A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate

[BDBoop]

Thank you, Dear Jake. Dear Gary has a lot of thinking ahead of him.

 

[JoeB131]

Joe, I think that it is clear that the break-up of the intact family as the foundation of our society has had disastrous effects. There is no greater obstacle to a child than to be born to a single mother. Statistics show that children born out-of-wedlock have much greater chances of becoming criminals, living in poverty and dropping out of school. This is where the moral issues begin.

How does letting gay folks get married "break-up the intact family".

There isn't a couple I know of who ever got a divorce because they said, "Damned, look at them ka-weeers getting married, our marriage is a sham, I'm out of here!"

If you want to address the issue of out of wedlock marriage, fine. That's a problem. If you want to argue we should get rid of the marriage penalty, that's fine, too.

It has nothing to do with what you were arguing about people who are gay not being able to get married. Let's try to keep on the subject, okay?

 

[WorldWatcher]

How does letting gay folks get married "break-up the intact family".

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixkck8QnjY]It's All Because (The Gays Are Getting Married) - YouTube[/ame]



>>>>

 

[JoeB131]

You're an evil man...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It has nothing to do with what you were arguing about people who are gay not being able to get married. Let's try to keep on the subject, okay?

Yes, but keeping on the subject would compel one to concede the failure of his argument; deflecting with non-issue is a lot more fun.

 

[garyganu]

How does letting gay folks get married "break-up the intact family".

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixkck8QnjY]It's All Because (The Gays Are Getting Married) - YouTube[/ame]



>>>>

Now I am repeating myself. Previously I wrote:

When you celebrate and embrace something that is abnormal and unhealthy, reason and common sense are turned on their heads. As a result, our popular culture has lost the ability to distinguish between, truth and lies, good and bad, right and wrong, normal and abnormal, healthy and unhealthy, constructive and destructive, considerate and rude, brave and cowardly, modest and lewd, vulgar and polite, acceptable and unacceptable, respectful and contemptuous, virtuous and shameful, tolerant and intolerant, open-minded and narrow-minded truth and deception, etc."

In today's popular culture, which rejects many social and spiritual restraints, I see less value given to universal spiritual principles including love, selflessness, honesty, integrity, humility, patience, courage, sacrifice, compassion, forgiveness, acceptance, self-discipline, open-mindedness, perseverance, gratitude and faith in God. At the same time I see more value given to popularity, sexuality, wealth, pride, diversity ( as a virtue, in and of itself), fame, power, thrill seeking and self esteem.

IMHO, there can be no other possible outcome than our society and culture becoming more corrupt, greedy, lawless, poor, ignorant, powerless, and ultimately more restrained by our fears and/or our government. This is clearly witnessed by the current increase in crime, prisons, corruption, illiteracy, poverty, drug use, intolerance and governmental control in today's America.

 

[WinterBorn]

How does letting gay folks get married "break-up the intact family".

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixkck8QnjY]It's All Because (The Gays Are Getting Married) - YouTube[/ame]



>>>>

Now I am repeating myself. Previously I wrote:

When you celebrate and embrace something that is abnormal and unhealthy, reason and common sense are turned on their heads. As a result, our popular culture has lost the ability to distinguish between, truth and lies, good and bad, right and wrong, normal and abnormal, healthy and unhealthy, constructive and destructive, considerate and rude, brave and cowardly, modest and lewd, vulgar and polite, acceptable and unacceptable, respectful and contemptuous, virtuous and shameful, tolerant and intolerant, open-minded and narrow-minded truth and deception, etc."

In today's popular culture, which rejects many social and spiritual restraints, I see less value given to universal spiritual principles including love, selflessness, honesty, integrity, humility, patience, courage, sacrifice, compassion, forgiveness, acceptance, self-discipline, open-mindedness, perseverance, gratitude and faith in God. At the same time I see more value given to popularity, sexuality, wealth, pride, diversity ( as a virtue, in and of itself), fame, power, thrill seeking and self esteem.

