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.
Once gay marriage is sanctioned, there will be no reasonable argument to make against polygamy. How does that sit with you? I have no problem with the LDS, they seem to make it work.
The LDS officially declared an end to polygamy in 1890. That was over 120 years ago. We don't "make it work." The ones who are trying to "make it work" and failing pretty miserably are some of the splinter groups who have broken off of the LDS Church over the years. They are not in any way, shape, or form part of the 14-million member Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Any LDS person today who is found to be in a polygamous relationship is prompty excommunicated. There are no exceptions.
And I know plenty of LGBT people-myself included-who think it's great. If they don't want to get gay married (or as I call it, married), they don't have to. They can be legally single, get a domestic partnership, whatever best fits them and their relationship.
I have been told by many LGBT people I've talked to online that these "domestic partnership" unions do not give them the same legal rights a married couple has. Would you mind commenting on that.
The problem is the tactics and the denigration of those that may disagree with the LGBT agenda and lifestyle. You, gays, can be proud without being offensive or disrespectful to those of a different mindset. I have come full circle on this issue. I was against, before I was for, and now I"m against again - because I believe the consequences will be profound and harmful to our society. I think the real goal of those in power, is to reduce population, and destroy what's left of the traditional American family. Some will laugh at that statement, but Ozzie and Harriet, Father Knows Best, Leave it to Beaver, were all a reflection of family values that are being trashed. This is not progress, this is self-destruction.
Gays are not victims any longer, but they will use it for all it's worth.
But why compare with fictional TV families from the 1950s? Ever heard people tell you that change is inevitable? The definition of American families and everything else on this planet is constantly changing. Why not also bring into the mix the gay couples who are adopting unwanted kids and raising them as their own? the single mother who fleed abuse from an abusive husband? In the 50s, that abused woman probably would have endured the abuse because there was nowhere else to go. The 50s couples that you illustrate were fictional and ideals of perfection, but far from reality in some families.
Reducing population? Are you kidding me? If that's the case, why do we have such rampant illegal immigration that is allowed in this country? If the gov't was serious about reducing popul, both illegal AND legal popul would be halted or greatly reduced.
for the most part, the gay couples who are in the most need of the marriage protections (at least in my experience) are "nesting" types that are interested in having families living the lives of going to work, paying their taxes, etc. That is not a formula for lesser population (since many of them will either adopt or have kids of their own) and is in fact a great example of fostering the support of families in our country. how could that be a bad thing?
I'm a Christian and I think gay marriage should be legal. It wouldn't change my marriage or harm the country. I say let gay people marry those whom they are in a loving and committed relationship.
The LDS officially declared an end to polygamy in 1890. That was over 120 years ago. We don't "make it work." The ones who are trying to "make it work" and failing pretty miserably are some of the splinter groups who have broken off of the LDS Church over the years. They are not in any way, shape, or form part of the 14-million member Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Any LDS person today who is found to be in a polygamous relationship is prompty excommunicated. There are no exceptions.
Sure, the gov't forced the church to renounce polygamy, and they in turn, shun those that continue to practice it. These splinter groups marry the first wife, and have unions with the others, that are not recognized by gov't, so cannot be considered unlawful. They live in accord with their religious beliefs, and the government should leave them alone imo. But, that does not mean that lifestyle would be beneficial for society as a whole. This religious sect have strict moral codes to abide by, our society is becoming less moral by the day. I don't want to sanction more decay of our basic fundamental principles.
Gays, lesbians, trannies, are fringe - they have the same rights as any other individuals, no more, no less. The term gay marriage is offensive to many, so go with civil unions, you will get what you want, without the animosity and turmoil. This crash n burn agenda only serves to generate more resistance.
I have been told by many LGBT people I've talked to online that these "domestic partnership" unions do not give them the same legal rights a married couple has. Would you mind commenting on that.
But why compare with fictional TV families from the 1950s? Ever heard people tell you that change is inevitable? The definition of American families and everything else on this planet is constantly changing. Why not also bring into the mix the gay couples who are adopting unwanted kids and raising them as their own? the single mother who fleed abuse from an abusive husband? In the 50s, that abused woman probably would have endured the abuse because there was nowhere else to go. The 50s couples that you illustrate were fictional and ideals of perfection, but far from reality in some families.
Reducing population? Are you kidding me? If that's the case, why do we have such rampant illegal immigration that is allowed in this country? If the gov't was serious about reducing popul, both illegal AND legal popul would be halted or greatly reduced.
for the most part, the gay couples who are in the most need of the marriage protections (at least in my experience) are "nesting" types that are interested in having families living the lives of going to work, paying their taxes, etc. That is not a formula for lesser population (since many of them will either adopt or have kids of their own) and is in fact a great example of fostering the support of families in our country. how could that be a bad thing?
Poor, undeveloped countries have much higher reproduction rates. We bring them in, let them taste freedom and prosperity, birth rates go down. For example, Muslims have roughly 7 children to our 1.5.
Gays don't reproduce, they can adopt society's throwaways, or enlist the aid of others, or go with some laboratory insemination treatment. They are not a factor in growing the population.
True conservatives should favor gay marriage, or at least don't vote against it. It's all about personal freedoms.
No, because it offends too many Christians. I am not religious, but I don't like this animosity to those that are. Call it something else, and you win - redefine "marriage" and you create a needless battle.
Poor, undeveloped countries have much higher reproduction rates. We bring them in, let them taste freedom and prosperity, birth rates go down. For example, Muslims have roughly 7 children to our 1.5.
Gays don't reproduce, they can adopt society's throwaways, or enlist the aid of others, or go with some laboratory insemination treatment. They are not a factor in growing the population.
Even if their birthrate supposedly decreases, this country is STILL letting those immigrants in. During the 1930s, the govt's official immigration law was little to no immigration. In fact, some native born americans of mexican ancestry were sent back to mexico. that's when the gov't actually put Americans first. Why do you refer to orphaned kids as "throwaways"? Those are human lives. If you're so concerned about procreation, I would think that you would be interested in seeing that those future procreators (throwaways) be given a good start in life with a loving couple, be they gay or straight.
So what if gays can't naturally produce? I know several that have donated sperm to a surrogate mother. is that not reproducing? If it had not meant for God or nature to have it that way, it would not be possible to do so.
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.
