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.
Aside from the arguments about having children, how is a male/female marriage superior to a male/male or female/female marriage? Let's say two 75-year-olds get married - a male and a female. How is their relationship worth more to society than the relationship between two men or two women?
I'll buy the whole thing if you can explain why today's new definition of normal will not become even more loosely defined with the passing of time. While I'm generally up for an adventure, intuitively it seems unwise to commit to a journey that has no direction, end point or purpose. I really have no interest in discarding a long-standing and widely accepted definition of what is normal when no compelling reason exists for doing so.
For many heterosexual couples, even at an advanced age, marriage provides cultural and religious legitimacy their sexual relationship. For gays, no such legitimacy is ever possible. So why not enjoy your civil unions and keep what you do in the bedroom to yourselves. We won't ask, so you don't have to tell us. No ne cares as long as you keep your gay propaganda out of the public schools, etc.
For many heterosexual couples, even at an advanced age, marriage provides cultural and religious legitimacy their sexual relationship. For gays, no such legitimacy is ever possible. So why not enjoy your civil unions and keep what you do in the bedroom to yourselves. We won't ask, so you don't have to tell us. No ne cares as long as you keep your gay propaganda out of the public schools, etc.
The "gay propaganda" (as you call it) will stop when parents demonstrate they are smart enough to rear children capable of functioning in a modern and diverse world. You know, so that all students, gay, straight, or different of any kind, don't have to be terrorized in the classroom by the ignorant offspring of multiple generations of imbeciles.
With posts such as the above, however, it doesn't look like parents have reached that level of intelligence just yet. Need some more time. The under 40s are increasingly more accepting and socially mature than the behaviorial socialists that masquerade as "conservatives."
Good for them
I assume th righties here will all be pleased also, since they always say the States should be able to make their own choices, right?
Casper
1. I am fairly conservative.
2. I have ALWAYS supported a civil union with all the rights and privileges of a married couple.
3. It's always been a state's issue, whether one is liberal, or conservative. If you don't understand why, may I suggest a remedial civics class?
Good for them
I assume th righties here will all be pleased also, since they always say the States should be able to make their own choices, right?
Casper
Right. But I question Illinois' priorities when they are sitting on mountains of debt.
Aside from the arguments about having children, how is a male/female marriage superior to a male/male or female/female marriage? Let's say two 75-year-olds get married - a male and a female. How is their relationship worth more to society than the relationship between two men or two women?
Good poll, AUM. The reason I didn't/haven't vote(d) yet, is because I am somewhere in-between "Civil Unions" and "No Legal Recognition." Lean toward the former, though...
Civil Unions (on a state by state basis) seem to me to be some sort of "middle ground" that might be acceptable to all...but then again, as some others point out? It will never be. It will always -- if history is any indication --lead to more and more demands, and there is no logical stopping point. If homosexual marriages are recognized, then why NOT polygomy? Or anything else which follows...
Backtracking here, I always promise myself I will not get into any more of these endless "gay rights" threads. Especially involving "marriage." The same arguments are always made and the same people line up on the same side. But yet? I seem to always get drawn into them just because I feel fairly strong about the subject.
To wit? Wellll, you ask (bolded) what is different other than having children? The answer (IMHO) is that such IS a key and historical element in the whole thing. That, not much IS apart from that; the evolution of a coherent society to protect its future by assuring the natural order of things; a union of a man and woman to properly raise and nurture its prodgeny. I don't care what any new age study says; never once did nature say one thing and wisdom another. A baby/child needs a male and female for proper raising and care and nurture and nothing will ever change that.
And, let the chips fall where they may, in ANY society, some agreed-upon moral values (or lack of them, subjectively speaking) are going to prevail. Why should it be that of those who ridicule traditional values? Moral anarchy or extreme pluralism/diversity is simply incompatible with the existence of a nation. Which is why I opine that the notion to just abandon the institution of marriage altogether -- in a recognized sense -- is one of the sledge-hammers sure to break it up.
But ok, I strayed a bit here! (Not surprising, with me! LOL). So back on track? The recognized "marriage" (ala' your question) of two 75 year olds (or even two infertile 23 year olds) of male and female gender is preferable because it is part of an historical/moral contiunum that, while not (perhaps) easily defended in front of a board of secular humanist college professors, still has its justification in the wisdom of the ages. Things are the way they are not because they are of intentional design...but because by a certain inarticulated "trail and error" they became accepted. Further, they work.
In closing, let me just say that, sometime, it is difficult to write these words because I do have some openly gay friends (both on-line and R/T). They include old hunting/fishing buddies, fellow teachers, blood-relatives, and just plain good friends and appreciated coorespondents. It is not always easy to take a position that, on some levels, might come across as hurtful or hateful. I don't intend it that way (and I really think most of the same know and will back me on that).
Regardless, I stand by what I say and, if it makes me unpopular, politically-incorrect, a homophobe, bigot...whatever...then ok, fine. That is the way it is...
2. I have ALWAYS supported a civil union with all the rights and privileges of a married couple.
3. It's always been a state's issue, whether one is liberal, or conservative. If you don't understand why, may I suggest a remedial civics class?
Ok with all of that except the state does not gain them true equality in the USA, what happens when they move to another state and what about SS benefits, just to mention two issues?
Casper
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
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.
wow.....
