A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate

[logical4u]

First of all, no one is asking for more rights for gays than for others.

Second of all, whatever "destruction" happens due to straights cheating on their spouses with same-sex partners has nothing to do with gay marriage.

Will homosexuals be limited to marriage to the same sex? If not, they are asking for "additional" rights, not the same rights.

Incorrect, as usual.

Marriage law is gender-neutral, a contract between two equal partners. Consequently marriage laws are not being ‘changed,’ and no ‘additional rights’ requested, simply an acknowledgement of existing equal access rights as mandated by the 14th Amendment.

Marriage is not gender neutral. Redefining marriage means that you are more interested in deceit than having a lawful binding contract.

 

[WinterBorn]

It is obvious.

Artificial insemination is similar to the turkey baster, not real thrilled with that one, either.

So what? A couple wants to have a child. They are, for whatever reason, unable to concieve on their own. Who cares what the instruments look like? This is simply a nonsense aside that has no bearing on the topic.

So, you don't think that children should be conceived by loving couples? You think it is a good thing to reject the opposite sex for a relationship, but use them to make a child? You think it is good for children to have one sex removed from their upbringing? Why is it, when you bring up why it is great to have homosexual marriage, and reasons to support it, that you want to dismiss the obvious problems with your reasons?

I absolutely think children should be concieved by loving couples. Whether outside assistance is needed does nt change that.

I reject men for relationships, but if I were sterile I would welcome their assistance in my wife and I having a child.

I think your assumptions are that each gender brings specific things to the relationship that cannot be brought by the opposite gender.

 

[WinterBorn]

Moving the goal posts?
No, most "straight" marriages are not full of infidelity. There is evidence that the majority of traditional marriage has faithful partners.
Swingers and those that "cheat" are not the norm for "straight" marriages. They are not accepted outside of their "corrupt" circles. That is why they are not coming forward to legalize their behavior. When their community finds out, they are "disgraced".
No, there are problems with swingers. I did not say it was a "huge" problem. How many childrens' lives have to be ruined before it is a bad thing?

I haven't seen any evidence that gays in committed relationships have problems with infidelity.

And no, I did not move the goalposts. I simply showed that you are not holding straights to the same standards.

Swingers may not be anything like a majority, but their numbers approach what gay marriages would probably approach.

Did you miss that part where I said that swingers are NOT accepted outside of their corrupt circles?

Did you notice I didn't seem to care what social groups accept what other groups? We are not discussing popularity.

 

[WinterBorn]

Will homosexuals be limited to marriage to the same sex? If not, they are asking for "additional" rights, not the same rights.

Incorrect, as usual.

Marriage law is gender-neutral, a contract between two equal partners. Consequently marriage laws are not being ‘changed,’ and no ‘additional rights’ requested, simply an acknowledgement of existing equal access rights as mandated by the 14th Amendment.

Marriage is not gender neutral. Redefining marriage means that you are more interested in deceit than having a lawful binding contract.

Who is being deceived? The gay couples are open and honest about their relationships.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

With the doctrine of coverture no longer in effect in marriage law:

The marital bargain in California (along with other states) traditionally required that a woman’s legal and economic identity be subsumed by her husband’s upon marriage under the doctrine of coverture; this once-unquestioned aspect of marriage now is regarded as antithetical to the notion of marriage as anion of equals. FF 26-27, 32. As states moved to recognize the equality of the sexes, they eliminated laws and practices like coverture that had made gender a proxy for a spouse’s role within a marriage. FF 26-27, 32. Marriage was thus transformed from a male-dominated institution into an institution recognizing men and women as equals. Id. Yet, individuals retained the right to marry; that right did not become different simply because the institution of marriage became compatible with gender equality.

The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage.

Perry v. Brown

Since state-mandated gender roles are no longer in play with regard to marriage law, there is no logical, legal, or Constitutional reason to exclude same-sex couples from those laws. Nothing is being ‘changed,’ no ‘new rights’ requested.

 

[koshergrl]

Bullshit. New rights are being demanded, and they're changing the law to accomodate it.

 

[daws101]

Yes, same-sex unions will have the same legal benefits as traditional marriage. Under my plan, we don't have to re-define marriage to accommodate gays. Most people will find this acceptable. Only the gay activists and the religious zealots will oppose. If put on the ballot, I predict that it will pass in most all states.

You have it backwards. Religous zealots are for bans on gay marriage.
Again, how does gay marriage affect heterosexual marriage.
Gay marriage is legal in some states.
Please show me ONE PERSON it has affected.
Just one. I will pay a thousand bucks a piece to every citizen that has been affected by gays getting married.
Gay marriage: undisputed NON ISSUE.

The decline of our society is the cost of celebrating and embracing homosexual behavior.

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 deception, 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, humble and brazen, acceptable and unacceptable, respectful and contemptuous, virtuous and shameful, tolerant and intolerant, open-minded and narrow-minded, etc."

talk about piling the shit high and deep!
"THEY" said that when women got the right to vote and it was bullshit!
" THEY"said that during the civil right era and it was bullshit .
"THEY said that about rock &roll and that was bullshit!
etc...

