Breaking News - Gay Marriage Ruling

[HeatherAnn]

Jaybear,

So far, YOU are the only one who's mentioned anybody giving up on homosexuality.

I believe we ALL hypnotize ourselves, whether that be by media, religion, internet & especially our own belief patterns.

Those with homosexual preferences may have started out with inherited tendencies toward homosexuality, yet it is a scientifically known fact that our brains undergo many connections AFTER birth. So, for homosexual preferences to be expressed, specific environmental influences must exit. Therefore, preferences toward homosexuality are acquired by environmental influences with possibly some inherited tendencies. Furthermore, hyptnotizing oneself by repeating over & over homosexual thoughts that produce feelings, actually changes brain chemistry, which alters mental state, which again changes hormones & brain chemistry. So, someone may feel that their sexual preferences is "who they are" when in fact, it is an accumulation of mostly environmental influences, especially their own thinking patterns.

I've presented so much causation, & absolutley NO insults. Good try, trying for reverse discrimination, though. Just a hint... reverse discrimination works against you in the long run. People with homsoexual preferences who want to be treated as everyone are hurt by you trying to get pitty for them.

Frankenstein,

I read what was listed on your links - all I saw of them breaking any law (if it is law) - was objecting to homosexuality, or the way it was being illegally pushed on them.

I asked you what specific law they broke & you didn't respond, probably because either you don't know or it would sound ridiculous explaining it.

[TAO]

Oh come on Tao, you can't tell the difference between consenting adults and barn animals?

I think the case could be made off of whether... well I'm not even going to go there. I will tell you though, a case could be made with such.

The thing that drives me the most crazy about those that oppose gay marriage is their willingness to distort things and make up scenarios that are totally unrelated to the issue.

You mean the possible long-term effects of the law are not part of the issue?

Do you not have one argument against gay marriage that you have to resort to distortions and barn animals?

CFR that I am distorting it. I am taking a look at one of the possibilities that may happen because of this. Not directly, no, but because the law will then support marriages for other points than procreation. Which is kind of the point of mairrage in the first place. You need to look where this could go in worst case scenario before you give it the go-ahead.

These kinds of statements that we have seen repeatedly on this board and all over the internet just reinforces the idea that there are no rational arguments against gay marriage.

Did you read the article Mordecai cited?

People are willing to cite statistics from countries that were already moving away from marriage prior to gay marriage being passed and try to blame that trend on gay marriage.

Again, did you read the article Mordecai cited? It shows why none of these 'other explanations' make sense. It explains why gay mairrage relates to such - through Individualism.

Their cultures are much different than in the US.

They are. But they are very similar to the culture of the radical-left side of the Democratic Party. Most Democrats don't subscribe to that, but things these days are only getting more polarized. I don't think America will come quite as close as Europe... but it could drift that way.

They think that a 2 year difference in passage of gay marriage some how makes their statics accurate and toss out any statistics from Mass.

I like to use statistics from Massechusetts as well, actually. I remember there was a statistic of only a very small percentage of people who classified themself as homosexual actually got married... or something like that. There is statistics that both hurt and help everywhere. It is not a one-sided thing statistically.

If they have such a strong case for their argument, why not cite US numbers.

Ask Mordecai for that homosexual mairrage percentage number.

Don't they like what those numbers suggest???

No, we don't like what the numbers suggest - decline of the traditional family. But do we use them... yeah, we kinda do.

Or the post that cites discrimination cases against homosexuals but in states that DIDN'T EVEN HAVE GAY MARRIAGE.

So what? Many of these relate to issues that matter to us. They show why we fight so strongly. We wouldn't fight strongly if we didn't have something to defend, really. I am not a sort of apologist who likes going to attack people's opinions, tbh. I do when I have to... but I don't like it at all.

Then they claim it is gay marriage that caused these discrimination judgements.

