By its very exisitence. Marriage is made primarily for raising children. Homosexual "marriage" can never do such except via extrodainary measures. Its really that simple

I don't see how that answers my question.

How would homosexual marriage, by its very existence, "turn upside down the very building block of our society"?

Perhaps this is a better question: what do you mean by "turn upside down the very building block of our society"? What are the tangible results of such an occurrence?

Repeating this doesn't make it true.

There are sound reasons behind those laws, and each had its own debate at the time the laws came into effect and when the ages were changed. So how about we debate gay marriage here instead.

So do that.

Human sacrifice, cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria!

Teach morals at home. Teach facts at school.

I'm not even sure what you're worried about. Homosexuals exist. Homosexuality exists. Homosexual sex exists, as do all of the heterosexual counterparts. The school isn't telling them about some secret that no one knows about. Nor are they advocating that everyone go try having gay sex with their classmates. If the school does anything, it's a variation of, "Sex can be dangerous. This is how you can protect yourself." They are being exposed to information, which is the whole point of going to school. You learn things and hopefully remember them and make decisions about them. "Imposing beliefs" is when you force someone to or prevent someone from expressing an opinion without regard for how they feel about it. Exposing someone to information is entirely different, and is done in a value neutral context. Schools don't tell people that sex is good or bad or that homosexual sex is good or bad. They tell kids that it EXISTS and if they CHOOSE to do it, it has consequences. It is the responsibility of the PARENT to provide the moral framework for the child to interpret these facts.

Saying that schools shouldn't teach comprehensive sex ed programs because some parents dislike parts of it is as stupid as saying schools shouldn't teach the Napoleon Wars because some parents disagree with why they occurred. That's not the point of a school, it's not the point of a curriculum.

Please re-read my post 234. Then read what I've quoted.

You CANNOT make the argument you just made without denying lots of straight people the right to get married as well. If you're comfortable with that, fine. If you're not, then that's not really the argument you're making.

As an addendum, marriage was primarily created to transfer property, not for raising children. Marriage now has almost nothing to do with raising children. See: divorce with children, childless marriages, single parenting. You're making an anachronistic argument about an institution that really was only ever true in theory to begin with. Stop making it.

This is an unsupported, absolutist pronouncement with no evidence or reason to back it up. Repetition alone doesn't make it true.

This thread is dead. It just hasn't stopped twitching yet. It's possible that Tilted Politics is in the same state.

If they "already can get married" why are they not eligible for the same health benefits? ERISA, which regulates health insurance, allows "self-insured" health programs to exclude the coverage of a same sex partner that is guaranteed for hetero spouses. COBRA, which requires the continuation of health benefits, including spouse (even a divorced spouse) and dependent benefits to a person for a defined period after employment is terminated but employers are allowed to deny these coverages to gay couples. Not discriminated against?

If they "already can get married" why are they not eligible for the same benefits under the Family Medical Leave Act? Inheritance law? Tax law? Not discriminated against?

The examples are endless.

And finally, Sorry, but I just dont see how an open discussion of sexuality is hypocritical, any more than discussion of Huck Finn or evolution, because it offends some parents. Why are you so afraid to educate and provide factual information to kids?

Because it goes from one man, one woman to two men or two women or three or four, or whatever. Fact is, children thrive better in a true father and mother enviroment than a two man enviroment with one top and one bottom, each putting on their faux feminity and masculinity. Of course you can tell me some story on how your sister in laws friend is raising a kid with her partner and theyre doing well, but thats just ancedotal evidence. As a general rule it absolutely holds.

But at least with normal married couples, the possibilty of having a natural family is still there. It can never be there with a homosexual "marriage"

If one member of the couple is infertile, there is no possibility of having a natural family. Period. End of discussion. It's exactly like a gay couple, in that sense. There is NO WAY for those two people alone to have a kid. So, according to you, depriving all infertile people of the right to get married is ok.

Now thats just taking it to the extreme isnt it? With normal couples, the possibility of taking medical procedure to help theri cause is still there. With homosexuals, sperm + sperm or ovaries + ovaries can never, ever lead to a child between the two

So that's what you mean by "turn upside down the very building block of our society"?

That's an odd way to phrase it, considering that your scenario doesn't mention anything about "the very building block of our society" - which I assume is procreative heterosexual marriage - being turned upside down. Seems that people who want to participate in that building block would still be able to. And the people who don't... well, they already don't have to.

Is it fair to say that, by "turned upside down", you mean "broadened with more options for only those who want them"? Or am I missing something?

"As a general rule it absolutely holds?" Heh...I don't see how that sentence is logically possible. But nevermind that...

Source for this fact?

And assuming you provide a source... Reason for denying children same-sex parents simply because they're not optimal?

It's like arguing for a Copernical solar system with a flat-earther. Argument ad nauseum doesn't hold much weight.

You argue that people are imposing their beliefs on others, yet you seemingly have no quams with the school system to have "open dialogue" about a sexual preference practiced by a small % of genpop and that goes against many parents morals and values. Most people would call that hypocritical, but I assume that you and other liberals would call it something else.