 

[Newby]

So what? A couple wants to have a child. They are, for whatever reason, unable to concieve on their own. Who cares what the instruments look like? This is simply a nonsense aside that has no bearing on the topic.

So, you don't think that children should be conceived by loving couples? You think it is a good thing to reject the opposite sex for a relationship, but use them to make a child? You think it is good for children to have one sex removed from their upbringing? Why is it, when you bring up why it is great to have homosexual marriage, and reasons to support it, that you want to dismiss the obvious problems with your reasons?

I absolutely think children should be concieved by loving couples. Whether outside assistance is needed does nt change that.

I reject men for relationships, but if I were sterile I would welcome their assistance in my wife and I having a child.

I think your assumptions are that each gender brings specific things to the relationship that cannot be brought by the opposite gender.

It's not an assumption, it's a fact. Fathers and mothers absolutely bring elements to their relationships with their children that the other cannot.

 

[BDBoop]

And still, that has nothing do with gays being denied their rights under the 14th amendment.

 

[daws101]

winterborn, here is a good article that explains the societal dangers of gay marriage: articles: Gay marriage: The hidden agenda

ok, i found a few lines in the article that are obviously bs.

"not a single society in the long history of mankind has ever attempted to substitute homosexual relationships for traditional marriage." no one is substituting gay relationships for marriage.

"radical movements are merely battalions of the revolutionary army, each charged with a particular subversive task. Undoubtedly, the overwhelming majority of rank-and-file gays are well-meaning people who have sincerely bought into the myth peddled by their leaders that the marriage license is the ultimate token of recognition of their normalcy. They know not what they are doing. But the wizards behind the curtain know better, and there shouldn't be any illusions about their intentions: They want nothing less than to bring down the capitalist system, and they view their movement as a battering ram to shatter its principal bastion, america. Bringing down the traditional family is a crucial step in that direction."

so its all a plot to destroy america? And even most of the gays involved are unaware of the plot? Lol how does that tinfoil hat fit?



The entire article continues the "marriage has always been..." and "it will destroy the institution of marriage" arguments. Still vague answers and nonsense.

As for the nonsense, "aside from the tremendous damage same-sex marriage does to the well-being and normal development of children..."

from: study: Same-sex parents raise well-adjusted kids

"researchers looked at information gleaned from 15 studies on more than 500 children, evaluating possible stigma, teasing and social isolation, adjustment and self-esteem, opposite gender role models, sexual orientation, and strengths.

Studies from 1981 to 1994, including 260 children reared by either heterosexual mothers or same-sex mothers after divorce, found no differences in intelligence, type or prevalence of psychiatric disorders, self-esteem, well-being, peer relationships, couple relationships, or parental stress.

"some studies showed that single heterosexual parents' children have more difficulties than children who have parents of the same sex," perrin says. "they did better in discipline, self-esteem, and had less psychosocial difficulties at home and at school."

another study of 37 children of 27 divorced lesbian mothers and a similar number of children of heterosexual mothers found no differences in behavior, adjustment, gender identity, and peer relationships."



from: children with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender parents | american academy of child & adolescent psychiatry

"sometimes people are concerned that children being raised by a gay parent will need extra emotional support or face unique social stressors.current research shows that children with gay and lesbian parents do not differ from children with heterosexual parents in their emotional development or in their relationships with peers and adults. It is important for parents to understand that it is the the quality of the parent/child relationship and not the parent’s sexual orientation that has an effect on a child’s development.


children raised by gay couples show good progress through school

same-sex couples can be effective parents, researchers find - usatoday.com



so the arguments that it is tremendously damaging to the well-being and normal development of children are bunk. That leaves the same old "it will destroy marriage" and "they are out to destroy america" arguments.

Just one anecdotal piece of evidence. My 3 kids from my first marriage lived with my ex and her partner for about half of their lives. I was very involved, but my work requires travel. All three exhibit some similar characteristics. None of them were ever disciplinary problems (2 were never sent to the principal's office). All 3 graduated with honors from high school, one of them with a gpa of 4.28. All three graduated from a major university, one of them with more honors than i can list. All 3 have had serious relationships with the opposite gender (one is engaged, one is in a long-term relationship). In short, they are as close to perfect kids as you can ask for.

homosexual parenting studies are flawed, report says | fox news homosexual parenting studies are flawed, report says

timothy j. Dailey ph.d. -- homosexual parenting: Placing children at risk homosexual parenting: Placing children at risk

welcome to forthechildreninc. homosexuality: Bad for children

just some links presenting the opposite view.

Yes, homosexual marriage is "substituting" homosexual marriage for traditional marriage. That is why they claim they are the "same" as a married heterosexual couple.

A plot to destroy the country? Check history, destroying the traditional family is the first step of manipulation. After that, it gets worse.

ever here the term objective evidence? Those links are the farthest thing from it!

 

[daws101]

Moving the goal posts?
No, most "straight" marriages are not full of infidelity. There is evidence that the majority of traditional marriage has faithful partners.
Swingers and those that "cheat" are not the norm for "straight" marriages. They are not accepted outside of their "corrupt" circles. That is why they are not coming forward to legalize their behavior. When their community finds out, they are "disgraced".
No, there are problems with swingers. I did not say it was a "huge" problem. How many childrens' lives have to be ruined before it is a bad thing?

