A Defense of Marriage/Gay Rights Amendment

[Kevmaster]

Originally posted by spantol
I'd have to assume that two loving parents beats a broken home, no matter what the gender breakdown is.

I totally agree

I also **LOVE** when people complain about the sanctity of marriage and how we need to preserve it...im like..."um...preserve what again? that 50% divorse ratio?"

[deathstalker]

Originally posted by grw4w34
i just dont think they should get the benifit of a couple who has the opportunity to produce a new member to society.

Introducing new members of society isn't always a good thing. If the parents cannot properly care for the child, they're causing harm and will likely produce a drain on society.

My sister and I are adopted, so I always take issue with people who use this argument. My mom is diabetic and could not carry a child to full term. So they adopted instead and I was raised in a good, Christian environment. I'm now a moderately successful, reasonably productive member of society.

I'll take G&L marriage over some welfare momma with 10 kids any day. If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em!

And I've found that people who think married couple get some magical tax break usually are single young teenage males who really don't understand the financial side of marriage.

[PissedGodzilla]

Kevmaster, you are completely wrong... mentioning that marriage is a completely religious term is not a violation of separation of church and state. Homosexual people are, BY THE RIGHTS OF THIS COUNTRY WHICH MOST OF US LOVE, are SUPPOSED to equals to heterosexual people. Therefore they should be allowed to be bound in a civil union.

The amendment propsed is a very good one and well thought out.

[Kai]

Apparently, gay people can already adopt in many states... So the issue of raising children should have nothing to do with this argument.

[spantol]

Yup. Las Vegas has done more to damage the sanctity of marriage than any gay marriage ever will.

Originally posted by Kevmaster


I totally agree

I also **LOVE** when people complain about the sanctity of marriage and how we need to preserve it...im like..."um...preserve what again? that 50% divorse ratio?"

[spantol]

On a related note, one of the issues that I've been able to identify with such an amendment is the fact that in four or so states, gays are prohibited from adopting. These laws would be rendered unconstitutional (if they're not already) by this amendment.

Granted, I personally think that's a good thing, but those states might feel otherwise.

Originally posted by Kai
Apparently, gay people can already adopt in many states... So the issue of raising children should have nothing to do with this argument.

[Hamster Huey]

I think spantol has it right. Two loving parents of any gender will beat a broken home any day. If you want to talk fact, though, there is credible research that shows that children raised by same-sex couples do just as well as children raised by heterosexual couples. They're not more likely to be homosexual (which only matters if you consider homosexuality to be a bad thing), they're not more likely to be messed-up. Referring to same sex parents as having "abnormal parental organization" is outdated, refects a prejudicial bias, and is not grounded in fact. I would be highly doubtful of any source that says otherwise.

[Kevmaster]

Originally posted by PissedGodzilla
Homosexual people are, BY THE RIGHTS OF THIS COUNTRY WHICH MOST OF US LOVE, are SUPPOSED to equals to heterosexual people. Therefore they should be allowed to be bound in a civil union.

actually...if you've read the constitution, NOWHERE does it garantee the rights of homosexuals vs. heterosexuals and NOWHERE does it say anything about marriage

it does, however, say that church and state are to stay apart. Marriage is a RELIGIOUS term and practice. Civil Union is an indpendent term.


however, i think you've misunderstood me. I do not support an ammendment written to bar gay marriage. I do not support spantol's as written, however find the basic point of it correct

[Trigger_Happy]

Originally posted by MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata
what about unfertile men or woman?

The tendency of married couples is to have kids. In the majority of marriages, kids come about. Gay couples have not even the slightest change of ever creating children together.

I hate this argument. What's stopping beastiality and trinary unions? Social conventions and existing laws, neither of which are changed by this amendment.

Gay marriage laws don't make beastiality, trinary unions, or pedophilia legal, but they do set down precident. Just as gay activists are pointing to racial discrimination in past years, these groups are sure to one day point at gay marriage. One follows another. I guarentee you that NAMBLA feels just as passionately about being able to sleep with consenting boys as gays do about obtaining marriage certificates. Don't take my word for it, watch it happen sometime in the future. I'm willing to give you a money-back guarentee that it will.