Nah, that's not what we say. We say it is a step towards gay mairrage. Which in a case, it is. It enforces the idea that opposing homosexuality is incorrect. There are some cases, where yes, they are getting discriminated against. But there are also some cases where the state is infringing on the beliefs of the people being sued. It goes both ways.

In fact, they BROKE the discrimination laws already on the books at both the state and federal level that have NOTHING to do with gay marriage.

If you look at all the states that passed gay mairrage, would you say they passed discrimination laws before or after that happened? I think most of them passed it before. This would tend to make me lean towards the idea that the laws precurse this sort of thing. Again, that's just my speculation, but I don't think it's really that hard to see.

Even though the court cases had nothing to do with gay marriage, they want to perpetuate the LIE that they were connected. Come on, do you have no integrity. If you are going to make a case, do it in fact not some A +B = D scenarios.

Shall I explain?

1) Court case in New Jersey, with eHarmony being sued by New Jersey for discrimination.

2) Services related to mairrage are not allowed to discriminate against couples who are homosexual, despite religious objections

3) Thus, mairrages themselves should not be able to discriminate against couples, despite religious objections

It's isn't A + B = D, they do have some effect. They aren't the full cause, they are a step in the direction that I don't want the US to go in.

I personally have such distain for people who claim to value honesty but yet constantly twist facts and statistics for their own use. Stick with the fact or don't present an argument.

Hopefully this explains what I said much better.

Sorry to rag on you Tao. This comment is more universally directed at supposed honest people who have no problem distorting truth to try and make their case. And when confronted with the truth, and the facts of the case are unwilling to admit their distortions. Instead come up with different and equally insulting statements. I am usually able to igonre these tired and completely disproven statement, but I guess like you I grow weary of the willingless of some to walk away from integrety in order to feed on peoples fears to get what they want.

Nah, tis fine. I do this sometimes too. I do it too often, in fact. Most of the time, people don't notice though.

I have already blew up several times in this thread, and probably will more times later =).

This is your first, you have a good record, I wouldn't worry about it XD.

I think both sides grow weary of the other, tbh =D. That's why we all get so... teethed :E <-- teethed guy right there.

Best Wishes,

-TAO

[TAO]

Why does gay marriage "devalue" the traditional family?

To put it as Mordecai's article states, "Advocacy of same-sex marriage encouraged erstwhile Dutch traditionalists to reconsider the idea that marriage has anything intrinsic to do with raising children. Not surprisingly, this "family diversity" ideal took hold."

That is why, kinda =/.

The trends seem to show that, as society has allowed them to emerge from the closet, gays have come to embrace marriage and family.

Again, if we look at Mordecai's Massachusetts statistic (Mordecai, do you have that link too... sorry, thanks =P), very few people who consider themselves gay actually get married.

In New York, because gays can now marry, they are expecting a wedding boom which will bring hundreds of millions into the economy.

We will have to see how many get married.

Your reasoning reminds me of that joke, people don't go to that restaurant anymore because its to crowded.

Are you talking to someone else in this part of your statement... not sure =P.

Moreover, children being born out of wedlock is heterosexual problem. Gays couples don't have accidental pregnancy. Could you please explain how gay marriage leads to more children born out of wedlock.

The article Mordecai cited. Encourages 'family diversity', which thus encourages, children born out of wedlock.

In any event, if you cared about children being raised out of wedlock, why would you deny gay parents the right to marry? That makes not sense, unless you are just pretending to care about the children, to make a point.

They cannot have children, and I already disagree with them adopting children as is. =/. Sorry my friend, nah, this is not why for me =(.

Best Wishes,

TAO

[TAO]

Erp, wrong post. Srryz ppls =P.

[frankenstein]

Frankenstein,

I read what was listed on your links - all I saw of them breaking any law (if it is law) - was objecting to homosexuality, or the way it was being illegally pushed on them.

