Opposition to Gay Marriage - Any Basis Other Than Intolerance and Bigotry?

[logical4u]

I want marriage to not be a government function. So seriously, anything that is not a government function is denying people of it? They aren't married unless the government says they are? Expand your mind.

I'd like nothing better than to have heterosexuals have to jump through the legal hoops that gay couples have to in order to get a fraction of the protections and benefits that are automatically granted heterosexuals when they marry hours after meeting each other in Las Vegas, but that clearly is never going to happen. You will never get rid of "government involvement" with legal, civil marriage.

So, since your libertarian fantasy world is never going to come to pass, what compelling state reason can you provide for denying those benefits to non-familial, consenting adult gay and lesbian couples?

You know I honestly think that some married couples have never given any thought about the benefits they gain with a marriage license. And I keep thinking if I can only somehow say the words right they will see the error of their ways. Obviously I am living in a dream world.

Most married couples that I know did not consider "benefits" by the gov't for a reason to marry. They married because they found a partner that they wanted to build a family with, not scam the system. The gov't encourages people to marry/stay married because it is beneficial to society.

Apparently, those homosexual activists that believe that they marry for the "EXACT" same reason heterosexuals have a whole different set of priorities.

Most "married" couples have traditions as protections for property, dating back thousands of years. It was all very practical. The gov't chose to keep those traditions (because it used to be a gov't by the people for the people), to make the society strong (there was some learning curve in those thousands of years). Now, suddenly, homosexual activists are saying: seriously, you can take my word, everything will be good if you just listen to me. Why should thousands of years have any bearing on a discussion we are having today? After all, times change (they forget, people and their tendencies do not change).

It is the same tired argument from communists, socialists, nazis, muslims, liberals, homosexual activists: this time it will work out different. Ignore all those times it became an ugly stain in the pages of history with millions of lives taken to gain power over others. Just let me explain it one more time, what's that, no I don't have one single example of where it worked, but I know it will, just sign over your liberties to ..... Really, you are such a bigot, can't you just look at this, ideally??? What does practicality have to do with anything? What do you mean it will destroy people's lives? Just concentrate on those (few) that will gain from this, don't you think they count? Are you just selfish, that you want to consider the life your children will have to lead because of this? Look, the "smartest" people say this will work. Well, no, none of them have ever lived like this before, but it will work, trust me. etc, etc, etc.

 

[logical4u]

There was no "religious opinion". There was the reasons that most people get married. I noticed that you did not address those, but go on to declare your reasons are the same while, physically, impossible to achieve. Wouldn't that be superstitious or silly to believe (hence bigoted)?

People want to get married for a myriad of reasons, but it is usually because they have found a partner with whom they wish to spend the rest of their lives. They get legally married because they want the legal and financial protections that are associated with civil marriage. That is the exact same reason that gays and lesbians get married. No difference at all. This might be a news flash to anyone living under a rock, but we have kids too and would like to protect our families just like you do.

What married couple have the "EXACT same love, EXACT same commitment"? You are being deceptive. You cannot possibly have the EXACT same emotions as ANY other person on this earth. (Let me go religious on you: you are unique in all the world and your emotions, as such are as unique as you). You have legal protections, you just want "special" legal protections to reward you for making risky decisions. You make the choice, don't try to force the rest of us to "support" your choices. Live with it.

Oh for god’s sake…now you want to argue semantics?

There are over one thousand rights, benefits and privileges associated with civil marriage, granted automatically to a heterosexual couple with a $65 piece of paper. How is wanting the same exact legal protections for our families with the exact same $65 legal contract, “special rights”?




Yes or No, children are a requirement for legal marriage? The answer is no and therefore your argument is a strawman and has no bearing on the discussion. We do not prevent those that cannot have children from legal marriage.

Gays and lesbians DO have children, whether through a previous heterosexual marriage, through adoption, through surrogacy or, like my partner and I, through artificial insemination.

Why are our children and our families not “worthy” of the protections of civil marriage?

