A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate

[garyganu]

You can make the goalposts horizontal if you like, paint them red, white & blue and march a band around them. Gays STILL are being denied the right to contract with their chosen, free-to-contract significant other.

Not true. Gays are free to contract with other gays for inheritance rights, beneficiary rights, shared property rights, etc.

See the post above yours.

This is exactly why we should institute the garriage contract for gays instead of changing the wording of the existing traditional marriage contracts.

 

[koshergrl]

Boop is just a liar. That's the bottom line. All these extremists are.

 

[garyganu]

Boop is just a liar. That's the bottom line. All these extremists are.

Liberals can not defend their agenda without lying or demonizing their opposition. This message-board makes it abundantly clear.

But I still like BDBoop despite her liberal views. She is just doing what liberals do. She doesn't know any better.

 

[WinterBorn]

Boop is just a liar. That's the bottom line. All these extremists are.

Liberals can not defend their agenda without lying or demonizing their opposition. This message-board makes it abundantly clear.

But I still like BDBoop despite her liberal views. She is just doing what liberals do. She doesn't know any better.

I would think it would be hard to type that with a straight face.

Surely you have not missed the demonizing by the conservatives? Or the lies?

 

[koshergrl]

If you have them, why don't you point them out?

Here's the way this works:

Progressive nutjob is caught in a lie, which is quoted and linked.

Progressive nutjob says "all conservatives lie" by way of diverting attention from their own lie.

Right winger asks progressive nutjob to provide an example.

Progressive nutjob brings in two or three trolls who post two or three lies about the right winger...but no quotes or links.

Right winger asks progressive nutjob to provide an example.

Progressive nutjob jeers and calls right winger stupid.

That's the way whackos do business. Count yourself lucky you never entered into a contract with them, because the way they lie and cheat on this board is exactly the way they lie and cheat in real life.

 

[BDBoop]

Boop is just a liar. That's the bottom line. All these extremists are.

Liberals can not defend their agenda without lying or demonizing their opposition. This message-board makes it abundantly clear.

But I still like BDBoop despite her liberal views. She is just doing what liberals do. She doesn't know any better.

I would think it would be hard to type that with a straight face.

Surely you have not missed the demonizing by the conservatives? Or the lies?

She's on the rag.

 

[koshergrl]

Liberals can not defend their agenda without lying or demonizing their opposition. This message-board makes it abundantly clear.

But I still like BDBoop despite her liberal views. She is just doing what liberals do. She doesn't know any better.

I would think it would be hard to type that with a straight face.

Surely you have not missed the demonizing by the conservatives? Or the lies?

She's on the rag.

And you think I hate women?
More pro-feminine rhetoric from the illiterate. Pray continue.

 

[garyganu]

Boop is just a liar. That's the bottom line. All these extremists are.

Liberals can not defend their agenda without lying or demonizing their opposition. This message-board makes it abundantly clear.

But I still like BDBoop despite her liberal views. She is just doing what liberals do. She doesn't know any better.

I would think it would be hard to type that with a straight face.

Surely you have not missed the demonizing by the conservatives? Or the lies?

I'm new on this board and I haven't seen too many conservatives. If they are lying and demonizing, I would not classify them as conservatives.

 

[Montrovant]

I love the irony of kg constantly harping on other people telling lies.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/222313-gays-comprise-6-of-the-population-yer-they-commit-25-of-all-sexual-perversions-34.html#post5248907

Just in case you needed an example and link!

Progressives are all extremist liars, but kg is a pillar of honesty who says it is illegal to be a homophobe or racist.

 

[koshergrl]

I love the irony of kg constantly harping on other people telling lies.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...of-all-sexual-perversions-34.html#post5248907

Just in case you needed an example and link!

Progressives are all extremist liars, but kg is a pillar of honesty who says it is illegal to be a homophobe or racist.

If that is all you have on me, and you're hanging onto it for dear life, then I feel pretty good about my record.

I could have worded it better. Meh.

 

[clevergirl]

But why is gay marriage inimical to the traditional matrimony? How does society suffer if it gives legal sanction to the cohabitation of gay couples and bestows upon them the rights traditionally granted to spouses? In short, an approach based on individual rights is a bum steer. Legalization of same-sex marriage compromises the institution of marriage and thus undermines the family built on the foundation of marriage.

