A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate

[BDBoop]

I did. I'm sorry you're an idiot, but you are.

Okay, memory refresh then.

And I'm sorry you're a fucked-up bitch who makes dry ice look inviting.

 

[Montrovant]

?

Anyway, back to the discussion...marriage exists as an institution to protect children, and we afford certain perks to encourage unions that provide the most stability and the best nurturing for children, since a society lives or dies by children.

Homosexuals are in no way prevented from participating in these unions. They each have the same right as any hetero to get married. If they don't want to, that's fine, nobody cares if they do or they don't, that's their choice. But it is their choice. It's nonsense to force us to pretend that homosexual families are the premier baby-raising construct that we should all aspire to participate in...that's nonsense.

Like I said, it's the exact same thing that was done in the 70s, when the same people lied about how much happier children would be if their parents were able to fuck around with no consequences, and buy stock in "no fault divorce". The same people continue to tell us the other side of this fairy tale..."Abortions save lives!" What a crock of shit.

Homosexuals aren't being denied anything except a place up there on the pedestal with traditional families.

Sorry, you aren't the ideal, and nobody is going to pretend you are. You can change the laws, you can lie all you want, but you are not the norm, you are not the preferred and most reliable construct we have for raising kids, and you never will be. If you want to enjoy the advantages of hooking up with a member of the opposite sex, then you have to actually do that.

Which would be important or relevant, if marriages were only provided to those who lived up to being the 'premier baby-raising construct'. Since that is obviously not the case, your argument falls pretty far short of being at all compelling.

Further, considering homosexuals are already completely capable of adopting children or having their own through various means, the idea that allowing them to marry their partners will somehow create substandard places for child rearing that do not currently exist seems foolish.

So, again, how exactly does your argument about marriage being about the best environment to raise children make sense in relation to gay marriage?

Allowing same sex marriage doesn't make that the ideal, but it does perhaps put them on an equal level with a drunken Vegas wedding. Is that still too much for you?

And again, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the argument that not allowing same sex marriage is gender discrimination.

 

[koshergrl]

Wrong.

The proven ideal for raising children (which is, after all, the primary reason for its existence..though children also benefit when extended family members marry wisely...so fertility is not necessarily a necessity for the construct to work) is a family headed by a male and a female. There is no evidence that supports the theory that homosexual households are just as stable and just as likely to produce well adjusted, high functioning citizens. So thanks, we aren't obligated to just *assume* it will be the same, and heap all sorts of laurels on the heads of gay households because they want to be able to take their kids to "Gay Pride" day and get the same sort of admiration that a dad gets when he attends the father/daughter ball with his daughter.

In other words, tough shit. You have the same rights as everybody else. You don't get extras because you're gay. If you aren't happy with your choice, then you're free to make another one.

 

[BDBoop]

Wrong.

The proven ideal for raising children (which is, after all, the primary reason for its existence..though children also benefit when extended family members marry wisely...so fertility is not necessarily a necessity for the construct to work) is a family headed by a male and a female. There is no evidence that supports the theory that homosexual households are just as stable and just as likely to produce well adjusted, high functioning citizens. So thanks, we aren't obligated to just *assume* it will be the same, and heap all sorts of laurels on the heads of gay households because they want to be able to take their kids to "Gay Pride" day and get the same sort of admiration that a dad gets when he attends the father/daughter ball with his daughter.

In other words, tough shit. You have the same rights as everybody else. You don't get extras because you're gay. If you aren't happy with your choice, then you're free to make another one.

Your opinion is meaningless.

 

[koshergrl]

My opinion is backed up by anthropologists, historians, biologists the world over.

Your opinion is the meaningless one. Though honestly, it doesn't matter because it doesn't make sense in the first place. So don't feel bad..it's meaningless, but nobody misses it.

 

[BDBoop]

My opinion is backed up by anthropologists, historians, biologists the world over.

Your opinion is the meaningless one. Though honestly, it doesn't matter because it doesn't make sense in the first place. So don't feel bad..it's meaningless, but nobody misses it.

You really do remind me of the Wizard of Oz.

 

[koshergrl]

I completely believe that is true.

 

[daws101]

I came across an interesting article from a Christian point of view. Here is an excerpt:


The central question posed is: ”If the Bible instructs readers not to eat shellfish or wear mixed fabrics, among other rules and believers no longer comply with these requirements, then why should individuals continue to oppose homosexuality?”