Oh, and it may be possible in the very near future for lesbians to "have each other's children"

Technologies already in use make it possible for single people and same-sex couples to produce children. For a single woman or a lesbian couple, only a sperm donor is necessary. Using either in vitro fertilization or artificial insemination, one or both partners could have their own offspring. At the current level of technology, a single man or a gay couple would need to hire an egg donor and/or a surrogate mother. However, if embryo fusion becomes available in the future, it would become even easier for homosexual couples to produce their own children together. In this procedure, the sperm from two different men could be fused together and then implanted into a surrogate mother. Alternatively, the egg nuclei from two different women would be fused together to form one egg, to be fertilized with donor sperm using in vitro fertilization.​

The Splice of Life: Sex in the 21st Century






We aren’t asking for sympathy, we are demanding equality. I noticed that you couldn’t answer the question as to why my family should be denied those protections. That’s why your “side” keeps losing in court. (‘cause it’s the WRONG one )



Society benefits from marriage, traditional or otherwise. If there is a benefit to heterosexuals being married, the benefit of gays and lesbians being married is the same.

OMG…have you never heard of a “gay ghetto”? It’s where ‘the gheys’ come in, fix up a bad neighborhood and the next thing you know, families are popping up everywhere. Do you have any census data to back up your claims about “homosexuals communities”? Do you even know where any of these “communities” are?

Do you, by chance, live in Alabama in the 1950s? Gays live next door to everyone and everyone lives next door to gays. We are in ALL communities. Did you know that there are more straight people with children living in the Castro than there are gays and lesbians? Rumple, it’s the 21st century.

Is this like the health care bill: we have to legalize homosexual marriage before we can examine it (it will be too late to do anything to stop the corruption at that point). And no, the burden is on those that want "new laws" to provide evidence that those laws will be beneficial to the citizens of the country (still waiting). The reason the "courts" keep using the homosexual agenda is because the judges are homosexual or sympathetic to the homosexual agenda. There is no where in the Constitution that declares homosexual deserve "special" benefits.

Good, cause we aren’t asking for special ones, just the same ones.

This sounds a lot like those supporting Shariah law in this country. The reality: either will be destructive to our society. I am not worried about being on the wrong side of history. I didn't vote for the current President either. That put me on the wrong side of history, but if others had joined me, the country would probably be in a lot better condition, now.

Are you high Clarice? Saying that gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states is like supporting Sharia law? Seriously, come back when you jump off the hyperbole horse.
Our children will look back on the people opposed to marriage equality the same way we look back on the racists that were opposed to interracial marriage.

So it boils down to: I could have made acceptable choices, but I didn't want to, so now, I want you to make exceptions for me, and my children, so we can belong to the "nanny state".

BTW, my point about where homosexuals purchased a home was about them considering the home an investment, therefore, they would be more likely to purchase a home in a stable, family oriented neighborhood. If homosexuality was such a great role model for society, there would be respectable homosexual communities that all people would try to move into (since the house is such an investment). That is not the case. Those that are for homosexual marriage use deceit to get what they want. Marriage is about "honor". How can you "honor" another person when you hide their true relationship when it is convenient? How can you claim that your parenting skills are "just as good" when you start with deceit?

 

[JakeStarkey]

logical4u reasons as if she is believes in tea party sharia.

 

[Avatar4321]

Of course. But you have already decided there is no reason. Which is why you will never learn them.

 

[logical4u]

I'd like nothing better than to have heterosexuals have to jump through the legal hoops that gay couples have to in order to get a fraction of the protections and benefits that are automatically granted heterosexuals when they marry hours after meeting each other in Las Vegas, but that clearly is never going to happen. You will never get rid of "government involvement" with legal, civil marriage.

So, since your libertarian fantasy world is never going to come to pass, what compelling state reason can you provide for denying those benefits to non-familial, consenting adult gay and lesbian couples?

Do you think that could be, because even the bureaucrats know that there is nothing beneficial for "society" with "homosexual marriage"?

That attitude of yours clearly reveals you have no business teaching in schools, serving in government, or a myriad of other public activities. Shame on you!

