You don't have to like gays to support gay marriage.

It would be nice if people could refrain from insulting people in large blocks. Acceptable and unacceptable has nothing to do with you or I. They have rights just as you do to live their lives and create their families as they see fit.

 

ANY TWO CONSENTING ADULTS other than the biological parents could join together to raise a child. One of the most frequent is a single mother and single grandparent joining together to raise a child. If you want to give special preference to non biological parents who happen to be gay, youll need SOME justification for doing so.

And while heterosexual sex has a strong, natural tendency to lead to procreation, gay sex has no tendency to lead to adoption. Absurd to argue that we cant limit marriage to heterosexual couples, the only couples who procreate, because not all heterosexuals procreate, and turn around and insist upon gay marriage on the off hand chance that they might choose to adopt.

 

Your use of the term "homo" shows readily, that no one should take you seriously.

 

So, you say it's okay to limit heterosexual marriage to a man and woman, just in case they end up procreating, but it's not okay to extend that just in case to same-sex marriages in case they use a surrogate, have pre-existing children, adopt, or get inivitro?

Look, my position is simple. IF the government is going to recognize marriages the way they do, they should be doing it equally. If they aren't going to do it equally, my next position would be to get rid of it altogether. I can't agree with discrimination though, especially when it's baseless and subjective.

 

I think it would be easier if we all had agreed upon terms and definitions, hence my muddle with this topic.

How do you define marriage?

 

Well, first off, I did not mean to comment in any way on the mother/child relationship. I understand there's a bond there that isn't something you can easily reproduce, if at all. I can testify to this firsthand since I have a wife and the three children she has birthed. Two of them are from her previous marriage to a man who cheated more than anyone I've ever heard of, to the point that she still finds out about incidents years after they separated. He's been dead now though for almost four years, and thankfully, the impact on our children was minimal because his involvement with them was minimal, of his own choosing. One particular incident still stands out in my memory(this is completely unrelated to the thread topic, but it does speak towards my views on marriage).

My wife's brother is paralyzed and in a wheelchair, with limited use of his arms as well, and my wife and her husband lived with him and helped take care of him. When my wife and her first husband were married, and after they'd had their first child, she took a job working 3rd shift at a nursing home. Fast forward about 4 years later to after my wife and I are together. We have hired a new aide for her brother, and it's her first day at the house. After talking for 10 minutes or so, she comments that she's been there before, that it looks familiar. After a few more minutes, she remembers why. Apparently, while my wife was at work, her husband was having this girl and her friend over to have sex. The aid does not realize that my wife was the guy's husband that they were sleeping with. That didn't go over well. It was worth noting that he did not have a job, and was doing this while my wife was out supporting the family.

I have no illusions about marriage, because marriages involve people, and people are unpredictable. Nor do I believe that a heterosexual marriage is going to be inherently better than any other combination of two people would be. I have known gay men and women(just as I've known straight men and women, and I kid you not, the gay couples have been together longer and the people involved have had fewer partners than the straight ones) for a number of years myself, and I can honestly say that there's maybe one or two that would fit the stereotypical picture of a "flamer". The rest you'd never know where gay if you didn't see them with their partner or have them tell you. I know one couple that's been together for at least 10 years, though not married because that's not legal in our state...yet. Another couple had been together for six(haven't spoken to them for a few years). It's not about the gender of the people involved in the marriage, it's about the people themselves and their relationship and commitment to each other. That's important, because that relationship and commitment will go a long way towards shaping any children they may potentially have. They are loving people, and I don't have a shred of doubt that they'd make great parents.

I also don't have a shred of doubt that there are irresponsible homosexuals just like there are irresponsible heterosexuals. Nobody is saying gay marriage will always work out great, that it will always end happily. It will be just like heterosexual marriage, in pretty much every way except the body parts of the people involved. So I get a little angry when people like Dixon try to tell me that there is something inherently wrong with homosexuals that would prevent them from being able to raise children in the same way and with the same results as a heterosexual couple, especially when points are all based on his underlying feeling that homosexuality is just wrong and icky. The evidence concerning homosexual couples and raising children has not shown any real divergence from heterosexual families. The statistics from states that have legalized same-sex marriage don't show a rapid destruction of traditional marriage, and in fact, as I showed in a post regarding divorce rates in those states, the rate has actually gone down.

 

homosexuality is also natural and prevelant in human society.

same sex couples can do the same.

what you find normal is irrelevant.

yet it's been around since the beginning of human existence.

 

Well, first off, I don't consider it a religious thing at all. It CAN be, if that's what the people involved decide they want to do, but it's not at all tied to it. So then, a marriage is basically a social contract between two people. For whatever reasons they may have, they've decided that this is the person they(currently) want to spend their life with. I think this is good for society, no matter who is getting married, because it creates a support system for the people involved, and I think we could all agree that having a support system in place is a good thing no matter who you are. If they have children, it creates an environment of stability to raise those children in, which those children will benefit from, even if only to see the commitment to each other that two people can have. Not every marriage is going to last, not every marriage is going to be great. Some will suck, that's just probability.

