Quote:
Originally Posted by JViello
Again, you can't equate race with "sexuality".
|
I never equated race with sexuality, any more than you can equate race with religion, gender, or physical ability, but all of these are ways people have been and continue to be discriminated against.
Quote:
|
The arguement brings to light at a "homosexual marriage" has way different dynamics then a hertosexual marriage. Who's the "mom"? Do you switch?
|
If there are no children, there is no "Mom". And, no, don't start that tired argument saying marriage is for having children--if that were true, then anyone who was infertile would be denied a marriage license. Anyone who had had a hysterectomy would be denied a marriage license. Anyone past the age of menopause would be denied a marriage license. Marriage is a
legal contract between two
ADULTS.
Even when same-sex couples DO have children, there isn't a "Mom", but guess what? Plenty of single-father households don't have a "mom", and even more single-mom households don't have a Dad. Two parents still means twice the attention, love, and resources to a child than with a single parent, --but again, this is not about parenting, it's about
marriage, which is a legal contract between two adults and NOWHERE in that legal contract does it mention that having children is a requirement.
Quote:
|
Who's the wife? Doesn't wife indicate "female"? Are you going to try and tell me two guys can sit down with their "daughter" and understand her sexuality issues, PMS, puberty, emotional issues as a woman can? Nope. Not possible. No more than two woman can have a "dad" in the mix.
|
They handle it the same way a single Mom handles a son or a single dad handles a daughter--the ones I know with children make sure there are plenty of family and friends of the child's own sex to serve as fe/male role models and yes, to handle things like menstruation with teenage girls.
Quote:
|
Exactly my point. It's not natural. Your penis does not belong in a colon, it wasn't designed for that. (Hetero OR Homo)
|
Your point was not "it's not natural", your point was that you claimed there are pairs of men out there "trying to make a baby". I assure you that there is no gay male couple on this earth who is not 100% aware that they cannot make a baby.
As for body parts (you always seem to be focussing on other people's body parts and what they do with them--I'm starting to question your priorities), you really do not know what goes on behind people's closed doors (though it's obvious you spend a LOT of time thinking about it and writing about it). It might surprise you to know--not that it matters here--that NOT all gay men enjoy anal sex, and that lots of heterosexual (including married) couples DO. Equating "gay" with "anal sex" is not only not accurate (because there are lots of gays--especially women!--who don't and lots of striaghts who do) but also, it had nothing to do with fitness for a LEGAL CONTRACT.
Quote:
|
It doesn't matter which you use, the point is - two nuts/bolts trying to act as a nut and bolt does not work! It wasn't a statement about sex, but about being male and female.
|
Again, your obsession with what other people are doing in bed, hmmm. Whe I see a couple in love (same-sex or opposite-sex), my mind does not jump immediately to wondering who's doing what to whom, but evidently yours does. What I see if two people in love who care for each other.
Quote:
|
I don't care how much you chop off, tuck under and how many hormones you flood your body with. You were born a male, you are a male.
|
The transgender issue is a completely different issue unrelated to any of this. But transgender =/= gay. Two VERY different things.
Quote:
|
Males were not designed to have a sexual i.e. marriage relationship nor can a man experience or be a woman any more than a woman can be a man.
|
I can't follow your "grammar" here, but males and females were not designed by evolution to have ANY kind of marriage contract--male and female existed long before humans existed; marriage and any other kind of contract are human inventions, originally for the purpose of property and inheritance rights between kindgoms. In the early days of our species, humans lived in nomadic pacts and most likely men were quite polygamous, because that is the most efficient way to spread one's genes. I am not here to support or speak against that, being several thousand years too late to comment on it, but the point is that animal reproduction was not "designed" for any kind of social contracts whatsoever.
Quote:
|
Okay so then answer me this: How does "gay marriage" contribute to our society. What does it do, as opposed to being "not married" that makes it better for our society?
|
People who have a legal contract are more likely to remain together through thick and thin. Having couples remain together is a good thing for society, obviously so where children are involved but even when they are no. Stability in one's personal relationships is good for a person's mental health, not to mention physical heatlh: someone who is married is less promiscuous (whether homo- or hetero-) than someone who is not. If you don't understand why promiscuity is a bad thing for soceity, you'll have to learn that on your own.
Also, it is good for financial security. Two unmarried people cannot inherit each other's property without many different kinds of paperwork, and wills can and often are challenged by family members. Even with will and powers of attorney in place, some rights can NEVER be signed to a non-"family member": disposal of the body in case of death, for example, is legally the responsibility of "Next of Kin", meaning even with every legal document in the world signed, a third cousin to the deceased, who's never met him, has more legal say in what to to with the body or ashes than one's loved partner of decades.
This is true even with civil unions because they are not considered "next of kin".
And back to the argument with children: if two women raise a child that is the biological child of the other, and the nonbiological mother dies, the child is NOT entitled to her Social Security, which is obviously a worse case for the child, especially if the deceased parent was the primary breadwinner. Legal marriage would ensure that dependency and inheritance worked properly for a child.
Mostly, marriage is a good thing for same-sex couples for EXACTLY the same reasons it is for heterosexual couples. We as a society generally acknowledge that marriage is a good thing for people (Bush even spent millions of dollars trying to "promote marriage" in inner cities, even while denying it to thousands who
wanted it).
Quote:
|
but the institution of marriage was designed for stable sexual relationships and yes even children.
|
Actually, it was originally designed to keep kingdoms intact and marriages were always "arranged" by the parents on solely political grounds. And yes, this included "children", but only in the since of "heirs to leave the property to"; providing an heir was considered a "duty" to the family fortune.
Quote:
|
Not like today where 98% of the people who get married after shacking up for 5 years and already had a wild sex life 10 years before meeting each other.
|
So, it sounds like you have a lot of problems with heterosexual marraiges, as well.
Quote:
|
There was a time, where such things were kept sacred UNTIL marriage...that was the point of being married. Security, devotion and yes, even "children".
|
Security and devotion are not typically things considered "left until marriage". Usually people experience devotion to their loved once BEFORE deciding to get married? As I mentioned earlier, having children is NOT a "requirement" for marriage in any legal jurisdiction in this country. If it were, people who didn't reproduce would be forced to get divorced.
Quote:
|
I'll give you a real major issue facing America: The destruction of our morals and family structure - gay marriage is part of that IMO. Crime, sexual abuse/imorrality, drug use, greed etc etc is all on the rise and out of control - I don't think that it has anything to do with global warming.
|
How can
strengthening relationships in thousands of couples in any way be considered "destruction of morals and family structure"?? Your marriage is
NOT IN ANY WAY THREATENED BY SOMEONE ELSE'S MARRIAGE, whether said marriage is two men or a man and a women or two women. If your marriage is healthy, it will stay healthy no matter HOW many other people do, or don't, get married!
Same-sex marriage has NOTHING to do with the crime rate, drug use, greed, etc. As I mentioned earlier, it actually lowers promiscuiuty and with that, certain diseases related to promiscuiuty. Actually, it sounds to me like you are the one being "greedy" by wanting to keep marriage all to "yourselves" meaning heterosexuals.
Once again, your marriage, if it is healthy,
is not threatened by someone else getting married. No matter how much of a busybody you seem to be, with your constant obsession on what people are doing with their genitals.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
