A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate

[garyganu]

Restaurants? Movies? Vacation spots?

Can not a family of two spouses go to a "family" restaurant? Can not two spouses not go to "family" movies? (My wife loves animated movies and will drag me along, the flip side is she then has to go to superhero movies). Vacation spots don't take two spouses?

I'll submit instead the United States Code establishing the Family Medical Leave Act providing for job protected leave for members of the employees immediate family - which includes the spouse. How about United States law that establishes the poverty level for a family consisting of two persons (in this case two spouses) at $14,710.



>>>>

I think that the federal government has no business establishing a "family medical leave act" or a "poverty level". The purpose of the federal government is to maintain order. This requires military, courts, special police agents, diplomatic staffs, international treaties and printing our money. There are very few other things that the federal government should be involved with. According to our constitution, only the powers specifically enumerated should be handled by the federal government. Everything else should be handled by the states, localities and individuals.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that a "spouse" by law, is considered "family". Don't like the federal definition? That's OK, go to your state legislature and check on similar provisions, you will find that spouse is included in the definition of family.


Then of course you can go to any large gathering of people, sporting events, church, political rally, etc - then get some time on a microphone. Ask them if they think of their spouse as family. Wanna bet that the VAST majority will answer "yes"?


>>>>

You are parsing words. Everyone knows that children are what make families. For heaven sake, we would not have any relations like aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, cousins, etc, if it were not for families with children.

 

[BDBoop]

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.

Hallelujah! Amen brother! Marriage is the declaration of a union before God (whatever God those involved chooses to recognize) among those of faith and a declaration of a union to each other by those who are not people of faith. The government has absolutely nothing to do with it.

It is a legitimate function of local governments to keep records of vital statistics. Birth, marriage and death are recorded by local governments. Local governments issue birth certificates, marriage certificates and death certificates.

The federal government has WAY too many regulations and should have nothing to do with marriage what-so-ever. Marriage is not mentioned in the US constitution.

Oh good. Let's dissolve all the marriages, and start all over. This time, we promise to be fair.

Norly.

 

[BDBoop]

I think that the federal government has no business establishing a "family medical leave act" or a "poverty level". The purpose of the federal government is to maintain order. This requires military, courts, special police agents, diplomatic staffs, international treaties and printing our money. There are very few other things that the federal government should be involved with. According to our constitution, only the powers specifically enumerated should be handled by the federal government. Everything else should be handled by the states, localities and individuals.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that a "spouse" by law, is considered "family". Don't like the federal definition? That's OK, go to your state legislature and check on similar provisions, you will find that spouse is included in the definition of family.


Then of course you can go to any large gathering of people, sporting events, church, political rally, etc - then get some time on a microphone. Ask them if they think of their spouse as family. Wanna bet that the VAST majority will answer "yes"?


>>>>

You are parsing words. Everyone knows that children are what make families. For heaven sake, we would not have any relations like aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, cousins, etc, if it were not for families with children.

You're treading dangerously close to the "obvious troll" line. Pull back a bit.

 

[garyganu]

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 you have to change the subject to make your point? Not cool.

What? I don't have much of an opinion about a gay gene. I haven't thought about it much. What is the difference. How does that affect a discussion about the redefinition of the word "marriage"? If they discover an alcoholic gene, does that excuse alcoholism? I don't get it.

 

[BDBoop]

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.

Acknowledging that homosexuals exist is not "celebrating and embracing" sexual orientation and the filp side is that homosexuals should also not be demonized (opposite of celebrate) and shunned (opposite of embraced). Homosexual have existed throughout human history, so ya some people being homosexual is probably normal. If you mean "normal" in the statistical sense, then they of course will never be "normal" as they will not be be the majority in any population.


>>>>

I'm not normal, and there is no gene, either.

I'm a lefty.

 

[BluePhantom]

And so you think not allowing gays to marry will help this?

I think that the schools, universities, media, entertainment industry, politicians and today's popular culture are all normalizing and glorifying debauchery in every form. Glorifying the gay lifestyle and the gay agenda is part of this. Kids don't know the difference between good and bad anymore.