It has been known since the dawn of history that a family unit consisting of a man and a woman is the best nurturing environment for the children. According to the research center Child Trends, "[r]esearch confirms that children develop best in families formed by both biological parents in a low-conflict marriage." Even the best-intentioned gay couples raising children shortchange their wards. But the most militant gay leaders are not well-meaning. Just as the radical leftists started out on their Great March through the Institutions with schools and colleges as their primary targets ("We'll get you through your children," the radical leftist and gay poet Allen Ginsberg warned his erstwhile friend Norman Podhoretz), gay militants have children in their cross-hairs. A nationwide organization, The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, openly acknowledges that its objective is to promote a positive view of homosexuality among pre-teen and teenage students.

Aside from the tremendous damage same-sex marriage does to the well-being and normal development of children, by offering an alternative to a bedrock institution, gay marriage calls into question all traditional values. There is a strong correlation between the rise of homosexual marriage and the weakening of traditional matrimony. David Blankenhorn observes, "The deep logic of same-sex marriage is clearly consistent with what scholars call deinstitutionalization -- the overturning or weakening of all of the customary forms of marriage, and the dramatic shrinking of marriage's public meaning and institutional authority. Does deinstitutionalization necessarily require gay marriage? Apparently not. For decades heterosexuals have been doing a fine job on that front all by themselves. But gay marriage clearly presupposes and reinforces deinstitutionalization."

Marx's loyal cohort Friedrich Engels, in his influential work, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the States, disclosed the game plan in a single, succinct proposition: change the concept of matrimony, and the traditional family will cease to exist. And once the family is gone, society will fall apart. Knock out the cornerstone, and the whole edifice will crumble, which is precisely the ultimate goal of the revolutionary movement.

Read more:

 

[Vidi]

I realize I'm showing up late in this thread but here's the reasonable solution as I see it.

"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's"


Marriage is both a religious rite and a government recognized contract.

Therefore, gays should be able to legally marry and be recognized legally, but the churches should be able to refuse to perform the ceremonies.

Gays CAN already legally marry in every state in the union. The gay activists are trying to redefine the word marriage to include same-sex couples. Most people object to altering the institution of marriage. However, I have no objection to unions between same sex couples under a different name. Garriage for example. This way the institution of marriage does not need to be altered to accommodate gays.

Marriage is a LEGAL contract with the state.

What you're advocating is a "seperate but equal" legal status for same sex marriage. All laws regarding the rights and privileges of married status would then have to be rewritten , reargued, revoted into law.

What you're advocating in a big government bureaucratic nightmare that wastes time and taxpayer money implementing something that could be done with a single piece of legislation that simply defines marriage as two consenting adults.

Why?

 

[Vidi]

But why is gay marriage inimical to the traditional matrimony? How does society suffer if it gives legal sanction to the cohabitation of gay couples and bestows upon them the rights traditionally granted to spouses? In short, an approach based on individual rights is a bum steer. Legalization of same-sex marriage compromises the institution of marriage and thus undermines the family built on the foundation of marriage.

It has been known since the dawn of history that a family unit consisting of a man and a woman is the best nurturing environment for the children. According to the research center Child Trends, "[r]esearch confirms that children develop best in families formed by both biological parents in a low-conflict marriage." Even the best-intentioned gay couples raising children shortchange their wards. But the most militant gay leaders are not well-meaning. Just as the radical leftists started out on their Great March through the Institutions with schools and colleges as their primary targets ("We'll get you through your children," the radical leftist and gay poet Allen Ginsberg warned his erstwhile friend Norman Podhoretz), gay militants have children in their cross-hairs. A nationwide organization, The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, openly acknowledges that its objective is to promote a positive view of homosexuality among pre-teen and teenage students.

Aside from the tremendous damage same-sex marriage does to the well-being and normal development of children, by offering an alternative to a bedrock institution, gay marriage calls into question all traditional values. There is a strong correlation between the rise of homosexual marriage and the weakening of traditional matrimony. David Blankenhorn observes, "The deep logic of same-sex marriage is clearly consistent with what scholars call deinstitutionalization -- the overturning or weakening of all of the customary forms of marriage, and the dramatic shrinking of marriage's public meaning and institutional authority. Does deinstitutionalization necessarily require gay marriage? Apparently not. For decades heterosexuals have been doing a fine job on that front all by themselves. But gay marriage clearly presupposes and reinforces deinstitutionalization."

Marx's loyal cohort Friedrich Engels, in his influential work, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the States, disclosed the game plan in a single, succinct proposition: change the concept of matrimony, and the traditional family will cease to exist. And once the family is gone, society will fall apart. Knock out the cornerstone, and the whole edifice will crumble, which is precisely the ultimate goal of the revolutionary movement.

