NationStates Jolt Archive

It is wrong and harmful by disjoining marriage laws from the protection family in society. That's the topic of the thread now isn't it?

Disjoining? Can you show one child benefit law that requires marriage? Can you show one marriage benefit law that requires children?

But it does serve a purpose. It means that my partner will be my husband. Give me a good reason why that's bad.

Why should the government concern itself with that?

Why should the government concern itself with that?

Why should any government concern itself with heterosexual marriage, when we deperately need to discourage population growth?

Disjoining? Can you show one child benefit law that requires marriage? Can you show one marriage benefit law that requires children?

Government has an interest in promoting, defending and encouraging the creation and the raising of children. The best people for this job is the parents themselves, in a loving and nurturing environment constituted via marriage.

Name one reason for government to care about marraige at all if children have nothing to do with it?

Why should the government concern itself with that?

Why shouldn't it? You see gays and lesbians are asking to be treated like everyone else and they are supported by the Constitution. The onus is on you to show why they should not be allowed to. So far, the best you could come up with is that gay and lesbian marriages are not about children (which the law does not make a requirement for marriage) or gay and lesbian marriages may eventually lead to polygamy (though you shown no actual evidence that this would even remotely be a step in that direction. Same-sex marriage only requires the recognition of current constitutional law. Polygamy requires new law recognizing marriage between more than two people.). Objectively, you're losing this argument. You've done none of the work here. You've made assumption after assumption that has been PROVEN wrong. You've used spurious statistics that have been thoroughly debunked. You make specious connections that don't actually exist. But maybe we're all wrong. I'll certainly admit that you at least have a point if you can show that current law, historical evidence or anthropological evidence supports your 'self-evident' view of marriage. I'm waiting.

Why should the government concern itself with that?

The same reason the government recognizes any such union - property. The government has a vested interest in knowing who owns what, who owes what debt, and - most importantly to the government, who and what it can get taxes out of. There are also protections given to such a couple because of their unique situation in the way that they live.

When two people choose to live as one, it is convenient for the government if it recognizes said union.

Why shouldn't it? You see gays and lesbians are asking to be treated like everyone else and they are supported by the Constitution.

The onus is on you to show why they should not be allowed to.

No, the onus is on them. They are not harmed. They have no damages. There is no law nor right that says we get to marry whomever we want.

The same reason the government recognizes any such union - property. The government has a vested interest in knowing who owns what, who owes what debt, and - most importantly to the government, who and what it can get taxes out of. There are also protections given to such a couple because of their unique situation in the way that they live.

When two people choose to live as one, it is convenient for the government if it recognizes said union.

Then deal with power-of-attorney laws and property laws etc., there is no reason to assume that property rights need to be addressed through marriage laws. People don't need to be married to have, own or share properties.

Government has an interest in promoting, defending and encouraging the creation and the raising of children. The best people for this job is the parents themselves, in a loving and nurturing environment constituted via marriage.

You, again, avoided the questions.

Also, you've shown no actual proof that best people for the job is always or even usually the birth parents in a marriage. You've shown no actual proof that allowing more people to be married will damage that ability for the 'ideal marriage' you speak of to exist, continue to exist, and to continue to benefit children. You've done nothing to show that for the government to continue to acknowledge unions that are not about children that this will have any affect on the next generation of Americans. Without these proofs, you have no defense for denying rights to any individuals.

You showed statistics that were too broad to actually be of use. For example, women are less likely to be abused in a marriage. The problem with that statistic is it does not account for the fact, that less young people are married and abuse is more common in young couples (whether married or not). It does not account for the fact that marriage is less common in poor communities and that abuse is more common in these communites (poverty is not caused by not being married and the abuse is linked to poverty and not to lack of marriage. Married women living in poverty are more likely to be abused as well.) When you get old enough, I recommend a course in statistics. It'll help you understand how you've not linked marriage to any of the benefits you've claimed.

You, again, avoided the questions.



I've avoided no questions. The onus of proof, that no harm will be done, is on you, you're the side that wants to change existing standard.

No, the onus is on them. They are not harmed. They have no damages. There is no law nor right that say we get to marry whomever we want.

The onus is on those who violate law to justify themselves or face the concequences. And any nation who deprives same-sex couples of the right to marry is on a very fine line, because of international law. In europe, a minium of comparable rights is required or your head of state is hauled up before the Court of Human Rights.

I am harmed. It costs us nearly £3000 a year filing seperate tax returns. Our rights as a couple are not guarantueed, in spite of the complex legal relationship which we've created. Which has cost thousands more, while marriage costs £21.50. So yes, we do have damages and we are harmed.

Onus on you again. Justify why you would deny me my human rights. Or failing that justfy why for your own purposes you will go against:

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

Guess what? This is my life, my liberty, and my pursuit of happiness.

Then deal with power-of-attorney laws and property laws etc., there is no reason to assume that property rights need to be addressed through marriage laws. People don't need to be married to have, own or share properties.

we do. They can be disputed and overridden. Marriage can't.

Then deal with power-of-attorney laws and property laws etc., there is no reason to assume that property rights need to be addressed through marriage laws. People don't need to be married to have, own or share properties.

Considering that these things are exactly what legal marriage does, then you are arguing that we should throw out the entire concept of legal marriage and have power-of-attorney and different property laws instead?

That is fine, but it involves doing away with government-recognized marriage altogether.

No, the onus is on them. They are not harmed. They have no damages. There is no law nor right that says we get to marry whomever we want.

And, again, you show complete and utter ignorance of current marriage laws, property laws, inheritance laws, next-of-kin rights, benefit laws and the US Constitution. You are advocating denying rights (seperate but equal was shot down a long, long time ago) but you've done no work to show why the government can, would want to or will continue to do so.

We have shown hundreds of ways that unrecognized unions are harmed by their current recognition by the government (notice I don't say under the law. This is because the current recognition is in violation of current law). You have shown not one single way that anyone would be harmed by granting them the recognition that the law currently provides for.

Do you really have no knowledge of the constitution and the current laws related to marriage or are you just being difficult?

No, the onus is on them. They are not harmed. They have no damages. There is no law nor right that says we get to marry whomever we want.

Lack of equal protection under the law is harm.

13 definitions offered in the define marriage thread and not one mention of this 'self-evident' child clause, Greenlander is so fond of. Strange for something so 'self-evident'. Yet another Greenlander MYTH debunked.

13 definitions offered in the define marriage thread and not one mention of this 'self-evident' child clause, Greenlander is so fond of. Strange for something so 'self-evident'. Yet another Greenlander MYTH debunked.

I'll add that to the list, next to spontanious emanation.

137. Maggots don't magically appear in rotting food.
138. Words aren't magically true when Greenlander says them.

13 definitions offered in the define marriage thread and not one mention of this 'self-evident' child clause, Greenlander is so fond of. Strange for something so 'self-evident'. Yet another Greenlander MYTH debunked.

LOL... Yeah, THAT proves it. :D :rolleyes:

Why don't you ask them what marriage means to government. Then ask them what "self-evident" means? :eek: :p

Lack of equal protection under the law is harm.


You can't show a lack of protection because you aren't allowed to have something illegal.

Everyone is allowed to get married, they just aren't always allowed to marry whom they want.

LOL... Yeah, THAT proves it. :D :rolleyes:

Why don't you ask them what marriage means to government. Then ask them what "self-evident" means? :eek: :p

Marriage means more money for everyone. Government makes more money indirectly from married couples than it does from unmarried cohabiting couples. Individuals save money being married, plus they have peace of mind about safeguarded rights, etc. Everyone wins.

You can't show a lack of protection because you aren't allowed to have something illegal.

Everyone is allowed to get married, they just aren't always allowed to marry whom they want.

I'm not allowed to get married.

You can't show a lack of protection because you aren't allowed to have something illegal.

Everyone is allowed to get married, they just aren't always allowed to marry whom they want.

:rolleyes:

Sure, and bans on interracial marriage are constitutional for the same reason. :headbang:

:rolleyes:

Sure, and bans on interracial marriage are constitutional for the same reason. :headbang:

My wife is sicilian. Does that count as interracial? ;)

I think he is heading down the path toward the beastiality argument.

Government has an interest in promoting, defending and encouraging the creation and the raising of children. The best people for this job is the parents themselves, in a loving and nurturing environment constituted via marriage.

Name one reason for government to care about marraige at all if children have nothing to do with it?

No, the onus is on them. They are not harmed. They have no damages. There is no law nor right that says we get to marry whomever we want.

Try to get this through your authoritarian skull: MARRIAGE IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT!!!!!!

Before you disagree, are you saying any state could legally ban all marriage tomorrow?

Think carefully. Try not to "throw the baby out with the bathwater," as you put it.

Setting aside the over 1,000 federal rights, privileges, and benefits that have already been documented are reserved for married couples, there is -- again, in addition to denial of a fundamental right -- the little matter of equal protection under the law.

And, as for your suggestion that we should change the over 1,000 other federal laws rather "re-write all the marriage laws," do the math. 50 states + federal definitions of marriage < 1,138 federal laws contingent on marital status. And that doesn't count the thousands of parallel state laws contingent on marital status.

Moreover, you are flat-out contradicting yourself. You have specifically advocated a federal Constitutional Amendment that would bar changing other laws to give separate but equal protections to same-gender couples.

Or have you changed or opinion since the first post on whether equal protection requires that "marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman"?

Legal Definition – marriage is the legal union of a man and woman as a husband and wife, though the definition might be evolving. (the change coming from your side, not pre-existing understanding).

marriage n. the joining of a male and female in matrimony by a person qualified by law to perform the ceremony (a minister, priest, judge, justice of the peace, or some similar official), after having obtained a valid marriage license (which requires a blood test for venereal disease in about a third of the states and a waiting period from one to five days in several). The standard age for marriage without parental consent is 18 except for Georgia and Wyoming where it is 16, Rhode Island where women can marry at 16, and Mississippi in which it is 17 for boys and 15 for girls. More than half the states allow marriages at lesser ages with parental consent, going as low as 14 for both sexes in Alabama, Texas and Utah. Marriages in which the age requirements are not met can be annulled. Fourteen states recognize so-called "common law marriages" which establish a legal marriage for people who have lived together by agreement as husband and wife for a lengthy period of time without legal formalities.

Marriage is a relationship between people, (modernly based primarily on love and mutual respect), where each person in the relationship maintains consensual, independent and unobligatory ties with every other person (not necessarily sexual or of an equal nature), and where the major purpose of such a relationship is the welfare of anticipated progeny.

You can't show a lack of protection because you aren't allowed to have something illegal.

Everyone is allowed to get married, they just aren't always allowed to marry whom they want.

Darling, marriage is not an individual right. It takes two people to enter into it. So, no, everyone is not allowed to get married. Only those who can find a willing partner (currently a willing partner who happens to be a member of the opposite sex, however that is defined in that particular state - or, in Mass, any willing partner) can get married.

Meanwhile, marriage is legal. Some couples living as married are denied it while some couples living as married are allowed it. That is clearly not equal protection.

Marriage is a relationship between people, (modernly based primarily on love and mutual respect).

Your words, not mine. Any you deny us this, why?

Well.

Moreover, you are flat-out contradicting yourself. You have specifically advocated a federal Constitutional Amendment that would bar changing other laws to give separate but equal protections to same-gender couples.


I am not contradicting anything. I don't think there needs to be a 'separate or equal' anything, nothing about it at all. If there is enough demand for some sort of contractual joining of entities and estates and sharing of power-of-attorney etc., for same-sex or other purposes, then fine, but it has nothing to do with marriage whatsoever and doesn't have to be equal to it because it's a different topic entirely.

Incidentally, for anyone who is interested in the world outside america (including the americans who're interested), I started a european thread here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=430554).

Your words, not mine. Any you deny us this, why?

Read the first post all over again... Joining relationships in "love' is not the government's concern.

If there is enough demand for some sort of contractual joining of entities and estates and sharing of power-of-attorney etc.,

Lookie! You just described civil marriage!

but it has nothing to do with marriage whatsoever


Wait? Civil marriage has nothing to do with marriage whatsoever?

Read the first post all over again... Joining relationships in "love' is not the government's concern.

It's in the peoples interest, and therefore it is the governments concern whether you like it or not.

*snip*

Can you define the difference between civil right and civil protection?

Can you define the difference between civil right and civil protection?

There isn't. It is your right to share in every protection, which are themselves rights.

I am not contradicting anything. I don't think there needs to be a 'separate or equal' anything, nothing about it at all. If there is enough demand for some sort of contractual joining of entities and estates and sharing of power-of-attorney etc., for same-sex or other purposes, then fine, but it has nothing to do with marriage whatsoever and doesn't have to be equal to it because it's a different topic entirely.

1. Way to pick out the least of my many points to which to respond. Such a valiant defender of marriage are thee.

2. Glad to see you admit you are flat-out against equal protection under the law.

3. Marriage is still a fundamental right. Ignoring that doesn't make it go away.

4. Marriage under law is a legal institution with specific legal consequences and incidents. You wish to separate marriage from all the legal incidents. Fine. What is left that you are "defending"? The word?

5. And I noticed the dodge. (Can't have people pin down your view, it might be harder to defend.) Are you or are you not against civil unions for same-gender couples with all of the legal incidents of marriage? Are you against civil unions with less than all the legal incidents of marriage? If not, what specific legal incidents are you against granting to same-gender couples.

sorry got bored before i read the entire threat, but wud like to say, that there is evidence to suggest that the female members of a family who have gay children, are more fetile and will therefore have more children, making up for 1 "lost" child. This is why there are still homosexuals within the population,because is it advantagous.

I say let gays be gay, its there life and as long as there not hurting anyone go 4 it. My beliefs say that you should love everyone (agape), regardless of there beliefs or choices

Can you define the difference between civil right and civil protection?

Can you explain how civil marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage?

Are you or are you not against civil unions for same-gender couples with all of the legal incidents of marriage? Are you against civil unions with less than all the legal incidents of marriage? If not, what specific legal incidents are you against granting to same-gender couples.

If you mean civil union as alternative for marriage, then I'm against it. It's useless there, serves no purpose. Joining two or more person's properties can be legally done now, join their estates and power of attorney with each other now.

Can you explain how civil marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage?

When one business buys out the assests or willingly joins it's properties with another business, this is not a marriage.

If you mean civil union as alternative for marriage, then I'm against it. It's useless there, serves no purpose. Joining two or more person's properties can be legally done now, join their estates and power of attorney with each other now.

Sorry, but you have no clue what you are talking about.

What you are describing is (a) very difficult to do, (b) has entirely different effects than marriage, and (c) does not engender all -- or even the majority -- of legal rights, privileges, and benefits of civil marriage.

Nice try.

When one business buys out the assests or willingly joins it's properties with another business, this is not a marriage.

Nor is it a civil marriage or anything analogous.

Which begs the question -- why did you bring it up?

There isn't. It is your right to share in every protection, which are themselves rights.


Example: Protection of Civil Rights~ UN version

All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The press and the public may be excluded from all or part of a trial for reasons of morals, public order (ordre public) or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private lives of the parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice; but any judgement rendered in a criminal case or in a suit at law shall be made public except where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires or the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children.

Civil Rights themselves ~ Civil Rights are the Liberties that we have the freedom to do. They are the enactment of the laws via the State and Federal constitutions (etc., and et al.) and subsequent legislature processed laws.

The government is well within it’s rights to grant gender specific liberties and make gender specific laws, and laws and liberties that are dependant on gender.

Nor is it a civil marriage or anything analogous.

Which begs the question -- why did you bring it up?

I didn't, other people saying same-sex people want to join their properties brought it up, and then Dem., thought that I had something that looked like it could construed in a 'civil same-sex' union.

Can you explain how civil marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage?

*Tumbleweed*

I'd take that as a no.

Sorry, but you have no clue what you are talking about.

What you are describing is (a) very difficult to do, (b) has entirely different effects than marriage, and (c) does not engender all -- or even the majority -- of legal rights, privileges, and benefits of civil marriage.

Nice try.


So which is it?
a. Too difficult to do (too hard compared to what)?

b. Has the wrong effect (what effect were they hoping to accomplish?).

c. Does not engender all, et al., marriage rights (why do they need all marriage rights?).

*Tumbleweed*

I'd take that as a no.

I already answered that, try to keep up.

I already answered that, try to keep up.

Actualy I've yet to see a straight answer to any question you've been asked.

If you mean civil union as alternative for marriage, then I'm against it. It's useless there, serves no purpose. Joining two or more person's properties can be legally done now, join their estates and power of attorney with each other now.

Actually, no they can't - not in the same way that marriage does.


When one business buys out the assests or willingly joins it's properties with another business, this is not a marriage.

That is correct, but has nothing whatsoever to do with the question I asked.

Now, I ask again, can you explain how civil marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage?

Actualy I've yet to see a straight answer to any question you've been asked.


Um, yeah, okay :rolleyes:

Actualy I've yet to see a straight answer to any question you've been asked.

It's the OCD/homomania. Poor wretch.

I didn't, other people saying same-sex people want to join their properties brought it up, and then Dem., thought that I had something that looked like it could construed in a 'civil same-sex' union.

It had nothing to do with construing anything.

What you said was exactly what a civil marriage is - a legally binding contract which causes two people to be viewed as a single legal entity with joint property, debts, etc.

Now, I ask again, can you explain how civil marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage?

They aren't related issues. One is the joining of seperate entities for legal protections and the joining of proterties in the eyes of the law, gender and sex and number of participants is irrelevant.

The other is agreement between a man and a woman for creating and raising progeny... (the answer to this part is really the first post of this thread).

Example: Protection of Civil Rights~ UN version

All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The press and the public may be excluded from all or part of a trial for reasons of morals, public order (ordre public) or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private lives of the parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice; but any judgement rendered in a criminal case or in a suit at law shall be made public except where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires or the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children.

Civil Rights themselves ~ Civil Rights are the Liberties that we have the freedom to do. They are the enactment of the laws via the State and Federal constitutions (etc., and et al.) and subsequent legislature processed laws.

The government is well within it’s rights to grant gender specific liberties and make gender specific laws, and laws and liberties that are dependant on gender.

1. You should read the UN Charter of Human Rights. Guess what? Marriage is a right.

2. You should also read the 14th Amendment. Marriage is a right. And people are entitled to equal protection under the law.

3. Regardless of the US Constitution, your endorsement of discrimination on the grounds of gender is sickening. Gender-specific liberties and gender-specific laws are presumptively wrong. They should only be allowed when necessary to further a compelling government interest in the least intrusive manner possible.