I asked you what specific law they broke & you didn't respond, probably because either you don't know or it would sound ridiculous explaining it.

well you did sort of read it after all. And as you realize they each violated the anti-discrimination laws of the respective states. The Churhc in NJ did not want to abide by its conditions for tax exempt status, The NM photographer was not smart in how/why she declined here services, eharmony did not want to abide by the law....all three want what is termed "their cake and eat it too". Is there a First Amendment case for the photographer, perhaps, but I haven't read of anyone offering to defend her.

But issue stands, the law was being violated by the so called "christians", one of which did not want to live up to its oath with the State, nevertheless, all the law was being violated or there probable cause to prosecute for a law violation.

[Mordecai]

I might add, if you're going to argue that "gay marriage" is good for the economy, that small businesses will have to pay for medical coverage of same-sex partners. That will further stifle economic growth and may cause lay-offs.

[HeatherAnn]

well you did sort of read it after all. And as you realize they each violated the anti-discrimination laws of the respective states... all the law was being violated or there probable cause to prosecute for a law violation.

Yeah, as I mentioned, you're helping support my argument, that the push for legalizing gay marriage is making it legal to charge people for not believing in gay marriage.

What are we going to be penalized for not believing in next??

[Mordecai]

Yeah, as I mentioned, you're helping support my argument, that the push for legalizing gay marriage is making it legal to charge people for not believing in gay marriage.

What are we going to be penalized for not believing in next??

Exactly. The thought police.

[frankenstein]

Yeah, as I mentioned, you're helping support my argument, that the push for legalizing gay marriage is making it legal to charge people for not believing in gay marriage.

What are we going to be penalized for not believing in next??

Nope. try another spin. The photographer simply should have said "No". The Church in NJ should have found a better lawyer to set up the tax exempt deal with the state OR that Church could just pay taxes and be as discriminatory as it wants - see how easy it to discriminate, just pay taxes and you can do what you want. eharmony, also should have had better legal advice before it started to provide services in NJ. The ownness for the troubles is on the photographer, that particular church and eharmony, each is responsible.

[HeatherAnn]

Frankenstein,

Peoples' right to deny participation in something that conflicts with their religious or moral beliefs should be supported.

Peoples' right of free speech, even if not in support of gay marriage, should be supported.

Gay marriage legal & social belief changes are negatively affecting those rights.

[HeatherAnn]

I want to clarify that although I do not support the gay agenda nor do I support gay marriage being legal, I do support loving others, no matter what their sexual preference.

A good friend of mine (with homosexual preferences) was a great singer & I'd accompany him on piano. He encouraged me to try more difficult pieces & to do my best. He knew how I saw homosexuality, yet he knew I cared about him as a person & we still hung out. Another guy I worked with & we'd check out guys together lol. I've had a couple of family members with homosexual preferences - one has been with her same partner for several years, so of course, there are some who behave responsibly by being monogomous. One family member I worry about & 2 friends have died of AIDS.

I grew up with a guy friend who had feminine mannerisms. When I saw kids teasing him, I stood up for him & told them to basically ......(use your imagination.)

When I see or hear of anybody picking on someone, I try to stand up for them - even got hit twice for it & I'm not exactly a boxer.

I understand that sometimes those with homosexuals occasionally experience terrible treatment from others & my heart aches for them.

A friend with homosexual preferences, explained how he fell deeply in love with a woman... who ended up leaving him for another woman.

This made him question his masculinity & he started hanging out with gay men. One night at a party, these gay men spiked his drink & raped him.

His point was that there are good & bad people, no matter what sexual preference.

I also feel for people who are confused - they have all of these thoughts & feelings for those of the same sex, yet they might intellectually believe homosexuality is wrong, & then feel ashamed, for just having such thoughts & feelings.

That would be so difficult! Yet, I hope they know that they are not alone. They are loved. Thoughts may not be correct, but shaming oneself about them is no way to heal. One must acknowledge them in a compassionate way, before you can deal with & release buried feelings. It takes courage to honestly soul-search, to quesiton thoughts that produce feelings - but we're all in this! We all have incorrect thoughts that we need to work through - nobody's better than another - just different.

I hope it is clear that I love people no matter what their age, ability or disability, race, financial status, religion or sexual preference.

