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 admit that most of my posts are intended to counterbalance those who promote the lifestyle.
Promote the lifestyle? No gays are "promoting the lifestyle" to me. Further, it is not a "lifestyle." Stop saying it is a lifestyle. It isn't a lifestyle. They are states of BEING. People are either gay, bisexual or straight. It's not something one wills oneself into being. I've already explained, for example, that I'm straight, not bi, not gay, and I can't switch at will, as YOU APPARENTLY THINK I CAN. People are either gay, bisexual or straight. They can't switch around what they are, as one switches partners at a dance.
You're quickly leading me to think that you have a bisexual or gay nature which you are fighting because of what you've been taught or what your religion leads you to believe.
Last edited by CaseyB; 03-04-2013 at 05:36 AM..
Reason: rude
No need. Currently, only a tiny percentage of couples who get married don't have kids. In fact, having kids is what often prompts marriages, either shotgun or when the boyfriend and girlfriend decide it's time.
But even if a man and woman who get married don't initially tend to have kids, codifying their union increases the chance of it happening. Codifying the union between 2 men or 2 women doesn't do anything of the sort.
In other words, we can redefine marriage. But to what purpose? What does it give us to let you join the club?
What it gives us is the probability that same sex couples will be in monogamous relationships and not involved in playing the field and being in multiple relationships. That is the stability it provides. Furthermore, they can have children through adoption even without marriage rights, so your "children" point seems pointless to me and probably many others.
The better question is what does it give us to outlaw their marriages? That does far more harm. They need to be able to visit and speak on behalf of their partner at the hospital, etc.
BTW, it sounds like you are OK with a violent male ex convict marrying his partner upon release from prison, but against law abiding gay couples marrying. BTW, it is a fair characterization. I am straight, but support gay marriage rights.
Gays don't need to give you anything. That's what you're not getting.
Ok not as tiny as I thought but what we need to see is statistics over the entire marriage instead of a snapshot of time (as a portion of marriages are newlyweds who don't have kids, but will in the future pushing the numbers low when looked at a snapshot at present time versus over the life of the marriage).
But, you missed the point. Marriage is a blunt instrument trying to ensure a man and woman stay together to have kids. It's a form of encouragement because kids are necessary for the future. Gay couples can have kids, but only if they enter into heterosexual unions. We have no benefits to throw financial incentives etc at couples who don't produce something back for society.
Lastly, since homosexuals are a minority, you depend on the goodwill of heterosexuals to change the institution to suit you. Not "me" necessarily, but still you depend on the goodwill of heterosexuals to accommodate you.
But, you missed the point. Marriage is a blunt instrument trying to ensure a man and woman stay together to have kids. It's a form of encouragement because kids are necessary for the future. Gay couples can have kids, but only if they enter into heterosexual unions. We have no benefits to throw financial incentives etc at couples who don't produce something back for society.
Lastly, since homosexuals are a minority, you depend on the goodwill of heterosexuals to change the institution to suit you. Not "me" necessarily, but still you depend on the goodwill of heterosexuals to accommodate you.
No it isn't. I've been married with no intention of having children, ever, and will be married again within the next year. Marriage is a social and financial contract between 2 people. Kids are an option married people can undertake or not.
What it gives us is the probability that same sex couples will be in monogamous relationships and not involved in playing the field and being in multiple relationships. That is the stability it provides. Furthermore, they can have children through adoption even without marriage rights, so your "children" point seems pointless to me and probably many others.
Why do we care about that? If they truly love each other they will stay together without a marriage contract. But all adults here know that love between a man and woman is very fleeting and then it becomes the children and just convenience of staying together. Lastly, adopted kids are kids already made. The point of marriage is to encourage the making of new ones, and the safe environment for them after they're made. As much as possible.
Quote:
The better question is what does it give us to outlaw their marriages? That does far more harm. They need to be able to visit and speak on behalf of their partner at the hospital, etc.
The problem, as any institution, the more people it allows, the more general it becomes and the less it means for people to have. Also, these financial benefits are coming from the taxpayer.
Quote:
BTW, it sounds like you are OK with a violent male ex convict marrying his partner upon release from prison, but against law abiding gay couples marrying. BTW, it is a fair characterization. I am straight, but support gay marriage rights.
Why shouldn't an ex-felon be able to marry? Am I missing something? I support gays the right to marry, just not the people of the same sex. And I'd be fine if the majority of the people decided to do this state by state. Then I'd just sit back and say ok. What I don't like is the feeling of entitlement they have. They essentially want marriage to be redefined but treat it like a civil rights issue. to me it just doesn't compute.
No it isn't. I've been married with no intention of having children, ever, and will be married again within the next year. Marriage is a social and financial contract between 2 people. Kids are an option married people can undertake or not.
Some people misuse it, just like they misuse welfare. But the point is, even if you don't intend it, you might very well become pregnant and have a kid while married. Encouraging your union increases that chance. It also decreases the risk of you having a kid out of wedlock. Which is the other purpose of marriage, keep kids in the family
I am a voter and its state laws that govern what is a marriage. So I get a voice in this democracy.Same as you want a govern authority to recognise gay marraige i law:I believe that amriage is between a man and woman and voive my opinion ;which is my right.
I am a voter and its state laws that govern what is a marriage. So I get a voice in this democracy.Same as you want a govern authority to recognise gay marraige i law:I believe that amriage is between a man and woman and voive my opinion ;which is my right.
Yes, that is your right.
But when more people vote FOR something than vote AGAINST it, majority rules and you have to accept that.
And that is what happening when marriage equality is being put to the vote of the people.
Some people misuse it, just like they misuse welfare. But the point is, even if you don't intend it, you might very well become pregnant and have a kid while married. Encouraging your union increases that chance. It also decreases the risk of you having a kid out of wedlock. Which is the other purpose of marriage, keep kids in the family
MISUSE??? What the hell are you talking about? Misuse what? Marriage is a social and financial contract, period, no requirements of kids. NO ONE married is required to have kids. This sounds like some sort of sci-fi movie in which the married couple has to produce offspring or else. This conversation gets stranger by the minute.
I am a voter and its state laws that govern what is a marriage. So I get a voice in this democracy.Same as you want a govern authority to recognise gay marraige i law:I believe that amriage is between a man and woman and voive my opinion ;which is my right.
And why is what others do your business, anyway? How are gays affecting you personally?
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.