4. We refuse to subscribe to notions that became outdated in the 19th Century.

Example: Protection of Civil Rights~ UN version

All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The press and the public may be excluded from all or part of a trial for reasons of morals, public order (ordre public) or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private lives of the parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice; but any judgement rendered in a criminal case or in a suit at law shall be made public except where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires or the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children.

And you quoted the ICHR why?

Civil Rights themselves ~ Civil Rights are the Liberties that we have the freedom to do. They are the enactment of the laws via the State and Federal constitutions (etc., and et al.) and subsequent legislature processed laws.

The definition of human and civil rights, and any distincion between, is a subject of controvercy. In general it is accepted that a right is something which a person cannot be denied, whether it be a freedom (ie, right to freedom of speach), a thing (ie, right to own land), or a legal protection (ie, right to trial by jury).

I worry about your grasp of the English language. However, for clarity:

civil right

n : right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges

The government is well within it’s rights to grant gender specific liberties and make gender specific laws, and laws and liberties that are dependant on gender.

No, it doesn't. This actually is self-evident. No right may be restricted to any specific group.

It had nothing to do with construing anything.

What you said was exactly what a civil marriage is - a legally binding contract which causes two people to be viewed as a single legal entity with joint property, debts, etc.

And so is the merger of two companies. They become one compay and they share debts. But we won't call that a marriage. Individuals don't need to get married to share assets, debts and responsibilities....



~~~~~

(sorry ~ gotta go, seven minutes over already).

Um, yeah, okay :rolleyes:

I've yet to see an answer at all.

You're good at answering questions that people didn't ask though.

So which is it?
a. Too difficult to do (too hard compared to what)?

b. Has the wrong effect (what effect were they hoping to accomplish?).

c. Does not engender all, et al., marriage rights (why do they need all marriage rights?).


All three. They are not mutually exclusive, buckaroo.

They aren't related issues. One is the joining of seperate entities for legal protections and the joining of proterties in the eyes of the law, gender and sex and number of participants is irrelevant.

Incorrect. Last time I checked, the laws regulating marriage (which only regulate civil marriage) are actually quite restrictive on sex and number of participants.

In fact, a big part of this discussion has been why it should not be restricted on the basis of sex.

The other is agreement between a man and a woman for creating and raising progeny... (the answer to this part is really the first post of this thread).

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the government. I could agree to have and raise children with my boyfriend right now - it wouldn't make us legally married.

And so is the merger of two companies. They become one compay and they share debts. But we won't call that a marriage.

Of course not, because it is wholly and completely different - and is not a civil marriage, but a business merger.

Individuals don't need to get married to share assets, debts and responsibilities....

Actually, they do. Otherwise, things are in one name or the other. If both names are on it, it is not as if they are a single entity, but instead have half-ownership.

Marriage, on the other hand, allows them to truly share assets, debts, and responsibilities under the law.

LOL... Yeah, THAT proves it. :D :rolleyes:

Why don't you ask them what marriage means to government. Then ask them what "self-evident" means? :eek: :p

We've shown what marriage means to the government. You have yet to show any law relating to marriage that suggests children are necessary for marriage to be respected by the government or that children are the express purpose of marriage. Again, we have time. This thread is quite old and in all this time you can't show even the slightest connection other than your personal definition you claim to be 'self-evident'. What laws support your claims?

Legal Definition – marriage is the legal union of a man and woman as a husband and wife, though the definition might be evolving. (the change coming from your side, not pre-existing understanding).

marriage n. the joining of a male and female in matrimony by a person qualified by law to perform the ceremony (a minister, priest, judge, justice of the peace, or some similar official), after having obtained a valid marriage license (which requires a blood test for venereal disease in about a third of the states and a waiting period from one to five days in several). The standard age for marriage without parental consent is 18 except for Georgia and Wyoming where it is 16, Rhode Island where women can marry at 16, and Mississippi in which it is 17 for boys and 15 for girls. More than half the states allow marriages at lesser ages with parental consent, going as low as 14 for both sexes in Alabama, Texas and Utah. Marriages in which the age requirements are not met can be annulled. Fourteen states recognize so-called "common law marriages" which establish a legal marriage for people who have lived together by agreement as husband and wife for a lengthy period of time without legal formalities.

Marriage is a relationship between people, (modernly based primarily on love and mutual respect), where each person in the relationship maintains consensual, independent and unobligatory ties with every other person (not necessarily sexual or of an equal nature), and where the major purpose of such a relationship is the welfare of anticipated progeny.

Interesting. None of the law you just mentioned has anything to do with children. But, wait, I thought you said the government agreed with you. Ridiculous. I have yet to hear anyone add your little 'self-evident' clause on their definition of marriage, save you. Perhaps you should learn what self-evident means.

self-evident - evident without proof or reasoning

If children being the purpose of marriage is SO self-evident, why is everyone asking you for proof and reasoning, why is no one including children in the definition of marriage in the other thread, why doesn't the government include it in its definition of marriage, why doesn't anything information you can find actually support your claim? I know the answer and so does everyone else here. You're full of crap.

Interesting. None of the law you just mentioned has anything to do with children. But, wait, I thought you said the government agreed with you. Ridiculous. I have yet to hear anyone add your little 'self-evident' <snip>

<inigo montoya> He keeps on using that phrase, I do not think it means what he thinks it means . . . </inigo montoya>

Greenlander, maybe this will help.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1555835430/ref=pd_sxp_f/104-7620235-1431904?v=glance&s=books

Greenlander, maybe this will help.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1555835430/ref=pd_sxp_f/104-7620235-1431904?v=glance&s=books

You're not suggesting that Greenlander would be better off knowing something about his chosen subject, are you?

You're not suggesting that Greenlander would be better off knowing something about his chosen subject, are you?
My God, what was I thinking? You're right. More fun if he continues to talk in ignorance, isn't it?

My God, what was I thinking? You're right. More fun if he continues to talk in ignorance, isn't it?

Well it is kind of a revolutionary idea. You'll be legalizing polygamy next.

Man, is this thread still going on? Haven't you finished talking round in circles yet?


Pffft.

Man, is this thread still going on? Haven't you finished talking round in circles yet?


Pffft.

Note quite yet. We're at the random sarcastic comments stage, so not long to go now.

Well it is kind of a revolutionary idea. You'll be legalizing polygamy next.
Heather has Nine Daddies?

Seriously, anyone who can deal with more than one spouse is welcome to enter that hell. ("Pay attention to me!" "No, pay attention to ME!")

Heather has Nine Daddies?

Seriously, anyone who can deal with more than one spouse is welcome to enter that hell. ("Pay attention to me!" "No, pay attention to ME!")

I've had more than one partner before. It's quite good if they're all domseticated.

I've had more than one partner before. It's quite good if they're all domseticated.
I suppose if they all did not need to be walked to the potty it might be good as you say. Personally, though, I like them a bit wild.

And, finally, Greenlander confirms what I suspected all along. The idea of including 'children are the reason for marriage' into the definition of marriage was just a not-so-sly way to deny marriage to homosexuals. I asked Greenlander for what he believes the definition of marriage is in another thread. Let's see what it is.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9214974&postcount=118

And, finally, Greenlander confirms what I suspected all along. The idea of including 'children are the reason for marriage' into the definition of marriage was just a not-so-sly way to deny marriage to homosexuals. I asked Greenlander for what he believes the definition of marriage is in another thread. Let's see what it is.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9214974&postcount=118 :rolleyes:

What part of the english language do you have the most trouble with?

The governments interest in marriage is purely for the creation and protection and encouragement of the next generation of citizens. Otherwise, the government has no reason to regulate it at all.

Orson Scott Card's giant essay:
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html

Three times bigger than my first post, but he's good, rebuttals at the bottom...

The governments interest in marriage is purely for the creation and protection and encouragement of the next generation of citizens. Otherwise, the government has no reason to regulate it at all.

No, the government's interest in marriage is to protect the rights of those married and to ensure the process is fair and legal for those involved. If this were true, infertile, sterile, and genetically flawed couples would be incapable of being legally married. The governemnt would be running a massive eugenics program, selecting those who could give birth the most effectively and with the healthiest children for marriage. By this definition, state marriage is only licensed breeding.

:rolleyes:

What part of the english language do you have the most trouble with?

The governments interest in marriage is purely for the creation and protection and encouragement of the next generation of citizens. Otherwise, the government has no reason to regulate it at all.

Pfft.

You have yet to show a single legal right, privilege, or benefit of marriage that is contingent upon having or desiring children.

You have yet to show that any -- let alone most -- of the legal rights, privileges, or benefits of marriage are expressly tailored to encourage child-rearing.

As same-gender couples can raise children and most different-gender couples don't wish to raise children, your argument fails to justify your conclusion.

(This is all in addition to the many other flaws in your arguments and your entire disregrard for rights, equity, and equality.)

:rolleyes:

What part of the english language do you have the most trouble with?

The governments interest in marriage is purely for the creation and protection and encouragement of the next generation of citizens. Otherwise, the government has no reason to regulate it at all.
Since marriage was first instituted (before modern religion laid its claim on it -- mind you that it was practiced in ancient greece), its sole purpose has been to serve as a legal contract between individuals, which ensures benefits for both spouses. The idea of marrying for purposes of procreation based on a loving commitment is a relatively new idea. Hell, incestuous marriage was originally banned not for moral reasons, but to stop wealthy family members from marrying each other and continually benefiting from their common estates. Lest we also forget that "gay" marriage was practiced long before the "man and woman" tenet came into existence.

:rolleyes:

What part of the english language do you have the most trouble with?

The governments interest in marriage is purely for the creation and protection and encouragement of the next generation of citizens. Otherwise, the government has no reason to regulate it at all.

Right then why would

Community property control, division, acquisition, and disposition.
Court notice of probate proceedings.
Property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans.
Income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates.
Here are more. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_benefits_of_marriage_in_the_United_States)

be benefits of marriage when they have nothing to do with children?? Surely since these have nothing to do with the creation of the next generation of citizens they wouldn't be benefits that should be granted to those married now would they?

The governments interest in marriage is purely for the creation and protection and encouragement of the next generation of citizens.
Ah, I see.

In that case, you must oppose the marriages of those who are sterile and those who do not wnat to have children, correct?

Ah, I see.

In that case, you must oppose the marriages of those who are sterile and those who do not wnat to have children, correct?

Already a step ahead of you; read my response. :p

Pfft.

You have yet to show a single legal right, privilege, or benefit of marriage that is contingent upon having or desiring children.

You have yet to show that any -- let alone most -- of the legal rights, privileges, or benefits of marriage are expressly tailored to encourage child-rearing.

As same-gender couples can raise children and most different-gender couples don't wish to raise children, your argument fails to justify your conclusion.

(This is all in addition to the many other flaws in your arguments and your entire disregrard for rights, equity, and equality.)

Nice bait and switch... :eek:

The liberty is being changed, made something new, different than it was before. You have yet to show that government has ever allowed same-sex marriages, ever. Even in homosexuality tolerant societies, the institution of marriage has been for pro-creation and the development of progeny.

Even in America when the misogynist laws were being hashed out, it appears that not a one of them ever thought that marriage didn’t require the participation of opposing genders :rolleyes:

If you change the law now, at least have the courage to admit what you are doing, you’re not protecting civil rights, you’re changing social institution and hi-jacking marriage laws for a new purpose (forced social engineering).

Since marriage was first instituted (before modern religion laid its claim on it -- mind you that it was practiced in ancient greece), its sole purpose has been to serve as a legal contract between individuals, which ensures benefits for both spouses. The idea of marrying for purposes of procreation based on a loving commitment is a relatively new idea. Hell, incestuous marriage was originally banned not for moral reasons, but to stop wealthy family members from marrying each other and continually benefiting from their common estates. Lest we also forget that "gay" marriage was practiced long before the "man and woman" tenet came into existence.


Dude, go get a library card. OMGosh,... really. :rolleyes:

Orson Scott Card's giant essay:
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html

Three times bigger than my first post, but he's good, rebuttals at the bottom...

Meh.

This pathetic rant against our Constitution and the "threat" of homosexuality has been debated before and thoroughly discredited.

Until the day people start demanding constitutional admendments outlawing drive up wedding chappels then they have no arguement concerning how sacred marriage is.

Or as I like to put it. I'm not interferring in your life, stay the hell out of mine.

Meh.

This pathetic rant against our Constitution and the "threat" of homosexuality has been debated before and thoroughly discredited.

I love how it says, "So it is a flat lie to say that homosexuals are deprived of any civil right pertaining to marriage. To get those civil rights, all homosexuals have to do is find someone of the opposite sex willing to join them in marriage." All homosexuals have to do to get those civil rights is be in a heterosexual marriage.

Meh.

This pathetic rant against our Constitution and the "threat" of homosexuality has been debated before and thoroughly discredited.

Gee, just like he said you'd say?! :eek: !?

LOL :p

Until the day people start demanding constitutional admendments outlawing drive up wedding chappels then they have no arguement concerning how sacred marriage is.

Or as I like to put it. I'm not interferring in your life, stay the hell out of mine.

Exactly. Until the same standards are applied everwhere, keep government out of private affairs. Churches can refuse to recognize your marriage, but the government can't.

Exactly. Until the same standards are applied everwhere, keep government out of private affairs. Churches can refuse to recognize your marriage, but the government can't.


Granting citizenship is not a private affair.






EDIT: took out rolls eyes, not deserved :D

Gee, just like he said you'd say?! :eek: !?

LOL :p

OK, here a go sweetie. **smooch**

Probably the best response to Mr. Card’s rant is the focus of his rant: the well-reasoned opinion of the Massachusetts Supreme Court (http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/supremejudicialcourt/goodridge.html).

Read it. It more than adequately rebuts Mr. Card's disregard for constitutional government and fundamental rights.

Do you want to know whose constitutional rights are being violated? Everybody's. Because no constitution in the United States has ever granted the courts the right to make vast, sweeping changes in the law to reform society.

Regardless of their opinion of homosexual "marriage," every American who believes in democracy should be outraged that any court should take it upon itself to dictate such a social innovation without recourse to democratic process.

Gee. Mr. Card should glance at the U.S. Constitution before he makes such statements.

Article III of the U.S. Constitution provides that the “judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish” and this “judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States,” etc. Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

As explained in Marbury v. Madison (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/5/137.html ), 5 U.S. (1 Cr.) 137 (1803), the Constitution is the law of the land and it is the power of the courts to interpret and enforce the Constitution. Our Founding Fathers were very clear on the power of judicial review.

We are not a pure democracy. Our Founders were horrified by the idea of pure democracy. They established a constitutional Republic.
One of the primary purposes of the Bill of Rights and the power of judicial review is to protect us all from the tyranny of the majority.

More specifically, before he stuck his foot firmly in his mouth, Mr. Card should have checked the Massachusetts Constitution before complaining about the actions of the Massachusetts Supreme Court.

Anyway, what about Brown v. Board of Education?

Or should segregation been allowed to continue because it was undemocratic for the courts to properly interpret and enforce the 14th Amendment?

I can name a long list of cases that have advanced our civilization but were derided as court-imposed “vast, sweeping changes in the law to reform society.”

So it is a flat lie to say that homosexuals are deprived of any civil right pertaining to marriage. To get those civil rights, all homosexuals have to do is find someone of the opposite sex willing to join them in marriage.

Trivializes a fundamental right into a mere game of semantics.

See the opinion.

Just because homosexual partners wish to be called "married" and wish to force everyone else around them to regard them as "married," does not mean that their Humpty-Dumpty-ish wish should be granted at the expense of the common language, democratic process, and the facts of human social organization.

Again, this is a fundamental civil right – one that is protected by federal and state constitutions – denied on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender.

Marriage is not just a “word” or a social institution – it is a legal institution and a civil right.

See the opinion.

And yet, throughout the history of human society -- even in societies that tolerated relatively open homosexuality at some stages of life -- it was always expected that children would be born into and raised by families consisting of a father and mother.

Not true.

The nuclear family is a relatively recent concept.

Many different arrangements have existed in human history for the raising of children.

So not only are two sexes required in order to conceive children, children also learn their sex-role expectations from the parents in their own family. This is precisely what large segments of the Left would like to see break down. And if it is found to have unpleasant results, they will, as always, insist that the cure is to break down the family even further.

This has nothing to do with why many support gay marriage, but “sex-role expectations” are not inherently good. They do a great deal of harm.

People lacking in fundamental self-esteem don't need gold stars passed out to everyone in their class. Chances are, they need a father who will say -- and mean -- "I'm proud of you."

Assumes gays cannot be good parents.

Monogamous marriage is by far the most effective foundation for a civilization.

And gay marriage is not monogamous marriage because ……?

Why would men submit to rules that deprive them of the chance to satisfy their natural desire to mate with every attractive female?

Why would women submit to rules that keep them from trying to mate with the strongest (richest, most physically imposing, etc.) male, just because he already has a wife?

And this is relevant because …?

If gays are allowed to marry, suddenly no one will be monogamous?

In this delicate balance, it is safe to say that beginning with a trickle in the 1950s, but becoming an overwhelming flood in the 1960s and 1970s, we took a pretty good system, and in order to solve problems that needed tweaking, we made massive, fundamental changes that have had devastating consequences.

…
We've already seen similar attempts at redefinition. The ideologues have demanded that we stop defining "families" as Dad, Mom, and the kids. Now any grouping of people might be called a "family."

Little historical problem here.

As noted, the nuclear family became a focus in the US in the 1950s – the exact time Mr. Card says it started to break down.

And you might want to check what passed for families in the Bible.

Calling a homosexual contract "marriage" does not make it reproductively relevant and will not make it contribute in any meaningful way to the propagation of civilization.

….

But homosexual "marriage" is an act of intolerance. It is an attempt to eliminate any special preference for marriage in society -- to erase the protected status of marriage in the constant balancing act between civilization and individual reproduction.

Scarily echoes the arguments that were made against interracial marriage.

We have never required procreation as a condition of marriage. Now who is changing the meaning of the word?

So when our children go through the normal adolescent period of sexual confusion and perplexity, which is precisely the time when parents have the least influence over their children and most depend on the rest of society to help their children grow through the last steps before adulthood, what will happen?

Already any child with any kind of sexual attraction to the same sex is told that this is an irresistible destiny, despite the large number of heterosexuals who move through this adolescent phase and never look back.

Already any child with androgynous appearance or mannerisms -- effeminite boys and masculine girls -- are being nurtured and guided (or taunted and abused) into "accepting" what many of them never suspected they had -- a desire to permanently move into homosexual society.

Ah, yes, the great Homosexual menace coming to get our children.

No good rant against gays is complete without this ridiculous canard.

