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.
Being gay does not somehow make people any better or worse at creating or maintaining personal relationships with friends, lovers or children.
I'll bet we all know of children, or childhood playmates who turned out well, in spite of bad parenting from emotionally shallow, uncaring, inattentive, immature or even abusive parents.
The argument was that opposite sex parents are better and thus are more deserving of marital benefits. IF homosexual couples are in fact doing just as good of a job as heterosexual parents, then why deny their families equal protections?
Not that children even matter in the marriage debate, because there is not one law that requires the ability to reproduce in order to get married. There are, however, laws that require the couple prove that they can NOT reproduce in order to get married, as well as supreme court rulings that incarcerated people can get married even if the marriage can never be consummated and thus reproduction is impossible.
For example, laws which have already been passed in some States like MA force schools to push the gay agenda. The increase of these kinds of laws will make it very difficult, if not impossible to continue to promote the traditional marriage. Again, if these laws make it difficult or impossible to do what has benefitted the nation as whole, then we can say that such laws are HARMFUL to the nation as whole. If we allow this to continue, the promotion of traditional marriage will soon be ILLEGAL. It is already happening.
The gay agenda is not about marriage, it is about harnessing the long arm of the law to force people to accept the gay lifestyle. Accept it, or be sorry. It is already happening.
Also, these new laws are used to attack other people's beliefs. There are many examples where the new laws are used by homosexuals to attack people foe simply refusing to accept gayness as normal. These kinds of things harm the society, because all of a sudden we are not allowed to express our religious beliefs anymore.
I told you what the thread is about. It is about Why the government should promote heterosexual marriage. Just because something else is mentioned, doesn't mean the topic would change.
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????
Also, these new laws are used to attack other people's beliefs. There are many examples where the new laws are used by homosexuals to attack people foe simply refusing to accept gayness as normal. These kinds of things harm the society, because all of a sudden we are not allowed to express our religious beliefs anymore.
You seem to be confusing marriage laws, and anti discrimination laws.
Marriage laws allow people to get married, and regulate marriage.
Anti discrimination laws say that BUSINESSES can not discriminate against customers based on their race, religion, gender, and in some state sexual orientation.
I know it's difficult to understand, but different laws cover different things.
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????
The answer is simple, and it also answers why it should not promote, or allow same sex marriage or legalization of drugs
The government should promote those things which benefit the nation as whole. This is what "promote general welfare" in the Constitution means. Promoting traditional marriage benefits the nation as whole, because it brings forth new generations of people, and gives the children an opportunity to grow up in a family with a father and a mother, like nature intended. 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. Family life even tames the men. It is also an economic issue, because a stable nation is an an economically thriving nation, with fewer people to support.
So, promoting traditional family benefits the nation as whole.
Same sex marriage does not benefit the nation in any way, so there is no reason to promote it.
The government does three things:
1. Promote those things which benefit the nation, like traditional family.
2. Allow freedoms. We are free to work, earn income and own property, live where we want etc
3. Prohibit those things which are harmful to the nation.
Violent crime is definetly harmful to the nation, which is why it is prohibited. Drug use is harmful to nation as whole which is why it is prohibited. Same sex marriage? I have yet to see one compelling reason why it should be promoted, or even allowed.
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 yet YOU want to deny me the right to marry even though I have given birth to children.
Why do my children not deserve the protections that you claim are for people who reproduce?
Why can my post menopausal mother get those protections even though there is no possible way for her to reproduce?
Why can my sister get those protections yet there is no possible way for her to reproduce?
The person you are responding to said that he believes same sex couples should be given "full rights and protections." Do you even bother to read the posts you are replying to before you flame them?
The person you are responding to said that he believes same sex couples should be given "full rights and protections." Do you even bother to read the posts you are replying to before you flame them?
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.
I'm sorry but how does the government "Promote" any marriage? They provide a license to marriage, but thats not the same thing as promoting it..
The promotes general welfare clause, deals with promoting the general welfare OF THE NATION, not the individuals, nor the family..
A marriage isnt general welfare, its an individual welfare, of the two being involved.
If marriage does nothing to promote general welfare, why is the government involved in marriage at all? The government cares only about the masses. It's a government for the PEOPLE not the PERSON. The government does what is good for the masses. Marriage does things like makes sure children have two parents to care for them so the state doesn't have to. I don't know the stats but I'm willing to bet that there are far more unmarried women with children on welfare than there are married women or even formerly married (as in married to the father of their children) on welfare. The percent of the population on welfare certainly does impact general welfare.
Unfortunately, the government can't make people get married. They can only make it attractive to get married but they haven't done a very good job of that as over 1/3 of the adult population has never been married. I've read that half of young people choose to live together rather than marry so we can expect that percentage to grow. Marriage is falling out of favor. Perhaps it no longer serves a purpose for society.
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.
The government cares only about the masses. It's a government for the PEOPLE not the PERSON. The government does what is good for the masses. Marriage does things like makes sure children have two parents to care for them so the state doesn't have to. I don't know the stats but I'm willing to bet that there are far more unmarried women with children on welfare than there are married women or even formerly married (as in married to the father of their children) on welfare. The percent of the population on welfare certainly does impact general welfare. 