Read more:

Nonsense.

With a 40-50% divorce rate ( depending on who puts out the numbers ) arguing the "sanctity" of marriage is a strawman argument.

 

[clevergirl]

But why is gay marriage inimical to the traditional matrimony? How does society suffer if it gives legal sanction to the cohabitation of gay couples and bestows upon them the rights traditionally granted to spouses? In short, an approach based on individual rights is a bum steer. Legalization of same-sex marriage compromises the institution of marriage and thus undermines the family built on the foundation of marriage.

It has been known since the dawn of history that a family unit consisting of a man and a woman is the best nurturing environment for the children. According to the research center Child Trends, "[r]esearch confirms that children develop best in families formed by both biological parents in a low-conflict marriage." Even the best-intentioned gay couples raising children shortchange their wards. But the most militant gay leaders are not well-meaning. Just as the radical leftists started out on their Great March through the Institutions with schools and colleges as their primary targets ("We'll get you through your children," the radical leftist and gay poet Allen Ginsberg warned his erstwhile friend Norman Podhoretz), gay militants have children in their cross-hairs. A nationwide organization, The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, openly acknowledges that its objective is to promote a positive view of homosexuality among pre-teen and teenage students.

Aside from the tremendous damage same-sex marriage does to the well-being and normal development of children, by offering an alternative to a bedrock institution, gay marriage calls into question all traditional values. There is a strong correlation between the rise of homosexual marriage and the weakening of traditional matrimony. David Blankenhorn observes, "The deep logic of same-sex marriage is clearly consistent with what scholars call deinstitutionalization -- the overturning or weakening of all of the customary forms of marriage, and the dramatic shrinking of marriage's public meaning and institutional authority. Does deinstitutionalization necessarily require gay marriage? Apparently not. For decades heterosexuals have been doing a fine job on that front all by themselves. But gay marriage clearly presupposes and reinforces deinstitutionalization."

Marx's loyal cohort Friedrich Engels, in his influential work, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the States, disclosed the game plan in a single, succinct proposition: change the concept of matrimony, and the traditional family will cease to exist. And once the family is gone, society will fall apart. Knock out the cornerstone, and the whole edifice will crumble, which is precisely the ultimate goal of the revolutionary movement.

Read more:

Nonsense.

With a 40-50% divorce rate ( depending on who puts out the numbers ) arguing the "sanctity" of marriage is a strawman argument.

Only because divorce has been made easy and marriage cheapened. Still that does not take away that studies done, with regards to marriage and their being the mainstay of a healthy society, as being factually correct.

By America’s #1 Love and Marriage Experts.

Let’s face it; the oft-quoted statistic that 50% of marriages in America end in divorce discourages a lot of couples who are contemplating marriage. Who could blame them? Who wants to get into relationships where there is the expectation of failure half the time! But the truth is, the suggestion that there is a 50% divorce rate in American is simply wrong, wrong, wrong! We would like to de-bunk that myth, that fiction, that urban legend!

Our motivation for writing this article has many origins including this recent quote we came across while perusing some articles on the subject: “Divorce rates are at an all-time high, and a successful marriage seems hard to come by these days.”

Where did such a notion come from? What could be the motivation of groups and individuals that promulgate such a falsehood? Do they want to discourage traditional marriage? Do they have a political agenda? Have they simply offered a conclusion based on their faulty analysis of the available data? Or worse yet, have they intentionally misrepresented what we know about marriage and divorce in America in order to undermine this great social institution?

The answer we guess is probably all of the above to some extent. Clearly, it is hard to get into the hearts and minds of human beings. Without a doubt, it is difficult to determine the motivations of others. So, we will resist the motives of folks and simply deal with the facts about divorce in America. And here are the facts.

First of all, the divorce rate is not nearly as high it is often reported in the popular media. We need to change that perception because it can be a discouraging message to those contemplating marriage.

The divorce rate in America is not 50% for first-time marriages, period! For example, most experts we have talked to believe the rate is closer to 40%. We ourselves have estimated the rate in previous writings at somewhere between 35% and 40%. A 2001 survey by researcher George Barna estimated that 34% of American’s who have ever been married have ever been divorced. Several studies we have reviewed actually estimated the divorce rate to be less than 20%. It is our considered opinion that the 20% and fewer figures are too low, but one thing is clear – more than 60% of marriages are successful!

Pinning down the exact divorce rate in America is certainly complicated. Many studies have been done, many numbers crunched, and many conclusions drawn. But the truth of the matters is, the national per capita divorce rate has declined steadily since its peak in 1981 and is now at its lowest level since 1970. The fact that the per capita divorce has declined should be cause for celebration.