And your attitude reveals that you care nothing for history and lessons learned. That usually means repeating mistakes. Isn't that the definition of futility: doing the same thing and expecting different results?

Just show us where homosexuality "works". Where is it encouraged in families, communities, cultures, religions, countries where it is a cultural norm (not an entertainment moment)? Where can you demonstrate a trend that shows homosexuality improves the quality of life for the families involved? If it was a pillar of integrity, it would be held as a shining example for people to reach for, it has not been that, nor can it ever be that. It is based on deceit. Deceit over one's true identity and acceptence of who they are. Deceit for the families where the sexual predator stalks. Deceit for acceptance in 'straight' groups. etc, etc, etc.

Why do you say "shame on you"? This thread asked for input. When you don't like what is said, you want to bully others into silence thru name calling and humiliation. You do not present a valid argument without "re-defining" a word that has been used across the world with one meaning for thousands of years. Are you Bill Clinton: that depends on what is, is.
Most people do not have a problem with changing the legal system to accomodate a variety of "dependents". The homosexual extremists will not accept that. They want to "force" their view of the world onto every person that wants nothing to do with their way of life or the choices they have made. They say they are the same when we can take "traditionally married people" and same sex partners into a room and pull down our bottoms and physically see that it is not the same. It is not the same, physically, emotionally, or mentally. Men and women are not the SAME. We are very different with strengths and weaknesses that are pretty much typical to our sex.
If homosexuals want to "pretend" they are the same, the rest of us, do not have to play.

 

[Susan45]

I'd like nothing better than to have heterosexuals have to jump through the legal hoops that gay couples have to in order to get a fraction of the protections and benefits that are automatically granted heterosexuals when they marry hours after meeting each other in Las Vegas, but that clearly is never going to happen. You will never get rid of "government involvement" with legal, civil marriage.

So, since your libertarian fantasy world is never going to come to pass, what compelling state reason can you provide for denying those benefits to non-familial, consenting adult gay and lesbian couples?

You know I honestly think that some married couples have never given any thought about the benefits they gain with a marriage license. And I keep thinking if I can only somehow say the words right they will see the error of their ways. Obviously I am living in a dream world.

Most married couples that I know did not consider "benefits" by the gov't for a reason to marry. They married because they found a partner that they wanted to build a family with, not scam the system. The gov't encourages people to marry/stay married because it is beneficial to society.

Apparently, those homosexual activists that believe that they marry for the "EXACT" same reason heterosexuals have a whole different set of priorities.

Most "married" couples have traditions as protections for property, dating back thousands of years. It was all very practical. The gov't chose to keep those traditions (because it used to be a gov't by the people for the people), to make the society strong (there was some learning curve in those thousands of years). Now, suddenly, homosexual activists are saying: seriously, you can take my word, everything will be good if you just listen to me. Why should thousands of years have any bearing on a discussion we are having today? After all, times change (they forget, people and their tendencies do not change).

It is the same tired argument from communists, socialists, nazis, muslims, liberals, homosexual activists: this time it will work out different. Ignore all those times it became an ugly stain in the pages of history with millions of lives taken to gain power over others. Just let me explain it one more time, what's that, no I don't have one single example of where it worked, but I know it will, just sign over your liberties to ..... Really, you are such a bigot, can't you just look at this, ideally??? What does practicality have to do with anything? What do you mean it will destroy people's lives? Just concentrate on those (few) that will gain from this, don't you think they count? Are you just selfish, that you want to consider the life your children will have to lead because of this? Look, the "smartest" people say this will work. Well, no, none of them have ever lived like this before, but it will work, trust me. etc, etc, etc.

I am only going to address the part of your comment I've bolded.

Of course you and your spouse (and most other young couples) didn't consider the benefits. Why should you have? It is so ingrained in our culture that with marriage comes benefits there would be no reason to consider it. But let me tell you, that if those benefits were taken away you would at the head of the parade leading the fight to get them back.

Everything else in your post has been addressed earlier and you are starting to repeat yourself.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Apparently, those homosexual activists that believe that they marry for the "EXACT" same reason heterosexuals have a whole different set of priorities.

