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.
That married couples tend to have children is not the same thing as calling it a requirement by law. It is not even a suggestion by law. It's totally irrelevant to the marriage argument.
Only about half married couples are raising children. And something like a quarter of lesbian couples and fifth of gay couples are raising children.
I feel that you are a condescending, uneducated hate-monger who throws out the victim card whenever their blatant ignorance on an issue is criticized. Too bad. Don't like the reaction, either don't post or change what you're saying.
The Obama administration will no longer defend the so called and "doublespeak"......Defense Of Marriage Act and It may be replaced with the Respect For Marriage Act.
The religious far right wing's mantra is we want a smaller and less intrusive government intertwined with religion.
What cracks me up is this same faction wants to peek into every American's bedroom and tell us who we can sleep with and what we can do in our "said bedrooms". To me that sounds pretty intrusive>>>>>>
Then they say we need to lower the budget deficit but want to spend $1,500,000.00 of our tax money defending the unconstitutional D.O.M.A.......this in some twisted way will help close the budget gap......
It seems the religious right wants special priveleges in that they feel compelled to push their religious beliefs into politics and our government....thereby denying the rights of others to practice the religion of their choice and/or no religion at all......clearly this is immoral, condescending/judgemental and most importantly....UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
unconstitutional you say, I dont like it one bit either. but also remember that obama care is unconstitutional as well.
The human population will reach and surpass 7 billion either by the end of October or early November. Just how many people do we need to keep things going? Further, procreation is not a requirement of marriage.
Not only that, but at least 90% of that 7 billion live in poverty. Sure, let's add more humans to the planet so we can watch them suffer and die from starvatio, poor health conditions, etc..
Apparently Right wingers are oblivious to the fact that the majority of babies are not born into wealthy, first world families.
why do you need government PERMISSION (a license) (btw if its permission is not a right) to validate your love
abolish ALL marrages and the tax bennies that go with it
Sounds like bitter grapes.... and you're probably not married since most people do not advocate for the erosion of things that help them out. There are LOTS of tax benefits and protections for various reasons in this country. Marriage benefits are not per se wrong.
Take the mortgage interest deduction, one of the few that benefits solid middle class people. If you want it, buy a house. It's not "unfair" or "greedy" or anything like that, and creates incentive for people to buy vs. rent (which is generally a good thing for cities).
Similarly, there IS government and societal benefit in incentivizing marriage and stability in a community.
However, we are faced with a situation where the benefits and institutions available to one set of tax paying people (those who are heterosexual) do not flow to another set of tax paying people (those who are homosexual). From immigration rights, to hospital visitation rights, to spousal immunity in court, to automatic inheritance and property rights ... it goes WAY beyond "monetary" considerations so "being greedy" is a lame argument.
If the mortgage interest deduction were only available to white people, we WOULD say that there is a problem with the tax benefits being restricted on an arbitrary. So too for marriage.
Canada has allowed same sex couples to marry since 2005. That's.. over 6 years ago.
Has their society fallen becauseof this? If so, please explain why and how.
Oh come ON! It takes 10 years for FAST technology developments to effect society. How long do you think the slow social changes will take? Why do so-called scientists examine short term periods like 6 years and say there's no effect?? Really? You believe anyone that says this?
We have to look at the LONG TERM effect!! Long term is generations... plural... more than one generation... meaning at least 50 years. It's not the kids of same sex marriage that we have to worry about. It's the grandkids.
Quote:
I'm very open minded, but, you are just spitting out things your everyday person with that mentality says. Being a gay person, unlike many gay people (especially on this board), I pride myself on common sense. I am willing to accept that we are the downfall of society, if it can be proven that what we are doing is wrong. This has NOTHING to do with Bibles and Jesus or any of that nonsense. Cold hard facts of what is right and wrong...and how we will ruin society.
Gay men (as a group) have more disease than heterosexual men. Lesbians (as a group) are more depressed than heterosexual women. At the very least, these cost us healthcare tax dollars or health insurance premiums. But give these groups children to care for and the social impact on society... how can you think this would be anything but negative?
And please don't quote another bad study. If you do quote a study "proving" that gay parents are as good or better than heterosexual parents, you should make sure the study is a good one. Make sure they compare apples to apples. They must not compare middle class gays against lower class heterosexuals. They must not compare divorced heterosexuals to married gays. Make sure there aren't other extenuating circumstances that effect the data more than homosexuality. If they compare children of divorce gays against children of divorced heterosexuals, then the study is completely messed up. The negative effects of the divorce muddy the waters so much that it would render the study completely unusable. The studies should use a control. Actually study heterosexuals too. They should not just study homosexuals and compare that study to a completely different study done by some other researcher. Make sure that the conclusions in the study are backed up by data. I do not want to read "lesbians are more depressed, but it's probably because they are bullied." Every detail in the commentary must be backed up by the data in THEIR study. And you should just throw out any study done by any homosexual. They can not be objective.
I think you'll find it impossible to find any rigorous research that defends homosexuality, same sex parenting, and even same sex marriage. I have never seen any such study that passes scientific scrutiny, and I have really looked.
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.