The dark secret of homosexual society -- the one that dares not speak its name -- is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally.

This is ugly.

Truly ugly lies.

The barbarians think that if they grab hold of the trunk of the tree, they've caught the birds in the branches. But the birds can fly to another tree.

And I don't mean that civilized Americans will move. I mean that they'll simply stop regarding the authority of the government as having any legitimacy.

What happened to believing in our constitutional Republic?

Now it’s “do it our way or else.”

When liberals say things like this, they are called traitors or America-haters.

Who do you think is volunteering for the military to defend America against our enemies? Those who believe in the teachings of politically correct college professors? Or those who believe in the traditional values that the politically correct elite has been so successful in destroying?

The irony of these statements in an age when homophobes bar homosexuals from serving in the military –- costing our country of the service of valiant men and women –- would be sweet if it was not so disgusting.

:rolleyes:

What part of the english language do you have the most trouble with?

The governments interest in marriage is purely for the creation and protection and encouragement of the next generation of citizens. Otherwise, the government has no reason to regulate it at all.

And your claim is not supported by current or past law. What part of the English language do you have trouble with? Marriage is a right not because it protects children because it falls under pursuit of happiness.

Nice bait and switch... :eek:

The liberty is being changed, made something new, different than it was before. You have yet to show that government has ever allowed same-sex marriages, ever. Even in homosexuality tolerant societies, the institution of marriage has been for pro-creation and the development of progeny.

Even in America when the misogynist laws were being hashed out, it appears that not a one of them ever thought that marriage didn’t require the participation of opposing genders :rolleyes:

If you change the law now, at least have the courage to admit what you are doing, you’re not protecting civil rights, you’re changing social institution and hi-jacking marriage laws for a new purpose (forced social engineering).

"misogynist laws"? Freudian slip?

Um, no bait-and-switch. Perhaps you don't know what that means either. :eek:

Anysway, yes, yes I have shown what you ask. I'll repost the evidence, as you just chose to ignore these links before.

I have shown that government and societies -- and religions -- have allowed -- even celebrated -- same-sex marriages.

The History of Same-Sex Marriage (http://www.simonsays.com/titles/0684824043/sameex1a.html)
On Marriage in "Recorded History" (http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12132003.html)
The History of Marriage as an Institution (http://www.buddybuddy.com/peters-1.html)
Marriage a Malleable Institution Throughout History (http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/4426.html)
Social and Cultural History of Marriage (http://www.geocities.com/mollyjoyful/marriage.html)
A Brief History of Marriage (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/webzine/newspoliticsactivism/fean-041011-marriage.xml)

I have also shown that what you claim to be the social institution of family neither is nor ever has been as you describe.

Does the American Family Have a History? Family Images and Realities (http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/familyhistory.cfm)
Did Cradles Always Rock? Or Did Mom Once Not Care? (http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/public/articles/change13.htm)
How We Live and How We Used to Live (http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/public/education.php#howwelive)
In Search Of A Golden Age: A look at families throughout U.S. history reveals there has never been an "ideal form" (http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC21/Coontz.htm)
Myths and Misconceptions about America's Changing Families (http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/public/education.php#myths)
Nostalgia as Ideology (http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/7/coontz-s.html)
Stereotypes Versus Statistics: Data on America's Changing Families (http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/public/education.php#stereotypes)
Conservative moralists, alarmed by the divorce rate, want us to return to a Golden Age of Marriage. Too bad it never existed. (http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/public/articles/change31.htm)
Facts Versus Fictions: Correcting Popular Misconceptions about America's Family (http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/public/education.php#facts)
Iconic 'Nuclear' Family Is a Work of Fiction (http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/564)
Unconventional Wisdom: Quotations from Authorities on the Family (http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/public/education.php#unconventional)
The Nuclear Family Takes a Hit: Census data deals a blow to an American icon -- and the conservative groups that promote it (http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/public/articles/change4.htm)

Nice try, but the evidence is there. You can bury your head in the sand, but it won't go away.

Moreover, as I have pointed out several times before, you are the one that has a stated opposition to many of the laws of the status quo re divorce, adoption, etc. The only place where your view is consistent with existing law is that of most states with respect to same-sex marriage. But there you have a problem with the fact that the US Constitution and state constitutions are also part of the existing law -- and they are being recognized as contradicting your view.

So, you can't just make a feeble version of an appeal to popularity to justify your views.

I have a question that I have not found a detailed answer for. If gay people can legally marry, how in the world does that affect everybody else? The heterosexuals stay heterosexual, the married couples stay married, they keep having children, the population still continues. The divorce rate for heterosexual marriages won't change. Benefits for heterosexual marriages will still continue as always. Heterosexuals will still continue to be the majority of the population, there "roles" in society will not change. Heterosexuals will still be able to date members of the opposite sex and engage in whatever relationships they wish. Nothing will change, except the fact that gays can legally marry. There might be an extra box to check on the legal forms. Big deal. How can the "Defense of traditional family" arguments be used when people get married on national television to win money? Spouses are chosen by call-in voters. Marriage has become something of a toy.

I get the feeling that people are just using the gay marriage issue to distract from the real pressing issues in the world. Look at the civil wars, terrorism, environmental and energy crises. Anybody ever heard of Peak Oil? The oil supply will peak in the next few decades, and the we will enter an energy crisis that could very well collapse the whole of modern civilization. I believe this is a much more pressing concern then homosexuals getting married.

Just my two cents.

I have a question that I have not found a detailed answer for. If gay people can legally marry, how in the world does that affect everybody else? The heterosexuals stay heterosexual, the married couples stay married, they keep having children, the population still continues. The divorce rate for heterosexual marriages won't change. Benefits for heterosexual marriages will still continue as always. Heterosexuals will still continue to be the majority of the population, there "roles" in society will not change. Heterosexuals will still be able to date members of the opposite sex and engage in whatever relationships they wish. Nothing will change, except the fact that gays can legally marry. There might be an extra box to check on the legal forms. Big deal. How can the "Defense of traditional family" arguments be used when people get married on national television to win money? Spouses are chosen by call-in voters. Marriage has become something of a toy.


Print that out... Wait two generations (forty years or so) and then go to Amsterdam and look around.

Hell, maybe you don't even have to wait, you can see it if you look hard enough now. Tell me again how it's not going to harm all of the community for our society to throw away the protection and encouragement of family by disassembling the protection it got from Marriage.

"misogynist laws"? Freudian slip?

Oops LOL :p


*snip*


Yeah, that's the ticket, make a bunch of links to web-site arguments that agree with us :rolleyes:

You can call up - down and day - night, all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that marriage is, was still is, about raising family and protecting families and encouraging more families, not less.

BTW: why didn't you ever answer those 3 points you raised?

a. Too difficult to do (too hard compared to what)?

b. Has the wrong effect (what effect were they hoping to accomplish?).

c. Does not engender all, et al., marriage rights (why do they need all marriage rights?).

Print that out... Wait two generations (forty years or so) and then go to Amsterdam and look around.

Hell, maybe you don't even have to wait, you can see it if you look hard enough now. Tell me again how it's not going to harm all of the community for our society to throw away the protection and encouragement of family by disassembling the protection it got from Marriage.

Classic Greenlander move.

Skip all the intervening arguments and ignore past posts, just answer a more recent post with an argument that has its premises thoroughly debunked in the skipped arguments and ignored posts.

Bravo! *fake recorded applause*

Print that out... Wait two generations (forty years or so) and then go to Amsterdam and look around.

Hell, maybe you don't even have to wait, you can see it if you look hard enough now. Tell me again how it's not going to harm all of the community for our society to throw away the protection and encouragement of family by disassembling the protection it got from Marriage.

People are going to reproduce even if homosexual couples are allowed to marry. It's not as if the moment it happens the worlds population is going to go into a downfall is it? Married or not homosexuals will still exist, and people will still have children. Please tell me how homosexuals getting married will cause a decrease in the birth rate.

Classic Greenlander move.

Skip all the intervening arguments and ignore past posts, just answer a more recent post with an argument that has its premises thoroughly debunked in the skipped arguments and ignored posts.

Bravo! *fake recorded applause*


Thank you, thank you very much :p


You do a nice job of impersenating Iraqi Information Minister Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf too, *raises hands, pleads with camera ~ do not believe them, their accusations are all false and bald-faced lies ~ you are not in danger *

Right then why would

Community property control, division, acquisition, and disposition.
Court notice of probate proceedings.
Property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans.
Income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates.
Here are more. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_benefits_of_marriage_in_the_United_States)

be benefits of marriage when they have nothing to do with children?? Surely since these have nothing to do with the creation of the next generation of citizens they wouldn't be benefits that should be granted to those married now would they?

I'd like an answer to this still. If marriage is all about the next generation why are benefits that have nothing to do with it given to those who are married?

Alright, I should have used an actual example. Don't you remember a TV show (I believe it is American, however there's been a million clones) called "Who wants to marry a millionaire?" (or something like that). There was some faceless millionare and a couple of women who did all these contests and stuff to get the chance to marry him. The girl who did win, they divorced in 2 weeks.

You mention how marriage "protects" society, but how does this still work, especially today, when the divorce rate (for heterosexual couples) is approximately 40%-50%. Many children live in divorced or single parent households, and I have heard many arguments against this "dissolving of the traditional family" as well. Children need parental support, divorcing of parents is traumatic towards young children, etc. etc. If you look around, society has already thrown out whatever protections and encouragement the definiton of "marriage" had. There are so many dysfunctional families, unsupportive and abusive families today, that cannot properly raise their children. What happens? The kids go out, try drugs, get into violence, commit crimes, etc. (I'm sure we were taught this in school). This is harmful towards the community. Should we not, as before, be more concerned about children from heterosexual families (remember, they make up about 90-95%) getting into drugs, violence, and all the other terrible things in the community?

I don't believe homosexuality will ever "take over" the population like many worry about. Simply put, a species will not stop reproducing any time soon. There will continue to be children, in fact overpopulation is a huge issue already. There are already famines that kill millions of people. People are not going to stop having children. And the divorce rate is not going to go down anytime soon. You can't change human nature.

Yeah, that's the ticket, make a bunch of links to web-site arguments that agree with us :rolleyes:

LOL.

Good thing you've never done that! :eek: :rolleyes:

And because a published article disagrees with you, it must be invalid? Even if written by a qualified expert in the field and published?

You can call up - down and day - night, all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that marriage is, was still is, about raising family and protecting families and encouraging more families, not less.

You can keep saying that over and over and over again. It simply is not true historically or currently.

You haven't even offered anything along the lines of proof that it is true.

BTW: why didn't you ever answer those 3 points you raised?

OMGolly. You are so right. No one should ever answer only part of someone else's argument or fail to answer a point.


a. Too difficult to do (too hard compared to what)?

Far, far, far more difficult and expensive than getting a marriage certificate. Or a civil union.

b. Has the wrong effect (what effect were they hoping to accomplish?).

Your paraphrase was incorrect. I was referring to the fact that the measures you advise as an alternative to marriage have many effects that marriage would not. Many of these may be undesirable.

As you were claiming intermingling become joint owners and giving each other the power of attorney was an alternative to the rights, privileges, and benefits of marriage, I presume the desired result was a legal relationship with the rights, privileges, and benefits of marriage.

What homosexuals want and have a right to is the same thing as every other adult: the right to marry.

c. Does not engender all, et al., marriage rights (why do they need all marriage rights?).

Why does anyone need marriage rights?

They want the right to marry for the same reasons as everyone else.

They are entitled to be treated the same as everyone else and are therefore entitled to all of the rights, privileges, and benefits of marriages if they are willing to enter into marriage and its responsibilities and burdens.

What you were offering was a false alternative to marriage -- a legal relationship with different rights, privileges, benefits, responsibilities, costs, and burdens than marriage.

So it is a flat lie to say that homosexuals are deprived of any civil right pertaining to marriage. To get those civil rights, all homosexuals have to do is find someone of the opposite sex willing to join them in marriage.

WHAT? So now to defend marriage we have to encourage homosexuals to enter into heterosexual marriages? Greenlandeer, weren't you complaining the homosexuals were leaving their heterosexual spouses and breaking up their families? Then you cite a source that specifically encourages this. Which 'group' is actively trying to destroy marriage? Homosexuals want to completely leave heterosexuals to enjoy their marriages and interact with their children in whatever way they see fit. You and the people you are citing would prefer that homosexuals enter into a contract (marriage) they really don't intend to honor, bear false witness (lie about honoring that contract) and then damage that particular family when their 'dark secret' comes to light. It's so ridiculous I choked on my soda when I read it.

Thank you, thank you very much :p


You do a nice job of impersenating Iraqi Information Minister Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf too, *raises hands, pleads with camera ~ do not believe them, their accusations are all false and bald-faced lies ~ you are not in danger *

I love that you keep making this accusation of Cat. Cat has given you source after source of constitutional law, historical reference, anthropological reference and you wave it away as smoke and mirrors that could never refute the preachings of an evangelist. Which of you is telling the world that the Americans aren't in Baghdad while footage of the capture of Baghdad is being played on every major news network in the world? I think everyone except you knows the correct answer to that question.

A brief history of same-sex marriages in history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#History_of_same-sex_unions

There has been a long history of same-sex unions in the western world. That many early western societies tolerated, and even celebrated, same-sex relationships is well-known.

Why am I stuck with the distinct impression that should the Earth be hit by a comet, Greenlander would still find something to add to this hoary old dustbunny of a thread?

Is there ANY Constitutional evidence that shows even the slightest hint that the founding fathers would have disapproved of homosexual marriage?

Is there ANY Constitutional evidence that shows even the slightest hint that the founding fathers would have disapproved of homosexual marriage?

Nah, they were gang-banging each other at deist parties for years... :rolleyes:

Nah, they were gang-banging each other at deist parties for years... :rolleyes:
Then what grounds do you have to call for the repression of the rights of American citizens?

Nah, they were gang-banging each other at deist parties for years... :rolleyes:
You're using sarcasm to dodge the question.

Then what grounds do you have to call for the repression of the rights of American citizens?

Because they forgot to say two people and completely by accident wrote, man and women... ~ A mere slip of the pen, anyone can obviously see for themelves that for the last two hundred years marraiges between two men were always the intention of the founding fathers.







*snickering giggle*

Because they forgot to say two people and completely by accident wrote, man and women... ~ A mere slip of the pen, anyone can obviously see for themelves that for the last two hundred years marraiges between two men were always the intention of the founding fathers.
What article or amendment is that?

Because they forgot to say two people and completely by accident wrote, man and women... ~ A mere slip of the pen, anyone can obviously see for themelves that for the last two hundred years marraiges between two men were always the intention of the founding fathers.







*snickering giggle*
That's what ammendments are for, Greenlander.

That's what ammendments are for, Greenlander.
What do you propose we amend?


As far as I know...with the exception of state laws (as marriage is not a federal thing), the only law regarding same sex marriage is common law...

"Legistlating from the bench"

And how does congress fix legislating from the bench? With amendments...and the amendment to come would add "sexual preference" to the list of discriminations in the 15th amendment that are not allowed

Because they forgot to say two people and completely by accident wrote, man and women... ~ A mere slip of the pen, anyone can obviously see for themelves that for the last two hundred years marraiges between two men were always the intention of the founding fathers.

*snickering giggle*

LOL.

Pray tell where the Constitution defines marriage. :eek:

And you do realize the Constitution was AMENDED (i.e., changed, altered) in 1968 to add -- among other things -- the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

So, on the issue of equal protection or fundamental rights protected by the 14th Amendment, the views from 200 years ago aren't the slightest bit relevant!

Nah, they were gang-banging each other at deist parties for years... :rolleyes:

That would be a .... NO!

That's what ammendments are for, Greenlander.


Yeah! Lets all Support the Protection of Marriage Amendment!


1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.
2. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.


:D

*snip*

Good job not reading the actual posts ... The topic is founding fathers views, not constitution.

Yeah! Lets all Support the Protection of Marriage Amendment!


1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.
2. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.


:D
Don't laugh, there's actually a chance that could happen.

Don't laugh, there's actually a chance that could happen.

Laugh? Heck, I'm writing my senator and telling him he should sign it, not just vote for it! :p


It probably won't get the the 67% though :(

Yeah! Lets all Support the Protection of Marriage Amendment!


1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.
2. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.


:D
SHOW ME HOW THIS IS IN AGREEANCE WITH THE VIEWS OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS!

Denying homosexuals the right to marriage does NOTHING but restrict the rights of American citizens, and essential recreate the idea of a Second Class citizen.

Should there also be an amendment to repeal amendments 13, 14, 15, and 19?

Laugh? Heck, I'm writing my senator and telling him he should sign it, not just vote for it! :p


It probably won't get the the 67% though :(
You underestimate the power of disguised theocracy. :p

You underestimate the power of disguised theocracy. :p

Oh no, I recognize the dangers of the ACLU all the time :D

Oh no, I recognize the dangers of the ACLU all the time :D

Yea, damn christians. :p

I still don't see anything in this nation's most important document that agrees with you Greenlander. In fact, the spirit of the Constitution is quite the opposite of your opinion...

2. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. [/i]

Oh goodie. So now, you not only want to discriminate against homosexuals, but you want to make legal declarations such as power-of-attorney invalid between unmarried people.

Good job not reading the actual posts ... The topic is founding fathers views, not constitution.

Good job avoiding my points.

1. The only thing the Founding Fathers may be said to have written collectively are the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. So what document were you referring to regarding a slip of the pen?

2. And if you'd read my post: As I made clear, the view of the Founding Fathers isn't much relevant to application of the 14th Amendment.

I still don't see anything in this nation's most important document that agrees with you Greenlander. In fact, the spirit of the Constitution is quite the opposite of your opinion...

The spirit of the constitution was pro-slavery, but I doubt it was pro-SSM.

2. And if you'd read my post: As I made clear, the view of the Founding Fathers isn't much relevant to application of the 14th Amendment.

I agree with that, the entire topic of the founding fathers defending SSM is just absurd.

Good job avoiding my points.

1. The only thing the Founding Fathers may be said to have written collectively are the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. So what document were you referring to regarding a slip of the pen?

2. And if you'd read my post: As I made clear, the view of the Founding Fathers isn't much relevant to application of the 14th Amendment.
Actually...the topic is not quite the constitution. Nor is it the founding fathers.

The topic is evidence in the constitution that could possibly show the founding father's views on homosexual marriage.

In other words, find me part of the US Constitution (or Declaration of Independence), within the original articles, plus the Bill of Rights, that would show that the Founding Father's thought that gay marriage should be disallowed...

but I doubt it was pro-SSM.