My passion for this topic stems from the desire to protect rights & to warn others of harmful consequences of risky homosexual practices.

This is my way of showing "tough love" - wanting what's best for all.

[frankenstein]

Frankenstein,

Peoples' right to deny participation in something that conflicts with their religious or moral beliefs should be supported.

Religion is not a valid basis for laws in United States, and thankfully so.

Individual morals, well maybe, but if you are going to say "my morals are superior, therefore you can not do X" then you better have very good, water tight reason, and if you are going to prevent a particular class of society from participating in a "thing" then your reasoning better be several steps above water tight.

Peoples' right of free speech, even if not in support of gay marriage, should be supported.

who is saying or prevent another from speaking? free speech has been discussed in this thread already. SSM does not violate the free speech of anyone. A business owner, as a condition for doing business, has agreed by virtue of the business license not to discriminate. Yet, several of the main example used against ssm are "christians" who are not living up the promises they have made...go figure. A business owner is free to refuse services, a smart business owner simple says no.

[TAO]

Religion is not a valid basis for laws in United States, and thankfully so.

It can be argued that the state has no reason then for only issuing mairrage liscenses for people above a certain age, without parental consent. The reason we have that law is due to religion, generally. It's the same case with, persay, a 50 year old and a 14 year old. Restricted on the bounds of morals, which are mostly in place because of religion.

So I think it's a bit off to say religion is not a valid basis for laws in the US. It does have an effect, and things that are against the large majority of people generally won't be questioned much.

[california boy]

That sums it up.

Homosexual couples ALREADY have rights under both Common Law Marriage...

Common-law marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...and they have rights under Cohabitation Agreements.

Cohabitation agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rights are already in place for homosexual couples under Common Law Marriage and Cohabitation Agreements (sometimes also referred to as reciprocal beneficiaries).

These rights may include, but are not limited to...

- Eligibility for health insurance benefits,

- Life insurance benefits,

- Child visitation rights,

- Hospital visitation rights,

- Inheritance when named in the deceased will &...

- For those under common law marriage - inheritance even without a will - called interstate succession,

- With common law marraige, courts may be ased to settle post-relationships property disputes,

- With common law marriage, alimony awards

- Domestic partners may also if entered a formal agreement for palimony prior to cohabitation

Marvin v Marvin, 18 Cal. 3d 660, 557 P.2d 106, 134 Cal. Rptr. 815 (Cal. 1976)

The only reason to change the legal definition of marriage is to force social acceptance of homosexuality, through the government.

That is the wrong way to get social acceptance, especially when it infinges on others' rights.

Well if homoisexuals have all of those rights without being married, then lets just get rid of marriage completely. If gay people don't need to get married then neither do straight people. There now everything is settled.

[california boy]

I think the case could be made off of whether... well I'm not even going to go there. I will tell you though, a case could be made with such.

You mean the possible long-term effects of the law are not part of the issue?

CFR that I am distorting it. I am taking a look at one of the possibilities that may happen because of this. Not directly, no, but because the law will then support marriages for other points than procreation. Which is kind of the point of marriage in the first place. You need to look where this could go in worst case scenario before you give it the go-ahead.

Did you read the article Mordecai cited?

Again, did you read the article Mordecai cited? It shows why none of these 'other explanations' make sense. It explains why gay mairrage relates to such - through Individualism.

They are. But they are very similar to the culture of the radical-left side of the Democratic Party. Most Democrats don't subscribe to that, but things these days are only getting more polarized. I don't think America will come quite as close as Europe... but it could drift that way.

I like to use statistics from Massechusetts as well, actually. I remember there was a statistic of only a very small percentage of people who classified themself as homosexual actually got married... or something like that. There is statistics that both hurt and help everywhere. It is not a one-sided thing statistically.

Ask Mordecai for that homosexual mairrage percentage number.

No, we don't like what the numbers suggest - decline of the traditional family. But do we use them... yeah, we kinda do.