I haven't seen any evidence that gays in committed relationships have problems with infidelity.

And no, I did not move the goalposts. I simply showed that you are not holding straights to the same standards.

Swingers may not be anything like a majority, but their numbers approach what gay marriages would probably approach.

Did you miss that part where I said that swingers are NOT accepted outside of their corrupt circles?

so what gives you the moral authority to judge what kind of sex is corrupt and what is not?
you can knock off the moralizing any time...

 

[BDBoop]

I haven't seen any evidence that gays in committed relationships have problems with infidelity.

And no, I did not move the goalposts. I simply showed that you are not holding straights to the same standards.

Swingers may not be anything like a majority, but their numbers approach what gay marriages would probably approach.

Did you miss that part where I said that swingers are NOT accepted outside of their corrupt circles?

so what gives you the moral authority to judge what kind of sex is corrupt and what is not?
you can knock off the moralizing any time...

I don't understand why they think how anybody else lives their live has anything to do with them. I really, really don't get it.

 

[koshergrl]

You have it backwards. Religous zealots are for bans on gay marriage.
Again, how does gay marriage affect heterosexual marriage.
Gay marriage is legal in some states.
Please show me ONE PERSON it has affected.
Just one. I will pay a thousand bucks a piece to every citizen that has been affected by gays getting married.
Gay marriage: undisputed NON ISSUE.

The decline of our society is the cost of celebrating and embracing homosexual behavior.

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 deception, 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, humble and brazen, acceptable and unacceptable, respectful and contemptuous, virtuous and shameful, tolerant and intolerant, open-minded and narrow-minded, etc."

talk about piling the shit high and deep!
"THEY" said that when women got the right to vote and it was bullshit!
" THEY"said that during the civil right era and it was bullshit .
"THEY said that about rock &roll and that was bullshit!
etc...

I thought no-fault divorce and legalized abortion was supposed to strengthen the family, reduce crime, result in fewer teen pregnancies.

When are you going to address the fact that none of those things came to pass, and in fact we have had a huge surge in broken homes, single parent families, crime, and teen pregnancies (as well as STDs)?

 

[koshergrl]

Did you miss that part where I said that swingers are NOT accepted outside of their corrupt circles?

so what gives you the moral authority to judge what kind of sex is corrupt and what is not?
you can knock off the moralizing any time...

I don't understand why they think how anybody else lives their live has anything to do with them. I really, really don't get it.

I don't understand why you think that your *right* to fuck at will trumps the right of a child to not be butchered.

 

[daws101]

Did you miss that part where I said that swingers are NOT accepted outside of their corrupt circles?

so what gives you the moral authority to judge what kind of sex is corrupt and what is not?
you can knock off the moralizing any time...

I don't understand why they think how anybody else lives their live has anything to do with them. I really, really don't get it.

neither do I.
It is ironic that "they" would dictate you behavior but to even question the validity of their's is to bring out the talking points, like agenda. hater etc..

 

[daws101]

The decline of our society is the cost of celebrating and embracing homosexual behavior.

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 deception, 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, humble and brazen, acceptable and unacceptable, respectful and contemptuous, virtuous and shameful, tolerant and intolerant, open-minded and narrow-minded, etc."

talk about piling the shit high and deep!
"THEY" said that when women got the right to vote and it was bullshit!
" THEY"said that during the civil right era and it was bullshit .
"THEY said that about rock &roll and that was bullshit!
etc...

I thought no-fault divorce and legalized abortion was supposed to strengthen the family, reduce crime, result in fewer teen pregnancies.

When are you going to address the fact that none of those things came to pass, and in fact we have had a huge surge in broken homes, single parent families, crime, and teen pregnancies (as well as STDs)?

bullshit! and ot!

 

[koshergrl]

so what gives you the moral authority to judge what kind of sex is corrupt and what is not?
you can knock off the moralizing any time...

I don't understand why they think how anybody else lives their live has anything to do with them. I really, really don't get it.

neither do I.
It is ironic that "they" would dictate you behavior but to even question the validity of their's is to bring out the talking points, like agenda. hater etc..

Again, what makes you think you have the right to dictate whether another person gets to live or not?

 

[koshergrl]

You guys will ignore that.

 

[daws101]

so what gives you the moral authority to judge what kind of sex is corrupt and what is not?
you can knock off the moralizing any time...

I don't understand why they think how anybody else lives their live has anything to do with them. I really, really don't get it.

I don't understand why you think that your *right* to fuck at will trumps the right of a child to not be butchered.

once again OT.
in reality more children get butchered after they are born then all the abortions ever done.

 

[daws101]

I don't understand why they think how anybody else lives their live has anything to do with them. I really, really don't get it.

neither do I.
It is ironic that "they" would dictate you behavior but to even question the validity of their's is to bring out the talking points, like agenda. hater etc..

Again, what makes you think you have the right to dictate whether another person gets to live or not?

define a person?
a wad of parasitic cells in by defintion not a person.