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.
Why add to the confusion by having two "dads" or two "moms?"
Why deny basic human rights to groups of people (selected by you, of course) over an unfounded hypothesis of extra confusion? I don't see where a "too confusing" exception has ever been carved out of the equal protection clause. If this is the biggest club in your bag, I'd suggest that you don't have much of a long-game going...
HL, you're squicking me out. One partner for life? I'm straight and couldn't fathom anything more boring. I would probably have to turn to drinking or drugs.
Nostalgia may be fine, but I'm glad I wasn't forced to stay with the first BF I ever had. Not as much an issue of boredom as it is the ability to truly grow together in a relationship. That's more rare in this day and age than many realize.
Old school version of marriage they stuck together out of habit no matter how resentful it made them over it. That was pretty bad advertisement 'for the sake of the kids' marriage IMO. My generation was inadvertantly taught more about wasting a life on a ball and chain obligation and less about what love really was about.
I remember being in the school yard and kids venting over their divorced parents, trying to make sense of it all, and avoid being used as a weapon. Little did parents, teachers, or school shrinks know- we were making up our own minds about what was really messed up about the world. Not too shabby for a rag tag bunch of 9 yr olds philosophizing over a world of very ill adults. That subject is a book unto itself.
Why add to the confusion by having two "dads" or two "moms?"
When I was a kid, the only thing confusing to me was why adults behaved so badly. Hypocrisy is detectable around the age 6/7 as I recall.
Black and white kids got along fine in school until adults asserted their garbage upon all. Similar situation with the once non-existant gender issues until adults decided otherwise.
Nothing in your post addresses any of the points made in mine.
I would ask, though: are you in favor of "equal rights" for polygamists, as well?
You didn't really make any points, but you did give a few statements, which I'm sure you probably found commendable in their own right.
Marriage isn't a static institution. If it so happens that polygamists desired "equal rights" and built a strong enough base for it, as well as proving that they were indeed being denied their liberties, sure, why not? But that is not the same as gay rights, so it would behoove you to abstain from comparing the two.
Bullsnot. an animal might care for the offspring of another if the timings right but thats maternal instinct. I'v never heard of or seen lesbianism in nature & certainly not to the degree that they form a mating pair that seeks out fertalization from a male of the species so they can raise young.
You've never seen or you've never sought to learn if and how it happens? I've posted the National Geographic video multiple times. Have you watched it? It addresses female homosexuality in nature.
Quote:
While it might happen it would not be considered normal.
Whether it's "normal" isn't the issue.
Quote:
Whats more likely is that one female or the other would mate with the male & the other female either be relegated to a sisterly role or pushed out entirely.
Source?
Quote:
Whats frequent is homosexual sex between males of most every species, thats simply the drive to procreate in most cases & since somethings better than nothing they hump what they can hump. Nature made it feel good to enhance the drive, if not create it all together. If it were a chore we wouldn;t be having this discusion. A big Ape having sex with a smaller one is to show dominance, not to gain a life partner.
So why, then, do gay sheep engage in sexual relations exclusively with males, even with plentiful females around and available? Why aren't they choosing to hump the females? Is that a case of "something is better than nothing" or a case of an animal going for exactly what it wants?
Quote:
How many species of people are there? In a natural setting humans do mate for life. Not all animals are as we are. However none to my knowledge mate for life with the same sex. You seem to think differently. Perhaps a link to a reputable source showing this to be normal activity would help.
If all marriage is to you is two people doing what feels good you do well to prove my point.
Not so fast. I said nothing about what marriage means to me. I addressed how marriage happens among heterosexuals since you brought it up: observe your people's divorce rate, the rate of changing dating partners pre-marriage and then tell me that heterosexuals mate for life. Intentions to mate for life are outweighed by actions.
Quote:
I'd stay with my wife the mother of my kids thru thick & thin even if we never had sex again. Its devotion that would exist with or without a piece of paper that I dont think you grasp.
Your intentions are wonderful. You posses nothing in terms of devotion that life-long homosexual couples lack.