Evidence?

The spirit of the constitution was pro-slavery,
Wrong. The original constitution was worded so that slavery would be phased out eventually, as the founding fathers knew that it would be too difficult to immediately abolish slavery. When the southern states decided that slavery should be kept around longer and congress as a whole disagreed, the south started seceeding...

Are you even from America?

Oh goodie. So now, you not only want to discriminate against homosexuals, but you want to make legal declarations such as power-of-attorney invalid between unmarried people.

Nah, just remove the idea of the separate but equal nonsense. SSC (same-sex contract) does not need to have all the rights of Marriage.

Power-of-attorney is entirely different species.

SSC (same-sex contract) does not need to have all the rights of Marriage.

Because, after all, homosexuals are second-class citizens.

By the way, I like that you simply avoid arguments that you can't answer.

Nah, just remove the idea of the seperate but equal nonsense. SSC (same-sex contract) does not need to have all the rights of Marriage.

Power-of-attorney is entirely different speices.

Thank you for admitting once again that you aren't interested in even a facade of equality or equal protection under the law.

Repeal the 14th Amendment!

Whenever the government intervenes the 14th amendment is violated. Surely you people didn't think that THAT amendment has any power, do you? :p The only one people remember from that era is the 13th.


God, I hope they remember the 13th...

Thank you for admitting once again that you aren't interested in even a facade of equality or equal protection under the law.

Repeal the 14th Amendment!

Sure... Anytime. The entire concept of SSM is silly.

Sure... Anytime. The entire concept of SSM is silly.
Same with the concept of equal rights.

Whenever the government intervenes the 14th amendment is violated. Surely you people didn't think that THAT amendment has any power, do you? :p The only one people remember from that era is the 13th.


God, I hope they remember the 13th...

:headbang: :headbang:

WTF are you talking about?

The vast majority of Supreme Court cases from this last term involved the 14th Amendment.

The provisions of Bill of Rights only apply to the states because of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The Equal Protection Clause is in the 14th Amendment.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/

Thank you for admitting once again that you aren't interested in even a facade of equality or equal protection under the law.

Repeal the 14th Amendment!
Sure... Anytime. The entire concept of SSM is silly.

I sincerely hope that even you do not mean to endorse a repeal of the 14th Amendment.

That you are against equal protection under the law is bad enough.

I sincerely hope that even you do not mean to endorse a repeal of the 14th Amendment.

That you are against equal protection under the law is bad enough.
I'm not sure if anyone has made it clear that the 14th Amendment provides for equal protection under the law not in the sense of just protection for marriage, but in the sense of equal protection of all people in all matters.
Because I somehow doubt that Greenlander seriously wants the Government to be able to deny people all protection under the law.

I'm not sure if anyone has made it clear that the 14th Amendment provides for equal protection under the law not in the sense of just protection for marriage, but in the sense of equal protection of all people in all matters.
Because I somehow doubt that Greenlander seriously wants the Government to be able to deny people protection under the law.
I don't think it matters. Greenlander probably never has (and never will) read the US Constitution.

Nah, just remove the idea of the separate but equal nonsense. SSC (same-sex contract) does not need to have all the rights of Marriage.

Power-of-attorney is entirely different species.

Power-of-attorney is one way that non-married couples can get some of the rights associated with marriage. Thus, by your amendment, it could be declared illegal.

Another case would be the recent decisions in Ohio that non-married couples cannot be covered by domestic abuse laws, because the law lists married couples as a possible example to whom it could be applied.

I just noticed this discusion, and I've onley read through the first 3 or 4 pages. However, I must ask has anyone else actually posted to support his position? If not, we may have to concede that at this point it is unlikely anyone else sharing his views will look at this discussion. It is just as obvious that he himself in his stubborn ingnorance will never give up his position no matter how discriminatory and prejudiced it is with no real scientific support. That begs the question why must we continue to list the many valid points against his position when it does nothing but reaffirm our own beliefs. Also, I'd like to point out the sky hasn't fallen in the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, or Belgium, and they offer completely legal same-sex marriage at the same status as "traditional" heterosexual marriage.

Because, after all, homosexuals are second-class citizens.

By the way, I like that you simply avoid arguments that you can't answer.
the problem with gay pride is that it is not about equal rights.
they have the same rights as any other citizen in this country.
they can gather and protest
they can have guns
they can't be forced to house soldiers
searches against them need warrents
speedy and public trial
no cruel/unusual punishment
they can marry any member of the opposite sex they choose

in conlusion:
it is not about equal rights, it is about special privelages
name one right heterosexuals have that homosexuals do not

the problem with gay pride is that it is not about equal rights.
they have the same rights as any other citizen in this country.
they can gather and protest
they can have guns
they can't be forced to house soldiers
searches against them need warrents
speedy and public trial
no cruel/unusual punishment
they can marry any member of the opposite sex they choose

in conlusion:
it is not about equal rights, it is about special privelages
name one right heterosexuals have that homosexuals do not


How about the right to form a legally recognized union with the person of their choice? Unless human beings are entirely interchangeable, being barred from marrying the person you love because you're the "wrong" gender to do so deprives you of something rather significant.

the problem with [black] pride is that it is not about equal rights.
they have the same rights as any other citizen in this country.
they can gather and protest
they can have guns
they can't be forced to house soldiers
searches against them need warrents
speedy and public trial
no cruel/unusual punishment
they can marry any member of the [same race] they choose

in conlusion:
it is not about equal rights, it is about special privelages
name one right [whites] have that [blacks] do not

You've just made the argument against interracial marriage. Nicely done.

You've just made the argument against interracial marriage. Nicely done.

Yeah, I noticed that, too. Isn't it scary the way history repeats itself? :(

the problem with gay pride is that it is not about equal rights.

*snip*

in conlusion:
it is not about equal rights, it is about special privelages
name one right heterosexuals have that homosexuals do not

There are scores. I'll just list a few:

1. The right to marry an adult with whom you are in love.

2. The right to marry an adult to whom you are sexually attracted.

3. 1,000 benefits, rights, and protections that federal law affords to married, heterosexual couples, as well as hundreds of such protections at the state level.

4. Protection from discrimination, including the right not to be fired or denied housing based solely on to whom you are attracted.

5. The right to petition for your life partner to immigrate or not have your life partner be deported.

6. Whites and Christians are protected from federal hate crimes. Gays aren't.

7. The right to raise ones own child.

8. Equal access to housing and public accomodations.

9. Respect for medical decision-making and property distribution.

10. Serving openly in the military.

Now, wash the words "special rights" or "special privileges" out of your vocabulary. The only one's seeking special rights and privileges are heterosexuals that wish to maintain their right to discriminate and retain their special privileges.

a man is a man, regardless of color
a woman is a woman, regardless of color
[i LOVE the way you twist my words, nicely done]:D
name the inequalities, then i will listen

a man is a man, regardless of color
a woman is a woman, regardless of color
[i LOVE the way you twist my words, nicely done]:D
name the inequalities, then i will listen
Cat-Tribe did. You just refused to pay attention.

a man is a man, regardless of color
a woman is a woman, regardless of color
[i LOVE the way you twist my words, nicely done]:D

So you do not realize that your argument was the historical argument against interracial marriage?

It was argued it was not discrimination and deprived no one of a right. A black man could marry a black woman. A white man could marry a white woman. Everyone had the "equal" right to marry people of the same race.

Stupid and repulsive argument, huh?

name the inequalities, then i will listen

I named some of them already.

So you do not realize that your argument was the historical argument against interracial marriage?

It was argued it was not discrimination and deprived no one of a right. A black man could marry a black woman. A white man could marry a white woman. Everyone had the "equal" right to marry people of the same race.

Stupid and repulsive argument, huh?



I named some of them already.
please forgive me...
i spent to long replying and got loget out...

a man is a man
a woman is a woman

Cat-Tribe did. You just refused to pay attention.
i did not refuse, cotrary to evidence showing the opposite....

ok....
you do have a point...
i lose...
...
...
seeing as i live in the state that first gave homos the right to marry, i probably should not be arguing the point...
you live your life, i live mine... as long as one does not hinder the other, we should be ok.

a man is a man
a woman is a woman
And apparently, an "opressive pacifist" is a wildly unimaginitive troll/puppet. :p

ok....
you do have a point...
i lose...
...
...
seeing as i live in the state that first gave homos the right to marry, i probably should not be arguing the point...
you live your life, i live mine... as long as one does not hinder the other, we should be ok.

Wow. Yay!!!!!!!!! :) :)


(For the record, I happen to be straight. (And white and male) But I believe in equal rights.)

(For the record, I happen to be straight. )

Dammit Cat, all this time I thought you were gay! I was very impressed by your. . . . intelligence.

I guess this is a chance to try out that new "Fairy in a Can" spray solution that the gay rebellion has made. It's Falwell and Robertson's worst nighmare realized . . . now gays CAN indeed turn straights to the darkside with just one flick of our oh so limp wrists. MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Even if you don't consider marriage a right, it is not constitutional to give some citizens special treatment and other not.

Segregation of schools comes to mind.

The argument has been made that DOMA is somehow 'illegal' and that is obviously unconstitutional.

So I wanted to see what the fuss was about. Although I agree that the Act is not strong enough (since the SCOTUS seems to get so much stuff messed up, this clear Act would likely just be another one they flub up) I went and looked around...

The second substantive section of the bill amends the U.S. Code to make
explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years;
that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and
wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex. The DOMA
definition of marriage is derived most immediately from a Washington
state case from 1974, Singer v. Hara, which is included in the 1990
edition of Black's Law Dictionary. More than a century ago, the U.S.
Supreme Court spoke of the "union for life of one man and one woman in
the holy estate of matrimony." Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45
(1985).
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm
(that's some summary from the site, the Act itself is at the link as well)

Among other things there, about how DOMA describes for the sake of federal law what is and is not marriage, that looks fine. For crying out loud, what a crock of garbage to claim that this Act is somehow unconstitutional. In fact, those idiot lawyers and judiciary in Massachusetts supreme court should be flogged for incompetence (although I haven't read their arguments... Those are state constitutional issues I find irrelevant to anyone not living in the State of Massachusetts).

Thank you, thank you very much :p


You do a nice job of impersenating Iraqi Information Minister Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf too, *raises hands, pleads with camera ~ do not believe them, their accusations are all false and bald-faced lies ~ you are not in danger *

And you do a good impression of Robert Mugabe

"It's right because I said so. Everyone who thinks different is evil. I'm perfectly rational. I'm the great and the good. I believe in democracy. Equal rights are a bad thing. Who needs freedom of the press...."

*DOMA stuff snipped*
This link (http://www.ucc.org/justice/pdfs/emr21.pdf) outlines in plain English why DOMA is unconstitutional.

But I'll give you some more.

First, make reasoned argument answering Cat-Tribe and Dempublicent's arguments about why any ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. You haven't made one, besides calling judges incompetent without having any knowledge of the Massachussetts Constitution (which the ruling was in large part based on).l

Second, have you ever heard of the "Full Faith and Credit clause?" It says that other states have to respect any legal agreement or law made in another state. That means that all other states need to accept the gay marriages in Massachussetts as legal - but DOMA explicitly says they don't have to obey the Constitution on this point. More evidence:

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

The argument has been made that DOMA is somehow 'illegal' and that is obviously unconstitutional.

So I wanted to see what the fuss was about. Although I agree that the Act is not strong enough (since the SCOTUS seems to get so much stuff messed up, this clear Act would likely just be another one they flub up) I went and looked around...

The second substantive section of the bill amends the U.S. Code to make
explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years;
that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and
wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex. The DOMA
definition of marriage is derived most immediately from a Washington
state case from 1974, Singer v. Hara, which is included in the 1990
edition of Black's Law Dictionary. More than a century ago, the U.S.
Supreme Court spoke of the "union for life of one man and one woman in
the holy estate of matrimony." Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45
(1985).
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm
(that's some summary from the site, the Act itself is at the link as well)

Among other things there, about how DOMA describes for the sake of federal law what is and is not marriage, that looks fine. For crying out loud, what a crock of garbage to claim that this Act is somehow unconstitutional. In fact, those idiot lawyers and judiciary in Massachusetts supreme court should be flogged for incompetence (although I haven't read their arguments... Those are state constitutional issues I find irrelevant to anyone not living in the State of Massachusetts).

LOL.

So, according to the authors of the DOMA itself, it is constitutional? Big surprise! :headbang:

And I wondered when you would stumble onto that nugget from Murphy. You realize that was a case upholding the denial of the right to vote to Mormons? Great precedent. :rolleyes:

If you think a stray bit of dicta actually directed at polygamy and bigamy from 1885 settles the matter of equal protection under the law and fundamental rights, you have another think coming. A long, hard think.

BTW, please answer some of the intervening points. In particular, do you or do you not support the 14th Amendment.

...eight days...

...still, no sign of land...

...eight days...

...still, no sign of land...

:D

...eight days...

...still, no sign of land...

Yawn.

...eight days...

...still, no sign of land...
And Moses and the Israelites wandered in the desert for 40 years...

*sigh*

EDIT: That was post 1000!

And Moses and the Israelites wandered in the desert for 40 years...

*sigh*

EDIT: That was post 1000!

1000! Cool.

1000! Cool.
Thank you. As my 1000 post present, hopefully Greenlander will concede that we're right on this one.

Thank you. As my 1000 post present, hopefully Greenlander will concede that we're right on this one.

Nah. Not going to happen.

...eight days...

...still, no sign of land...

I wonder how long before cabin fever sets in.......LOOK AT THE PRETTY LIGHTS! PLASTIC BAG!!!! It's nine days right???

BTW, please answer some of the intervening points. In particular, do you or do you not support the 14th Amendment.


In my view, the 14th amendment doesn’t address the definition of one man one woman description of marriage at all (outside of saying everyone can participate if they meet age and other requirements etc.) But the definition of one man one woman is not itself open to discrimination claims because the law does not determine natural or unnatural occurrence as the case may be, for the forming of offspring.


Do you need more evidence that accepting same-sex marriage is not a small add-on to our marriage laws but a radical transformation of them? That makes it an entirely different and unrelated issue from the removal of the racial discrimination clauses in marriage laws of the past…

Consider: If preferring husbands and wives who can become mothers and fathers together is "bias" or "discrimination," then people who think such views are bigots.

If things keep going like they are, and the good but short-sighted people of America allow SSM to happen, expressing the very idea that children deserve mothers and fathers will become the legal and moral equivalent of racism and be declared hate speech. Their logic now claims to be one of live-and-let-live tolerance, but actually it leads directly to an ugly culture war, not of tolerance but of absolutism, using the law to root out public expression of such "prejudices" as thinking and promoting the very concept that children deserve both parents. :rolleyes:

Tax-exempt status for faith-based organizations, supposedly protected by what they know is undefendable language in the new act in Canada now, for example, will fail to protect them because the new State religion of tolerance for SSM of will deem the advocacy and teaching of anything else will be deemed hate groups, not religious institutions.


When SSM wins federal legal recognition and all the States are forced to comply, the form of gay matrimony that may pose the greatest threat to the institution of marriage will likely involve heterosexuals. Such as; two heterosexuals of the same sex will marry as a way of obtaining financial benefits. Consider the plight of an underemployed and uninsured single mother in her early 30s who sees little real prospect of marriage (to a man) in her future. Suppose she has a good friend, also female and heterosexual, who is single and childless but employed with good spousal benefits. Friends like this will begin to contract same-sex marriages of convenience.

The single mom will get medical and governmental benefits, will share her friend's paycheck, and will gain an additional caretaker for the kids besides. Her friend will gain companionship and a family life. The marriage would obviously be sexually open. And if lightning struck and the right man came along for one of the women, they could always divorce and marry heterosexually.

In a narrow sense, the women and children in this arrangement would be better off. And society would be none-the-worse, or so it would seem.

The affect of such unions on the institution of marriage will be overwhelming. Marriage will be severed not only from the complementarity’s of the sexes but also from its connection to romance and sexual exclusivity ~ and even from the hope of permanence.

It will turn marriage into the moral equivalent of a Social Security benefit. The outcome will be only the further diminishment the social sense that a woman ought to be married to the father of her children. Out-of-wedlock births will increase, not decrease and the connection between marriage and sexual fidelity will be nonexistent.

“Marriage” itself will cease to exist in any meaningful definition of the word.

When that happens, watch the children… And remember that you were warned.

In my view, the 14th amendment doesn’t address the definition of one man one woman description of marriage at all (outside of saying everyone can participate if they meet age and other requirements etc.) But the definition of one man one woman is not itself open to discrimination claims because the law does not determine natural or unnatural occurrence as the case may be, for the forming of offspring.


Do you need more evidence that accepting same-sex marriage is not a small add-on to our marriage laws but a radical transformation of them? That makes it an entirely different and unrelated issue from the removal of the racial discrimination clauses in marriage laws of the past…

No, it's minor. The most in depth it could be is a bill making the relevent laws non gender-specific, which I'm sure must have been done for other things in the past. Womens sufferage maybe.

Consider: If preferring husbands and wives who can become mothers and fathers together is "bias" or "discrimination," then people who think such views are bigots.

If things keep going like they are, and the good but short-sighted people of America allow SSM to happen, expressing the very idea that children deserve mothers and fathers will become the legal and moral equivalent of racism and be declared hate speech. Their logic now claims to be one of live-and-let-live tolerance, but actually it leads directly to an ugly culture war, not of tolerance but of absolutism, using the law to root out public expression of such "prejudices" as thinking and promoting the very concept that children deserve both parents. :rolleyes:

Paranoid assertion. Of course that's not going to happen.

Tax-exempt status for faith-based organizations, supposedly protected by what they know is undefendable language in the new act in Canada now, for example, will fail to protect them because the new State religion of tolerance for SSM of will deem the advocacy and teaching of anything else will be deemed hate groups, not religious institutions.

Well, I can't say it'd be missed. I don't see why faith-based organistaions should have special rules. If they're charitable and they meet the requirements for charitable status then they get all those priveliges, otherwise no. They shouldn't have it just for saying "but we're a religious group".

When SSM wins federal legal recognition and all the States are forced to comply, the form of gay matrimony that may pose the greatest threat to the institution of marriage will likely involve heterosexuals. Such as; two heterosexuals of the same sex will marry as a way of obtaining financial benefits. Consider the plight of an underemployed and uninsured single mother in her early 30s who sees little real prospect of marriage (to a man) in her future. Suppose she has a good friend, also female and heterosexual, who is single and childless but employed with good spousal benefits. Friends like this will begin to contract same-sex marriages of convenience.

The single mom will get medical and governmental benefits, will share her friend's paycheck, and will gain an additional caretaker for the kids besides. Her friend will gain companionship and a family life. The marriage would obviously be sexually open. And if lightning struck and the right man came along for one of the women, they could always divorce and marry heterosexually.

In a narrow sense, the women and children in this arrangement would be better off. And society would be none-the-worse, or so it would seem.

You seem to have overlooked one minor point.

One obvious conclusion of your logic is: People now have friends of the opposite sex, therefore we should ban heterosexual marriage.

The affect of such unions on the institution of marriage will be overwhelming. Marriage will be severed not only from the complementarity’s of the sexes but also from its connection to romance and sexual exclusivity ~ and even from the hope of permanence.

