the Gay Agenda continued....

great point. not to mention the benefits and tax breaks that come with "marriage".

 

The government (both state and federal) should have absolutely no role in marriage. It's that simple.

 

Its all about using the institution of marriage to win from society, "respect"for gays and some "dignity" that they lack. Social engineering, purely to benefit the gays. From the In Re marriage case-

 

No! The real social engineering lies in using the organs of government to impose a certain brand of morality on the public. If marriage is the gold standard of interpersonal relationships, using the government to exclude certain types of citizens from the civic franchise insures that those citizens do not enjoy all the benefits of citizenship--to the delight of those who wish to use our government to engineer a society that reflects their moral appetites. When really all the government should be doing is paving roads, printing money, and defending the borders.

IOW, wanting government to encourage or discourage certain behaviors that do not constitute harm to others is the very definition of social engineering.

 

It's about the LEGAL effects of the marriage contract. And the last time I paid close attention to what it means legally, there were over 1400 unique aspects which both heterosexual and homosexual people would be concerned with (or even look forward to).

It isn't about just that word "marriage"; it is about the legal meaning of the same.

 

Yes, social engineering, encouraging mothers and fathers to raise their children together as opposed to the alternative of only one or none doing so. For the wellbeing of the children.

As opposed to social engineering to win respect from society for gays and dignity for themselves. Social engineering to benefit society as opposed to social engineering purely for the bemefit of a select group.

 

You mean it doesnt achieve this goal in 50% of marriages. While it does in the other 50%. As well the obligations of marriage to the spouse and children continue on, after divorce. My step dad has been paying alimony since 1972.

 

marriage does not create the obligation. PATERNITY does.

it's tiresome having to refute the same retarded argument over and over. you really need to come up with something new.

 

It also serves as their platform to be able to corrupt the minds of children. If they are allowed to tag their unions with "marriage", they will have free reign to adopt as many kids as they are allowed to adopt, unleashing a wave of perversion this world has never seen in history.

Simple math. If you have 2 perverted lifestyles raising a child, what are the chances of that child developing a perverted lifestyle as well? very high.

And if gay couples will be allowed to adopt children, whose next to adopt? ex-Felons? Murderers? Alcoholics? if all it takes is lobby for their law.

I can easily see an ex-pedophile applying for adoption in the furture. all they have to prove is no negative interaction with children in so many years. It can happen. Gay marriage just did.

 

Does society benefit from the quicky marriages preformed everyday in Vegas which are usually annulled afterwards? - No

Does society benefit from two 70 year old individuals marrying? - No

Does society benefit benefit from a woman with no children marrying a man with a child from a previous marriage? - Yes

Does society benefit from a woman marrying a woman with a child from a previous marriage? - Yes

It has nothing to do with "social engineering" as the majority are already in favor of equal marriage rights.

 

Raising children to be gay when they are not, IS INDEED Social Engineering.


Makes you wonder why gay couples don't ask if the adopted child has "gay genes" before they adopt . because they KNOW the child is not gay prior to adoption. they plan to change that over the years so it's of no importance.

 

I remember I had posted a thread asking for insight on what exactly the "gay agenda" was.

No one was able to come up with anything useful.

The "gay agenda" is just a fun little phrase the righties use to make themselves feel better. Conspiracy theories are always more fun than reality.

 

I was not aware of any cases where anyone wanted their child to be gay.
I take that back - I am sure that it does occur but it is not usually the case. Most gay people would not wish their child to be gay as it leads to a very difficult life because of the amount of hate and false information that is spewed by individuals, such as your self. Bigots are the problem in this situation.

http://psychcentral.com/news/2010/09/14/gay-parents-have-well-adjusted-kids/18119.html

http://www.parentdish.com/2009/11/23/gay-parents-do-not-warp-their-kids-research-shows/

Lets face facts - the government should have no role in marriage - It should have been left a traditional religious institution - but unfortunately they decided to get involved and it is wrong to provide benefits to one class of individuals simply because they belong to that class while denying them to another class. The "conservative" side lost out on interracial marriage, black rights, women rights, and they will lose this one as well.

 

___Correct.___

 

Welcome to the thread that breaks it down for you in laymen's terms.

 

No way around not being trained to be gay if you have 2 same-sex parents. no way around it. It's what they want to do. it's why they want kids or else they would have them naturally.

And Gays should have no role in child raising. period.

 

Lets put this debate to an end....

The government should have no authority in marriage, aside from setting the age and consent, and deciding how much a married couple pays in taxes when filing jointly.

No form of marriage between consenting adults should be outlawed.......This includes gay, incest, and polygamy....

 

Last time I checked most gay people come from straight households not gay ones- usually with parents that have raised straight children.

If you have ever spoken to a gay person they would tell you they were not raised or influenced to be gay in any way.

Why should gay people have no role in child raising?
Are there more instances of neglect? No - actually far fewer instances
Are there more instances of abuse? No - actually far fewer instances

Should we take someone's children from a previous relationship if they get involved with someone from the same sex? You would really rather children to rot in the system then be in a home with individuals that love them?

Children raised by gay couples are just as well adjusted (often more so) and are loved just as much by their parents. Like I said earlier - Bigots are the problem.

 

What is the agenda?

Equal rights?

How horrible.

 

Actually, they "usually" are not annulled. Ony a tiny portion of marriages are ever anulled.

And my purchasing of the required auto liability insurance for 34 years has benefitted no one as I have never been in an accident for which I was liable. AND STILL, it is the potential of an auto accident that motivates the governments requirement that I purchase auto liability insurance.

 

Well, thats what anyone interested in equality would argue for. Notice how almost none of them do. They want special treatment for homosexuals. If its made availble to anyone, it is no longer special.

 

There's a problem with the auto insurance analogy.

Laws have a purpose, but it's not always possible to exactly address the purpose... we have to work through proxies. For example, the proxy for someone who will be in an accident is anyone who drives. We force everyone who drives to cary insurance as a consequence. In an ideal world, we could narrow this proxy down, but it's not really possible to do so.... anyone who drives has a risk of being in an accident and it's not possible to predict with certainty who will. An accident is an imminent and near irreversible risk that often can't be paid for after-the-fact, so insurance is required before-the-fact.

In short, the requirement to have insurance as a driver is the narrowest application of the law practical to fulfill its purpose.

Unlike children. "Heterosexual Couple" is a sufficient, but not narrow proxy for "could produce children that need to be prepared and cared for". In most cases, we can indeed know with near to absolute certainty who is or is not capable of reproduction. And yet we've only restrict some of them. We also know with near absolute certainly who SHOULD reproduce.... i.e. your axe murderer and child molester will have children taken from them that they produce, and yet they can still marry. It's also not required for couples to have all the rights of marriage if they never produce children... there comes a time when the couple is no longer able to reproduce, and if they have never reproduced, the rights need not continue. This is unlike driving, where you are required to have insurance until you stop driving because you always have a risk of an accident.... marriage laws continue even beyond the risk of reproduction. A narrow application of the law could more appropriately allocate rights to those with a real potential to produce children.

In short, the application of marriage laws is far from narrow in serving its purpose. Which means that the law either should be reformed to fulfill that purpose more narrowly, or (and is more likely) the purpose is just a smoke screen, and is not the (only) actual purpose society intends to support with marriage laws. Which begs the question, what other purposes is society trying to support, and are these other purposes treating similarly situated people the same? No, they are not.

 

not at all

it's a term used to compile it all into a nice little package. Instead of addressing the issues the "gay movement" is he// bent on trying to legislate acceptance and thought

 

Nope. Marriage rights, BY DESIGN are unequal to those rights available to the unmarried.