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.
I've been over this in other threads. :sigh: It doesn't necessarily affect you directly, but it does contribute to changes in society in indirect ways. We don't know (yet) if the overall change will be good or bad. But we can not deny that an ideal homosexual couple will always be incapable of teaching certain things to his child, like about heterosexual romantic relationships. A man can't have a "woman to woman" talk to his Daughter. A gay man can't give his son advice when the boy's girlfriend does something only a woman would understand. Men and women think differently. This has been well documented. Women might confound the mind of man but men who date women learn certain things. We at least develop some strategies when a woman we are romantically involved with does something unexpected. Homosexual men don't learn these things so they aren't capable of giving any advice about it to their sons. This could over time compound and combine with other unions who are also incapable of teaching these things to children (single moms/dads) and over time affect how men and women relate towards one another.
This is of course just an example. Because homosexual unions and heterosexual unions have major differences, other changes to the institution of marriage must occur as a result.
The bottom line is you must realize and accept that homosexual unions are fundamentally different in some areas. They at least do not have to deal with two minds that are naturally different. Men and women do think differently. This is a fact that you can not deny. So a marriage that does not have to deal with this duality is going to be fundamentally different from a marriage that does. And this will over time change the meaning of marriage. The cornerstone of society is marriage. So if we change marriage, we change society. For the better? If kids are losing out on some wisdom, I don't think so. You may disagree with me. Well, that's why you and I only get one vote.
The whole premise of your argument is we don't know how its going to effect society, and that men can't have a mother daughter talk, or that a gay man can't tell his son how to date a woman.
This is what your whole point boils down to.
When we have a society with single dads and mothers, this blows your whole idea out of the water. Men shouldn't automatically marry, or have their daughters taken away if the mother dies. Most people look for advice from both sexes when they are seeking relationship advice, everyone has the same relationship issues most of the time, so a gay man could give very good advice on dating a woman. Most of the time its based on societal normal expectations for treatment on dates, and everyone knows what those expectations are, having a gay dad has nothing to do with it.
I understand you've "made your mind up". My problem is when you have no premise for a real debate. Society changes, nothing you, I, or anyone else can do about it. And its not up to you, me, or anyone else to decide if its good or bad, society will change regardless. Its our duty as citizens to educate ourselves, and come out with the best possible decision for us, and not to decide for anyone else.
I respect that you've got your way of thinking, what I don't respect is that you have no real idea whats going on, and you offer nothing in way of scientific research or real world examples to prove your point, and then you denigrate others for their positions saying "this is the fall of the western world".
Its ok to be a bigot, but if you aren't going to have facts, just opinions, then its not a debate, its standing on a soap box screaming.
Perhaps you'll read this and educate yourself, perhaps you won't. But its there for you if you want to be a decent citizen.
Gay or straight, the sexual orientation of adoptive parents does not have an impact on the emotional development of their children, according to a new study.
Gay marriage would effect less than 1 in 100 people in the United States. It'd be less than 1% of the total population, I seriously doubt that if 1 in 100 Americans do anything that it will effect the whole society in any real or measurable way. The anti "gay marriage" crowd thinks that it will "change the definition" of marriage and that some how that will change everyones opinion of marriage. I guess they think that either divorces will go up, or marriage rates will drop. Divorce rate is already over 50%, and I challenged you earlier to show me where the whole "20% make it so high" number, which is bunk. Gay marriage is like worrying about a single fly at your picnic, its there, its not going away, and if you swat it, 10 more will show up. Leave well enough alone.
I believe in legalizing same-sex marriage because it is the polite and respectful thing to do for our Gay and Lesbian friends, relatives, and neighbors.
It's all about acknowledging that this community of citizens and taxpayers should not be treated as second-class citizens.
We don't force people to sit in the back of the bus or use designated restrooms anymore. Equality is the better option.
Is changing the definition of marriage necessarily a bad thing?
It wasn't really so long ago that interracial marriage was illegal, and I don't see any negative results of that change.
No matter what the law says, adults are going to form attachments with each other. Forbidding male couples and female couples to do so isn't going to keep them from loving one another.