Secondly, there are a number of factors that can reduce the divorce rate and rather than dwelling on the perceived chances of failure of a marriage, we should be looking for reasons why most marriages do not fail – do not end in divorce.

Over the years we have seen a positive trend developing and it is highly encouraging to us. It is clear to us that more and more couples are working harder and harder to make their marriage work. They are investing solid efforts at strengthening their marriage. They read books like ours on the subject (Golden Anniversaries: The Seven Secrets of Successful Marriage), they participate in marriage enrichment programs, they seek counseling from a qualified professional counselor or psychologist, and they learn to do the simple things that make marriage work each and every day of their lives together.

The good news – more and more couples are committed to making their marriage work! In a society that is often characterized as “a disposable society,” marriage should not be one of those things we routinely dispose of! As we have said many times before, not all marriages are worth saving, but most are and can be saved!

And thirdly, we need to debunk the many myths about how to ensure a successful relationship. And here’s one to begin with. Despite the belief of many, living together while not married does not necessarily promote a happy and successful relationship. For example, the Centers for Disease Control reported that there is only a 20% chance that first marriages will end in divorce in the first five years. On the other hand, the separation rate in the first five years for those co-habiting is a whopping 49%! These data seem to fly in the face of those who suggest that giving a marriage a trial run or just co-habiting instead of marrying at all, is the way to go. It seems these advice givers need to check their facts about what works.

There is a corollary to the aforementioned notion about living together. Some researchers have reported that the highest risk factor for divorce is moving in together prior to marriage! Couples who do this have a far greater risk of divorce. In fact, couples who co-habitat before marriage – who give their “marriage” a trial run – have a divorce rate reported as high as 85%. Talk about the destruction of a myth!

We know that second and third marriages have high failure rates. Most studies report that second marriages have about a two out of three chance of failure – third marriages about a 75% chance. These second and third marriages (as well as those married four or more times) get lumped into divorce equations that are often reported. The simple truth is, the “impact rate” of divorce – those individuals that divorce actually impacts – is clearly much lower than the oft-reported rate of 50%. Those married for the first time just need to learn to get it right the first time!

So what are the factors that have major implications for the risk of divorce? Barbara Whitehead and David Popenoe in their book entitled The State of Our Unions (2004) reported the following:

1. Couples with annual incomes over $50,000 (vs. under $25,000) have a reduced risk of divorce of 30%. The message here is that couples contemplating marriage would be well advised to have income-producing jobs with stability before they get married.

2. Couples who have a baby seven months or more after marriage (vs. before marriage) have a reduced risk of divorce of 24%. The message here should be clear – bring children into the world when your marriage is ready.

3. Couples who are 25 years of age (vs. under 18) have a 24% less risk of divorce. The American divorce rate has been going down since 1981 because people in love are waiting longer to get married. Gaining education, experience, and the wisdom that comes with age will certainly contribute to the success of a marriage.

4. Couples that consider themselves religious or spiritual (vs. not) are 14% less likely to get divorced. Faith and spirituality contribute to the sense of oneness felt by successfully married couples.

5. Couples who have some college (vs. high-school dropout) have a 13% less chance of divorce. Education almost always leads to enlightenment and understanding, and more tolerance for the views of others. So critically important in successful marriages.

In summary, reasonably well-educated couples with a decent income, who are religious or spiritual, who wait awhile to have children, who come from intact families, and who marry later in life (25 and beyond), have a greatly reduced chance of divorce.

The American divorce rate is much lower than often reported. And considering that the average American has a 90% chance of being married at least once in their lifetime, it is nice to know that there is much we can do as individuals and as couples in love to make marriage work – to make marriage successful.

And one final note – we have spent over 25 years interviewing successfully married couples that have been married from 30-77 years. In the article we quoted earlier we also noted this statement: “Rare is the occasion when we stumble upon a couple who has been married for more than 30 years, and when we do, some people think of it as weird.” Again, we would say, where does such inaccurate information come from? The thousands of happily married couples we have interviewed over more than two decades of research attest to the fact that being married for more than 30 years is not only NOT weird, it is routine!

Simple things matter in love and marriage. Love well!

By Dr. Charles D. Schmitz and Dr. Elizabeth A. Schmitz
"the marriage doctors"

 

[Vidi]

You know what I love about the article you posted

Those married for the first time just need to learn to get it right the first time!

That is just funny as hell.