No, it's just that the definitions of "good" and "bad" are changing. Those definitions are constantly changing and have been in a constant state of flux throughout history. The United States is an extremely conservative society when it comes to sexuality. While, we are not as bad as Islamic nations, even the stuffy British are far more liberal and open about the sexual nature of humanity than we are. A French soap opera borders on what we would call porn. When a foreign head of state has an affair, everyone shrugs their shoulders and says "yeah and?"

The reality is that regarding sexual culture the United States is so completely uptight we are out of sync with the vast majority of the rest of the world and as is natural and to be expected we are slowly and constantly evolving as a society and making new determinations upon what is acceptable and what is not. It's not a change in behavior. The behaviors have been going on all the time. The difference is in the attitudes about the behavior and you will never stop a society from redefining itself.

The trends on those attitudes are pretty clear when you look at American society as a whole. So what's happening is that you are simply refusing to adapt to society's natural evolution (which is of course your prerogative) but as that lands you in the minority then the problem is not society's evolution so much as your refusal to accept it.

 

[BDBoop]

Nonsense. The human animal is built to eat both vegetation and meat. Our bodies are designed to require both, consume both, and digest both (meat far more easily than vegetation I might add). We are omnivorous by design. Some people choose to be strictly carnivorous and some people choose to be vegetarians. But the vast majority consumes both plants and animals and those who don't frequently have to take artificial supplements to compensate for the nutrients they are not receiving in their diet.

Now your argument will be "AHHHHH....but we are designed that way by nature. Two men are not designed to have intercourse" to which I will respond quite simply...our bodies are not well designed to eat plants although we require it. Our teeth are sharp and designed for cutting and tearing not for grinding down tough fibrous materials like a cows tooth. Eat a stalk of celery and you'll see what I mean...the strings get between our teeth, we are not able to effectively mash and crush the material, etc. Our stomach can handle plants but it's really designed to break down meat far more effectively. We don't have a four compartment stomach, chew cud, etc. So even though it's far more difficult for us to eat plants...we eat them because our nutritional needs require us to do so and we enjoy the flavors. It is not as easy for homosexuals to have intercourse but that doesn't mean that they are not designed genetically to require that kind of a relationship very much like our need to consume plants and our lousy design for doing it. And like our diet, simply because we are designed to process meat more effectively, it doesn't mean that we only require meat. How is bisexuality different?

Your argument is very far fetched.

His argument is no more farfetched than yours against bisexuals. If we get beyond the "homosexuality is evil", then which ever way a bisexual goes at any given time is simply a personal choice.

Now, having said that, I am not saying that being bisexual is a choice. I think being attracted to both genders is no more a choice than being attracted to one or the other gender.

I don't think so. I'd like to see some brains can results like the ones John Barrowman went under. Not sure I linked the scan, so I will now.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe58_vd_5g4]Brain scan results - Making of Me: John Barrowman - BBC - YouTube[/ame]

 

[WinterBorn]

And so you think not allowing gays to marry will help this?

I think that the schools, universities, media, entertainment industry, politicians and today's popular culture are all normalizing and glorifying debauchery in every form. Glorifying the gay lifestyle and the gay agenda is part of this. Kids don't know the difference between good and bad anymore.

If kids don't know the difference between good and bad anymore, you need to blame the parents. If two gay men or two lesbians marry, it does not have any effect on whether kids know good from bad. This is a typical propaganda tactic. "We have to save the kids!" is nonsense.

Want to know what is messing up kids? Greed. Both parents working so they can afford a bigger house, 3 cars, vacations in Tahiti ect, has done far more harm to children than gays, swingers and whatnot.

But I notice no neocons are crying for regulations to prevent both parents working.

 

[garyganu]

Which has nothing to do with the fact that a "spouse" by law, is considered "family". Don't like the federal definition? That's OK, go to your state legislature and check on similar provisions, you will find that spouse is included in the definition of family.


Then of course you can go to any large gathering of people, sporting events, church, political rally, etc - then get some time on a microphone. Ask them if they think of their spouse as family. Wanna bet that the VAST majority will answer "yes"?


