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 don't think so. The way I see it, the state does have an interest in promoting commitment and stable families.
Whether the definition of "family" should change is the conundrum.
Personally I find no reason why gay couples shouldn't be permitted to contract with the state. My concern from the beginning on the same-sex marriage issue has been about the kids being raised by same-sex couples. I know many already have children, but I've felt that same-sex marriage could promote it and I'm unsure as to whether the state should condone raising kids outside a male/female married relationship. I'm becoming more and more open to the idea of it though.
I understand this problem completely. I have always been taught that having a mother and father in a relationship is important for the growth of a child. While two women may be able to do just as good a job raising a little boy, he would certainly benefit from having a male role model to learn from and look up to. Of course, this is another issue that I won't go into to heavily on this thread. But the children should be taken into consideration. Adoption by same sex couples should be scrutinized very closely. Not because I think they would not raise a child with love and care. But because it would be a very different environment for a child to be raised in. Sorry for getting a little off track. Back to the topic at hand.
Give me one reason why marriage has to have the state involved??? I don't think the government needs to be involved with marriage AT ALL. Let people perform whatever ceremonies they please, call it whatever they want, and legally be equal in all things through wills/contracts/etc.
Bingo! As long as it is PEOPLE marrying PEOPLE. Lets leave animals and inanimate objects out of it.
I understand this problem completely. I have always been taught that having a mother and father in a relationship is important for the growth of a child. While two women may be able to do just as good a job raising a little boy, he would certainly benefit from having a male role model to learn from and look up to. Of course, this is another issue that I won't go into to heavily on this thread. But the children should be taken into consideration. Adoption by same sex couples should be scrutinized very closely. Not because I think they would not raise a child with love and care. But because it would be a very different environment for a child to be raised in. Sorry for getting a little off track. Back to the topic at hand.
Oh I think it's very on track since this thread is about same-sex marriage and other unions and any possible reasons why they shouldn't be permitted.
I'm starting to think that same-sex couples should be permitted to marry and adopt, but that same-sex male couples should only be allowed to adopt boys and same-sex female couples should only be allowed to adopt girls. That's the direction I'm leading towards in what legislation I would support.
The problem with the same-sex marriage and union issue in general is the constitutional amendments. Here in TX, for example, 75% voted to ban both marriage and unions for gay couples back in 2005. I don't see the ban having any real potential to be lifted for at least 10 years or so. Quite frankly, I'm starting to feel guilty for being among the 75% to vote for the ban. I don't think it's fair to gays.
Ugly Republicans like trying to snare free snatch by threatening to attach and disseminate the word, "sl*t" to any unwelcoming female.
The only people I've ever heard use the word, s*ut, were conservatives.
Why? I have heard many girls with liberal, very liberal views, call other girls sluts. Usually because they themselves were and the girl who was victim of the name calling was far from it. Regardless, why?
I am very conservative, less than before since I see some liberal ideas that do have a lot of merit, and I don't throw that around word around. I have used it, but it was appropriate. IE; girl cheats and I catch her IN THE ACT, ****.
Then again! You may be saying that a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not always a square. Conservatives call girls sluts but not ALL conservatives call girls sluts?
Give me one reason why marriage has to have the state involved??? I don't think the government needs to be involved with marriage AT ALL. Let people perform whatever ceremonies they please, call it whatever they want, and legally be equal in all things through wills/contracts/etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BayDude
I agree mostly with this one.
Since gay people are whining about not having "marriage rights" which means absolutely nothing seeing as they as bestowed the same rights and privileges in civil unions we should:
1) Take the government out of "marriage" entirely
2) Everyone gets a civil union
Problem solved.
You two really thing the majority of Americans would stand for this?
No more benefits for being married? Ha...I doubt many people will go for this.
I am all for getting the government out the marriage business but I doubt it would happen.
What I would like to see is less government benefits and such being tied to marital status.
Oh I think it's very on track since this thread is about same-sex marriage and other unions and any possible reasons why they shouldn't be permitted.
I'm starting to think that same-sex couples should be permitted to marry and adopt, but that same-sex male couples should only be allowed to adopt boys and same-sex female couples should only be allowed to adopt girls. That's the direction I'm leading towards in what legislation I would support.
The problem with the same-sex marriage and union issue in general is the constitutional amendments. Here in TX, for example, 75% voted to ban both marriage and unions for gay couples back in 2005. I don't see the ban having any real potential to be lifted for at least 10 years or so. Quite frankly, I'm starting to feel guilty for being among the 75% to vote for the ban. I don't think it's fair to gays.
I guess you haven't read the literature that shows many same-sex couples go out of their way to find opposite and same-sex role models for their children.
If you really fear the child having a male-female role model, why not ban single people from having children? After all, they don't have an opposite sex role model for their kids.
Why not take kids away from a parent after the spouse dies, after all, kids do need two parents?
In any case, I would think in cases of adoption, the state would hire competent social workers who can decide who would make a good parent for a child.
If a same-sex couple has their own child, the state should not be involved in the matter. The couple should have the same rights as heterosexual parents when they have a child.
I had a friend who had to fight her damndest to get a visitor's pass when her child was in the hospital all because she is a lesbian and the hospital didn't see her as a "parent."
She doesn't have any rights to her child under Arkansas law because of stupid people who decided to pass Initiated Act 1. It affected many children in the state, not just those in foster care.
I'd feel pretty guilty too but hey, you can get married to the person you love so...it's not so bad. I and many other gay and lesbian people have to live with second-class status under the law. Must be nice to be heterosexual and privileged.
I guess you haven't read the literature that shows a VERY small percentage of homosexuals molest children?
Many times molestation is not about sexual attraction but power.
I've defended homosexuals against accusations made by posters on this very forum that suggest they are more likely to molest children.
Wouldn't I support only allowing male couples to adopt girls and female couples to adopt boys (opposite of what I'm leaning towards) if I felt that molestation was an issue and I was under the false assumption that pedophiles are more likely to be either hetero or homo (it's a completely different attraction, as I'm well aware)?
The ONLY concern I have is the role model issue as Reads2Much and I were discussing.
Relax....I'm trying to think rationally. Don't jump to conculsions.
I've defended homosexuals against accusations made by posters on this very forum that suggest they are more likely to molest children.
Wouldn't I support only allowing male couples to adopt girls and female couples to adopt boys (opposite of what I'm leaning towards) if I felt that molestation was an issue and I was under the false assumption that pedophiles are more likely to be either hetero or homo (it's a completely different attraction, as I'm well aware)?
The ONLY concern I have is the role model issue as Reads2Much and I were discussing.
Relax....I'm trying to think rationally. Don't jump to conculsions.
I went back and took that part out. I saw that you weren't trying to make that connection. My bad.
I guess you haven't read the literature that shows many same-sex couples go out of their way to find opposite and same-sex role models for their children.
If you really fear the child having a male-female role model, why not ban single people from having children? After all, they don't have an opposite sex role model for their kids.
Why not take kids away from a parent after the spouse dies, after all, kids do need two parents?
You're emotional....I get it.
But please realize this is a legitimate concern, just as it is with single parents.
There are some situations in which single parenting is unavoidable. It shouldn't be condoned or promoted, but if it's unavoidable it is.
You have to get votes. Making people upset isn't going to help. Suggesting that you're glad I feel guilty is certainly not appropriate.
Title of the thread is wrong, marriage is not a contract with the state, marriage is a contract between two individuals which the states recognize..
Why should the state not recognize the contracts? Simply, because legally, the contract says that it must be between a man and a woman.. period.. its the law..
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.