IMHO, there can be no other possible outcome than our society and culture becoming more corrupt, greedy, lawless, poor, ignorant, powerless, and ultimately more restrained by our fears and/or our government. This is clearly witnessed by the current increase in crime, prisons, corruption, illiteracy, poverty, drug use, intolerance and governmental control in today's America.

Yes, you are repeating yourself. But this was debunked the first time, so reread what someone said about the difference between celebrating and just not hating.

Plus, you also claimed that children of single parent homes is the cause of the decay of society. And yet you still want to not allow certain people to create two parent homes.

 

[garyganu]

It's All Because (The Gays Are Getting Married) - YouTube



>>>>

Now I am repeating myself. Previously I wrote:

When you celebrate and embrace something that is abnormal and unhealthy, reason and common sense are turned on their heads. As a result, our popular culture has lost the ability to distinguish between, truth and lies, good and bad, right and wrong, normal and abnormal, healthy and unhealthy, constructive and destructive, considerate and rude, brave and cowardly, modest and lewd, vulgar and polite, acceptable and unacceptable, respectful and contemptuous, virtuous and shameful, tolerant and intolerant, open-minded and narrow-minded truth and deception, etc."

In today's popular culture, which rejects many social and spiritual restraints, I see less value given to universal spiritual principles including love, selflessness, honesty, integrity, humility, patience, courage, sacrifice, compassion, forgiveness, acceptance, self-discipline, open-mindedness, perseverance, gratitude and faith in God. At the same time I see more value given to popularity, sexuality, wealth, pride, diversity ( as a virtue, in and of itself), fame, power, thrill seeking and self esteem.

IMHO, there can be no other possible outcome than our society and culture becoming more corrupt, greedy, lawless, poor, ignorant, powerless, and ultimately more restrained by our fears and/or our government. This is clearly witnessed by the current increase in crime, prisons, corruption, illiteracy, poverty, drug use, intolerance and governmental control in today's America.

Yes, you are repeating yourself. But this was debunked the first time, so reread what someone said about the difference between celebrating and just not hating.

Plus, you also claimed that children of single parent homes is the cause of the decay of society. And yet you still want to not allow certain people to create two parent homes.

The words "celebrate and embrace" accurately describe how the public schools, universities, mainstream media, entertainment industry and popular culture treat the topic of the homosexual lifestyle.

 

[WinterBorn]

Now I am repeating myself. Previously I wrote:

When you celebrate and embrace something that is abnormal and unhealthy, reason and common sense are turned on their heads. As a result, our popular culture has lost the ability to distinguish between, truth and lies, good and bad, right and wrong, normal and abnormal, healthy and unhealthy, constructive and destructive, considerate and rude, brave and cowardly, modest and lewd, vulgar and polite, acceptable and unacceptable, respectful and contemptuous, virtuous and shameful, tolerant and intolerant, open-minded and narrow-minded truth and deception, etc."

In today's popular culture, which rejects many social and spiritual restraints, I see less value given to universal spiritual principles including love, selflessness, honesty, integrity, humility, patience, courage, sacrifice, compassion, forgiveness, acceptance, self-discipline, open-mindedness, perseverance, gratitude and faith in God. At the same time I see more value given to popularity, sexuality, wealth, pride, diversity ( as a virtue, in and of itself), fame, power, thrill seeking and self esteem.

IMHO, there can be no other possible outcome than our society and culture becoming more corrupt, greedy, lawless, poor, ignorant, powerless, and ultimately more restrained by our fears and/or our government. This is clearly witnessed by the current increase in crime, prisons, corruption, illiteracy, poverty, drug use, intolerance and governmental control in today's America.

Yes, you are repeating yourself. But this was debunked the first time, so reread what someone said about the difference between celebrating and just not hating.

