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.
We have families, parents creating and raising children who will go on to be our nation's future producers, defenders and caretakers, what's not to promote????
Yes, that is the point of the thread. The benefits are huge, and the investment is minimal. It's a no-brainer.
Yes, that is the point of the thread. The benefits are huge, and the investment is minimal. It's a no-brainer.
And the same point applies to homosexual couples. In fact it applies even more so, since SSM would improve the countries bottom line, and add $$$$ to state coffers through increased license sales, and taxes on wedding needs.
Quote:
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that on net,
those impacts would improve the budget’s bottom line to a small extent: by less
than $1 billion in each of the next 10 years (CBO’s usual estimating period).
No, the poster want a "separate but equal" union for homosexuals. As history has shown, that does not work. In fact in states where civil unions were SUPPOSED to be equal the have never been equal. Not to mention in the DOMA case the federal government said that they would ONLY recognize marriage, not domestic partnerships, or civil unions.
So, thanks but no thanks. I am an American citizen, I pay taxes, and I deserve equal access to all legal protections that any other American citizen has.
What part of full rights and protections did you miss?
Give same-sex couples civil unions, then people like you can claim they represent whatever you like. You can claim civil unions are not about procreation, not about children, they can be whatever you want them to be.
Just leave men and women their traditional marriage.
The laws governing civil unions will be different, because same sex marriages are fundamentally different. For example, why couldn't same sex siblings get married in a civil union? I mean, if you guys tell us marriage is not about the couple procreating, and it's just about two people living together, sharing their life, their property, and combining their finances.
You know, the reason court after court keeps ruling that bans on same-sex marriage do not meet the rational basis test (I won't bother elaborating, I know you couldn't care less) is that there in no intrinsic link between marriage and procreation. But for a momment, let me just play along with your this long-discredit notion you're peddling.
*Married people have fewer sexual partners
Since the gay-fixated seem to revel in luridly tossing out STD rates amongst gay men (conveniently ignoring lesbians, because since their rates are the lowest of all gender/orientation comnbinations it obliterates the bigot's narrative), I should logically follow that you'd be very pleased to see those rates drop amongst those who get married, whether than marriage be opposite- or same-sex. And it would certainly benefit the nation - illness is a collective drain on all sorts of resources. Or maybe you'd prefer to see STD rates amongst gays rise, not fall?
*You don't have to be married to have children
*You don't have to be able to have children to be married *Gay couples have children
Yes, that's right - gay couples have children. In fact, there are over 100,000 such couples.
Let me quote you: Familes stabilize the nation as whole. Kids who grow up in families are far less likely to end up as bad apples of the society. It keeps crime low, and number of productive people high.
That's a lot of children being raised by gay couples. The financial benefits of marraige certainly benefit the children of those marriages. And the stabilizing effects marriage has on the couples in those marriages certainly benefit their children. Now, putting aside for the moment that for all I know, you would much prefer that those children be shuttled from one foster home to another, or languish on an orphanage (and if you do, you are vile - but for now I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by not assuming you would ban adoption by gays), do you want all those children of gay couples to enjoy the fruits of marriage that you loving list above? Your answer is, obviously, no. You would sacrifice their well-being in the advancement of your anti-gay animus.
Finally, the overwhelming sociological evidence is that the children of gay couples are as healthy, both physically and emotionally, and the children of straight couples. You'll reject this, no doubt, because your argument is not based on a rational assessment of the facts but by your simple dislike of people who are attracted to their own sex.
Your crocodile tears for children are no more than a not-so-clever ploy to justify legal discrimination against gays.
PS - Your implicit suggestion that a thing doesn't 'benefit the nation' should be banned is notably idiotic.
And the same point applies to homosexual couples. In fact it applies even more so, since SSM would improve the countries bottom line, and add $$$$ to state coffers through increased license sales, and taxes on wedding needs.
What part of full rights and protections did you miss?
Give same-sex couples civil unions, then people like you can claim they represent whatever you like. You can claim civil unions are not about procreation, not about children, they can be whatever you want them to be.
Just leave men and women their traditional marriage.
The laws governing civil unions will be different, because same sex marriages are fundamentally different. For example, why couldn't same sex siblings get married in a civil union? I mean, if you guys tell us marriage is not about the couple procreating, and it's just about two people living together, sharing their life, their property, and combining their finances.
No, I really don't since my side is winning case after case. Double the number of states have SSM in just the last year.
1. 14th amendment is on my side.
2. financial benefits to states and the feds for allowing SSM
3. Children are not required of ANY marriage, but we do have children.
4. Separate but equal has already failed in regards to SSM.
5. "Tradition" is not a valid legal argument and has failed repeatedly in courts.
6. No one has been able to show any harm in allowing SSM.
7. No state has been able to show how denying SSM furthers a compelling state interest.
Sad, but true. It goes without saying that kids from SS couples will have some psychological scars.
Quote:
Sixty-nine percent of children of lesbian mothers reported that their family received public assistance, such as welfare, at some point, compred with 17 percent from intact biological families. About half of children of an intact biological family said they were employed full-time, compared with 26 percent of those born to a lesbian mother. Fourteen percent of kids of a lesbian mom spent time in foster care at some point, compared with 2 percent of the rest of the children studied. Overall, less than 2 percent of all respondents who said their mother had a same-sex relationship reported living with their mom and her partner for all 18 years of their childhood.
Sad, but true. It goes without saying that kids from SS couples will have some psychological scars.
Sorry, but that "study" has been thoroughly debunked, and the author of of it said himself that the methodology was flawed and was not intended to compare homosexual long term couples to married heterosexuals.
He compared married heterosexuals children to children of divorced parents that may have had ONE homosexual encounter. Only ONE of the families in the entire study had a child that had been raised for their entire lives in a same sex household.
First, the Regnerus study does not specifically examine children born or adopted into same-sex parent families, but instead examines children who, from the time they were born until they were 18 or moved out, had a parent who at any time had “a same-sex romantic relationship.” Regnerus 2012a at 75. As Regnerus noted, the majority of the individuals characterized by him as children of “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers” were the offspring of failed opposite- sex unions whose parent subsequently had a same-sex relationship. Id. In other words, Regnerus did not study or analyze the children of two same-sex parents.
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.
