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.
(As a side note, studies show that it is not straight married couples, or straight singles, no matter how devout, pro-life, or pro-family they may be, who adopt the tough to place kids in the highest numbers, but gays and lesbians. So, unless we’re talking about the development and nurturing only of the perfectly healthy, biological children, it makes sense to encourage gay marriage and parenting on behalf of the neediest of our nation’s unwanted children.)
I agree, we should encourage gay marriage and the adoption of children. I wish heterosexual couples would take a cue from gay couples on this issue. There are so many children already alive who need good homes. Adoption may not be for everyone, but it would be helpful if more people looked into it.
Why is that ridiculous? Both are diseases. Do you think pyromaniacs have a disease? Do you think homosexuality is a disease?
I think most people (who aren't afraid of not being politically correct) would say yes. We are on this planet to produce. Humans born with the inability to produce due to their sexual orientation have a disease. Pyros have a disease. Why is this a bad analogy?
And about the adoption issue. I agree 100% with you. There needs to be more adoptions. [Moderator Cut: Off Topic]. There are too many loving couples out there looking for children.
Last edited by madicarus2000; 03-11-2008 at 11:44 AM..
Reason: off topic comments.
In that case and by that logic, it sounds like it should be outlawed for people who are undoubtedly sterile to be allowed to marry. Though they have the tools, these tools cannot operate correctly, so as far as continuing the bloodlines goes, they are as competent as a homosexual couple. To continue with the car analogy...I guess a car that can no longer function is no good for someone who needs it to get to work. It's a pile of metal and just because we can still call it a car by definition doesn't really mean all that much.
Additionally, I'm not sure that continuing a bloodline is really the purpose of marriage, as you say, and if so, I don't see why the endeavor to change a definition is "idiocy."
That would be your logic, not mine.
Pay attention here. Understand my point, not your own interpetation of it.
A man and a woman are naturally designed to produce a bloodline. The fact that some might not (after being found incapable via some means, an abnormality from a normal function) does not change the fact that they due to their makeup are capable of producing a bloodline, but rather have complication which some can be worked around while others can not in order to produce a bloodline that is of that couple.
Homosexuals "can not" in "any way, shape or form" do this. It isn't due to a simple abnormality because the entire aspect of their relation ship IS the abnormality.
So please stop putting words in my mouth. Please stop building straw mans.
Why is that ridiculous? Both are diseases. Do you think pyromaniacs have a disease? Do you think homosexuality is a disease?
I think most people (who aren't afraid of not being politically correct) would say yes. We are on this planet to produce. Humans born with the inability to produce due to their sexual orientation have a disease. Pyros have a disease. Why is this a bad analogy?
Being different is not a disease, there is more to life than reproducing. The analogy is absurd because Pyromaniacs start fires that damage property and injure or kill people. Gay people hurt no one and any argument that they do is only your OPINION.
I'm not sure how rational it is to insist that civil unions but not marriage are permissible, either, when it turns into semantics and they are essentially the same.
Stop assuming what I mean and start actually reading it within the context I am discussing.
No, one is a delineation of blood lines. A ceremonial aspect many religions and societies have done throughout history "specifically" for the notation and record of those bloodlines coming together. It has nothing to do with civil unions.
A civil union is a legal contract to which the government recognizes legal ownership and responsibility between two people. Marriage was always a given in this contract simply because it was a "norm" in the process of sharing these responsiblity and ownership.
A gay couple can go out and get married. There is no law that says they can not. What the law states is that their "marriage" will not be honored as a legal contract to which ownership and responsibility are shared under the definition to which a marriage is termed.
This is what a civil union does and to be honest, this is what you do when you go get married anyway. You first go get married and then you head over and take that certificate as proof to receive your civil (legal) union contract to which all laws then apply between the two people.
Marriage is not the issue here and the gay community is doing itself a severe disservice by trying to make that the issue. As I said, if they focused strictly on the legal responsibilities between two people who choose to take on those responsibilities of ownership, this would have been a said and done deal many years ago. In fact, in some states it already is. The civil union shares the same legal responsiblity and ownership of that of a marriage validated by the state with a legal verification.
So, what this results in is essentially a crusade to redefine the meaning of a word. There is no equality issue here, only one side demanding it be catered to specifically by redefining the language.
Besides, think of it this way. If gay couples are being discriminated against because they claim they deserve the right to choose who they share responsibility and ownership with, would it not be discrimination for those who are not gay and so choose to share responsibility with another?
I think a civil union should be the available contract to all couples and marriage should be a separate event people work out with their churches. I am heterosexual, and I want a civil union, not a marriage.
I'm not saying Gays produce negative consequences like Pyros do. I'm saying both are diseases. Both are not normal. I think we can all agree on that. We should not promote any disease. We should try to allow everyone on this planet to have the freedom to pursue happiness but we have to think about the common good as well. Only a man and a woman can create a child. There is a reason for that. It is bigger than you and I to discuss. To promote a deviation from nature just isn't right.
That's illogical - that sterile straight people deserve to get married yet gay couples don't. And within our legal system in some states, yes, gay couples can produce children via egg/sperm donation, surrogacy, and adoption.
Gay couples are getting what they want, slowly. Full marriage in Massachusettes, domestic partnerships in many other states, adoption rights in many states, etc. Personally I don't care if you call it marriage or DP/civil union. I just don't want to be screwed on taxes and have to spend thousands on lawyers to create contracts.
Stop "feeling" the issue and start thinking it.
First, define marriage for me. Not your interpetation of it, but its actually definition.
Second, define the purpose of marriage historically.
Third, explain to me how that is illogical in how it concerns an abnormal coupling that is not compatible in nature or with the context to which marriage is referred.
See, thats the problem here. You don't care about anything other than what you "want". You are not concerned about logic, nor any process to which it can be defined. You want, and thats all that matter. That is subjective position, not a logically valid one.
All you did with your response is to tell me I am wrong and then tell me you don't care. /golfclap
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.