And your attitude reveals that you care nothing for history and lessons learned. That usually means repeating mistakes. Isn't that the definition of futility: doing the same thing and expecting different results?

Just show us where homosexuality "works". Where is it encouraged in families, communities, cultures, religions, countries where it is a cultural norm (not an entertainment moment)? Where can you demonstrate a trend that shows homosexuality improves the quality of life for the families involved? If it was a pillar of integrity, it would be held as a shining example for people to reach for, it has not been that, nor can it ever be that. It is based on deceit. Deceit over one's true identity and acceptence of who they are. Deceit for the families where the sexual predator stalks. Deceit for acceptance in 'straight' groups. etc, etc, etc.

Why do you say "shame on you"? This thread asked for input. When you don't like what is said, you want to bully others into silence thru name calling and humiliation. You do not present a valid argument without "re-defining" a word that has been used across the world with one meaning for thousands of years. Are you Bill Clinton: that depends on what is, is.
Most people do not have a problem with changing the legal system to accomodate a variety of "dependents". The homosexual extremists will not accept that. They want to "force" their view of the world onto every person that wants nothing to do with their way of life or the choices they have made. They say they are the same when we can take "traditionally married people" and same sex partners into a room and pull down our bottoms and physically see that it is not the same. It is not the same, physically, emotionally, or mentally. Men and women are not the SAME. We are very different with strengths and weaknesses that are pretty much typical to our sex.
If homosexuals want to "pretend" they are the same, the rest of us, do not have to play.

All of which is legally and constitutionally irrelevant.

Americans are not required to demonstrate or prove that the use of their rights will or will not benefit society. That hatred and exclusion were traditionally and historically accepted by society to separate homosexuals from their civil rights is not justification that the discriminatory practices continue. No one is forcing anything on anyone, no laws are being changed. Indeed, same-sex couples are merely requesting access to the same laws other couples have access to, unchanged.

 

[hoodman]

I am for equal rights for gays but not Marriage. In your post you said do not quote the Bible. The problem with this as the Bible is a Christians Standard to live by. I do not ram it down ones throat but God told us to tell so we do. Now as for your question here are my personal beliefs.
1 Marriage was instituted by God with Adam and Eve. therefore is to be followed the way he started it.
so that is why I am for a way for Gays to go to the court house and get a union paper just not Marry.
2. Will a Gay couple take a preacher to court to get him to Marry him even though it goes against his religious beliefs. note: when they passed same sex marriage in Sweden Some wanted at apart of the law to force Preachers to Marry them.

In closing : I know gays believe marriage is a secular institution. I just do not believe this.
I always thought civil unions was a good answer till I found out Gays see marriage and civil unions the same thing. I just do not see it that way. What they do behind thier closed doors is none of my business
Give them equality with Taxes, Insurance ETC. without the right to marry.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I know gays believe marriage is a secular institution. I just do not believe this.

It’s both secular and religious. Equal access applies only to 'secular marriage.'

 

[bodecea]

I am for equal rights for gays but not Marriage. In your post you said do not quote the Bible. The problem with this as the Bible is a Christians Standard to live by. I do not ram it down ones throat but God told us to tell so we do. Now as for your question here are my personal beliefs.
1 Marriage was instituted by God with Adam and Eve. therefore not is to be followed the way he started it.
so that is why I am for a way for Gays to go to the court house and get a union paper just not Marry.
2. Will a Gay couple take a preacher to court to get him to Marry him even though it goes against his religious beliefs. note: when they passed same sex marriage in Sweden Some wanted at apart of the law to force Preachers to Marry them.

In closing : I know gays believe marriage is a secular institution. I just do not believe this.
I always thought civil unions was a good answer till I found out Gays see marriage and civil unions the same thing. I just do not see it that way. What they do behind thier closed doors is none of my business
Give them equality with Taxes, Insurance ETC. without the right to marry.

Civil unions are not equal to marriage and even if they were...we've shown that separate but equal isn't.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Well, New York has done the right thing. Which brings to mind a question.