It will turn marriage into the moral equivalent of a Social Security benefit. The outcome will be only the further diminishment the social sense that a woman ought to be married to the father of her children. Out-of-wedlock births will increase, not decrease and the connection between marriage and sexual fidelity will be nonexistent.

“Marriage” itself will cease to exist in any meaningful definition of the word.

When that happens, watch the children… And remember that you were warned.

I'm not going to bother asking any of the obvious questions about this bs, because I know you'll ignore them.


So, instead, I'll present the whole issue in a slightly different way.

I'm gay, I love my partner, we want to get married. My parents are married, his parents are married, his brother is married. We can't get married. Implicitly this is because our relationship is considered to be of less value.

Since we now live in the 21st century, not the 12th, and relationships now are based primarily on love and companionship rather than property, parenthood or inheritance, will someone please explain why our feelings for each other are considered less valuable.

NOTE TO GREENLANDER: READ THE LAST PARAGRAPH. ANY MENTION OF PROCREATION IS ALREADY EXCLUDED BY HOW I WORDED THIS.

***one big hysterical slippery slope fallacy piled on top of another big hysterical slippery slope fallacy piled on top of ....***

Look, kids! It is hysterical slippery slope fallacies all the way down!

I'm gay, I love my partner, we want to get married. My parents are married, his parents are married, his brother is married. We can't get married. Implicitly this is because our relationship is considered to be of less value.

Since we now live in the 21st century, not the 12th, and relationships now are based primarily on love and companionship rather than property, parenthood or inheritance, will someone please explain why our feelings for each other are considered less valuable.

NOTE TO GREENLANDER: READ THE LAST PARAGRAPH. ANY MENTION OF PROCREATION IS ALREADY EXCLUDED BY HOW I WORDED THIS.

The entire argument of this thread, the very topic IS, family. I assert the claim that Marriage means Family. That is my premise here.

How then, does the institution of Family and it’s protections via Marriage and definitions, et al., devalue your relationship with your lover? You can’t get married to each other because you aren’t declaring your relationship to be one of creating progeny for the State (in this case State means all government and community).

It has nothing, nothing to do with implying a ‘value’ assessment on individuals. If you and your lover want a public platform to declare you undying love for each other, then go pay for a newspaper announcement or get a billboard at advertise it, how could a private civil license do that for you? Your love and companionship for each other is not diminished by some else’s civil marriage.

im unwilling to read so very many pages of posts.....


did the original poster ever explain how banning gay marriage would lower the divorce rate and stop unmarried births??

im unwilling to read so very many pages of posts.....


did the original poster ever explain how banning gay marriage would lower the divorce rate and stop unmarried births??
It be interested in seeing that explanation...

The entire argument of this thread, the very topic IS, family. I assert the claim that Marriage means Family. That is my premise here.

How then, does the institution of Family and it’s protections via Marriage and definitions, et al., devalue your relationship with your lover? You can’t get married to each other because you aren’t declaring your relationship to be one of creating progeny for the State (in this case State means all government and community).

It has nothing, nothing to do with implying a ‘value’ assessment on individuals. If you and your lover want a public platform to declare you undying love for each other, then go pay for a newspaper announcement or get a billboard at advertise it, how could a private civil license do that for you? Your love and companionship for each other is not diminished by some else’s civil marriage.
so should all marriages be automatically dissolved as soon as the last child leaves the home and the couple is no longer a family?

no?

marriage takes 2 unrelated people and makes them a FAMILY. children are irrelevant to the whole thing. if a couple has children then fine, those children are members of the family, if they DONT then they are still as married as the couple who has 15 children.

The entire argument of this thread, the very topic IS, family. I assert the claim that Marriage means Family. That is my premise here.

How then, does the institution of Family and it’s protections via Marriage and definitions, et al., devalue your relationship with your lover? You can’t get married to each other because you aren’t declaring your relationship to be one of creating progeny for the State (in this case State means all government and community).

It has nothing, nothing to do with implying a ‘value’ assessment on individuals. If you and your lover want a public platform to declare you undying love for each other, then go pay for a newspaper announcement or get a billboard at advertise it, how could a private civil license do that for you? Your love and companionship for each other is not diminished by some else’s civil marriage.

That is true. However, you are ignoring the fact that gay people who love each other cannot get the legal benefits of marriage. Besides, since when has marriage required children?

Look, kids! It is hysterical slippery slope fallacies all the way down!

There's no slippery slope there at all. Look at the arguments FOR everything I've warned against in this very forum alone. Look at how many times I've been called a bigot for saying that children should be with both of their parents :rolleyes:

The fallacy here is your repeated denials of reality, Joseph Goebbels undergraduate in action. :p

Greenlander, would you make the same argument against interracial marriage, because, it's the same argument that was made decades ago? Luckily, the people making those illogical claims lost. You'll lose too.

Also, you claim that a one-woman one-man marriage is the only way that moral values can be maintained in a society. There have been multiple examples of polygamy in societies that lasted thousands of years. That is until people like you invaded their cultures and forced them to be christian.

I would support a constitutional amendment to ban all marriage. If you want to have a religious ceremony and call yourself husband and wife, fine. But would it make any sense for someone to say, "Baby, I love you so much, I want to get some legal documents to prove it. We need the government involved in this!" They've got us arguing on two sides of an issue that shouldn't exist in the first place.

There's no slippery slope there at all. Look at the arguments FOR everything I've warned against in this very forum alone. Look at how many times I've been called a bigot for saying that children should be with both of their parents :rolleyes:
Err, no, you've been called a bigot for saying that children should have only two parents of differing gender. There's a difference.
The fallacy here is your repeated denials of reality, Joseph Goebbels undergraduate in action. :p
:rolleyes:

Okay, since I am not sure Cat-Tribes will do this, and I'm bored and have a lot of free time, I'm going to point out all the slippery-slope fallacies I see, and hopefully you will explain how they are reality.

"If things keep going like they are, and the good but short-sighted people of America allow SSM to happen, expressing the very idea that children deserve mothers and fathers will become the legal and moral equivalent of racism and be declared hate speech."
Well, hate speech isn't illegal, so you don't have to worry about the liberal PC phantoms coming to make you think the way they do. It is still permitted to hate blacks and disapprove of interracial marriage, and it's been a while.

"Their logic now claims to be one of live-and-let-live tolerance, but actually it leads directly to an ugly culture war, not of tolerance but of absolutism, using the law to root out public expression of such "prejudices" as thinking and promoting the very concept that children deserve both parents."
Erm, can you show me where people have actually been forced to think a certain way? Nobody has made racism, sexism, ageism, or any other prejudice illegal to espouse yet, so why would they do it to heterosexism?

"Tax-exempt status for faith-based organizations, supposedly protected by what they know is undefendable language in the new act in Canada now, for example, will fail to protect them because the new State religion of tolerance for SSM of will deem the advocacy and teaching of anything else will be deemed hate groups, not religious institutions."
Hysterical ranting with no factual backup.
On top of that, you call 'tolerance for SSM' a new state religion. Patently absurd. I'm quite sure you know what a religion is, and that that does not fit the definition of a religion at all. On top of that, the state is supposed to tolerate differences, as it sort of has a little statement abot people being equal...

"When SSM wins federal legal recognition and all the States are forced to comply, the form of gay matrimony that may pose the greatest threat to the institution of marriage will likely involve heterosexuals. Such as; two heterosexuals of the same sex will marry as a way of obtaining financial benefits. Consider the plight of an underemployed and uninsured single mother in her early 30s who sees little real prospect of marriage (to a man) in her future. Suppose she has a good friend, also female and heterosexual, who is single and childless but employed with good spousal benefits. Friends like this will begin to contract same-sex marriages of convenience."
That may be true. But how is that any worse than the marriages of convenience that already happen all the time? Nothing is going to stop marriages of convenience, and keeping gay marriage illegal doesn't advance your supposed cause there at all.

"The affect of such unions on the institution of marriage will be overwhelming. Marriage will be severed not only from the complementarity’s of the sexes but also from its connection to romance and sexual exclusivity ~ and even from the hope of permanence."
Big jump of illogic there. On top of the fact that the marriages of convenience that already happen haven't wrecked marriage, you also fail to address the point that there will most likely always be people such as yourself who believe that marriage should be for life. Are you saying that allowing gay marriage would change your views and others' on that?

"It will turn marriage into the moral equivalent of a Social Security benefit. The outcome will be only the further diminishment the social sense that a woman ought to be married to the father of her children. Out-of-wedlock births will increase, not decrease and the connection between marriage and sexual fidelity will be nonexistent."
Again, marriages of convenience already happen, yet none of what you say has happened, and the fact that there will always be people with views such as yours.

"“Marriage” itself will cease to exist in any meaningful definition of the word."
Hmm? I don't know how this would destroy the idea of a religious marriage, as those in the religion would not allow marriages of the sort to happen.

"When that happens, watch the children… And remember that you were warned."
Funny thing is, you haven't quite said yet what about that scenario will harm the children.



Anyway, I'll be gladly watching the news for the next few years, waiting for the report that Canada has banned religion because gays can marry and society has collapsed into a giant orgy.

There's no slippery slope there at all. Look at the arguments FOR everything I've warned against in this very forum alone. Look at how many times I've been called a bigot for saying that children should be with both of their parents :rolleyes:

The fallacy here is your repeated denials of reality, Joseph Goebbels undergraduate in action. :p

Gee, I point out your ignorance, errors, or falsities and you reply with name-calling.

I guess religion causes people to name-call.

The buildup of hot air from religious name-calling creates a dangerous risk.

Tomorrow the sun will explode.


(BTW, how dare someone call a bigot a bigot!)

Err, no, you've been called a bigot for saying that children should have only two parents of differing gender. There's a difference.

You changed what I said right there… I said the child deserves to be with both of their parents, that’s not arbitrary to what relationship the parent chooses to be in. The child’s parents will by necessity be of opposite genders.


"If things keep going like they are, and the good but short-sighted people of America allow SSM to happen, expressing the very idea that children deserve mothers and fathers will become the legal and moral equivalent of racism and be declared hate speech."
Well, hate speech isn't illegal, so you don't have to worry about the liberal PC phantoms coming to make you think the way they do. It is still permitted to hate blacks and disapprove of interracial marriage, and it's been a while.

Actaully, in Canada, Hate speech is illegal, and that topic was the Canadian version going through their system now, trying to pretend to protect religious institutions from being forced to perform same-sex marriage and I pointed out why that token protection was not going to be sufficient and IMO how they are deceptively putting it in there now.

"Their logic now claims to be one of live-and-let-live tolerance, but actually it leads directly to an ugly culture war, not of tolerance but of absolutism, using the law to root out public expression of such "prejudices" as thinking and promoting the very concept that children deserve both parents."
Erm, can you show me where people have actually been forced to think a certain way? Nobody has made racism, sexism, ageism, or any other prejudice illegal to espouse yet, so why would they do it to heterosexism?

We’re not talking about ‘thinking’ a certain way. We’re talking about publicly expressing a point of view that will be declared legally bigoted. If it is deemed bigoted speech, it will become more and more restricted (television, movies, newspapers etc., not showing it because it will be deemed offensive).

"Tax-exempt status for faith-based organizations, supposedly protected by what they know is undefendable language in the new act in Canada now, for example, will fail to protect them because the new State religion of tolerance for SSM of will deem the advocacy and teaching of anything else will be deemed hate groups, not religious institutions."
Hysterical ranting with no factual backup.
On top of that, you call 'tolerance for SSM' a new state religion. Patently absurd. I'm quite sure you know what a religion is, and that that does not fit the definition of a religion at all. On top of that, the state is supposed to tolerate differences, as it sort of has a little statement abot people being equal...

The state religion comment was just name calling on my part. The rest of it is right. Not only factual but already occurring as churches are being sued for hate speech in Canada now for being anti-homosexual and thus, accused of spreading hate speech against a recognized minority group (in Canadian law). The same will happen with endorsing a one man one woman as ‘right’ way of raising children, SS couples will be offended, and being protected, they will be able to sue for hate speech crimes

"When SSM wins federal legal recognition and all the States are forced to comply, the form of gay matrimony that may pose the greatest threat to the institution of marriage will likely involve heterosexuals. Such as; two heterosexuals of the same sex will marry as a way of obtaining financial benefits. Consider the plight of an underemployed and uninsured single mother in her early 30s who sees little real prospect of marriage (to a man) in her future. Suppose she has a good friend, also female and heterosexual, who is single and childless but employed with good spousal benefits. Friends like this will begin to contract same-sex marriages of convenience."
That may be true. But how is that any worse than the marriages of convenience that already happen all the time? Nothing is going to stop marriages of convenience, and keeping gay marriage illegal doesn't advance your supposed cause there at all.

I’m not defending the marriages of convenience now, my original post was against more than just SSM, but against everything that is causing the 33% and rising number of children living in single parent households now… I’m attacking everything about public attitude that diminishes the importance of children being raised by their parents.

"The affect of such unions on the institution of marriage will be overwhelming. Marriage will be severed not only from the complementarity’s of the sexes but also from its connection to romance and sexual exclusivity ~ and even from the hope of permanence."
Big jump of illogic there. On top of the fact that the marriages of convenience that already happen haven't wrecked marriage, you also fail to address the point that there will most likely always be people such as yourself who believe that marriage should be for life. Are you saying that allowing gay marriage would change your views and others' on that?

I disagree, I think the declining value of marriage overall and of marriages of convenience that occur now, and other things, ARE wrecking the institution of marriage, and with it, families, now. That the increase of children being raised by only one of their parents is already showing an impact from society’s devaluing of the institution of marriage.

"It will turn marriage into the moral equivalent of a Social Security benefit. The outcome will be only the further diminishment the social sense that a woman ought to be married to the father of her children. Out-of-wedlock births will increase, not decrease and the connection between marriage and sexual fidelity will be nonexistent."
Again, marriages of convenience already happen, yet none of what you say has happened, and the fact that there will always be people with views such as yours.

See above. I disagree, it is happening now. Look around you, children and society is NOT doing just fine with the status quo.

"When that happens, watch the children… And remember that you were warned."
Funny thing is, you haven't quite said yet what about that scenario will harm the children.

Sure I did, only you didn’t people don’t believe them. School test scores for one, depression and suicide rates of our children, increase of ADD and ADHD and many other factors have been brought up in this thread trying to show how the children are being progressively made to suffer as we experiment with our social engineering away from the valuing the Family.

Anyway, I'll be gladly watching the news for the next few years, waiting for the report that Canada has banned religion because gays can marry and society has collapsed into a giant orgy.

They will ban churches that won’t perform SS marriages. (My guess, within twenty years of approving SSM’s.)

Gee, I point out your ignorance, errors, or falsities and you reply with name-calling.

I guess religion causes people to name-call.

The buildup of hot air from religious name-calling creates a dangerous risk.

Tomorrow the sun will explode.


(BTW, how dare someone call a bigot a bigot!)


You accused me of replying with name-calling? I'm such a big meanie... :rolleyes: :(


LMAO, look who's talking. :p :D

The entire argument of this thread, the very topic IS, family. I assert the claim that Marriage means Family.

Are you lying now or were you lying before?

Meanwhile would you like to post your view on the how marriage should be defined or are you here to hijack the thread?

You know my view. One man, one woman.

You're not doing a very good job of disguising your bigotry. This isn't about children. This is about your hatred from homosexuals. You are trying to deny them rights based on that hatred.

Are you lying now or were you lying before?


You're not doing a very good job of disguising your bigotry. This isn't about children. This is about your hatred from homosexuals. You are trying to deny them rights based on that hatred.

Unbelievable :rolleyes:

Are you entirely incapable of retaining even the semblance of reasoned thought? This topic ~ look at the title ~ is, In Defense of Family. The government’s recognition of Family, via Marriage, is a part of the topic here.

What should the participants be in a marriage is the topic of the other thread you made and quoted me from…

Do we see a difference? Are you capable of fathoming this difference?

Unbelievable :rolleyes:

Are you entirely incapable of retaining even the semblance of reasoned thought? This topic ~ look at the title ~ is, In Defense of Family. The government’s recognition of Family, via Marriage, is a part of the topic here.

What should the participants be in a marriage is the topic of the other thread you made and quoted me from…

Do we see a difference? Are you capable of fathoming this difference?

I asked you how a marriage should be defined. Not who the participants should be. You want it to be a man and a woman because you don't gays to be married not because it's all about children. You know it. I know it. We all know it.

You have yet to show why homosexual marriage has anything to do with heterosexual marriage. Also you have yet to show how your supposed amendment doesn't violate the equal protection under the law. You have yet to show how any law every made or proposed regarding marriage makes marriage about children. You have yet to show how if you are wanting to redefine marriage to make the focus children how this new amendment makes that the case. One of your sources suggested homosexuals enter into heterosexual marriage, and you haven't addressed how that is 'in defense of the family." In fact you haven't really shown anything except you want to deny the rights of homosexuals. To be fair, you've shown that very clearly, though.

Unbelievable :rolleyes:

Are you entirely incapable of retaining even the semblance of reasoned thought? This topic ~ look at the title ~ is, In Defense of Family. The government’s recognition of Family, via Marriage, is a part of the topic here.

What should the participants be in a marriage is the topic of the other thread you made and quoted me from…

Do we see a difference? Are you capable of fathoming this difference?

Well, I don't know about the US laws in that case, but German laws make a difference between marriage and family.
Marriage is two people married, that is to say having a civil union and living together.
Family is anything from one or more adults with one or more children. The parents don't have to be married, they don't have to be the biological parents, there doesn't have to be more than one parent. They all have the same protection under the law.
I'm pretty sure that this is the case in the USA, too, otherwise single parent families wouldn't be protected at all.

So, saying that changing the laws concerning marriage is endangering families is uninformed, baseless and demagogic.

You have yet to show why homosexual marriage has anything to do with heterosexual marriage.

I've said it before, I repeat again now. Because SSM would have nothing to do with raising children, it's a different issue, it should be addressed with different laws not related to Marriage the 14th amendment has no objection the definition of liberties... (I've said this over and over again, your denial that I respond is inadequate and insufficient as argument, you're blathering, you're not discoursing.

Also you have yet to show how your supposed amendment doesn't violate the equal protection under the law.

An Amendment can't violate the protection under the law, an Amendment IS the law. Although I don't think the DOMA (act) violated the 14th amendment either, I'm not convinced the SCOTUS will agree (unless maybe Bush can get a couple of justices in there real soon :D )

AS to the suggestion that I'm making this all up for the sake of being anti-gay... :rolleyes: Perhaps, someday, you’ll get through your conspiracy theorist phase and move on, but for now, I’ll just ignore your blanket ridiculousness and discuss that real topic instead of your accusations that I’m some sort of homophobe who is merely making up lies

The very fact that you deny that marriage laws affect families is absurd. Children, do better when they are with both of their parents, period. Divorce, remarriage, single parent situations etc., do measurable harm to the development of children.