So what? Many of these relate to issues that matter to us. They show why we fight so strongly. We wouldn't fight strongly if we didn't have something to defend, really. I am not a sort of apologist who likes going to attack people's opinions, tbh. I do when I have to... but I don't like it at all.

Nah, that's not what we say. We say it is a step towards gay mairrage. Which in a case, it is. It enforces the idea that opposing homosexuality is incorrect. There are some cases, where yes, they are getting discriminated against. But there are also some cases where the state is infringing on the beliefs of the people being sued. It goes both ways.

If you look at all the states that passed gay mairrage, would you say they passed discrimination laws before or after that happened? I think most of them passed it before. This would tend to make me lean towards the idea that the laws precurse this sort of thing. Again, that's just my speculation, but I don't think it's really that hard to see.

Shall I explain?

1) Court case in New Jersey, with eHarmony being sued by New Jersey for discrimination.

2) Services related to mairrage are not allowed to discriminate against couples who are homosexual, despite religious objections

3) Thus, mairrages themselves should not be able to discriminate against couples, despite religious objections

It's isn't A + B = D, they do have some effect. They aren't the full cause, they are a step in the direction that I don't want the US to go in.

Hopefully this explains what I said much better.

Nah, tis fine. I do this sometimes too. I do it too often, in fact. Most of the time, people don't notice though.

I have already blew up several times in this thread, and probably will more times later =).

This is your first, you have a good record, I wouldn't worry about it XD.

I think both sides grow weary of the other, tbh =D. That's why we all get so... teethed :E <-- teethed guy right there.

Best Wishes,

-TAO

Ok Tao, if you think that those are valid reasons to oppose gay marriage, then I will use that same reasoning to argue that heterosexuals should not be allowed to marry also. We should pass a constitutional amendment outlawing straight couples to marry. Here are my reasonings.

If we allow straight couples to marry, then brothers will want to marry sisters. Mothers will want to marry sons. Fathers will want to marry daughters. Males will want to marry femail baarn animals.

If we allow straight couples to marry then someone who is christian will be forced to take photographs of clearly non christian Mormons being married even though they find Mormons immoral. Or blacks or Jews or what every your moral objections. are. People will be forced to serve black people in restaurants even though it goes against their personal choice. People will be forced to rent to straight couple even though they find them to be the major cause of divorce which they find to be immoral. Do you have any idea why we have discrimination laws in this country????

If we allow straight couples to marry then more children will be brought in to this world and will not be raised by their father and mothers because the BIGGEST reason why children are not raised by a father and a mother in the home is because of STRAIGHT DIVORCE. So lets outlaw marriage to straight couples.

Any straight couple that gets a divorce should not every be allowed to marry again because statistically people that get one divorce are more likely to get another divorce and leave even more children in homes without father and a mother.

Lets outlaw marriage for people who have an affair. Statistically if someone cheats on their spouse they are more than likely to cheat on their second spouse and often have children by both women they cheated with.

In fact,lets outlaw marriage to anyone who has had more than one sex partner in their past. Statistically those who have multiple partners before marriage are more likely to cheat on their partners after they are married. This is the direct result of more divorce, more children not raised by a father and a mother in the home.

We should only allow gay marriage because that group has the smallest amount of children. So gay marriage actually creates far fewer children without a father and a mother in the home.

we should not allow straight couples to marry that have divorced because statistically sept fathers abuse children more often.

We should only allow straight couples marry that are willing to adopt children rather than have their own because statistically those parents abuse their children far less than other step parents. They also divorce less. So straight couples and gay couples who want to adopt children should be the only marriages we allow in this country.

Lets forbid by law marriage for any straight person who has had sex outside of marriage, then it will protect the sanctity of marriage and this country will be more moral. Yeah.

It seems to me there are much stronger statistically evidence and real case scenarios that call fur straight couples not being married than gay couples not being married. Straight couples are the NUMBER ONE CAUSE of children not growing up in a home with both a mother and a father. Let's do it for the children. Let's do it for America. I am sure this will eliminate immorality in this country. After all everyone knows if you prevent a part of the population from being married, then this country will be more moral.