Plus, you also claimed that children of single parent homes is the cause of the decay of society. And yet you still want to not allow certain people to create two parent homes.

The words "celebrate and embrace" accurately describe how the public schools, universities, mainstream media, entertainment industry and popular culture treat the topic of the homosexual lifestyle.

I think the more accurate term would be "accept". Most of the celebration done is by those who finally have a place they are accepted.

But please tell us, what evidence do you have that celebrating homosexuality as an equal to heterosexuality is damaging our society??

 

[garyganu]

Yes, you are repeating yourself. But this was debunked the first time, so reread what someone said about the difference between celebrating and just not hating.

Plus, you also claimed that children of single parent homes is the cause of the decay of society. And yet you still want to not allow certain people to create two parent homes.

The words "celebrate and embrace" accurately describe how the public schools, universities, mainstream media, entertainment industry and popular culture treat the topic of the homosexual lifestyle.

I think the more accurate term would be "accept". Most of the celebration done is by those who finally have a place they are accepted.

But please tell us, what evidence do you have that celebrating homosexuality as an equal to heterosexuality is damaging our society??

When you celebrate and embrace something that is abnormal and unhealthy, reason and common sense are turned on their heads.........

 

[BDBoop]

The words "celebrate and embrace" accurately describe how the public schools, universities, mainstream media, entertainment industry and popular culture treat the topic of the homosexual lifestyle.

I think the more accurate term would be "accept". Most of the celebration done is by those who finally have a place they are accepted.

But please tell us, what evidence do you have that celebrating homosexuality as an equal to heterosexuality is damaging our society??

When you celebrate and embrace something that is abnormal and unhealthy, reason and common sense are turned on their heads.........

It's not abnormal, nor it is unhealthy.

 

[WinterBorn]

The words "celebrate and embrace" accurately describe how the public schools, universities, mainstream media, entertainment industry and popular culture treat the topic of the homosexual lifestyle.

I think the more accurate term would be "accept". Most of the celebration done is by those who finally have a place they are accepted.

But please tell us, what evidence do you have that celebrating homosexuality as an equal to heterosexuality is damaging our society??

When you celebrate and embrace something that is abnormal and unhealthy, reason and common sense are turned on their heads.........

Ok, first you must define or explain how homosexuality, in and of itself, is unhealthy.

The whole "abnormal" thing can be tossed out. There are straights who are far more abnormal than many of the gays who want to marry. And there is no statute or regulation requiring anyone be normal. In fact, one of the greatest evolutions of our societies is throwing off this yoke of the nonsense of requiring that we all be alike. You and I have no right to require anyone to be normal, unless their abnormality is dangerous or harmful.

I am sure the neocons would prefer obedient, compliant slaves walking lockstep to do their master's bidding. But that is not what humanity is about.

 

[WinterBorn]

The words "celebrate and embrace" accurately describe how the public schools, universities, mainstream media, entertainment industry and popular culture treat the topic of the homosexual lifestyle.

I think the more accurate term would be "accept". Most of the celebration done is by those who finally have a place they are accepted.

But please tell us, what evidence do you have that celebrating homosexuality as an equal to heterosexuality is damaging our society??

When you celebrate and embrace something that is abnormal and unhealthy, reason and common sense are turned on their heads.........

One more thing, perhaps your reason and common sense is turned on its head by the actions of others, but mine is not.

You keep making these wild accusations without a single shred of evidence.

Your first step should be to go and look at the studies of kids raised by gay parents and the comparisons to kids raised by straight parents.

I'll give you a heads up, there is no documentable evidence of any significant difference.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

If gays want to live together thats fine if gays want the government to stay out of their life maybe they should not press the government to get involved with their life style.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

If gays want to live together thats fine if gays want the government to stay out of their life maybe they should not press the government to get involved with their life style.

I think the gov't should not be in any of our lives where marriage is concerned. So how about we remove the 1,100 or so benefits the federal gov't gives married couples and the 300 or so benefits given by state and local gov'ts.