You have yet to connect this to the same-sex marriage debate, yet you keep bringing it up as if the connection were already made. I disagree with you here regarding imposing values via sex education, but that is a different debate.

3000 years of recorded human history cant be wrong.

Inappropriate response. Nevermind.

Actually a good analogy would be Bill Gates suing for the right to recieve welfare payments. He doesnt get them because he just doesnt qualify


No, I have. Part of the whole homosexual redefintion of marriage revolves around demnding to be accepted as legit. If we redefine marriage, then the next step is provided homosexual sex education because if the govt has already legitimized it, then why should they deny such education in the schools that have normal sex ed programs? Logically, its the next step. Sure, it doesnt help your side, but it is what it is

the next thing you know, it will be raining men...

Hi - Hi! We're your Weather Girls - Ah-huh -
And have we got news for you - You better listen!
Get ready, all you lonely girls
and leave those umbrellas at home. - Alright! -

Humidity is rising - Barometer's getting low
According to all sources, the street's the place to go
Cause tonight for the first time
Just about half-past ten
For the first time in history
It's gonna start raining men.

It's Raining Men! Hallelujah! - It's Raining Men! Amen!
I'm gonna go out to run and let myself get
Absolutely soaking wet!
It's Raining Men! Hallelujah!
It's Raining Men! Every Specimen!
Tall, blonde, dark and lean
Rough and tough and strong and mean

God bless Mother Nature, she's a single woman too
She took off to heaven and she did what she had to do
She taught every angel to rearrange the sky
So that each and every woman could find her perfect guy
It's Raining Men! Hallelujah! - It's Raining Men! Amen!
It's Raining Men! Hallelujah!
It's Raining Men! Ame---------nnnn!

I feel stormy weather / Moving in about to begin
Hear the thunder / Don't you lose your head
Rip off the roof and stay in bed

God bless Mother Nature, she's a single woman too
She took off to heaven and she did what she had to do
She taught every angel to rearrange the sky
So that each and every woman could find her perfect guy
It's Raining Men! Yeah!

Humidity is rising - Barometer's getting low
According to all sources, the street's the place to go
Cause tonight for the first time
Just about half-past ten
For the first time in history
It's gonna start raining men.

It's Raining Men! Hallelujah! - It's Raining Men! Amen!
It's Raining Men! Hallelujah! - It's Raining Men!

Do you know that there's nothing self-evidently bad about that? You're the only one here who has a problem with that. As is often the case with people holding fringe views, you're screaming it pretty damn loud, but it's a fringe view nonetheless.

You should expand your universe a bit. Most people have a problem with that, even in the bluest of blue states.

Every time you make this argument, you are logically supporting marriage for same sex couples:

A: Marriage is for raising children (this is in part true, though this is not the only purpose or even the primary one.)

B: Homosexual marriages can have children through extraordinary measures.

The first is your assertion, the second is a fact that you concede in this post. The logical conclusion is that same-sex couples should be permitted to legally marry because they can meet the "raising children" condition.

Were people not so narrow minded I'd suspect more gay couples would adopt children. What is extraordinary about adoption and how is it jumping through hoops?

Great, but can and should are two very different things. Children thrive when there is one mom and one dad, not one mom or one dad, or two moms or two dads, ot one top or one bottom. Its really that simple. Can homosexuals raise children? PRobably, but its about the kids and not the parents

Cite for this "fact"?

By the way, what's with the "faux femininity and masculinity" bit? Do you know anything about gay people? Making reference to ignorant stereotypes doesn't really support your argument well.

In addition to the anecdotal evidence I have every American medical and psychological organization that has a policy on the issue on my side.

Not all heterosexual couples can have children together. The infertile, the elderly, CFBC, those who have a genetic disease they'd prefer not to pass on, yet all can get married even in the absence of any intent or ability to have children.

Come on now NCB, did you miss my post on page 6 where I pasted the 10 definitions of marriage from dictionary dot com? None of them mentioned anything about children.

And you should try reading. I said you're the only one here who has a problem with it. You even put that in bold when you quoted me. Nobody else on this thread has complained about responsible teaching of acceptance toward homosexuality in schools--and all the reasoned arguments why it's not a problem are met with, "But they'll teach our kids gay!"

In the face of superior argumentation, your only tool is repetition. Propaganda that is based in repetition rather than reason is called indoctrination. I submit that you have been indoctrinated; that you no longer think your own thoughts.

I keep promising myself that I'm done with this thread. Maybe eventually I'll keep that promise.

Dont ever change UP! Your sense of humor is a light unto the darkness. :)

Dude, it goes both ways, doesnt it? In could very well post that same argument. At least be honest here

More argument ad nauseum.

What, specifically, are the special rights that would come with same-sex couples marrying? Name them. Name some rights that a same-sex married couple would get that a heterosexual married couple would not.

Answer: There aren't any. We don't want anything but to be treated equally, the same rights and responsibilities. Heck, if my wife and I were legally married, we'd actually be paying a good deal more in federal income tax.

More argument ad nauseum. You have yet to provide a clear connection.

What does this even mean?

You assert that a mother and a father are optimal and then point to 3000 years of mother-father child rearing to support it?