>>>>

You are parsing words. Everyone knows that children are what make families. For heaven sake, we would not have any relations like aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, cousins, etc, if it were not for families with children.

You're treading dangerously close to the "obvious troll" line. Pull back a bit.

I don't understand what you object to. Please clarify.

 

[BDBoop]

You are parsing words. Everyone knows that children are what make families. For heaven sake, we would not have any relations like aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, cousins, etc, if it were not for families with children.

You're treading dangerously close to the "obvious troll" line. Pull back a bit.

I don't understand what you object to. Please clarify.

It's obvious that people become a family when they become wed. Whether children come along or not is irrelevant.

 

[WinterBorn]

I think that the federal government has no business establishing a "family medical leave act" or a "poverty level". The purpose of the federal government is to maintain order. This requires military, courts, special police agents, diplomatic staffs, international treaties and printing our money. There are very few other things that the federal government should be involved with. According to our constitution, only the powers specifically enumerated should be handled by the federal government. Everything else should be handled by the states, localities and individuals.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that a "spouse" by law, is considered "family". Don't like the federal definition? That's OK, go to your state legislature and check on similar provisions, you will find that spouse is included in the definition of family.


Then of course you can go to any large gathering of people, sporting events, church, political rally, etc - then get some time on a microphone. Ask them if they think of their spouse as family. Wanna bet that the VAST majority will answer "yes"?


>>>>

You are parsing words. Everyone knows that children are what make families. For heaven sake, we would not have any relations like aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, cousins, etc, if it were not for families with children.

My kids have 4 uncles. Only 2 of those uncles had kids. So are they all family or are only two of them family?

 

[BDBoop]

And singles? They are just useless, empty wasted shells until two of them connect and one turns into an incubator.

 

[BluePhantom]

And so you think not allowing gays to marry will help this?

I think that the schools, universities, media, entertainment industry, politicians and today's popular culture are all normalizing and glorifying debauchery in every form. Glorifying the gay lifestyle and the gay agenda is part of this. Kids don't know the difference between good and bad anymore.

If kids don't know the difference between good and bad anymore, you need to blame the parents. If two gay men or two lesbians marry, it does not have any effect on whether kids know good from bad. This is a typical propaganda tactic. "We have to save the kids!" is nonsense.

Want to know what is messing up kids? Greed. Both parents working so they can afford a bigger house, 3 cars, vacations in Tahiti ect, has done far more harm to children than gays, swingers and whatnot.

But I notice no neocons are crying for regulations to prevent both parents working.

It's not a conservative issue Winter. The media portrays it that way but in reality opposition to gay marriage exists on both sides. Oregon, where I live, passed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage by a wide margin. Let me tell you...Oregon is about as conservative as Pol Pot. I recently had the entire Oregon Republican Party to my house for a barbecue and it ran me $35.28. So who were all these people voting to ban gay marriage....liberals. How interesting. Same thing happened in California. So it's not a conservative or liberal thing. It's an issues which shows pretty clearly that bigotry and homophobia exists on both sides of the aisle in strong doses.

 

[garyganu]

You're treading dangerously close to the "obvious troll" line. Pull back a bit.

I don't understand what you object to. Please clarify.

It's obvious that people become a family when they become wed. Whether children come along or not is irrelevant.

Dear BDBoop. This is the first defintion listed when I Googled "define: family"

fam·i·ly/ˈfam(&#601lē/

Noun: A group consisting of parents and children living together in a household.

Adjective: Designed to be suitable for children as well as adults.

 

[BluePhantom]

I don't understand what you object to. Please clarify.

It's obvious that people become a family when they become wed. Whether children come along or not is irrelevant.

Dear BDBoop. This is the first defintion listed when I Googled "define: family"

fam·i·ly/ˈfam(&#601lē/

Noun: A group consisting of parents and children living together in a household.

Adjective: Designed to be suitable for children as well as adults.