Otherwise, how about we have our gov't base its benefits on facts rather than on bigotry and prejudice, m'kay?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Let's put a little sanity to this, shall we?

The three main arguments people give against gay marriage are

1) The Bible says it's wrong.
2) I find it icky (when dudes do it anyway. )
3) Marriage has always been defined as this, so we shouldn't change it.

The first one is easily dipsensed with. The bible has a whole lot of rules most of us don't follow, and we invent a thousand denominations to give us an excuse as to why we do or don't follow the rules we don't like. And that's a personal choice.

The second one is that yes, certain things are not an image I'd want in my head. But there really isn't anything gays do to each other than straights do to each other.

The third is that marriage has not always been what it is now. Women don't pledge to obey their husbands anymore. That's considered passe. Marriages have become unions of equals, as opposed to transfers of property. True, we have a few vestigates of the "Women as property". Wedding gowns still have veils because at one time, you didn't see what you got until your arranged marriage was in progress. Fathers still walk their daughters down the aisle, but it isn't a transfer of property along with a dowry and an expectation you could beat your wife with impunity.

So once you've dispensed with those three flimsey arguments, you don't have anything left.

Now, that said, I think that if we are going to make it legal, as we should, it should be done by votes of the legislature, as NY did it, and not by judicial fiat as CA has done it.

You going good there until your last paragraph…

Although it would be preferable to have all 50 states follow the Constitutional mandate as established by the 14th Amendment, thus avoiding court battles altogether, we all know that’s not going to happen.

Our Republican form of government follows the rule of law, not the tyranny of the majority. That a majority of a given state vote to deny same sex couples equal access to the law is anathema to the Constitution and its case law: a state may not deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.

A court upholding the rule of law is not ‘judicial fiat,’ as the onus is on the state legislatures to obey the Constitution in the first place.

When you say, "The bad old days are ending", it would mean that things are getting better. However, all indications are that our society is in a state of decline, not growth.

That may be the perception of those that have benefited or profited from institutionalized discrimination, or who have enjoyed power and privilege as a consequence religious affiliation alone. But such discrimination and unwarranted privilege have always been in conflict with fundamental Constitutional principles.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

If gays want to live together thats fine if gays want the government to stay out of their life maybe they should not press the government to get involved with their life style.

I think the gov't should not be in any of our lives where marriage is concerned. So how about we remove the 1,100 or so benefits the federal gov't gives married couples and the 300 or so benefits given by state and local gov'ts.

Otherwise, how about we have our gov't base its benefits on facts rather than on bigotry and prejudice, m'kay?

Marriage is for Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

 

[WinterBorn]

If gays want to live together thats fine if gays want the government to stay out of their life maybe they should not press the government to get involved with their life style.

I think the gov't should not be in any of our lives where marriage is concerned. So how about we remove the 1,100 or so benefits the federal gov't gives married couples and the 300 or so benefits given by state and local gov'ts.

Otherwise, how about we have our gov't base its benefits on facts rather than on bigotry and prejudice, m'kay?

Marriage is for Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

So you believe that 2 people, created from mud, started our entire population about 6,000 years ago?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I think the gov't should not be in any of our lives where marriage is concerned. So how about we remove the 1,100 or so benefits the federal gov't gives married couples and the 300 or so benefits given by state and local gov'ts.

Otherwise, how about we have our gov't base its benefits on facts rather than on bigotry and prejudice, m'kay?

Marriage is for Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

So you believe that 2 people, created from mud, started our entire population about 6,000 years ago?

I believe a Male and a Female created life not a male and male.

 

[WinterBorn]

Marriage is for Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

So you believe that 2 people, created from mud, started our entire population about 6,000 years ago?

I believe a Male and a Female created life not a male and male.

If we were talking about natural procreation, you might have a point.

But we're not. You don't.