Single-parent households, family disruption, and incidence of juvenile crime have all increased. In this paper we review the empirical, psychological literature that finds associations between juvenile conduct problems, paternal absence, family instability, and inadequate parental monitoring of teens. Children, particularly boys, from father-absence, family instability, and inadequate parental monitoring of teens. Children, particularly boys, from father-absence homes are at much greater risk for adolescent conduct disorder compared to children from two-parent homes. Additionally, we present original research that shows that boys are at additional risk when their mothers' partners disrupt their homes. Public policy implications are discussed, including the need for support of social stability.

Conclusion
The 167 children in our study are young adults today and most of them are Minnesota citizens. Because our sample was drawn from a low income group, it is not representative of all young adults, but there are thousands of young people in our community who have been raised in homes like the ones described above. Past research has shown that children do best when they are raised by their parents (except in families characterized by discord or abuse); divorce and remarriage are stressful experiences for children. Our research shows that children are getting too little fathering (mean of 5.3 years per child) and their homes are disrupted by too-frequent changes in mothers' partners. The emerging data on the consequences of raising children in highly-disrupted homes is confirmed by our findings. Children are put at increased risk for negative outcomes, including conduct problems, when the adult residents in their homes are not stable. In our sample, as in others, early aggression, monitoring and life stress are associated with conduct problems. The family disruption/stability measure that predicted conduct disturbances in our study, which was a rating of the child's familial experience between the ages of 2 and 6, could be used in conjunction with measures of child aggression, for early identification of the children at greatest risk. Further, very recent data, including ours, suggests that some of the association between single-mother homes and delinquency may be mediated by low levels of adolescent monitoring.

Public Policy Implications
On behalf of children, there are currently movements in this country to identify paternity, increase paternal family involvement, increase marriage, decrease divorce, enforce child support payment, and to decrease welfare roles by requiring paternal responsibility. The value of these efforts is supported by the empirical research we have reviewed, with the caveat that men should not be seen solely as financial providers. A stable male presence also provides psychosocial support. Both men and women need to know that there are negative consequences for children of having one or more men moving in and out, separating and reconciling. Mothers sometimes choose to have a boyfriend in the home, even briefly, for the financial support it provides. Fathers and other men sometimes choose to leave the home when they are unable to fulfill their role as a provider. Public policies that provide jobs for men so that they can provide stability for the homes in which their children are living may contribute to decreases in juvenile delinquency.
http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/familydevelopment/components/7286-03.html

It’s pretty obvious that children do best with their own parents, in a loving and nurturing environment. This is reason enough for the government to have a vested interest in protecting it and guarding the institution of marriage to encourage more of this type of behavior in society, not less of it.

We will surely be reducing the usefulness of the institution of marriage as the word marriage is diluted and broadened to mean more and more diverse things having nothing to do with the raising and rearing of families, in the end, making marriage a meaningless token of nothingness.

Children DON'T do their best with their own parents. Children do best in a peaceful and loving environment; if it so happens that this is WITH their parents, it's ok. In many cases, it is not, and if you are pushing for stricter legislation, this is where you ought to start.
If parents can't handle themselves nor their kids, those are the cases where those children need protective legislation.
Have you never wondered why adopted children are hardly ever sexually abused by their family and why this is more common when the children are with their biological parents?

....maybe it's partially because there are far fewer adopted children vs non-adopted children in the world?

....maybe it's because couples who choose to adopt have to have background checks and are carefully screened?

I've said it before, I repeat again now. Because SSM would have nothing to do with raising children, it's a different issue, it should be addressed with different laws not related to Marriage the 14th amendment has no objection the definition of liberties... (I've said this over and over again, your denial that I respond is inadequate and insufficient as argument, you're blathering, you're not discoursing.

you dont think gay people have children? they do and their children need the protection of married parents just like the children of straight parents do.



The very fact that you deny that marriage laws affect families is absurd. Children, do better when they are with both of their parents, period. Divorce, remarriage, single parent situations etc., do measurable harm to the development of children.
does this ammendment do anything to stop divorce, remarriage, unmarried parents? or does it just stop gay people from getting married?


It’s pretty obvious that children do best with their own parents, in a loving and nurturing environment. This is reason enough for the government to have a vested interest in protecting it and guarding the institution of marriage to encourage more of this type of behavior in society, not less of it.

We will surely be reducing the usefulness of the institution of marriage as the word marriage is diluted and broadened to mean more and more diverse things having nothing to do with the raising and rearing of families, in the end, making marriage a meaningless token of nothingness.

while your goal of happy children is a very good one, i dont see how denying the rights of family to a whole group of people AND THEIR CHILDREN meets that goal.

....maybe it's partially because there are far fewer adopted children vs non-adopted children in the world?

....maybe it's because couples who choose to adopt have to have background checks and are carefully screened?

... I was talking in percentage here, not in absolute numbers.
Exactly. Because in case of adoption, socitey suddenly has an interest in taking care that the children will have good homes and loving families to grow up in. If you have to live with your biological parents, tough. It takes quite a lot for society to step in to protect children from their biological family.

you dont think gay people have children? they do and their children need the protection of married parents just like the children of straight parents do.

There is no such thing as children of gay parents... Maybe A gay parent, but not parents. Marriage will not always be possible, but it isn't encouraged by letting a bunch of other relationships abuse the privileges of marriage for non-family reasons.



does this ammendment do anything to stop divorce, remarriage, unmarried parents? or does it just stop gay people from getting married?

It's one of many things that can be done. Addressing the long on going no-fault divorce failure should be what we as a society are addressing now, but no, we have to deal with the continuing assault on marriage instead of fixing what we have. It's sad in my opinion. But necessary.


while your goal of happy children is a very good one, i dont see how denying the rights of family to a whole group of people AND THEIR CHILDREN meets that goal.

How is letting the definition of marriage be changed to include homosexual men getting married and divorce without children across the country going to help the legislatures of the states pass laws that encourage and support families and marriage IF marriage no longer represents families and their problems? It's silly, The same-sex situation is a different situation and has different issues to be addressed, they are not compatible with marriage and family issues. and shouldn't be joined as the same thing in the eyes of the courts and legislatures.

There is no such thing as children of gay parents... Maybe A gay parent, but not parents. Marriage will not always be possible, but it isn't encouraged by letting a bunch of other relationships abuse the privileges of marriage for non-family reasons.
HUH, thats interesting. i guess you should tell all those children of gay and lesbian parents that they dont exist. you dont consider a child born through artificial insemination to be the legitimate child of the couple it is born into? you dont consider the child of a surrogate mother to be the child of the couple it is born for? you dont consider the child of adoption to be the child of its adoptive parents? if they are straight couples i bet you do.


It's one of many things that can be done. Addressing the long on going no-fault divorce failure should be what we as a society are addressing now, but no, we have to deal with the continuing assault on marriage instead of fixing what we have. It's sad in my opinion. But necessary.
i fail to see how allowing a loving couple the right to marry is anything but a support of marriage.




How is letting the definition of marriage be changed to include homosexual men getting married and divorce without children across the country going to help the legislatures of the states pass laws that encourage and support families and marriage IF marriage no longer represents families and their problems? It's silly, The same-sex situation is a different situation and has different issues to be addressed, they are not compatible with marriage and family issues. and shouldn't be joined as the same thing in the eyes of the courts and legislatures.
ut o you just let your prejudice show. SSM includes women too. it includes the idea that married same sex couples might have families by whatever means any other infertile couple might have children. its not just those nasty gay men getting married and divorced wtihout ever having children.

many many straight marriages dont include children, should they be banned too? marriage is about the bond of 2 people, not about the children they may or may not have.

i fail to see how allowing a loving couple the right to marry is anything but a support of marriage.
What? Are you going to have some sort of testing for love 'limiting' litmus test for couples before they can marry? You can use nice pretty words to describe what you hope will happen, but you have no reason to assume that marriage won't simply turn into a method of securing social and medical benefits and joining individual estates for the sake of reducing taxes etc.


ut o you just let your prejudice show. SSM includes women too. it includes the idea that married same sex couples might have families by whatever means any other infertile couple might have children. its not just those nasty gay men getting married and divorced wtihout ever having children.

Actually, no. I pointed out a large group of users (of a new SSM) if the new definition of marriage takes place. Percentage wise man-on-man gay relationships do not have children/dependents full time living with them.

I'm not saying that there are no male with male relationships that have children, but I'm saying that there are so few of them that they aren't even being studied as a classification in children studies because there aren't enough of them to create a source of data. I've seen some analyses that claim the entire same-sex relationship families (including lesbian couples with children) are less that half of one percent of all the situations that are raising children in America now. (However, this is not entirely relevant to my point., just a FYI) My point is that same-sex relationships inevitably will NOT have children in the relationship and SS couples is a non-family issue now and should remain so, they do not need to be addressed with marriage and family laws and definitions.


many many straight marriages dont include children, should they be banned too? marriage is about the bond of 2 people, not about the children they may or may not have.

Perhaps they should be banned. However, just because some people are using loopholes doesn't mean society has to make loopholes for everyone.

....but you have no reason to assume that marriage won't simply turn into a method of securing social and medical benefits and joining individual estates for the sake of reducing taxes etc.



Who cares...marriage was once a common method of avoiding the stigma of having children out of wedlock.

What? Are you going to have some sort of testing for love 'limiting' litmus test for couples before they can marry? You can use nice pretty words to describe what you hope will happen, but you have no reason to assume that marriage won't simply turn into a method of securing social and medical benefits and joining individual estates for the sake of reducing taxes etc.
But the only change that Ashmoria proposes is to allow gays to marry, and that doesn't make it any easier or harder for anybody else to get married. There is already no love litmus testing as of right now, and marriage hasn't yet turned into a method of getting benefits.

I've seen some analyses that claim the entire same-sex relationship families (including lesbian couples with children) are less that half of one percent of all the situations that are raising children in America now. (However, this is not entirely relevant to my point., just a FYI)
Might I suggest that that is because of gay marriage not being legal in most places in America, and adoption by homosexual couples being frowned on and such?
My point is that same-sex relationships inevitably will NOT have children in the relationship and SSM is a non-family issue now and should remain so.
Umm, tell that to the ones that want children. And yes, there are some, even some that have children, as you even previously acknowledged. As much as one says that they won't have children, it will not change the fact that some of them already do, and some want them. So it is a family issue in the cases of some.

Who cares...marriage was once a common method of avoiding the stigma of having children out of wedlock.

How is that a bad thing? To socially expect people to take care of their own offspring?

I've said it before, I repeat again now. Because SSM would have nothing to do with raising children, it's a different issue, it should be addressed with different laws not related to Marriage the 14th amendment has no objection the definition of liberties... (I've said this over and over again, your denial that I respond is inadequate and insufficient as argument, you're blathering, you're not discoursing.

First of all, it does. Same-sex couples raise children when you and your ilk aren't trying to take them away. Second of all, neither does your amendment.

SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.


An Amendment can't violate the protection under the law, an Amendment IS the law. Although I don't think the DOMA (act) violated the 14th amendment either, I'm not convinced the SCOTUS will agree (unless maybe Bush can get a couple of justices in there real soon :D )

Even if you were to pass this amendment would constitute a violation of equal protection. It just wouldn't be a violation of the constitution anymore.

It's real nice how you hope that Bush creates a SCOTUS that would willingly violate the constitution. The day a SCOTUS exists that does not care about equal protection or individual freedoms, we are truly lost (so says a single, white, heterosexual, 30 year old, middle class male.)

AS to the suggestion that I'm making this all up for the sake of being anti-gay... :rolleyes: Perhaps, someday, you’ll get through your conspiracy theorist phase and move on, but for now, I’ll just ignore your blanket ridiculousness and discuss that real topic instead of your accusations that I’m some sort of homophobe who is merely making up lies

Yet, you have shown nothing to support your spurious 'marriage is all about children claim'. You keep trying to show that children do better in the homes of their own married parents, but every study you've shown hasn't shown this conclusion without ignoring severe sampling errors, severe errors in comparing comparable groups and lack of stand sampling control. Every time we point out these issues you fail to try and satisfy these issues and usually don't even reply. Feel free to address my concerns with the study below.

The very fact that you deny that marriage laws affect families is absurd.
Children, do better when they are with both of their parents, period. Divorce, remarriage, single parent situations etc., do measurable harm to the development of children.

I didn't say they don't affect families. I said they are not focused on families or contigent on families. I like how you've reworded your claim. Of course, marriage affects families. It will continue to affect families no matter how many people marry and do not have children. Mortgages affect families as well. Perhaps mortgages should not be given to same-sex couples, unmarried individuals or infertile couples.

You have yet to find any marriage law, including the amendment you propose, that suggests children are a necessary component. Why aren't you proposing an amendment that requires married couples to have children? I think I can answer that. Because this amendment is enough to take rights away from gays and that's good enough for you.


Single-parent households, family disruption, and incidence of juvenile crime have all increased. In this paper we review the empirical, psychological literature that finds associations between juvenile conduct problems, paternal absence, family instability, and inadequate parental monitoring of teens. Children, particularly boys, from father-absence, family instability, and inadequate parental monitoring of teens. Children, particularly boys, from father-absence homes are at much greater risk for adolescent conduct disorder compared to children from two-parent homes. Additionally, we present original research that shows that boys are at additional risk when their mothers' partners disrupt their homes. Public policy implications are discussed, including the need for support of social stability.

Conclusion
The 167 children in our study are young adults today and most of them are Minnesota citizens. Because our sample was drawn from a low income group, it is not representative of all young adults, but there are thousands of young people in our community who have been raised in homes like the ones described above. Past research has shown that children do best when they are raised by their parents (except in families characterized by discord or abuse); divorce and remarriage are stressful experiences for children. Our research shows that children are getting too little fathering (mean of 5.3 years per child) and their homes are disrupted by too-frequent changes in mothers' partners. The emerging data on the consequences of raising children in highly-disrupted homes is confirmed by our findings. Children are put at increased risk for negative outcomes, including conduct problems, when the adult residents in their homes are not stable. In our sample, as in others, early aggression, monitoring and life stress are associated with conduct problems. The family disruption/stability measure that predicted conduct disturbances in our study, which was a rating of the child's familial experience between the ages of 2 and 6, could be used in conjunction with measures of child aggression, for early identification of the children at greatest risk. Further, very recent data, including ours, suggests that some of the association between single-mother homes and delinquency may be mediated by low levels of adolescent monitoring.

Public Policy Implications
On behalf of children, there are currently movements in this country to identify paternity, increase paternal family involvement, increase marriage, decrease divorce, enforce child support payment, and to decrease welfare roles by requiring paternal responsibility. The value of these efforts is supported by the empirical research we have reviewed, with the caveat that men should not be seen solely as financial providers. A stable male presence also provides psychosocial support. Both men and women need to know that there are negative consequences for children of having one or more men moving in and out, separating and reconciling. Mothers sometimes choose to have a boyfriend in the home, even briefly, for the financial support it provides. Fathers and other men sometimes choose to leave the home when they are unable to fulfill their role as a provider. Public policies that provide jobs for men so that they can provide stability for the homes in which their children are living may contribute to decreases in juvenile delinquency.
http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/familydevelopment/components/7286-03.html

Anyone else notice the part I bolded? So let's see if I understand the conclusion. Children do better in homes where their parents are married as long as there are no arguments or abuse in that home. Except they didn't place the same restriction on other relationships they studied. You know what that makes that? A useless study that proves nothing. OH, but it does even better. It talks about unstable relationships being the major problem for these children. So basically, it makes the argument for allowing more couples to enter into life-long relationships. I know how we can do that. Same-sex marriage!! Surely, you can do better. You're not even making this difficult. It's a little desperate to use a study that's so blatantly ridiculous.

It’s pretty obvious that children do best with their own parents, in a loving and nurturing environment. This is reason enough for the government to have a vested interest in protecting it and guarding the institution of marriage to encourage more of this type of behavior in society, not less of it.

Perhaps you could cite a study that actually comes to this conclusion through scientific means considering 'it's pretty obvious'. We've been talking for a week so you have time to find it. We'll wait.

Also you haven't shown how allowing loving couples to engage in marriage will reduce the number of loving and nurturing environments. It will, in fact, increase the number of those environments.

We will surely be reducing the usefulness of the institution of marriage as the word marriage is diluted and broadened to mean more and more diverse things having nothing to do with the raising and rearing of families, in the end, making marriage a meaningless token of nothingness.

This part just makes me laugh. Strange how marriage has never needed such a protection ever in history and it's been around for all of recorded history. Human beings seem to have been fairly successful to me. I haven't noticed a dramatic decline in the population of the earth. Anybody else notice such a decline?

*snip*

You really have to read at least a few posts before jumping in... I see no need to repeat everything I've already said.

The primary point right now, was family issues (raising children) are not the same issues requiring attention for the gay community. Thus, adding SS relationships to marriage only dilutes the group, making it less easily addressable for the legislature and the courts as a topic, since it will mean so many different things. The Gay community needs to address their concerns separately. There may be lesbian and gay parents, but gay issues are not parental issues and currently, marriage laws address families and that should and needs to be encouraged not diluted in purpose.

How is that a bad thing? To socially expect people to take care of their own offspring?

Well marriage is a social contsruct and by no means whether its viewed as a church sacrament or legal arrangement does it impact on ones' ability to raise children. The cases I was referring to was to use marriage to avoid social stigma as opposed to making a contract with society, or God, and has nothing to do with the children's well being at all.

Perhaps you could cite a study that actually comes to this conclusion through scientific means considering 'it's pretty obvious'. We've been talking for a week so you have time to find it. We'll wait.



:rolleyes:

What? Are you going to have some sort of testing for love 'limiting' litmus test for couples before they can marry? You can use nice pretty words to describe what you hope will happen, but you have no reason to assume that marriage won't simply turn into a method of securing social and medical benefits and joining individual estates for the sake of reducing taxes etc.

Can you show there is any more chance for abuse by SSM than there is by heterosexual couples. In the military people commonly married for extra benefits and because they got paid more. There is no more potential for abuse by same-sex couples than there is by heterosexual couples. Next arguemtn.