My honest opinion is that this is all a lost cause. Morality can't be pressed upon the people by a government. People must choose to live morally. In the "Ahnold" thread I gave a non-religious argument against gay marriage, but either way, it's just wrong

[Ov3rmind]

Just an FYI on the gay child adoption part. A child that grows up without a mother figure promotes abnormal psychological develpoment. I'm against this solely because it subjects a third party to potential harm.

Beastiality marriage will never happen. Both parties have to conscent to the marriage, and an animal cannot conscent to anything really. If you really want to have a multiple wife family you can actually do it (it's illegal, but not hard to do at all).

[spantol]

I absolutely agree that groups like NAMBLA will try to use a victory here to further their own ends. However, I don't think that society will let them get away with it. If legislation such as I proposed were to pass, it would only be because homosexuality has become a tolerated (if not accepted) social institution. I don't see pedophilia reaching the same levels, at least not in my lifetime.

Originally posted by Trigger_Happy

Gay marriage laws don't make beastiality, trinary unions, or pedophilia legal, but they do set down precident. Just as gay activists are pointing to racial discrimination in past years, these groups are sure to one day point at gay marriage. One follows another. I guarentee you that NAMBLA feels just as passionately about being able to sleep with consenting boys as gays do about obtaining marriage certificates. Don't take my word for it, watch it happen sometime in the future. I'm willing to give you a money-back guarentee that it will.

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

Originally posted by Trigger_Happy


The tendency of married couples is to have kids. In the majority of marriages, kids come about. Gay couples have not even the slightest change of ever creating children together.



Gay marriage laws don't make beastiality, trinary unions, or pedophilia legal, but they do set down precident. Just as gay activists are pointing to racial discrimination in past years, these groups are sure to one day point at gay marriage. One follows another. I guarentee you that NAMBLA feels just as passionately about being able to sleep with consenting boys as gays do about obtaining marriage certificates. Don't take my word for it, watch it happen sometime in the future. I'm willing to give you a money-back guarentee that it will.

But what im saying is that if Gays or Lesbians shouldn't be allowed to marry because the can't make kids.

Then neither should unfertile men or woman, it doesn't matter what most heterosexuals can do, these people are the minority, and thus need to be treated differently as they are no use to society. *sigh*

All these other things you talk about pedophilia, beastiality, are a choice. Or are derived from their enviroment.

While for the majority of gays and lesbians. There brain wiring and chemistry is slightly different resulting in this lifestyle.

[Trigger_Happy]

It wasn't so long ago that homosexuality was considered a choice. A mental disorder actually. Shrinks used to treat for it. Activists got money, money did its magic, and now it's all accepted and I have all of you telling me it's natural

Once again, I don't feel the need to prove this slippery slope here and now. We can all wait and see. I'm confident.

[theraidenproject]

It is none of the government's business who marries who, or if who marries who marries who. If you don't like homosexuailty, don't be gay. If you don't like polygamy, only have one wife. Anyone against these things should stop using bs legal and religious arguments and say, "I just want to intrude into others' lives based on my own beliefs."

[Brophog]

Here's my take on the situation:

Marriage is twofold. It is a religious bonding of two people, and in this country, a binding contract. Its both legal and religious.

Why can atheists and other non practicing members get married in churches? Some people do not believe in any religion, yet are still allowed to marry. I don't think anyone here would oppose this. For these people, marriage is not a religious bond, but more a legal contract.

Now, why can people of the same sex enter into legal contracts with each other, yet not get married? Basically, for a lot of people, both heterosexual and homosexual, marriage gives them certain legal rights and benefits. Everything from tax implications to matters involving the well being or death of a spouse. If my wife were to be in an accident, it is I who decides to pull that plug in the event she goes into a near terminal state.

So, religion aside, why can't people of a homosexual nature have these same rights? We tend to make this a religious argument, but face it, more and more people, regardless of sexual orientation, are not religious people in this country.

If it was a case based solely on religion, then maybe I could more thoroughly understand ones argument against same sex marriage. However, in most cases, religion never plays a part. This is solely a legal question, that we are incorrectly placing some religious or moral structure into.