While Mohler contends that, on the surface this is a fair question, he attempts to frame the difference between Old Testament rules that were set for Israel and those moral codes that are more universal.

“An honest consideration of the Bible reveals that most of the Biblical laws people point to in asking this question, such as laws against eating shellfish or wearing mixed fabrics, are part of the holiness code assigned to Israel in the Old Testament,” Mohler explains. “That code was to set Israel, God’s covenant people, apart from all other nations on everything from morality to diet.”




Mohler goes on to explain that the Book of Acts makes it clear that Christians are not commanded to follow this same code (Acts 10:15). The verse (speaking about Peter), reads, “The voice spoke to him a second time, ‘Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.’” This is taken to mean that the kosher code is not pertinent for Christians and, thus, is no longer binding.

However, when it comes to sexual behavior, the faith leader maintains that the rules are clear and consistent. He writes:

The Bible’s commands on sexual behavior, on the other hand, are continued in the New Testament. When it comes to homosexuality, the Bible’s teaching is consistent, pervasive, uniform and set within a larger context of law and Gospel.
The Old Testament clearly condemns male homosexuality along with adultery, bestiality, incest and any sex outside the covenant of marriage. The New Testament does not lessen this concern but amplifies it.
The New Testament condemns both male and female homosexual behavior. The Apostle Paul, for example, points specifically to homosexuality as evidence of human sinfulness. His point is not merely that homosexuals are sinners but that all humanity has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

The entire article can be viewed here: Albert Mohler Explains Why Christians Oppose Homosexuality | CNN Belief Blog | TheBlaze.com

kinda contradictory as paul was gay:Was St. Paul Gay? Claim Stirs Fury - NYTimes.com

Not even going too read your source Paul wasn't gay.

more proof you are tragically stupid in a closed minded way.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Wrong.

The proven ideal for raising children (which is, after all, the primary reason for its existence..though children also benefit when extended family members marry wisely...so fertility is not necessarily a necessity for the construct to work) is a family headed by a male and a female. There is no evidence that supports the theory that homosexual households are just as stable and just as likely to produce well adjusted, high functioning citizens. So thanks, we aren't obligated to just *assume* it will be the same, and heap all sorts of laurels on the heads of gay households because they want to be able to take their kids to "Gay Pride" day and get the same sort of admiration that a dad gets when he attends the father/daughter ball with his daughter.

In other words, tough shit. You have the same rights as everybody else. You don't get extras because you're gay. If you aren't happy with your choice, then you're free to make another one.

Your opinion is meaningless.

True. Just as meaningless as the opinion that blacks should be held ‘separate but equal.’

The purpose of the doctrine of the rule of law is to protect citizens from the ignorance and hate exhibited by our friends from the right.

I completely believe that is true.

What you believe is irrelevant.

 

[daws101]

Not even going too read your source Paul wasn't gay.

Phfft. You don't even go to church, how the fuck would you know.

I read the Bible that's why.

read? you must mean look at the pictures.!!!

 

[daws101]

?

Anyway, back to the discussion...marriage exists as an institution to protect children, and we afford certain perks to encourage unions that provide the most stability and the best nurturing for children, since a society lives or dies by children.

Homosexuals are in no way prevented from participating in these unions. They each have the same right as any hetero to get married. If they don't want to, that's fine, nobody cares if they do or they don't, that's their choice. But it is their choice. It's nonsense to force us to pretend that homosexual families are the premier baby-raising construct that we should all aspire to participate in...that's nonsense.

Like I said, it's the exact same thing that was done in the 70s, when the same people lied about how much happier children would be if their parents were able to fuck around with no consequences, and buy stock in "no fault divorce". The same people continue to tell us the other side of this fairy tale..."Abortions save lives!" What a crock of shit.

Homosexuals aren't being denied anything except a place up there on the pedestal with traditional families.

Sorry, you aren't the ideal, and nobody is going to pretend you are. You can change the laws, you can lie all you want, but you are not the norm, you are not the preferred and most reliable construct we have for raising kids, and you never will be. If you want to enjoy the advantages of hooking up with a member of the opposite sex, then you have to actually do that.