Actually, no. I pointed out a large group of users (of a new SSM) if the new definition of marriage takes place. Percentage wise man-on-man gay relationships do not have children/dependents full time living with them.

So why do you keep making it sound like these couples are affecting children?

I'm not saying that there are no male with male relationships that have children, but I'm saying that there are so few of them that they aren't even being studied as a classification in children studies because there aren't enough of them to create a source of data. I've seen some analyses that claim the entire same-sex relationship families (including lesbian couples with children) are less that half of one percent of all the situations that are raising children in America now. (However, this is not entirely relevant to my point., just a FYI) My point is that same-sex relationships inevitably will NOT have children in the relationship and SS couples is a non-family issue now and should remain so, they do not need to be addressed with marriage and family laws and definitions.

So basically, this attack on families and marriages that you are talking about is one half of one-percent. Maybe, we should just stop talking and let you make our argument for us.

Perhaps they should be banned. However, just because some people are using loopholes doesn't mean society has to make loopholes for everyone.

Um, to be completely accurate, if loopholes are available to men, they must available to women, if possible. If loopholes are available to heterosexuals, they must be made availabe to homosexuals, if possible. If you can find a way to change marriage law to exclude families without children then you'll have no need for the amendment. Why do you pretend like your focus in on children when you make preventing same-sex couples from marrying the priority?

Well marriage is a social contsruct and by no means whether its viewed as a church sacrament or legal arrangement does it impact on ones' ability to raise children. The cases I was referring to was to use marriage to avoid social stigma as opposed to making a contract with society, or God, and has nothing to do with the children's well being at all.


Sure it had everything to do with the child's well being. That's what the social stigma was thinking. "Damn dude" they would think, "you going to go off, have your fun, and then abandon a child? the pathetic dweeb." Thus, instead of facing that, they would get married and raise the child.

Social stigma in that case was a good thing.

What? Are you going to have some sort of testing for love 'limiting' litmus test for couples before they can marry? You can use nice pretty words to describe what you hope will happen, but you have no reason to assume that marriage won't simply turn into a method of securing social and medical benefits and joining individual estates for the sake of reducing taxes etc.
did you find a study that suggested that was a serious possibility? there are so many financial downsides to marriage that if cant believe that its going to be a huge problem without some independant proof of it.



Actually, no. I pointed out a large group of users (of a new SSM) if the new definition of marriage takes place. Percentage wise man-on-man gay relationships do not have children/dependents full time living with them.

I'm not saying that there are no male with male relationships that have children, but I'm saying that there are so few of them that they aren't even being studied as a classification in children studies because there aren't enough of them to create a source of data. I've seen some analyses that claim the entire same-sex relationship families (including lesbian couples with children) are less that half of one percent of all the situations that are raising children in America now. (However, this is not entirely relevant to my point., just a FYI) My point is that same-sex relationships inevitably will NOT have children in the relationship and SS couples is a non-family issue now and should remain so, they do not need to be addressed with marriage and family laws and definitions.

so because gay men dont have lots of children now its a reason to deny marriage to gay women?

SOME SSM will not have children. some will have children through artificial insemination or informal arrangements, some will have children through surrogates, some will adopt. some will bring children to the marriage from previous heterosexual relationships.


Perhaps they should be banned. However, just because some people are using loopholes doesn't mean society has to make loopholes for everyone.
childless couples are loopholes?

How is that a bad thing? To socially expect people to take care of their own offspring?

I fail to see how this was the point of the post you replied to. Critical reading comprehension is a valuable skill. I could suggest some sites that would help you work on it.

You really have to read at least a few posts before jumping in... I see no need to repeat everything I've already said.

The primary point right now, was family issues (raising children) are not the same issues requiring attention for the gay community. Thus, adding SS relationships to marriage only dilutes the group, making it less easily addressable for the legislature and the courts as a topic, since it will mean so many different things. The Gay community needs to address their concerns separately. There may be lesbian and gay parents, but gay issues are not parental issues and currently, marriage laws address families and that should and needs to be encouraged not diluted in purpose.

Excellent job of not addressing any of his/her points, like gay adoption (most certainly a family issue. Also I'm sure you can find at least a few studies that show children are better off being adopted into a loving home rather than remaining in the unstable foster environment), the right for gay parents to marry in order to stop being in unstable relationships that you have continually suggested are bad for children. You also fail to understand that the fourteenth amendment guarantees that gays, like blacks, do not have to have to address their issues seperately. It is you who wants to change the law, not gays.

Sure it had everything to do with the child's well being. That's what the social stigma was thinking. "Damn dude" they would think, "you going to go off, have your fun, and then abandon a child? the pathetic dweeb." Thus, instead of facing that, they would get married and raise the child.

Social stigma in that case was a good thing.

Oh really, though we can agree at least it's all about perceptions so quickly please explain how extending legal recognition to same sex couples degrades the family unit. The only thing I see it threatening are the stodgy, corrupted organized religoins which are scared to bits about the wide divide of opinions regarding gay rights, incl. marriage, and the possibility of a religious break up instead of the destruction of the family unit.

:rolleyes:

Oh, great, the smilies are back. "I haven't got a reasoned response to your complete dismemberment of my 'scientific' study so I'll just roll my eyes." Man, that was a devastatingly convincing post. Maybe you could add a couple more smilies so we'll all vote with you in the next election.

There is no such thing as children of gay parents... Maybe A gay parent, but not parents. Marriage will not always be possible, but it isn't encouraged by letting a bunch of other relationships abuse the privileges of marriage for non-family reasons.
I guess there are no children of infertile parents, then? I guess adoptive families aren't REAL families, since the people who rear, love, nurture, and care for children aren't REALLY parents unless they donated the sperm and egg that made the baby, right? And a man and woman who fuck and then abandon their baby are the REAL parents, while the couple that adopts the child and raises it as their own aren't REAL parents because they weren't the ones with the broken condom?

It's so funny that anti-gay activists paint themselves as "pro-family." You are the people insulting the most generous and selfless families out there. You spit on all the people who welcome otherwise-unwanted children into their homes and lives. You degrade the very nature of family by suggesting that "real" family is just about fertility. You insult gays and straights alike, and you demean what should be the most powerful and wonderful bond humans can share...the bond of love and family.

I guess there are no children of infertile parents, then? I guess adoptive families aren't REAL families, since the people who rear, love, nurture, and care for children aren't REALLY parents unless they donated the sperm and egg that made the baby, right? And a man and woman who fuck and then abandon their baby are the REAL parents, while the couple that adopts the child and raises it as their own aren't REAL parents because they weren't the ones with the broken condom?

It's so funny that anti-gay activists paint themselves as "pro-family." You are the people insulting the most generous and selfless families out there. You spit on all the people who welcome otherwise-unwanted children into their homes and lives. You degrade the very nature of family by suggesting that "real" family is just about fertility. You insult gays and straights alike, and you demean what should be the most powerful and wonderful bond humans can share...the bond of love and family.

We have disagreed in the past, but this is well-said. I might have used a replacement for the word, fuck, but, otherwise, well-said.

did you find a study that suggested that was a serious possibility? there are so many financial downsides to marriage that if cant believe that its going to be a huge problem without some independant proof of it.

What country do you live in? Health care benefits come to mind and joint tax returns etc



so because gay men dont have lots of children now its a reason to deny marriage to gay women?

The point is, they are different issues, why combine them? If lesbian mothers need health care, child supply support, day-care help, etc., lets address those issues. However, combing ALL homosexual issues to marriage issues is not required

We have disagreed in the past, but this is well-said. I might have used a replacement for the word, fuck, but, otherwise, well-said.
I do apologize if my language bothers anybody, but this is an issue I feel strongly about. A friend of mine and her partner recently adopted an HIV-positive heroine-addicted little boy, a boy who no heterosexual family was willing to adopt, and to hear somebody suggest that he isn't REALLY their child is so insulting that I get a tad bit hot under the collar.

Tell you what, homophobes: when each and every one of you has adopted a child, then you can bitch about gay families. When each of you is willing to welcome a drug-addicted child into your home and your lives, then you can have your "family values" label back. When every child born from heterosexual sex is provided a safe, happy, healthy home with a loving and welcoming family, then you can have your talking privaledges back. Until then...get over yourselves.

The point is, they are different issues, why combine them? If lesbian mothers need health care, child supply support, day-care help, etc., lets address those issues. However, combing ALL homosexual issues to marriage issues is not required

So people with children who are no longer or never were married to the father of the children are a seperate issue and do not need marriage? Do you read your own posts?

The emerging data on the consequences of raising children in highly-disrupted homes is confirmed by our findings. Children are put at increased risk for negative outcomes, including conduct problems, when the adult residents in their homes are not stable. In our sample, as in others, early aggression, monitoring and life stress are associated with conduct problems. The family disruption/stability measure that predicted conduct disturbances in our study, which was a rating of the child's familial experience between the ages of 2 and 6, could be used in conjunction with measures of child aggression, for early identification of the children at greatest risk. Further, very recent data, including ours, suggests that some of the association between single-mother homes and delinquency may be mediated by low levels of adolescent monitoring.

Your own source shows that denying the stability of marriage to these relationships damages children. Strange for someone so worried about children. "Government has a significant interest in protecting these children through marriage."

Um, to be completely accurate, if loopholes are available to men, they must available to women, if possible. If loopholes are available to heterosexuals, they must be made availabe to homosexuals, if possible. If you can find a way to change marriage law to exclude families without children then you'll have no need for the amendment. Why do you pretend like your focus in on children when you make preventing same-sex couples from marrying the priority?

You obviously don't actually know what you are talking about do you? Rights and liberties do NOT have to be applied equally across the board. You might like to think so, but it's not true. You and I do NOT have to pay the SAME taxes, for example. Get of your limited view high horse for a moment and look our the window, there's a whole world of stuff out there you don't seem to know too much about...

Oh, great, the smilies are back. "I haven't got a reasoned response to your complete dismemberment of my 'scientific' study so I'll just roll my eyes." Man, that was a devastatingly convincing post. Maybe you could add a couple more smilies so we'll all vote with you in the next election.


You fail to be able to connect one post with the next, no memory of conversation that came before, and you keep repeating the same babble ~ even if I answer now, in three pages, you'll say the same thing all over again... :rolleyes:

I do apologize if my language bothers anybody, but this is an issue I feel strongly about. A friend of mine and her partner recently adopted an HIV-positive heroine-addicted little boy, a boy who no heterosexual family was willing to adopt, and to hear somebody suggest that he isn't REALLY their child is so insulting that I get a tad bit hot under the collar.

Tell you what, homophobes: when each and every one of you has adopted a child, then you can bitch about gay families. When each of you is willing to welcome a drug-addicted child into your home and your lives, then you can have your "family values" label back. When every child born from heterosexual sex is provided a safe, happy, healthy home with a loving and welcoming family, then you can have your talking privaledges back. Until then...get over yourselves.

I was just teasing, Bottle. And again, well-said. Personally I think, as long as abuse and abandonment is so common in heterosexual couples, as long as so many children are denied a loving home, as long as so many children are denied adoption over and over again, the idea that we would try to prevent the formation of MORE stable and loving homes is an atrocity. We heterosexuals need to clean our own houses before we can even begin to make the claim that same-sex couples are a danger to children. We don't need to be comparing same-sex marriages to couples where the parents are the married, biological parents when talking about adoption, we need to be comparing same-sex marriages to foster care and group homes.

Rights and liberties do NOT have to be applied equally across the board. You might like to think so, but it's not true..
Wow, way to sound racist, homophobic, and sexist all at once...

And comparing graduated taxing to civil liberties?

Right...

Oh really, though we can agree at least it's all about perceptions so quickly please explain how extending legal recognition to same sex couples degrades the family unit. The only thing I see it threatening are the stodgy, corrupted organized religoins which are scared to bits about the wide divide of opinions regarding gay rights, incl. marriage, and the possibility of a religious break up instead of the destruction of the family unit.

The entire first post of this thread addresses that question.

Wow, way to sound racist, homophobic, and sexist all at once...

And comparing graduated taxing to civil liberties?

Right...

Why don't you list all the civil libertis and rights for us and we'll go through them one at a time eh? :p

You obviously don't actually know what you are talking about do you? Rights and liberties do NOT have to be applied equally across the board. You might like to think so, but it's not true. You and I do NOT have to pay the SAME taxes, for example. Get of your limited view high horse for a moment and look our the window, there's a whole world of stuff out there you don't seem to know too much about...

You say something like this and you think I don't know what I'm talking about. I dare any congressional or presidential candidate to suggest such thing. Fortunately, most of them are familiar with constitutional law, obviously not a prerequisite at whatever school you're currently attending. In fact, RIGHTS and LIBERTIES do have to be applied equally to adults with rare exception (generally, due to the previous violation of law).

By the way, taxes are not a right or a liberty. I'm floored by the ignorance of that statement.

You fail to be able to connect one post with the next, no memory of conversation that came before, and you keep repeating the same babble ~ even if I answer now, in three pages, you'll say the same thing all over again... :rolleyes:

Really? You posted that 'study' before. Can you show me what post that was? Even if you did, how can you suggest that this somehow forgives you from having to address the issues I raised with it.

I do apologize if my language bothers anybody, but this is an issue I feel strongly about. A friend of mine and her partner recently adopted an HIV-positive heroine-addicted little boy, a boy who no heterosexual family was willing to adopt, and to hear somebody suggest that he isn't REALLY their child is so insulting that I get a tad bit hot under the collar.

Tell you what, homophobes: when each and every one of you has adopted a child, then you can bitch about gay families. When each of you is willing to welcome a drug-addicted child into your home and your lives, then you can have your "family values" label back. When every child born from heterosexual sex is provided a safe, happy, healthy home with a loving and welcoming family, then you can have your talking privaledges back. Until then...get over yourselves.


And allowing SSM's to start is going to end and solve all of that? Riiiight.

Why don't you list all the civil libertis and rights for us and we'll go through them one at a time eh? :p

Why don't you list the ones you think are exceptions? Wouldn't that be easier?

Or we could do it this way...
Right to be protected from illegal search and seizure

What country do you live in? Health care benefits come to mind and joint tax returns etc
those are the financial UP sides. the downsides include bearing the debts of another person, having that person have rights to MY money, MY property and MY credit. taking on another person with whom i have no particular long term relationship just so they can get insurance can leave me in a world of financial hurt.




The point is, they are different issues, why combine them? If lesbian mothers need health care, child supply support, day-care help, etc., lets address those issues. However, combing ALL homosexual issues to marriage issues is not required
true, there are many gay issues that have nothing to do with marriage. a single mother who happens to be a lesbian faces the same day care/healthcare/childsupport issues as a straight single mother.

but IF children need a stable loving home with 2 parents, then that lesbian mother and her children are best served by having it be legal for her to marry her lesbian partner same as any other single mother in the world.

And allowing SSM's to start is going to end and solve all of that? Riiiight.

No but it will create more stable loving homes for these children to be adopted into.

You say something like this and you think I don't know what I'm talking about. I dare any congressional or presidential candidate to suggest such thing. Fortunately, most of them are familiar with constitutional law, obviously not a prerequisite at whatever school you're currently attending. In fact, RIGHTS and LIBERTIES do have to be applied equally to adults with rare exception (generally, due to the previous violation of law).

By the way, taxes are not a right or a liberty. I'm floored by the ignorance of that statement.

For a person who references it as much as you do sure don't seem to know too much about it... The 14th Amemendment addresses taxes...
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/

For a person who references it as much as you do sure don't seem to know too much about it... The 14th Amemendment addresses taxes...
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/
Really?

" Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

That's all just taxes, is it?

Or, for that matter,

" Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."

That's all all just taxes?

And this?

"Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

And this?

" Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."

The word tax appears...once. So you are techincally right, since it mentions taxes, in the sentence, "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed." Can't imagine why somebody would miss the fact that this Ammendment deals with taxes...

but IF children need a stable loving home with 2 parents, then that lesbian mother and her children are best served by having it be legal for her to marry her lesbian partner same as any other single mother in the world.

It is true that single parents could pool their resources, buy a house together, file head-of-household taxes and help each other raise their combined families. However, at what point do they need to be lesbian? I posted this idea earlier (pages ago, I'm sure) that allowing SSM would decrease the expectation of long term, monogamous and loving from this equation because two single heterosexual mothers might join purely for the temporary benefits of sharing one of their health benefits.

I say that this removes the 'point' of marriage. If they need health benefits, we need to address that directly, and immediately. They are doing a run-around to solve a problem they shouldn't be having, but again, no reason to allow SSM to take place, it's a stop gap fix, not a solution.

We need to encourage more long term, monogamous, loving marriages. Not dilute the institution into something it was not designed to be, depriving it of any of the usefulness (even now in it's much weakened state) as it was designed to be.

And allowing SSM's to start is going to end and solve all of that? Riiiight.
And denying equal rights to citizens based on the bigotry of some other citizens will help anything at all? Riiight...

Really?
*snip*

Really.

Taxation
At the outset, the Court did not regard the equal protection clause as having any bearing on taxation. 192 It soon, however, took jurisdiction of cases assailing specific tax laws under this provision, 193 and in 1890 it cautiously conceded that ''clear and hostile discriminations against particular persons and classes, especially such as are of an unusual character, unknown to the practice of our government, might be obnoxious to the constitutional prohibition.'' 194 But it observed that the equal protection clause ''was not intended to compel the States to adopt an iron rule of equal taxation'' and propounded some conclusions valid today. 195 In succeeding years the clause has been invoked but sparingly to invalidate state levies. In the field of property taxation, inequality has been condemned only in two classes of cases: (1) discrimination in assessments, and (2) discrimination against foreign corporations. In addition, there are a handful of cases invalidating, because of inequality, state laws imposing income, gross receipts, sales and license taxes.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/21.html#2

And denying equal rights to citizens based on the bigotry of some other citizens will help anything at all? Riiight...

No bigotry at all, vested interest in promoting and encouraging parents to stay together and raise their children.

Really.


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/21.html#2
Notice where that is found. Is it in the Ammendment itself? Nope. It's under "annotations." Wonder why somebody might not assume that the 14th deals with taxes.

Read your own links, honey bunny. Don't leap down people's throat just because they aren't consitutional scholars. (And, be forewarned, many people around NS are constitutional scholars, and they are usually the bitchiest around here :))