This would surely show that mother-father is the traditional method of child rearing, but how in the hell does it show that it's better than father-father or mother-mother?

Can and often has been.

We're just going around in circles here. We just need to agree to disagree. I'm done with this thread. Well, at least for today :lol:

Gods I love being ignored. :) At least I debunked the "children" thing.

Gilda, once again I am very happy for you and yours. :D It is about time!

You say it's a bad argument......then you don't argue with it. Does that mean your argument is even weaker than you suggest mine is?

As I've stated before, it's the Abrahamic religons: Judism, Chsitianity, and Islam. That's where the idea of homosexuality being bad comes from in our society (that, and maybe from the evolution of stoic ethics in late Rome, but stoic ethics were obviously effected and formed greatly by the spread of Chsitainity...).

Homosexuals have been around for thousands of years. Only the Puritanesque seem to have a problem with it.

You undermine your own argument every time you post based on ignorant stereotypes.

Cite me a study that concludes that children raised by same-sex couples are harmed by that in comparison to either heterosexual couples, single parents, or especially to the foster care system.


Not "probably," the answer is an unequivocal "Yes." Also, you're repeating an argument you haven't supported. More argument ad nauseum.

However, let's assume that marriage is to provide a stable environment for children--don't the children of homosexuals and being raised by homosexual couples deserve the same protections as those being raised by heterosexuals? Why punish the children for their parents' orientation? Every argument regarding the rearing of children logically supports same-sex marriage.

Yet, it is true. You're not being treated as unequals. If you get right down to it, you're not any more "discriminated" against than your average teenager is.

I laugh when people try to compare homosexuals not being allowed to marry to such things as the abolishment of slavery, women's suffrage or even the civil right's movement. Unlike slaves, you're not being subjugated and forced to live your life as inferiors nor are you considered the property of someone else; Unlike women before 1920's, you're not going to be jailed if you choose to vote (Or, in your case, have sex with a member of the same sex) ; And unlike minorities before the civil right's movement, you're not forced into government sanctioned isolation nor are you subject to public humiliation.

In fact, you enjoy many protections which the latter groups simply did not have, yet you would rather scream discrimination because you're not allowed to marry?

The fact is that you're trying to force others to accept your definition of marriage; The exact same thing you accuse those people who are anti-gay of doing. That's the fundamental difference between any movement of the past and the homosexual movement-- The desire to make people accept the way you choose to live your life.

See? You feel it's okay to discriminate against people based on age. Therefore, it perplexes me as to how you can think it unfair to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation. Just as you think there's a good reason to discriminate based on age I think there's a good reason to discriminate based on sexual orientation. Seems fair, huh?

This would be a good thing.

Gilda, once again, thank you for posting the good news. May other states follow soon in providing just legislation.

Pen

Erm... Ignoring the fact that nearly all religions condemn homosexuality, are we?

Teenagers are allowed to get married.
I laugh when people try to compare homosexuals to polygamists and incestors(?). Unlike polygomists, you're not doing anyting illegal, and unlike those who practice incest, homosexual pairings won't result in severly disabled children (or me throwing up all over). Once upon a time, homosexuals were forced into isolation, jailed, hanged, etc. It's a slow process that started with bigotry and that will end with real equal rights, just like it did with women and minorities.
...that way they chose to live their life doesn't effect you. We're not forcing anyone to accept anything. You're trying to pretend like marriage means something, and you're bravely defending marriage from the gays (how brave of you). In reality, marriage doesn't mean jack shit. When the divorce rate is well over 50%, what are you defending? Just becuase you forced gay out of marriage first doesn't mean that you're right.
It's not okay to discriminate. If I discriminate, does that make it okay for you to discriminate? Shit no.

Also, on a side note, there should be no voting age or drinking age. They're useless, and are ageist.

See reference to Puritanesque and add to it the fact that sadly most people cant see past the end of their noses and yes.

No matter how many times you repeat this, it doesn't become true. You've been arguing that discriminating against homosexuals is justified this whole thread.

This is, literally, a civil rights issue.

Let's compare this to minorities and marriage rights. I can't have my marriage legally recognized, and the Lovings, and a great many interracial couples like them, couldn't have theirs recognized either.

You're kidding, right?

I'm funny that way. Being treated equally in some ways isn't enough. I'd like to have all the same rights, privileges, and legal protections as everyone else, not just some of them.

Nope. I don't want to make marriage solely between gay people and prevent heterosexuals from marrying. I want an even playing field where you can act on your definition and I can act on mine and neither of us dictating to the other what she should be allowed to do.

Well of course. Blacks fought to be accepted as equal to whites, women fought to be accepted as equal to men. A desire for acceptance isn't new, it's been a part of every human and civil rights movement in history.

Well, I believe I said that those are separate issues, but sure I accept that legal restrictions on minors are reasonable as a means of preventing them from engaging in dangerous behavior until they reach the age of maturity at which they can handle those issues is reasonable. I don't think anybody is going to say that drawing a line somewhere is unreasonable, even if we might disagree on where to draw that line.

One is based on practical considerations and the other on prejudice.