"Homosexuals aren't being denied anything except a place up there on the pedestal with traditional families." is it just me or does that remind anyone of separate but equal?

 

[koshergrl]

It doesn't matter what it reminds you of. The difference between separate and equal was that blacks were actually being denied things. Gays aren't being denied shit. They're chosing a different path. Separate but equal...denied based on color....homosexual marriage...refuse to participate.

See? Different scenarios. One involves choice, and consequences...

 

[BDBoop]

It doesn't matter what it reminds you of. The difference between separate and equal was that blacks were actually being denied things. Gays aren't being denied shit. They're chosing a different path. Separate but equal...denied based on color....homosexual marriage...refuse to participate.

See? Different scenarios. One involves choice, and consequences...

Nope, not choosing a different path.

You lose.

 

[daws101]

It doesn't matter what it reminds you of. The difference between separate and equal was that blacks were actually being denied things. Gays aren't being denied shit. They're chosing a different path. Separate but equal...denied based on color....homosexual marriage...refuse to participate.

See? Different scenarios. One involves choice, and consequences...

so race creed color and sexual orientation is bullshit?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Phfft. You don't even go to church, how the fuck would you know.

I read the Bible that's why.

read? you must mean look at the pictures.!!!

Do you really want to go there? Do you want to debate me on the Bible and it's content?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

kinda contradictory as paul was gay:Was St. Paul Gay? Claim Stirs Fury - NYTimes.com

Not even going too read your source Paul wasn't gay.

more proof you are tragically stupid in a closed minded way.

Paul wasn't gay dumb ass.

Paul wrote the book of Romans

Romans 1:24-28
King James Version (KJV)
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

 

[daws101]

I read the Bible that's why.

read? you must mean look at the pictures.!!!

Do you really want to go there? Do you want to debate me on the Bible and it's content?

do you ?everything you've quoted from the bible has been out of context, cherry picked or intentionally mis interpreted. ( If I'm wrong about that ,then you're a shit for brains loud mouth that holds up the line at home depot)
you've all ready proven how little you actually know by refusing to read anything that refutes your pov.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

read? you must mean look at the pictures.!!!

Do you really want to go there? Do you want to debate me on the Bible and it's content?

do you ?everything you've quoted from the bible has been out of context, cherry picked or intentionally mis interpreted. ( If I'm wrong about that ,then you're a shit for brains loud mouth that holds up the line at home depot)
you've all ready proven how little you actually know by refusing to read anything that refutes your pov.

Nothing I quote from the Bible is out of context. Unlike you I have more respect for the word of God than to use those words out of context.
So let's rock bitch

Paul was not gay.

Paul wrote the book of Romans

Romans 1:24-28
King James Version (KJV)
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

He's condemning the life style.

 

[WinterBorn]

It doesn't matter what it reminds you of. The difference between separate and equal was that blacks were actually being denied things. Gays aren't being denied shit. They're chosing a different path. Separate but equal...denied based on color....homosexual marriage...refuse to participate.

See? Different scenarios. One involves choice, and consequences...

I can understand why you never answered my question. For all your talk about marriage being about children, and the links to whomever, you never quite found the time to answer a fundamental question concerning marriage.

Why do people marry? I am sure there are a few gold-diggers out there marrying for money. And, while not as common, there are still people marrying because of a pregnancy. But the overwhelming majority of people marry because they are in love with their partner. And gays are certainly being denied that.

As for the children thing, since artificial insemination and adoption is available as an option, the excuse of marriage being solely for raising children is completely bogus. Especially since straights without a possibility of children get the benefits, and gay couples actually raising children do not.

 

[WinterBorn]

Do you really want to go there? Do you want to debate me on the Bible and it's content?

do you ?everything you've quoted from the bible has been out of context, cherry picked or intentionally mis interpreted. ( If I'm wrong about that ,then you're a shit for brains loud mouth that holds up the line at home depot)
you've all ready proven how little you actually know by refusing to read anything that refutes your pov.

Nothing I quote from the Bible is out of context. Unlike you I have more respect for the word of God than to use those words out of context.
So let's rock bitch

Paul was not gay.

Paul wrote the book of Romans

Romans 1:24-28
King James Version (KJV)
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

He's condemning the life style.

Plenty of homosexuals have condemned the lifestyle and railed against homosexuality.