When I married my wife, we had a completely secular ceremony with a mutual friend of ours performing it for us. He is an ordained humanist minister, though in our state his performing a marriage would not have made it legal so we had the legal marriage done at the courthouse. I've loved my wife for a number of years, probably since the 5th grade 20 years ago. She is the only woman I will be with for the rest of my life.

I don't want to define what a marriage is for anyone other than myself, because none of those other marriages are conditioned upon my, or anyone's, definition of what a marriage should or shouldn't be. To me though, I think it really boils down to trust, commitment, and loyalty. Love doesn't even necessarily have to be a part of it, even if I couldn't imagine my marriage without it.

 

this is a failed argument. as over 50% of marriages end in divorce. So, your fantasy that the govn't encourages marriage among heterosexuals, so that children are raised by their parents is a failure.

 

retarded tired strawman. nobody is advocating for preferential treatment for gays.

 

retarded tired strawman.

 

It seems you have completely lost touch with reality at this point.

 

You do understand we are talking only about legal unions here, right? That what the government calls "marriage" is a legal union--no more, no less.

 

Ive cited DOZENS of cases that directly state that precisely the opposite is the reality. But you have a tough time dealing with reality, preferring instead your fantasy.

 

Why is that if a person doesn't support Gay marriage they are homophobic?

Why can't it be that they just think it's wrong and refuse to go along with it?

 

YOUR chosen title and the dozens of references to "Gays" and "gay marriage" are a part of that reality. This silliness that when you say "gay", you mean any consenting adult, is absurd.

 

The assertion that a gay man is equally qualified to the biological mother to raise her child, does just that.

 

I think I must be the only person who doesn't feel that its wrong to engage in dialog about what a word means, or something because everyone is so hesitant to put forth what their definition is without caveat. Saying: marriage is X isn't necessarily wrong, bad or evil. Unless they are saying: I think marriage is good! As that would mean that the unmarried are "bad".

Are we so afraid or fearful that other people will think we're intolerant that we're afraid to talk? Is the world so easily bruised and that raw and vulnerable? I don't think so. I listen to misogynistic words every day being slung around and my ear drums don't burst. People talk most of their waking day. Most of it is garbage and not thought out nor exactly what they meant. If we judge people by a single expression or statement that's our own personal problem not theirs.

All that said, it appears you define marriage as a non-religious contract between two people wherein they may or may not have children for the purpose of spending your life with someone you love.

You've also said that you don't want to define it for anyone else.

I don't see marriage necessarily as a love match anymore because I work in an international community and I have begun to realize that white people living in the west are--gasp--not the world's majority. It feels as though I am losing my sense of solidarity with these women are are in loveless marriages, who were bought and sold, who must put up or shut up lest they lose their children, who have no recourse, and in many cases fear for their lives because of their husbands if I were to concede that marriage is all love and roses.

To say that marriage has nothing to do with hard work, with nurturing the children you bear is pretty much slapping them in the face because they sacrificed all for that one single purpose.

To change the definition from its historical and global definition makes them all fools. I won't do that to them. Life forces you to pick your battles. No battle truly has a winner because people are harmed in the process on both sides. As a mother my heart is literally ripped from my chest when I hear that wail: He will take my children. I can't lose my children.

So, yes, some will hate me that I continue to define for myself that marriage is for the purpose of procreation. I hope, however, I do all a service by donating time to campaigns that will engender equal protection for those who choose to define it differently than I do. I believe that gays and lesbians have a right in the United States to marry and receive benefits. This probably seems odd in regards to my statement, but...I'm at odds with myself.

 

The president of the United States is NOT the pastor of the United states. When we confuse politics with religion, we lose our rights as a whole. Stop it!


And before I get bashed, i'm a Christian, born and raised in a Christian home - My father has been a minister/reverend since before I was born.

 

Not when your argument against limiting marriage to heterosexuals is based upon the fact that not all heterosexuals procreate. As well, ANY TWO CONSENTING ADULTS could use a surrogate or already have children. Nothing special about those couples who happen to be gay.

 

If you oppose equal civil rights for a minority, you are a bigot.

If you oppose same-sex marriage equality, yes, you are a homophobe.

 

Making babies or adopting is one thing...indoctrinating the children with perversion and filth at such a young as is another.

I'm just waiting for the day some deranged fruitcake kills mutilates his gay lover and blames it on his gay parents for raising him gay when he wasn't. then the poop will fly freely on this debate.

 

That's the most asinine scenario I've ever heard of, and I've heard a lot of stupid things from homophobes and bigots over the years.

 

^^^And this is the type of thinking we want to adopt and riase kids???

People better wake up. the writing is on the wall.