 

[logical4u]

Two people of the same sex are not allowed to Civilly Marry in most states.

The structure of that logic "gays can marry, just not each other" was tried during the Loving v. Virginia case "coloreds can marry, just not white people" - it failed.



>>>>

This is true. Likewise, heteros cannot marry a person of the same sex.

They have the exact same rights as we do already.

And since my sister wants to marry her partner of 20 years, and their best friends are men who have been together even longer, - and they cannot wed?

No. They DON'T 'have the same rights.' They cannot marry the person who is free to marry them, simply because they are "the wrong gender."

That is life. Just because you "WANT" to marry someone does not make it right. Children "want" to marry their parents when they are young. It does not make it right.

 

[logical4u]

That only people in love engage in. Nice try moving the goalposts, especially since we WERE talking about the quarterback you love.

There is no constitutionally supported *right* to marry the person you love.

Your sister has the exact same rights as everybody else. Sometimes, people fall in love with people they can't marry. You don't get to change the law to accomodate them. They have the same rights. They want something different. That's great..but it's different and we don't have to pretend it's the same. They can pretend anything they want. And when/if they decide to participate in the union we call marriage, they're free to do so.

You can make the goalposts horizontal if you like, paint them red, white & blue and march a band around them. Gays STILL are being denied the right to contract with their chosen, free-to-contract significant other.

You can "contract" using legal documents and lawyers. You cannot do something that is outside the definition and call it the same thing.

 

[logical4u]

I haven't moved the goal posts, that's your M.O.

And they are. Unless you are stating that a person who is an admitted homosexual can't marry a person of the opposite sex, just like I can?

Well, we've already established that you're just that stupid so I won't act out my whiskey-tango-foxtrot, how the FUCK does she find the keyboard every day.

They cannot make a contract with the person who wants to make a contract with them. They want to make this contract because they love each other. Now, you may very well be one of those women who think any fuck is a good fuck, but that is not the case for them. They want to have a marriage contract with their actual life partner.

And it's not up to your skanky ass to tell them they are second class citizens by virtue of being born gay.

Try an "adoption" contract.

 

[WinterBorn]

I haven't moved the goal posts, that's your M.O.

And they are. Unless you are stating that a person who is an admitted homosexual can't marry a person of the opposite sex, just like I can?

Well, we've already established that you're just that stupid so I won't act out my whiskey-tango-foxtrot, how the FUCK does she find the keyboard every day.

They cannot make a contract with the person who wants to make a contract with them. They want to make this contract because they love each other. Now, you may very well be one of those women who think any fuck is a good fuck, but that is not the case for them. They want to have a marriage contract with their actual life partner.

And it's not up to your skanky ass to tell them they are second class citizens by virtue of being born gay.

Try an "adoption" contract.

And in most states, an unmarried couple cannot both adopt a child. The child must be adopted by one or the other. And if that person dies, the other member of the couple has no legal rights.

There are benefits to being married that cannot be gained by legal contracts. Also, the fact that every couple who gets a marriage licence and goes to the courthouse gets these benefits. You want gay couples to go to an expensive lawyer to be able to get most of them?

 

[logical4u]

Well, we've already established that you're just that stupid so I won't act out my whiskey-tango-foxtrot, how the FUCK does she find the keyboard every day.

They cannot make a contract with the person who wants to make a contract with them. They want to make this contract because they love each other. Now, you may very well be one of those women who think any fuck is a good fuck, but that is not the case for them. They want to have a marriage contract with their actual life partner.

And it's not up to your skanky ass to tell them they are second class citizens by virtue of being born gay.

Try an "adoption" contract.

And in most states, an unmarried couple cannot both adopt a child. The child must be adopted by one or the other. And if that person dies, the other member of the couple has no legal rights.

There are benefits to being married that cannot be gained by legal contracts. Also, the fact that every couple who gets a marriage licence and goes to the courthouse gets these benefits. You want gay couples to go to an expensive lawyer to be able to get most of them?

The "gay couples" want to live their lives differently? Yes, I believe there should be more expenses involved. If the adoptive parent sets the other person as guardian, they would have legal rights.
There are benefits to marriage that cannot be gained by having a false marriage. If you want to have that, you choose the right person of the opposite sex, and you too, can have all the benefits of marriage. Because you do not want a person of the opposite sex does not mean there is anything wrong with the institution of marriage. It means that you choose to go against societal norms, and want a pity party because things aren't going your way.


"I fought the law, and the law won".... the same with the world, if you fight the world, you are going to get bruises.