Need I go on? Does anyone reading this see the irony in most all of the statements against gay marriage?? You can not come up with a hair-brain reason why gay marriage should be denied that can not be flipped around to being an argument why straight marriage should also be denied. Now all your anti gay marriage fans, go at it. Let's hear your response.

[Mordecai]

Religion is not a valid basis for laws in United States, and thankfully so.

Freedom of religion is, and that's in the Constitution. Similarly, the gov't shouldn't be adopting any dogmas, like the idea that a gay union has no relevant differences from a straight union. People who think it's irrelevant that real marriage created all of civilization are probably nihilists. Those are not people we want governing other people, and it would be best for everyone if nihilists had no say in a Democratic government. (Not that I'm advocating a nihilist-hunt to prevent their participation by force; just speaking hypothetically).

SSM does not violate the free speech of anyone.

It merely defeats the entire purpose of free speech, that's all. Also, the evolution of a language is part of free speech. Top-down manipulation of the language represents the oppression of the ideas contained in our language, that emerged via the free speech of our ancestors. Interfering with natural law in this way is against everything this nation was founded on.

[DH]

Freedom of religion is, and that's in the Constitution. Similarly, the gov't shouldn't be adopting any dogmas, like the idea that a gay union has no relevant differences from a straight union. People who think it's irrelevant that real marriage created all of civilization are probably nihilists. Those are not people we want governing other people, and it would be best for everyone if nihilists had no say in a Democratic government. (Not that I'm advocating a nihilist-hunt to prevent their participation by force; just speaking hypothetically).

Permitting gays to marry is not adopting a dogma. Rather, it is allowing individuals to adopt (or not) dogmas of their choosing. A gay person might hold to the "dogma" that gay marriage is the most wonderful thing since sliced bread, but a straight person can still hold to the "dogma" that gay marriage signals the imminent demise of the multiverse.

It merely defeats the entire purpose of free speech, that's all. Also, the evolution of a language is part of free speech. Top-down manipulation of the language represents the oppression of the ideas contained in our language, that emerged via the free speech of our ancestors. Interfering with natural law in this way is against everything this nation was founded on.

So the purpose of free speech is to disallow gays to get married?

[DH]

Yeah, as I mentioned, you're helping support my argument, that the push for legalizing gay marriage is making it legal to charge people for not believing in gay marriage.

That's just plain hogwash.

The government allows blacks to get married. It requires that police and the courts treat black people equally to white people. It prohibits workplace discrimination against blacks. And yet it is perfectly legal to believe that blacks and whites are not equal, and to openly express that opinion. The LDS Church is not required by law to give blacks the priesthood, but it does so for other reasons (some would say because of a revelation, others because of social pressure, but NOT because of the law).

If the government allows gays to marry, that would not force the Church to start marrying gay people, nor would it make it illegal to believe anything you want about gays. You could believe gays are alien invaders from Qo'noS, for all the government would care.

Nobody's freedom of religion or freedom of speech would be threatened by legally recognizing same-sex marriages.

[TAO]

If we allow straight couples to marry, then brothers will want to marry sisters. Mothers will want to marry sons. Fathers will want to marry daughters. Males will want to marry femail baarn animals.

Luckily, if we look at the case now, it is not happening.

If we allow straight couples to marry then someone who is christian will be forced to take photographs of clearly non christian Mormons being married even though they find Mormons immoral.

Luckily, most Mormons get married in the temple, and thus, most photographers are Mormon too. Even though a non-Mormon could do it, most of the time it is done by a Mormon. And I wouldn't want someone who thinks I'm immoral to be taking my picture anyways.

Or blacks or Jews or what every your moral objections. are.

They should have a right to that, if it's based on morals. That's called the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

If they have a religious/moral objection to taking pictures, they shouldn't have to.