Can any person here who is "opposed to gay marriage" come forward and justify their position on the basis of anything other than intolerance and bigotry? Seriously.

Please don't start with "the Bible does not condone same sex marriage." Perhaps it doesn't. So WHAT? Let's say the Bible contained a passage which said: "Marriage is only between a man and a woman. If thou shalt marry one of the same sex as yourself, thou shalt burn in the fiery pits of HELL!" So what? Isn't invoking the Bible just another way of shoving religion down the throats of other people? Yup. In other words, intolerance and bigotry.

No, my friends - we all know what is really involved here, don't we? I am wondering if there is anyone here who has the stones to come right out and tell it like it is: "I am opposed to same sex marriage because I hate gays everything they stand for. No other reason."

Intolerance and bigotry. There really does not seem to be any other reason.

If you are going to ask a question and maintain some level of integrity, try asking it without adding your personal bias.

 

[Flaylo]

I am for equal rights for gays but not Marriage. In your post you said do not quote the Bible. The problem with this as the Bible is a Christians Standard to live by. I do not ram it down ones throat but God told us to tell so we do. Now as for your question here are my personal beliefs.
1 Marriage was instituted by God with Adam and Eve. therefore not is to be followed the way he started it.
so that is why I am for a way for Gays to go to the court house and get a union paper just not Marry.
2. Will a Gay couple take a preacher to court to get him to Marry him even though it goes against his religious beliefs. note: when they passed same sex marriage in Sweden Some wanted at apart of the law to force Preachers to Marry them.

In closing : I know gays believe marriage is a secular institution. I just do not believe this.
I always thought civil unions was a good answer till I found out Gays see marriage and civil unions the same thing. I just do not see it that way. What they do behind thier closed doors is none of my business
Give them equality with Taxes, Insurance ETC. without the right to marry.

Civil unions are not equal to marriage and even if they were...we've shown that separate but equal isn't.

Marriage is the sacred union of man with a woman, no one should redefine that to mean something that it really isn't.

 

[waltky]

Is like havin' sex inna cesspool...

Gay sex is an unnatural disease: Azad
Jul 5, 2011: For the Union health minister Ghulam Nabi Azad, men having sex with men (MSMs) is not only "unnatural" but also a "disease."

According to Azad, "this disease has come to India from foreign shores", and Indian society needs to be prepared to face it. Unfortunately, he said, the number of "such people" is increasing by the day. In statements made while addressing zilla parishad chairpersons and mayors on HIV/AIDS on Monday, Azad said, "The disease of MSM is unnatural and not good for Indian society. It's a challenge to identify such people. In case of female sex workers, we can identify the community and reach out to them since they live in clusters. But in case of MSMs, it isn't always possible."

These comments have not only caused uproar among civil society, but also in the National Aids Control Organization (NACO), which incidentally reports to Azad. "How can this be a disease? It is just a form of sexual orientation. It's definitely not unnatural," a NACO official told TOI. NACO has been working towards identifying MSMs and giving them a rightful place in society. A large number of targeted interventions (TI) have been put in place by NACO to specifically cater to the needs of the MSM community. According to NACO's latest surveillance data, India is home to an estimated 4.12 lakh MSMs of whom 2.74 lakhs have been identified.

Around 4.2% of all sexually-active males in India are believed to have sex with other men, with Chennai, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu and Orissa reporting the highest number of such cases. Of the total number of 1,511 TIs, 168 exclusively cater to MSMs. Each TI, catering to 1,000 MSMs, cost Rs 15 lakh. The 2010 UNAIDS report on the global AIDS epidemic found that among the high-risk group that got HIV infection in India last year — 9.2% were intravenous drug users, MSMs (7.3%) and female sex workers (4.9%).

MORE

 

[Douger]

I am for equal rights for gays but not Marriage. In your post you said do not quote the Bible. The problem with this as the Bible is a Christians Standard to live by. I do not ram it down ones throat but God told us to tell so we do. Now as for your question here are my personal beliefs.
1 Marriage was instituted by God with Adam and Eve. therefore not is to be followed the way he started it.
so that is why I am for a way for Gays to go to the court house and get a union paper just not Marry.
2. Will a Gay couple take a preacher to court to get him to Marry him even though it goes against his religious beliefs. note: when they passed same sex marriage in Sweden Some wanted at apart of the law to force Preachers to Marry them.