There are plenty of heterosexual couples who choose to live together without marrying. However, the ones who are getting married are expressing a certain level of love and commitment. Marriage gives people more incentive to behave responsibly toward each other, to tough it out when things are tough. If you're merely living together, it's so much easier to walk away when things become difficult--as they inevitably do for everyone. If same-sex couples want to take on some responsibility to one another, who am I to deny them? Does this make me a conservative?
In most places, same-sex marriage is a big change; by definition, liberals tend to be more open to change than conservatives are.
Liberals seem to tend to be less uncomfortable about having gay friends, or maybe lesbians and gay men are more comfortable being open and honest and being friends with liberals than with conservatives. Maybe getting to know lesbians and gay men makes liberals more likely to think "These people aren't so different or scary. Why shouldn't we treat them like everyone else--including allowing them to get married?"
Not all liberals are for same-sex marriage just as not all conservatives are against it, but a great many of the people who are for them are from the liberal side of the spectrum. This seems strange because many (not all) of these same people are pro-evolution. If evolution is the THING (for them), then sex is mainly for procreation. Since attraction and sexual intercourse members of the same sex is NOT biologically producitive, why would so many people who are pro science be for something that is not biologically logical?
Charles Sands
Smyrna, TN
It is not a "for" anything, but it is clearly a stand "against" the bigotry, ignorance and hatred of the homophobic crowd, typically festering in and spread from the pulpits of so called christian churches.
Homosexuality is biologically productive when the world is overpopulated as it is today. It's evolution's way of balancing the population where there's too many people.
Hmm? I believe it would be more productive if Mr. Evolution were to develop a species of really really fast growing rubber trees.
With a 50% divorce rate marriage might be sanctimonious in theory, but it sure ain't in practice.
Regardless, the point is the rights of ALL individuals not based on a religious views. Have you ever complained because of what seems some muslim groups have tried to impose on some areas?
Well, the same applies to you. I respect your religious views but once you try to impose your religious morality then you interefere on others rights. Am I correct then to say that you want your rights respected but once others right do not go along with your religious view then others rights are null? Take care.
When this country was founded, we needed people, and the easiest way to do that, was to grow them, they were a crop. Like any crop, it takes two to reproduce.
Well like kudzu and bittersweet, the crop is now an invasive species and we have too many people. So what is wrong with a non-reproductive couple that love and care for each other?
When this country was founded, we needed people, and the easiest way to do that, was to grow them, they were a crop. Like any crop, it takes two to reproduce.
Well like kudzu and bittersweet, the crop is now an invasive species and we have too many people. So what is wrong with a non-reproductive couple that love and care for each other?
Not all liberals are for same-sex marriage just as not all conservatives are against it, but a great many of the people who are for them are from the liberal side of the spectrum. This seems strange because many (not all) of these same people are pro-evolution. If evolution is the THING (for them), then sex is mainly for procreation. Since attraction and sexual intercourse members of the same sex is NOT biologically producitive, why would so many people who are pro science be for something that is not biologically logical?
first off...clear something up with your premis
what makes you think it's not biologically logical? what you fail to realize about science, is NOTHING is solid.. new evidence can change what has been widely accepted as fact.. science is not dogmatic like religion and cannot be compared to religion as another "way of thinking or believing" science is a process to seek factual truth by means of evidence....
evidence is that people are gay and not by their own choosing.. science must find out how and why.. whether it be biological, or environmental, or both..
right now.. the evidence we have is that people are gay..and not by choice..and have been as far back as written records exist...
I've always wondered why libs are interested in foreign aid to help the poor, starving and disease-ridden if they believe in survival of the fittest. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just illogical.
Not sure what you mean by liberals "believing in survival of the fittest"
I'm guessing you mean evolution? If so, you obviously have no idea what liberalism and evolution are. The two are in no way related. Evolution isn't a philosophy or religion one lives by or something one believes or disbelieves - it is a natural process, and a fact just like gravity.
"Survival of the fittest" doesn't always mean the strong subdue the weak or let the sick and infirm die. Sometimes the "fittest" species are those who care for their weak.
Liberals are interested in helping others because it is the HUMAN and intellectual thing to do. Helping others makes our species "fittest".
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.