People will be forced to serve black people in restaurants even though it goes against their personal choice. People will be forced to rent to straight couple even though they find them to be the major cause of divorce which they find to be immoral. Do you have any idea why we have discrimination laws in this country????

I again refer you to the first amendment.

If we allow straight couples to marry then more children will be brought in to this world and will not be raised by their father and mothers because the BIGGEST reason why children are not raised by a father and a mother in the home is because of STRAIGHT DIVORCE. So lets outlaw marriage to straight couples.

Luckily, a straight divorce is just as bad as an unmarried straight couple separating for the children.

Any straight couple that gets a divorce should not every be allowed to marry again because statistically people that get one divorce are more likely to get another divorce and leave even more children in homes without father and a mother.

Luckily, divorces are not always the fault of both people. Take one of the people who recently passed away in my ward. Her husband couldn't deal with her and her MS. So he divorced her - even though she still loved him. It isn't quite that simple.

Lets outlaw marriage for people who have an affair. Statistically if someone cheats on their spouse they are more than likely to cheat on their second spouse and often have children by both women they cheated with.

I'm going to have to CFR this one.

In fact,lets outlaw marriage to anyone who has had more than one sex partner in their past. Statistically those who have multiple partners before marriage are more likely to cheat on their partners after they are married. This is the direct result of more divorce, more children not raised by a father and a mother in the home.

I'm also going to have to CFR this one. In addition, as I pointed out, divorce is more or less the same compared to non-married separation in terms of how it effects children.

We should only allow gay marriage because that group has the smallest amount of children. So gay marriage actually creates far fewer children without a father and a mother in the home.

This is one reason we shouldn't allow it, actually.

we should not allow straight couples to marry that have divorced because statistically sept fathers abuse children more often.

Luckily, you cannot connect remarried separated couples to abuse - you can only connect separated fathers to abuse. So your point wouldn't make very much sense.

We should only allow straight couples marry that are willing to adopt children rather than have their own because statistically those parents abuse their children far less than other step parents. They also divorce less. So straight couples and gay couples who want to adopt children should be the only marriages we allow in this country.

Unfortunately, children also tend to want to be with their biological mother and father. So this would end up having a negative effect on the children.

Lets forbid by law marriage for any straight person who has had sex outside of marriage, then it will protect the sanctity of marriage and this country will be more moral. Yeah.

Luckily, this is hard to monitor, and impossible to enforce.

It seems to me there are much stronger statistically evidence and real case scenarios that call fur straight couples not being married than gay couples not being married. Straight couples are the NUMBER ONE CAUSE of children not growing up in a home with both a mother and a father. Let's do it for the children. Let's do it for America. I am sure this will eliminate immorality in this country. After all everyone knows if you prevent a part of the population from being married, then this country will be more moral.

Luckily, if you look at Mormon mothers and fathers, you'll find those awful statistics don't exist.

Also, luckily, I've never supported divorce or premarital sex, I just realize they will happen.

Also luckily, I realize that Prop 8 is un-enforceable, but is more in the case of preventing government recognition and support.

Finally, luckily, none of your arguments are a good comparison with Prop. 8, and what it was intended to do. Which was to prevent government recognition and support of such in the schooling system.

Yes, I expect support of divorce and premarital sex to stay out of the schooling system too.

Need I go on? Does anyone reading this see the irony in most all of the statements against gay marriage?? You can not come up with a hair-brain reason why gay marriage should be denied that can not be flipped around to being an argument why straight marriage should also be denied. Now all your anti gay marriage fans, go at it. Let's hear your response.

I don't see it my friend, because you are not making an accurate comparison. Prop 8 was never intended to be enforced. It was intended to prevent the government from supporting such relationships by teaching it in school, and also to protect the definition of mairrage as it was originally used.

You need to draw accurate comparisons before you cite statistics. There was a letter sent out to California voters by the head of one of the State Department (I believe it was the State Department) stating, that if they didn't teach Prop 8, their children WOULD be taught that homosexual mairrage was acceptable, in schools. Thus, it IS important for me to pass Prop 8.

