used for segregation of blacks. This excuse is a ridiculous as saying it is not fair to differentiate between apples and oranges, men and women, or whisky and rum. Traditional marriage, as it has been defined for 5,000 years, IS different than gay unions. A different word to define gay unions is appropriate and very reasonable.

The flaw in your argument here is that marriage has always meant the same thing, which it has not.

Marriage for most of history, and still in many countries, is more a transfer of property than an equal partnership.

Many marriages were arranged by families, not done for love. A woman was considered property and she had very few rights to initiate a divorce. Beating your spouse was considered acceptable until far too recently. (Seriously, Ricky Ricardo and Ralph Crandem made spousal abuse funny! On national TV.)

So as marriage became redefined as the equality of the genders became redefined, it is hard to argue that marriage is what it was even 100 years ago.

 

[garyganu]

Slippery slope fallacy. Accepting gays on par with heterosexuality is a slippery slope you don't seem to mind. That is a really slippery there. You seem to buy this sophisticated con job gays are espousing. Do YOU equate homosexuality with your parent's love? You think SO? I feel sorry for anyone that does. I donn't mean any disrepect to you, but that is how I feel.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q]Zach Wahls Speaks About Family - YouTube[/ame]


"Do YOU equate homosexuality with your parent's love?" Yes, I think homosexual parents can love their children just like heterosexual parents.


If you meant "Do YOU equate the love of a homosexual couple with the same love that can exist between infertile heterosexuals?" Then again the answer would be yes, and it really depends on the individuals involved. I think Zack's parents are probably much more in love and willing to commit to each other (IIRC, dispite one of them having MS) then say the "love" of Brittney Spears getting married for like - what - 56 hours? Or the love of Gingrich's serial affairs and marriage. Or Edwards affair on a wife dying of cancer.

If two people want to establish a family (and yes spouses are family with or without children) and commit to each other in a legal way then the government shouldn't discriminate based on gender.


>>>>

It is true that most parents of gay and straight children love them unconditionally. Most parents of "downs syndrome" children also love them unconditionally. However, it is also true that most parents are disappointed if a child is not born normal. That is why they count the fingers and toes at birth.

Most parents are disappointed when they learn that their child is not likely to produce grandchildren for them. When parents learns that his child is gay, they realize that the chances of having grandchildren from them is very slim. Most all parents want their children to grow up, get married and raise a family of their own. This is very unlikely with gay children and it is disappointing for most parents and grandparents.

All of the gay propaganda in the world will never change this basic fact of human nature.

If the "gay gene" is ever discovered and if doctors can determine if a child will be gay during his mother's pregnancy, it is likely that many mothers will abort potentially gay fetuses just as many mothers abort fetuses with downs syndrome.

I believe that all human life is precious, even children that are born with imperfections. It is wrong to abort children for any reason what-so-ever. It is just as wrong to abort downs syndrome fetuses as it would be to abort gay fetuses.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Slippery slope fallacy. Accepting gays on par with heterosexuality is a slippery slope you don't seem to mind. That is a really slippery there. You seem to buy this sophisticated con job gays are espousing. Do YOU equate homosexuality with your parent's love? You think SO? I feel sorry for anyone that does. I donn't mean any disrepect to you, but that is how I feel.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q]Zach Wahls Speaks About Family - YouTube[/ame]


"Do YOU equate homosexuality with your parent's love?" Yes, I think homosexual parents can love their children just like heterosexual parents.


If you meant "Do YOU equate the love of a homosexual couple with the same love that can exist between infertile heterosexuals?" Then again the answer would be yes, and it really depends on the individuals involved. I think Zack's parents are probably much more in love and willing to commit to each other (IIRC, dispite one of them having MS) then say the "love" of Brittney Spears getting married for like - what - 56 hours? Or the love of Gingrich's serial affairs and marriage. Or Edwards affair on a wife dying of cancer.

If two people want to establish a family (and yes spouses are family with or without children) and commit to each other in a legal way then the government shouldn't discriminate based on gender.


>>>>

It is true that most parents of gay and straight children love them unconditionally. Most parents of "downs syndrome" children also love them unconditionally. However, it is also true that most parents are disappointed if a child is not born normal. That is why they count the fingers and toes at birth.

Most parents are disappointed when they learn that their child is not likely to produce grandchildren for them. When parents learns that his child is gay, they realize that the chances of having grandchildren from them is very slim. Most all parents want their children to grow up, get married and raise a family of their own. This is very unlikely with gay children and it is disappointing for most parents and grandparents.

All of the gay propaganda in the world will never change this basic fact of human nature.

Let's say my daughter decided to marry a man that had testicular cancer and could not have children because she decided to marry a man she loves but with whom she could never have children.

Would I be disappointed because they would not produce a grandchild together? Probably.

Would I oppose their marriage because they would not produce a grandchild together? Absolutely not.



>>>>

 

[garyganu]

Zach Wahls Speaks About Family - YouTube


"Do YOU equate homosexuality with your parent's love?" Yes, I think homosexual parents can love their children just like heterosexual parents.