In closing : I know gays believe marriage is a secular institution. I just do not believe this.
I always thought civil unions was a good answer till I found out Gays see marriage and civil unions the same thing. I just do not see it that way. What they do behind thier closed doors is none of my business
Give them equality with Taxes, Insurance ETC. without the right to marry.

Civil unions are not equal to marriage and even if they were...we've shown that separate but equal isn't.

Marriage is the sacred union of man with a woman, no one should redefine that to mean something that it really isn't.

Marriage is a simple matter of handing some cash to some asshole to recieve a fucking piece of paper , and drastically reduce your capital gains taxes.

 

[Flaylo]

Civil unions are not equal to marriage and even if they were...we've shown that separate but equal isn't.

Marriage is the sacred union of man with a woman, no one should redefine that to mean something that it really isn't.

Marriage is a simple matter of handing some cash to some asshole to recieve a fucking piece of paper , and drastically reduce your capital gains taxes.

Bullshat, thats nnot what marriage is, dipshat sinners have corrupted it, I'm learning more and more as a recently converted Christian.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Do you think that could be, because even the bureaucrats know that there is nothing beneficial for "society" with "homosexual marriage"?

That attitude of yours clearly reveals you have no business teaching in schools, serving in government, or a myriad of other public activities. Shame on you!

And your attitude reveals that you care nothing for history and lessons learned. That usually means repeating mistakes. Isn't that the definition of futility: doing the same thing and expecting different results?

Just show us where homosexuality "works". Where is it encouraged in families, communities, cultures, religions, countries where it is a cultural norm (not an entertainment moment)? Where can you demonstrate a trend that shows homosexuality improves the quality of life for the families involved? If it was a pillar of integrity, it would be held as a shining example for people to reach for, it has not been that, nor can it ever be that. It is based on deceit. Deceit over one's true identity and acceptence of who they are. Deceit for the families where the sexual predator stalks. Deceit for acceptance in 'straight' groups. etc, etc, etc.

Why do you say "shame on you"? This thread asked for input. When you don't like what is said, you want to bully others into silence thru name calling and humiliation. You do not present a valid argument without "re-defining" a word that has been used across the world with one meaning for thousands of years. Are you Bill Clinton: that depends on what is, is.
Most people do not have a problem with changing the legal system to accomodate a variety of "dependents". The homosexual extremists will not accept that. They want to "force" their view of the world onto every person that wants nothing to do with their way of life or the choices they have made. They say they are the same when we can take "traditionally married people" and same sex partners into a room and pull down our bottoms and physically see that it is not the same. It is not the same, physically, emotionally, or mentally. Men and women are not the SAME. We are very different with strengths and weaknesses that are pretty much typical to our sex.
If homosexuals want to "pretend" they are the same, the rest of us, do not have to play.

Homosexual unions are working now, have worked in the past, and will work in the future.

You project when you accuse others of bullying, which is what you have done from square one.

You have a right, no matter how wrong, to your view.

Your view is wrong, out of step with reality, and by all means, I encourage you to be a voice crying in the wilderness. The difference, of course, is you are not a prophet, and your words will drift away with the wind.

 

[kaz]

Making stuff up just in a juvenile attempt to be funny does not impress over 50% of the world population!

Wow, what a dumb ass, taking obvious hyperbole seriously.

You might actually find it funny that young women are raped

Sorry, my bad. You're not a dumb ass, you're just an ass. If you can't respond to my points because you're a dimwitted twit that's fine, but making ridiculous accusations like this because you're not bright enough to respond to my points shows what you are.

 

[kaz]

So, since your libertarian fantasy world is never going to come to pass, what compelling state reason can you provide for denying those benefits to non-familial, consenting adult gay and lesbian couples?