Quote:
Be happy you live at a time where you can be whatever you want, be satisfied with yourself. If your devoted to your partner go see a lawyer & have each other made into powers of attorney, bequith each other your stuff if you croak.
Thanks but I'm not about to let you stay hyper-privileged. I'll have full marriage rights, rights a lawyer can't just write up for me and my partner.
Quote:
But for crying outloud get over the idea that your union is the same as a union between a man & woman. Its just not.
In your opinion and I have no intention of doing so.
The "same arrangement" would consist of heterosexual marriage. I don't think anyone is in favor of denying that. Yet.
Can you distinguish such thinking from that which went down to a stinging and much deserved defeat in Loving v. Virginia? Forty years on and you still haven't gotten the message?
Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights. I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.
-- Mildred Loving, June 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
No, they are suggesting -- make that demanding -- a parody of marriage: parodic precisely because it is NOT the same, involving as it does either two brides or two grooms.
Who makes the call on parody versus not-parody? Would that be you? With your just recently demonstrated incapacity for clear thinking? Do you not care at all about leaving yourself open to potential charges of being no more than an egotistical bigot?
So your saying that a kid growing up with a Mr & Mrs Daddy wont be confused?
Confused by what?
Quote:
Are you saying that his daddies will explain that normal families have a mom & dad & that they adopted him just because they could rather than seeing the child got a normal home?
Flamebait remark and entirely unnecessary.
Quote:
Its certainly a case of right & wrong, but is clouded by the feel good dont offend nobody attitude thats bringing this country down on many fronts.
You've still yet to explain how same-sex marriage is "bringing this country down". Concrete examples, please.
Quote:
The only arrogance is that being shown by the gay community that feels so important they think the world should turn upside down so they can have a heightened sense of normalcy.
You mean you aren't trying to hang on to an exclusive and privileged standing? I see plenty of arrogance in your position.
Quote:
Its not about equal rights. Its about utter stupidity.
You didn't really make any points, but you did give a few statements, which I'm sure you probably found commendable in their own right.
As you undoubtedly do yours. They're like our children, aren't they?
Quote:
Marriage isn't a static institution.
Neither is the rule about driving on the right. But we do cling to it, not being certain of the alternative, don't we?
Quote:
If it so happens that polygamists desired "equal rights" and built a strong enough base for it, as well as proving that they are indeed being denied their liberties, sure, why not?
Hmm. Lots of reluctance to address such a simple question. A final resort to jurisprudence. Noted.
Quote:
But that is not the same as gay rights, so it would behoove you to abstain from comparing the two.
Not the same as gay rights, except as an alternative to tradtional marriage, which is the topic of this thread. It would thus behoove you to acknowledge the comparison, wouldn't it?
I do hope you'll read some of my earlier posts in this thread. It may save you some time and me some irritation at being asked to repeat myself. For example: I do not find gay "marriage" a threat to traditional marriage. Rather, I think of it as an absurd parody.
Sorry, but that isn't the point. It is the chance of procreation that makes the difference. There have often been cases of supposedly barren or sterile couples who did produce a child. The point is the possibility of children being produced. You can throw elderly people or less fortunate people into the equation all you want. The point is that if they did not have these natural hindrances, they could produce children.
But they do have those hindrances. If you are hanging your argument on the ability to procreate then you can't ignore this.
Quote:
A healthy, young gay couple in the prime of their virility still cannot naturally produce a child. That is where my natural references stem from.
A young healthy gay couple will employ a surrogate mother to carry the baby to term and they will then raise it. This is all part of nature.
Quote:
As I said, you are just lumping these two totally different situations into one group to further your argument. Man and women make a child, unless science gets involved. Man and man or woman and woman do not make a child. It is a fairly simple concept that most of us learned early in life. Hope that clears up a few things for you on all accounts. And yes, it was you who began talking about the "norms" of the age women have children. So now I direct your attention to the norm of one male and one female make one baby.
I mentioned the norm as an aside- the point was about the people who are barren/sterile. Was this not clear?
That it takes a man and a woman to create a child means nothing in terms of whether same-sex relationship are natural. They are unrelated concepts.
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.