If you meant "Do YOU equate the love of a homosexual couple with the same love that can exist between infertile heterosexuals?" Then again the answer would be yes, and it really depends on the individuals involved. I think Zack's parents are probably much more in love and willing to commit to each other (IIRC, dispite one of them having MS) then say the "love" of Brittney Spears getting married for like - what - 56 hours? Or the love of Gingrich's serial affairs and marriage. Or Edwards affair on a wife dying of cancer.

If two people want to establish a family (and yes spouses are family with or without children) and commit to each other in a legal way then the government shouldn't discriminate based on gender.


>>>>

It is true that most parents of gay and straight children love them unconditionally. Most parents of "downs syndrome" children also love them unconditionally. However, it is also true that most parents are disappointed if a child is not born normal. That is why they count the fingers and toes at birth.

Most parents are disappointed when they learn that their child is not likely to produce grandchildren for them. When parents learns that his child is gay, they realize that the chances of having grandchildren from them is very slim. Most all parents want their children to grow up, get married and raise a family of their own. This is very unlikely with gay children and it is disappointing for most parents and grandparents.

All of the gay propaganda in the world will never change this basic fact of human nature.

Let's say my daughter decided to marry a man that had testicular cancer and could not have children because she decided to marry a man she loves but with whom she could never have children.

Would I be disappointed because they would not produce a grandchild together? Probably.

Would I oppose their marriage because they would not produce a grandchild together? Absolutely not.



>>>>

World Watcher, That is a very good example. We seem to be in total agreement about the point of my comment.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If the "gay gene" is ever discovered and if doctors can determine if a child will be gay during his mother's pregnancy, it is likely that many mothers will abort potentially gay fetuses just as many mothers abort fetuses with downs syndrome.

I believe that all human life is precious, even children that are born with imperfections. It is wrong to abort children for any reason what-so-ever. It is just as wrong to abort downs syndrome fetuses as it would be to abort gay fetuses.

You realize that if the "gay gene" is ever discovered the whole "IT'S A CHOICE" crowed will have their justification for discrimination because "it's different" than race rug pulled out from under them.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

World Watcher, That is a very good example. We seem to be in total agreement about the point of my comment.

No, actually we have opposite position on Civil Marriage.

It seems your position was to support same-sex couples should not be allowed to enter into Civil Marriage because they cannot biologically produce children together.

I have the opposite opinion in that children are not a requirement of Civil Marriage and therefore it is irrelevant as a function of the law. Now if you were suggesting the fertility become a condition of Civil Marriage, that is a whole different discussion - one I think most heterosexual would oppose.


>>>>

 

[garyganu]

If the "gay gene" is ever discovered and if doctors can determine if a child will be gay during his mother's pregnancy, it is likely that many mothers will abort potentially gay fetuses just as many mothers abort fetuses with downs syndrome.

I believe that all human life is precious, even children that are born with imperfections. It is wrong to abort children for any reason what-so-ever. It is just as wrong to abort downs syndrome fetuses as it would be to abort gay fetuses.

You realize that if the "gay gene" is ever discovered the whole "IT'S A CHOICE" crowed will have their justification for discrimination because "it's different" than race rug pulled out from under them.


>>>>

The discussion about the "gay gene" is a totally different subject. I just used it to illustrate a point as you did with testicular cancer. If I thought of the testicular cancer argument, I would have used it instead of the gay gene just so I wouldn't open up a can of worms.

However, you must admit that homosexual behavior certainly IS A CHOICE for bisexuals. This is the reason why it is so wrong to celebrate, embrace and normalize homosexual behavior, especially in public schools, the media, the entertainment industry and the popular culture.

Teenagers should NOT be encouraged to experiment with homosexuality because there are twice as many self described bisexuals as there are self described homosexuals. It is clear from our previous comments that parents would be disappointed by encouraging their children to practice homosexual behavior.

 

[WinterBorn]

If the "gay gene" is ever discovered and if doctors can determine if a child will be gay during his mother's pregnancy, it is likely that many mothers will abort potentially gay fetuses just as many mothers abort fetuses with downs syndrome.

I believe that all human life is precious, even children that are born with imperfections. It is wrong to abort children for any reason what-so-ever. It is just as wrong to abort downs syndrome fetuses as it would be to abort gay fetuses.

You realize that if the "gay gene" is ever discovered the whole "IT'S A CHOICE" crowed will have their justification for discrimination because "it's different" than race rug pulled out from under them.


>>>>

The discussion about the "gay gene" is a totally different subject. I just used it to illustrate a point as you did with testicular cancer. If I thought of the testicular cancer argument, I would have used it instead of the gay gene just so I wouldn't open up a can of worms.

However, you must admit that homosexual behavior certainly IS A CHOICE for bisexuals. This is the reason why it is so wrong to celebrate, embrace and normalize homosexual behavior, especially in public schools, the media, the entertainment industry and the popular culture.

Teenagers should NOT be encouraged to experiment with homosexuality because there are twice as many self described bisexuals as there are self described homosexuals. It is clear from our previous comments that parents would be disappointed by encouraging their children to practice homosexual behavior.

So it is not a choice to be gay or straight, but it is a choice to be bisexual? Or is it that a bisexual isn't making the choice you want them to make?

There is simply no place in marriage for this sort of discrimination.



Now, let me throw out the true conservative position on marriage. I don't think the gov't has any place in the marriage business. I do not agree with the gov't being involved in recognizing any marriage.