I completely recognize we have devolved to the majority of Americans desiring a nanny state in this country. You won and eventually will get everything you want. You should be more gracious about it. But as for your point I should only advocate ideas that will win, I reject that as the crap that it is.

 

[kaz]

LGBT parenting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This focuses on their fitness as parents. The fact is that children need both a mother's nurturing and a father's challenge. It's not that either is a better parent, it's that we evolved with that need. All else equal, the ideal situation is two parents, male and female. That doesn't mean kids can't grow up with two parents of the same sex or one parent and turn out fine. My father was gone from when I was five. I see clearly having my own kids how much better is is for them that they have both my wife and me and not one parent. My sister has a PhD, my brother went to the Naval Academy and also has a masters in math. I have two masters degrees, one in Computer Science and an MBA and I own two businesses. I never said kids with homosexual parents will fail. Our mother took care of us, but no one challenged us. Girls need a father for their self esteem in particular and boys need a role model. Reverse it and you get comparable diminishement.

Two mothers would not have replaced having a father. All else equal, hetero is the best scenario. But there are many factors, which is why I said "all else equal."

We don't raise our children in boxes. The children of gays and lesbians are not lacking role models of either sex. My children have daily contact with their grandparents, weekly contact with their uncle (who has chosen to not have children, but was still allowed to marry...imagine that) and have untold numbers of "uncles". We actually believe in the "in takes a village" concept.

Despite being raised by two women, my son rides a motorcycle, shoots guns and even learned how to pee standing up.

My daughter plays with dolls, likes to write and draw, shoots a gun and rides a quad (motorcycles make her nervous...quads make ME nervous).

The best scenario for children is parents who love them unconditionally. Children need good parents and that's all.

Asked and answered. I asked if you understand what "all else equal" means. You said yes, all else equal means that all children who have heterosexual parents will be Rhodes scholars and all kids who don't will die drug addicts in a cardboard box.

You are wrong by the way, that's not what it means. I'm happy that your children are doing well and despite your constant attempt to ignore what I'm saying I never said otherwise. You have a chip on your shoulder that your kids environment is perfect and anyone who suggests otherwise is somehow criticizing them. I actually recognize not everything is "ideal" for my children. In fact no child has a perfect life. There is strength and not weakness in recognizing that. But if you're going to continue to take that one aspect is not "ideal" as a personal slam, you're never going to open your eyes and be honest.

 

[kaz]

Is there a reason for you to say such things besides proving the OP right?

If you read the discussion, she said I was required to ignore my wife/partner's feelings and divorce her and live with her because I don't think marriage should be a government function. She also said she had a 15 year partner.

I kept asking her if she ignored her partner's values as she demands I ignore mine, and she repeatedly refused to. It is that I was referring to.

And I was pointing out that it is highly hypocritical to want to deny to other people the benefits you enjoy.

This is yet another misdirection. You demanded I divorce my wife regardless of her values, that is what I was addressing. I asked you if you ignore your partners views as you demand I ignore mine.

I also pointed out and you ignored that I oppose the existence of government marriage and my personally being married or not does not change it, so I would be ignoring my partners feelings for nothing.

Finally, you act like you cleverly discovered a great hidden secret when you didn't even ask me if I was married, I came out and told you so we could have this discussion. And you continue to wallow in your cleverness at having deduced nothing and simply repeated the mindlessly obvious point.

As far as my values and my partner's values are concerned, it would depend on the weight of each's convictions. Your "value" of thinking the government should stay out of marriage isn't as strong as your wife "value" of wanting that government smack. I get it. You consider it a compromise and I would normally agree with you (compromise is necessary in a lasting relationship, it's what my spouse and I do)...if you didn't favor keeping gays and lesbians from those same benefits that you wouldn't take if your wife didn't make you.

If my divorcing my wife would end marriage as a government institution then I would do it. But it will make no difference. If she dies I will not re-marry.

As for "compromise," it's not compromise I gave in. She has strong convictions on our being legally married and I don't. Newlyweds "compromise" most of the time. After 22 years one of us usually gets their way. She is getting her way. I get mine on other things. You sound like someone who has a 15 month relationship, not 15 years.