No bigotry at all, vested interest in promoting and encouraging parents to stay together and raise their children.
Which is best accomplished by making it impossible for two parents to be wed. Of course.

Notice where that is found. Is it in the Ammendment itself? Nope. It's under "annotations." Wonder why somebody might not assume that the 14th deals with taxes.

Read your own links, honey bunny. Don't leap down people's throat just because they aren't consitutional scholars. (And, be forewarned, many people around NS are constitutional scholars, and they are usually the bitchiest around here :))

He jumped down my throat because I mentioned that civil rights don't have to be applied equally and then mentioned taxes and then He and one other poster said that they couldn't believe that I would put taxes in the same category as civil rights.... Seeing as he's pointing me to the 14th Amendment over and over, I thought it ironic.

It is true that single parents could pool their resources, buy a house together, file head-of-household taxes and help each other raise their combined families. However, at what point do they need to be lesbian? I posted this idea earlier (pages ago, I'm sure) that allowing SSM would decrease the expectation of long term, monogamous and loving from this equation because two single heterosexual mothers might join purely for the temporary benefits of sharing one of their health benefits.

I say that this removes the 'point' of marriage. If they need health benefits, we need to address that directly, and immediately. They are doing a run-around to solve a problem they shouldn't be having, but again, no reason to allow SSM to take place, it's a stop gap fix, not a solution.

We need to encourage more long term, monogamous, loving marriages. Not dilute the institution into something it was not designed to be, depriving it of any of the usefulness (even now in it's much weakened state) as it was designed to be.
the lesbian part comes in with the idea of it BEING a long term monogamous loving marriage. 2 straight women are unlikely to form such a bond and would be rather foolish to marry for convenience when what they really want is a long term loving relationship with a MAN.

which is not to say that it wouldnt happen, just that its not likely to be any more common than women who marry men for convenience only.

as i understand it, your big reason for opposing same sex marriage is that you think that massive numbers of single straight people would marry each other for some kind of tax advantage. i find it unlikely and request that you provide some kind of proof that such a thing would be common. there really are quite a number of downsides to casual marriage. for most people they far outweigh any short term tax and health insurance benefits.

as i understand it, your big reason for opposing same sex marriage is that you think that massive numbers of single straight people would marry each other for some kind of tax advantage. i find it unlikely and request that you provide some kind of proof that such a thing would be common. there really are quite a number of downsides to casual marriage. for most people they far outweigh any short term tax and health insurance benefits.

No. My main reason is to oppose ANYTHING that is destabilizing the institution of marriage for raising families. I'm not just advocating against diluting marriage with SSM's, but I'm against many other things in society that have changed America from having 9% of it's children living in single parent homes in 1960 to 30% now, and 68% of children in certain areas (namely large poor urban cities) being raised in single parent or no parent homes.

We HAVE to defend marriage, re-institute it as a methodology of raising our expectations of parents. Children are suffering, our society is suffering, it is getting worse... diluting the purpose of marriage entirely, by allowing SSM (for example) will only make the entire institution unsalvageable and meaningless.

My warning is that all of America will look like the urban areas do now. It is growing worse, as adults who have children feel less and less inclined to actually bother raising them. It's a shame on us all.

Really? You posted that 'study' before. Can you show me what post that was? Even if you did, how can you suggest that this somehow forgives you from having to address the issues I raised with it.


You can take up your issues with the University of Minnesota, there is no reason for me to respond to your baseless and angry slander against a child development research report about Father's influence in children's lives.

Greenlander, I posted this a couple of days ago, and never got an answer. I'd kind of like one. I understand you've been busy answering others, but see if you can't find the time to address this.

Okay, Greenlander, let me make the question everyone keeps asking you a little simpler - how 'bout a concrete example?

Imagine, if you will, a pair of lesbian women. They love each other very much. They have been together for over a decade and show no signs of ceasing to adore each other. They have two children, the elder (a son) adopted as a toddler. His biological parents left him on a hospital doorstep when he was a few months old. The younger (a daughter) was produced with the help of a sperm donor. One of the two women is a successful lawyer, and the family is quite well-off financially. The other woman stayed home with the kids until they reached school age; her parents live a few blocks away and spend time with their grandchildren on a near-daily basis.

Tell me, please, how this family in any way undermines your ideals for child-raising. Tell me, please, how allowing these two women the same legal status as any heterosexual couple in any way harms any family in the world, their own included. Since you clearly feel strongly about this, that shouldn't be too hard of a question to answer, right?

The entire first post of this thread addresses that question.


Unfortunately it utterly lacks substance despite its length.

No. My main reason is to oppose ANYTHING that is destabilizing the institution of marriage for raising families. I'm not just advocating against diluting marriage with SSM's, but I'm against many other things in society that have changed America from having 9% of it's children living in single parent homes in 1960 to 30% now, and 68% of children in certain areas (namely large poor urban cities) being raised in single parent or no parent homes.

We HAVE to defend marriage, re-institute it as a methodology of raising our expectations of parents. Children are suffering, our society is suffering, it is getting worse... diluting the purpose of marriage entirely, by allowing SSM (for example) will only make the entire institution unsalvageable and meaningless.

My warning is that all of America will look like the urban areas do now. It is growing worse, as adults who have children feel less and less inclined to actually bother raising them. It's a shame on us all.

Which is a nice and long rant, but it still doesn't explain to me how allowing same sex marriage would make the situation worse.

Instead of blaming us 'faggots', how about looking at the crappy attempt there is by heterosexuals to restore their precious marriage; how about instead of thinking about the individual (when in a marriage), think about the other person - put that other person FIRST before making a decision or saying something.

Just take a look at Netherlands and numerous other countries that have allowed either/or Civil Unions or same sex marriage - it seems that nothing has changed, then again, these 'traditionally liberal countries' don't seem to suffer from the same societal problems that the US has.

Maybe instead of blaming gays and same sex marriage, US society needs to take a damn good look at itself.

It is true that single parents could pool their resources, buy a house together, file head-of-household taxes and help each other raise their combined families. However, at what point do they need to be lesbian? I posted this idea earlier (pages ago, I'm sure) that allowing SSM would decrease the expectation of long term, monogamous and loving from this equation because two single heterosexual mothers might join purely for the temporary benefits of sharing one of their health benefits.

I say that this removes the 'point' of marriage. If they need health benefits, we need to address that directly, and immediately. They are doing a run-around to solve a problem they shouldn't be having, but again, no reason to allow SSM to take place, it's a stop gap fix, not a solution.

We need to encourage more long term, monogamous, loving marriages. Not dilute the institution into something it was not designed to be, depriving it of any of the usefulness (even now in it's much weakened state) as it was designed to be.
Show how a heterosexual union cannot do exactly the same thing or you have no point. Currently you have brought up no case for abuse of the institution that doesn't already exist with heterosexual marriages. SSM has the same potential for good and abuse as heterosexual marriages do.

For a person who references it as much as you do sure don't seem to know too much about it... The 14th Amemendment addresses taxes...
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/

They're still not a right or a liberty as you called them. It is however a right to be treated equally. All people who make 100,000/year and file the same number of dependents and exemptions will be taxed equally. Equal treatement is a right and is addressed by the fourteenth amendment. I think what you meant to say was the protections of fourteenth amendment include taxes.

No bigotry at all, vested interest in promoting and encouraging parents to stay together and raise their children.

And how does outlawing same-sex marriage do that? According to you, gays and lesbians can already do address all the same needs that would be addressed by marriage through some kind of 'seperate but equal' means. How would calling it marriage affect heterosexual marriages? It doesn't. You keep posting these 'studies' and you keep avoiding the point. If two gay men who were never intending to marry women get married, how does it affect your heterosexual marriage? It doesn't. And if those same gay men marry and then adopt a child that no one else wants, how does that do anything but strengthen the family and create more good citizens (as you claim is the government interest in marriage)?

Single-parent households, family disruption, and incidence of juvenile crime have all increased. In this paper we review the empirical, psychological literature that finds associations between juvenile conduct problems, paternal absence, family instability, and inadequate parental monitoring of teens. Children, particularly boys, from father-absence, family instability, and inadequate parental monitoring of teens. Children, particularly boys, from father-absence homes are at much greater risk for adolescent conduct disorder compared to children from two-parent homes. Additionally, we present original research that shows that boys are at additional risk when their mothers' partners disrupt their homes. Public policy implications are discussed, including the need for support of social stability.

Conclusion
The 167 children in our study are young adults today and most of them are Minnesota citizens. Because our sample was drawn from a low income group, it is not representative of all young adults, but there are thousands of young people in our community who have been raised in homes like the ones described above. Past research has shown that children do best when they are raised by their parents (except in families characterized by discord or abuse); divorce and remarriage are stressful experiences for children. Our research shows that children are getting too little fathering (mean of 5.3 years per child) and their homes are disrupted by too-frequent changes in mothers' partners. The emerging data on the consequences of raising children in highly-disrupted homes is confirmed by our findings. Children are put at increased risk for negative outcomes, including conduct problems, when the adult residents in their homes are not stable. In our sample, as in others, early aggression, monitoring and life stress are associated with conduct problems. The family disruption/stability measure that predicted conduct disturbances in our study, which was a rating of the child's familial experience between the ages of 2 and 6, could be used in conjunction with measures of child aggression, for early identification of the children at greatest risk. Further, very recent data, including ours, suggests that some of the association between single-mother homes and delinquency may be mediated by low levels of adolescent monitoring.

Public Policy Implications
On behalf of children, there are currently movements in this country to identify paternity, increase paternal family involvement, increase marriage, decrease divorce, enforce child support payment, and to decrease welfare roles by requiring paternal responsibility. The value of these efforts is supported by the empirical research we have reviewed, with the caveat that men should not be seen solely as financial providers. A stable male presence also provides psychosocial support. Both men and women need to know that there are negative consequences for children of having one or more men moving in and out, separating and reconciling. Mothers sometimes choose to have a boyfriend in the home, even briefly, for the financial support it provides. Fathers and other men sometimes choose to leave the home when they are unable to fulfill their role as a provider. Public policies that provide jobs for men so that they can provide stability for the homes in which their children are living may contribute to decreases in juvenile delinquency.
http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/familydevelopment/components/7286-03.html

Anyone else notice the part I bolded? So let's see if I understand the conclusion. Children do better in homes where their parents are married as long as there are no arguments or abuse in that home. Except they didn't place the same restriction on other relationships they studied. You know what that makes that? A useless study that proves nothing. OH, but it does even better. It talks about unstable relationships being the major problem for these children. So basically, it makes the argument for allowing more couples to enter into life-long relationships. I know how we can do that. Same-sex marriage!! Surely, you can do better. You're not even making this difficult. It's a little desperate to use a study that's so blatantly ridiculous.

You can take up your issues with the University of Minnesota, there is no reason for me to respond to your baseless and angry slander against a child development research report about Father's influence in children's lives.

So what you're saying is that you can post studies that supposedly support your position and any scientific and statistical objections to those studies are 'baseless and angry slander'. Perhaps you see where my objections are pointed. They are pointed at you. Find a better study. This study doesn't show what you claim it does. Most of the time it just says adults, as in "when the adult residents in their homes are not stable". SSM is specifically trying to discourage instability in the lives of children in their relationships and you have many times suggested that they and their children need no such protection. The study disagrees with your assessment.

He jumped down my throat because I mentioned that civil rights don't have to be applied equally and then mentioned taxes and then He and one other poster said that they couldn't believe that I would put taxes in the same category as civil rights.... Seeing as he's pointing me to the 14th Amendment over and over, I thought it ironic.

You didn't put them in the same category. You called taxes a civil right. Taxes are not a right. The restrictions put on taxes and amount of taxes are equal to everyone. That equal protection is a right and is the basis for what you quoted. Taxes are applied equally. You still have not shown that they are not.

Greenlander, I posted this a couple of days ago, and never got an answer. I'd kind of like one. I understand you've been busy answering others, but see if you can't find the time to address this.

Imagine, if you will, a pair of lesbian women. They love each other very much. They have been together for over a decade and show no signs of ceasing to adore each other. They have two children, the elder (a son) adopted as a toddler. His biological parents left him on a hospital doorstep when he was a few months old. The younger (a daughter) was produced with the help of a sperm donor. One of the two women is a successful lawyer, and the family is quite well-off financially. The other woman stayed home with the kids until they reached school age; her parents live a few blocks away and spend time with their grandchildren on a near-daily basis.

Tell me, please, how this family in any way undermines your ideals for child-raising. Tell me, please, how allowing these two women the same legal status as any heterosexual couple in any way harms any family in the world, their own included. Since you clearly feel strongly about this, that shouldn't be too hard of a question to answer, right?

My ideals for child raising is for the parents to raise their children in a loving and compassionate home. When that is not possible, that everyone does their very best to create a safe and healthy environments for the children, stability helps. I wish the people in the situation you described the very best of luck and I hope they have a very fine and good long life together... We will always have single parent homes and orphans with us, and we can do good by them, but there is no reason to encourage such situations by saying that it all works out in the end so we can do whatever we want...

When a word is stretched, when a title is given to everyone, it becomes more and more meaningless, I might as well just say "humankind" and be done with it. But descriptions of situations are not bigotry, they are merely definitions. Man, Woman, Child, Single, Group, Young or Old. If I went around saying that I want to be called "young" and sued for the right to force everyone to call me young, even though I'm eighty-nine years old, the word looses it's meaning. It no longer means what it was before, it is, in essence, a useless word because you no longer know what the situation being described is when a person uses it.

The issues the gay-community needs to deal with are not Marriage issues, and Marriage and family issues are not Gay-community issues, and since very few people in the world can call themselves by just one group it is not surprising that some SS relationships do have family issues AND SS gay-community issues in their lives. However, these two groups are not the same group, and do not and should not be called the same thing.

Various people have asked me here in one way or another, "Why does the marriage issues have to address family's and children?" Because that is the best way to have children raised, it's been proven, to experiment on society without a plan is irrational and reckless, irresponsible and negligent in my opinion.

Legislating marriage and families goes hand in hand now, it can and should stay that way, pilling on gay-community issues in the same basket is pointless and dangerous. Gay-community issues requires it's own legislation, separate and different.

Some examples of how legislation address marriage itself, that will not make any sense if marriage no longer means family:
Florida:
http://www.flsenate.gov/data/session/2003/Senate/bills/billtext/pdf/s0480er.pdf

An act relating to children and families;
3 providing legislative findings and intent;
4 creating the Commission on Marriage and Family
5 Support Initiatives within the Department of
6 Children and Family Services;

Minnesota:
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?bill=S1841.1&session=ls83

The commissioner shall
1.14 develop and implement a Minnesota Healthy Marriage and
1.15 Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, as provided for in this
1.16 section. The commissioner may administer the initiative with
1.17 federal grants, state appropriations, and in-kind services
1.18 received for this purpose.

New Hampshire:
http://gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2002/HB1299.html
AN ACT establishing a committee to study the creation of a marriage education and enhancement program.
SPONSORS: Rep. Hopper, Hills 5; Rep. J. Hutchinson, Merr 15; Rep. Souza, Hills 40; Rep. Albert, Straf 17; Sen. Cohen, Dist 24
COMMITTEE: Children and Family Law

Colorado:
http://www.leg.state.co.us/2003a/inetcbill.nsf/fsbillcont/72B1FFDE6B6382E487256CD3005832EF?Open&file=HJR1064_enr.pdf
WHEREAS, Marriage, family, and relationship skills education can help
couples learn conflict resolution skills, thereby reducing domestic violence
against each other and their children; and
WHEREAS, Marriage, family, and relationship skills education can
facilitate the creation of clear guidelines for keeping children out of the
middle of parents' disputes and can enhance focus on the needs of the
children; and…


Fewer American children are living in a two-parent homes. In 1960, 88% of American children lived in a two-parent home (9% in one parent homes, 3% in no parent homes). By the 2000 census, that had dropped to 69%.
In addition, the percentage of children living apart from their biological fathers has doubled since 1960, from 17% to 34%. And the percentage of children living with a single parent has tripled, from 9% to 28%, according to the National Marriage Project, a nonpartisan research institution at Rutgers University.

As marriage becomes more and more diluted and the institution devalued, less and less children raising American couples are choosing to get married at all, reducing the security and the commitment from the adults for the children’s sake. Legal protections looking for the children are harder and harder to legislate as couples are not registered and children’s interests go unprotected.

The number of unmarried heterosexual couples living with children rose from 197,000 in 1960 to 1.7 million in 2000 — an 850% increase. It's estimated that 40% of American children today will spend some of their childhood in a cohabiting household, according to the National Marriage Project's report, State of Our Unions 2003.

The "Healthy Marriage Initiative" proposal Bush talked about during the 2004 campaign is part of legislation to renew the 1996 welfare law, would spend $300 million in grant money each year teaching communication skills to people in low-income neighborhoods to reinforce existing marriage education programs in an attempt to convey to the public the need of their children.


Marraige and Family go hand in hand...

I'm out of words, unless a different angle of discussion evolves here, I've said everything I can, I'm just repeating stuff from earlier in the thread. If some of you still aren't convinced that children are best raised by their own parents who are commited to each other and their children, then we will just have to disagree and settle the dispute in the voting booths.

You didn't put them in the same category. You called taxes a civil right. Taxes are not a right. The restrictions put on taxes and amount of taxes are equal to everyone. That equal protection is a right and is the basis for what you quoted. Taxes are applied equally. You still have not shown that they are not.

Paying taxes equally is a part of civil rights.

Percentages change...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9224375&postcount=745

That middle block/quote, that's what you said, not what I said.

The entire argument of this thread, the very topic IS, family. I assert the claim that Marriage means Family. That is my premise here.

How then, does the institution of Family and it’s protections via Marriage and definitions, et al., devalue your relationship with your lover? You can’t get married to each other because you aren’t declaring your relationship to be one of creating progeny for the State (in this case State means all government and community).

:headbang:

My progeny, and I do plan on having some, will most certainly not be there for the state.


It devalues it because it does not grant protections that heterosexual couples are deemed worthy of.

It has nothing, nothing to do with implying a ‘value’ assessment on individuals. If you and your lover want a public platform to declare you undying love for each other, then go pay for a newspaper announcement or get a billboard at advertise it, how could a private civil license do that for you? Your love and companionship for each other is not diminished by some else’s civil marriage.

Already did the newspaper, thanks.

The benefits of marriage have been listed so many times now, I'm not going to do it again.

Oh, and finally, did you not notice where it explained in big UPPERCASE LETTERS how progeny in any answer would not be relevent to the question?