I realize you are very annoyed with me. And I must tell you, the merits of a law must be balanced with the consequences, and so with the merits of not having a law be balanced with the consequences. The merits of not having Prop 8 did not balance with the consequences, thus, I must support it, despite the contention it causes.

Somber Wishes,

TAO

P.S. You need to also understand that I do not support it because I hate people - I haven't ever truly hated people. I have been very badly hurt by some people. But never hated. No, the reason why I support it is because those who support it don't have enough control over their 'fringists', who desire to put such in education. And the thing is, right now, the government supports them. Thus, I must put my weight the other way to balance things out.

[TAO]

If the government allows gays to marry, that would not force the Church to start marrying gay people, nor would it make it illegal to believe anything you want about gays.

But it does force our education system to support gay mairrage, unless another law is passed preventing it.

[frankenstein]

Freedom of religion is, and that's in the Constitution.

which has nothing to do with religion not being a valid basis for laws.

and speaking of dogma, you also mean the dogma of marriage period, don't you

[DH]

But it does force our education system to support gay mairrage, unless another law is passed preventing it.

Really? How?

When I was in school I wasn't taught anything regarding any type of marriage, gay or straight. I got that stuff at home and at church.

[HeatherAnn]

DH,

Unfortunately, some gay supporters are pushing their beliefs on children, since they know children are more believing & influential.

One specifically said their agenda included instructing children in homosexual ways, before they learned otherwise.

You made a good point how since common law type rights already exist, it makes marriage (generally) not as necessary.

It's sad, but true that many couples are choosing not to get married - & instead choose to shack up.

A friend of mine argued that it's just a piece of paper & he dosn't need the legal system involved in his relationship.

Yet, for children's sake, marriage is important, because it makes it more likely families will keep together - not a guarantee - but more likely.

Really, those who suffer most when we mess with the definition or legality of marriage are children.

And, as already mentioned, children do best when raised by the same 2 sexes that created/conceived them... a mother & a father.

You wrote, "Hogwash." ??? Is that the best response you could come up with? lol You shouldn't insult your intelligence like that.

Read the articles yourself, Frankenstein was kind enough to post them.

Frankenstein,

I'm still waiting for you (or anyone for that matter) to address my list of problems of gay marriage...

[Mordecai]

...which has nothing to do with religion not being a valid basis for laws...

No one is saying that religion per se, is a valid basis for law. That was my point. You're presenting a strawman argument. If the state should stay away from religion, they shouldn't be passing laws to oppress religious ideas, which is exactly what "gay marriage" does. That said, "gay marriage" in itself is basically based on a religion, where gay people represent an oppressed minority. That's dogma. What they really are is just a bunch of people with a biological urge to behave differently. Treating different behavior differently is about as fundamental as it gets when it comes to the basic principles of government.

...and speaking of dogma, you also mean the dogma of marriage period, don't you...

The state should adopt the common-sense view that a gay union is not the same as a straight union. Hardly a dogma. It's obvious. France rejected "gay marriage" based on its conflict with the U.N. Children's Bill of Rights. America would be wise to do the same.

[frankenstein]

Frankenstein,

I'm still waiting for you (or anyone for that matter) to address my list of problems of gay marriage...

and you'll just keep waiting. I have already told you that your post is insulting. It is insulting the intelligence of the board. It is ill-conceived.

Deal with the content of the posts you find insulting and explain why disengage from the conversation. We have taken great care to insure both sides of this discussion are handled with sensitivity but HeatherAnn presented her position without personal insult. Just because you disagree with her points (even strongly) does not make them an insult. -Ares

Lastly, because of the former it is does warrant a point by point rebuttal. So I'll just keep ignoring it and hope that others will too. And based on your unwillingness to accept that people you want to present as martry's were either breaking the law, or there was probable cause that were breaking law and brought their problems upon themselfs, is good reason to realize the futility of discussion with you....so keep waiting.