I would say Webster (or whoever it was) needs to update their database. It's a dictionary's responsibility to adapt to society's definition. Society is not required to adhere to a dictionary's definition.

 

[garyganu]

Which has nothing to do with the fact that a "spouse" by law, is considered "family". Don't like the federal definition? That's OK, go to your state legislature and check on similar provisions, you will find that spouse is included in the definition of family.


Then of course you can go to any large gathering of people, sporting events, church, political rally, etc - then get some time on a microphone. Ask them if they think of their spouse as family. Wanna bet that the VAST majority will answer "yes"?


>>>>

You are parsing words. Everyone knows that children are what make families. For heaven sake, we would not have any relations like aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, cousins, etc, if it were not for families with children.

My kids have 4 uncles. Only 2 of those uncles had kids. So are they all family or are only two of them family?

Your two childless uncles are part of a family but they don't have their own families.

 

[WorldWatcher]

And so you think not allowing gays to marry will help this?

I think that the schools, universities, media, entertainment industry, politicians and today's popular culture are all normalizing and glorifying debauchery in every form. Glorifying the gay lifestyle and the gay agenda is part of this. Kids don't know the difference between good and bad anymore.

Becoming more accepting of homosexuals is not "glorifying". Since homosexuals aren't being locked up in mental institutions for electroshock therapy and arrested and thrown in jail - more and more people are coming into contact with homosexuals that are open about their sexuality, and realizing that vast majority of them are the same as the rest of us.

It's not that kids can't recognize the difference between "good" and "bad" its that their definition is different then their parents generation who think their definition is absolute and unchanging as it pertains to consensual adult relationships.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

I think that the federal government has no business establishing a "family medical leave act" or a "poverty level". The purpose of the federal government is to maintain order. This requires military, courts, special police agents, diplomatic staffs, international treaties and printing our money. There are very few other things that the federal government should be involved with. According to our constitution, only the powers specifically enumerated should be handled by the federal government. Everything else should be handled by the states, localities and individuals.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that a "spouse" by law, is considered "family". Don't like the federal definition? That's OK, go to your state legislature and check on similar provisions, you will find that spouse is included in the definition of family.


Then of course you can go to any large gathering of people, sporting events, church, political rally, etc - then get some time on a microphone. Ask them if they think of their spouse as family. Wanna bet that the VAST majority will answer "yes"?


>>>>

You are parsing words. Everyone knows that children are what make families. For heaven sake, we would not have any relations like aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, cousins, etc, if it were not for families with children.

Not parsing words, my wife is a member of my family and that would be true irregardless of if we'd ever had children.


>>>>

 

[garyganu]

It's obvious that people become a family when they become wed. Whether children come along or not is irrelevant.

Dear BDBoop. This is the first defintion listed when I Googled "define: family"

fam·i·ly/ˈfam(&#601lē/

Noun: A group consisting of parents and children living together in a household.

Adjective: Designed to be suitable for children as well as adults.

I would say Webster (or whoever it was) needs to update their database. It's a dictionary's responsibility to adapt to society's definition. Society is not required to adhere to a dictionary's definition.

Don't worry, they will as soon as they get bullied and intimidated by the gay activists. Marriage is not the only word that gay activists will try to redefine.

 

[garyganu]

And so you think not allowing gays to marry will help this?

I think that the schools, universities, media, entertainment industry, politicians and today's popular culture are all normalizing and glorifying debauchery in every form. Glorifying the gay lifestyle and the gay agenda is part of this. Kids don't know the difference between good and bad anymore.

Becoming more accepting of homosexuals is not "glorifying". Since homosexuals aren't being locked up in mental institutions for electroshock therapy and arrested and thrown in jail - more and more people are coming into contact with homosexuals that are open about their sexuality, and realizing that vast majority of them are the same as the rest of us.

It's not that kids can't recognize the difference between "good" and "bad" its that their definition is different then their parents generation who think their definition is absolute and unchanging as it pertains to consensual adult relationships.


>>>>

I should have said "normal and abnormal" instead of "good and bad" in that context.

Now you are saying that kids know better than their parents. That kind of thinking undermines a society.