Working on my traditional marriage argument.

and what are those rights that are granted in a marriage that you normally don't have if not married? that I have always wondered

 

What has single parents have to do with the original premise that children fair better with heterosexual parents than they do with same sex parents .. answer, absolutely nothing.

The "silliness" is you trying to throw the discussion of on a tangent, if you want to debate single parenting compared to dual parenting then please do create a topic to discuss it, the discussion here is heterosexual parents vs same sex parents. Please do pay attention and stay on topic.

 

Can you identify a mother and grandmother who are asking for the right to marry?. Have you ever heard of such a case? And even if there was such a case, heterosexual people cannot marry there grand mothers either. This is just more of your moronic and intellectually dishonest logical fallacies.

 

Sorry, but if your agenda weren't anti-gay, you'd focus more on, say, the issues of divorce and domestic abuse.

 

Tax breaks and governmental entitlements.

 

The recognition of the fact that only heterosexual couples have the potential of procreation and governments encouragement of mothers and fathers to raise their own children together in the home as opposed to only one or neither of them doing so, isn't anti gay, its a grasp on reality.

 

ok why does the government give married couples tax breaks and entitlements?
they do so to encourage people to get married so to procreate gays don't procreate so why should they be benefit to those tax breaks and entitlements?

 

First, marriage goes above and beyond procreation. Second, government control of people's personal lives for the sake of producing offspring for the benefit of the nation is totalitarian & unamerican.

 

He doesn't get it. He's run off of the rails, just repeating the same inane nonsense over and over. I'm not sure if it really believes it's own bovine excrement or if it just some sick and perverted game

 

Well, not too many decades ago, most states made it against the law for a man to cohabitate or have sexual relations with a woman not his wife. But now all those laws are gone and marriage is purely voluntary. And, children born to single mothers have higher rates of poverty, juvenile delinquency, teen pregnancy, HS dropouts and criminal conviction as an adult, when compared to children born to their married parents. All things that lead to a need for even more governmental involvement. Encouraging marriage seeks to lessen the need for government involvement. Has absolutely nothing to do with being "anti gay"

 

Why should a law rank anything? what you personally feel should be ranked above is one thing, but the law should show no such preference. Laws should protect the rights of everyone, to include homosexuals. To make a law that only protects the rights of heterosexuals, while denying the right to homosexuals is flat out wrong. A law that discriminates is no law I want to be a part of.

- - - Updated - - -

Just because you ar egay does nto mean you can not procreate, and some gays do actually have children

 

Its all basic Constitutional law as evidenced by the dozens of court cases Ive cited that used the same arguments. Labeling it inane nonsense doesn't change the fact that its Constitutional law.

 

OK so who in Louisiana was saying that the earth would open up and swallow Massachusetts?

So were there, or were there not, anti gay marriage activists saying the earth would open up and swallow your state?

 

I think the perpetuation of the human species by heterosexual couples takes precedence over the orgasms homosexual couples experience. As far as ranking in importance to society. AND CERTAINLY takes precedence over the desire to avoid offending gays.

 

Being a gay couple means you cant procreate as a couple. And most children with a gay parent are from a previous heterosexual relationship. Child still has a male father and a female mother, whether they are in the home or not.

 

offending or anything is also irrelevant. The law should show zero preference period

 

Do away with all the namby pamby government handouts. That way people might actually learn to be responsible in their personal lives and take care of a family.

 

If marriage has no traditional value and is simply a term for the state and courts to decide, then it has no value at all. May as well call it a 55764 form or whatever document name its given, its been turned into a contract between you and the state/ court. If benefits are the big deal then why not simply have a section on the tax return if you're lodging as a couple or not?

You change the definition, you change the meaning to that of simply a legal document then as i said it holds no value. The courts have no place deciding what are traditional values. Why on earth would people waste money with a big traditional ceremony? Oh lets celebrate handing in our tax returns, yay!

Fortunately in Australia we havent messed with marriage yet so it has value over an above a contract or state registration form.

 

You are setting up a false argument, you are saying that a child is best off in a situation where they have two loving biological parents in a stable nurturing relationship, you may as well toss in well educated and economically secure, and that is a factoid, it's true and it is irrelevant to the same sex marriage argument.
Because there are far more children than there are pair bonded biological parents in stable nurturing relationships, economically secure and well educated.

There are a whole bunch of kids who have to settle for less, no parents, single parents, parents in dysfunctional relationships, or even same sex parents.
And in that hierarchy, same sex parents in a stable nurturing relationship can be better that single parents or foster parents or foundling homes.
So just because something isn't ideal, it still may be the best situation a particular child can hope for.
Why take away that hope?

 

You speak highly of tradition and tradition has it’s place. However, to hold tradition above all other considerations-to appeal to tradition as a compelling reason to deny gays the right to marry is a logical fallacy. If we were such slaves to tradition marriage would not have changed at all over time. The status of women has evolved from a time when they were little more than property to a time when they are the equal of men. Gender roles have likewise evolved, and continue to evolve. There is much less distinction between the role of women and men and marriage, for most is more of a partnership between equals. Tradition has already changed tremendously. To evolve further to where we are unconcerned about the genders of those partners-the physical attributes if you will- is only a relatively small and logical next step. If you are going to lament that the meaning has changed because it is no longer just between a man and a women, you might also want to consider that it hasn’t changed at all- it is still between two people who have formed a partnership in a committed relationship. It has always been much more than just a contract and will always be.

Marriage will continue to have great meaning for the participants regardless of how it’s defined and regardless of whether it is bogged down in tradition or allowed to evolve further, with the help of the courts if necessary. I don’t know what sort of government you have there down under, but our constitution speaks of “equal protection under the law” and the right to due process. More and more our courts are finding that there is no rational basis for denying marriage to same sex couples. The courts are not deciding what tradition is, they are deciding that tradition does not take precedence over the law. Is it really tradition that you’re concerned about, or is there something else that threatens you about gay marriage that you’re not saying?

 

Ive been married 18 years im hardly threatened. Just because i dont agree doesnt mean i want kill gays or im somehow afraid of em, what sort of logic is that? I got married under the impression it was one man and one women (still is here) and spent a small fortune on it for the tradition. If i knew it was nothing but an agreement between my partner, myself and the state, which it must be if they can simply change its meaning, then all it is a (*)(*)(*)(*)ty piece of govt paperwork. What changes are next? Since the state has hijacked it as a piece of law/ registration/ govt form then it'll means as much lodging a tax return.

And who the hell are you to tell me how i should value western traditions/ culture?

 

You say that you're not threatened by gay marriage but your agitated reaction tells me otherwise. I too have been married many years- to a women I might add. So you got married for the tradition....good , I got married for many reasons. We now have same sex marriage in my state of New Jersey and it hasn't changed anything for us. Are you saying that if there was gay marriage where you are, that you would not have bothered to get married. Perhaps you should re-read what I previously wrote and tell me what you don't understand. You might make note of the fact that I in no way told you how you should value western traditions/ culture.

 

So can you showed me where you tried to outlaw drive through wedding chapels???????????? If you haven't then your hypocrisy makes everything you wrote here ridiculous.

 

They're people cheapening the tradition not fundamentally changing it. What we have here is the state/ courts saying No No thousands of years of tradition and culture that counts for naught marriage is only a legal document of how we register you and we'll tell you what it is and isnt.

 

You continue to bloviate about tradition without even making an attempt to address the points that I made. I am not against tradition but we cannot ignore the rule of law and obvious injustice that results in the unequal treatment of gays. What about that do you not understand? What have I said that you can articulate a counter point on?