Working on my traditional marriage argument.

That would involve zero preference for the married over the unmarried and not at all involve gays.

 

Most everyone here is arguing for more government handouts for the gays. I don't have a problem with some government involvement to improve the wellbeing of children. I have a real problem with government involvement so gays don't feel inadequate.

 

Does nothing for the arguments for "gay marriage". More children right now being raised by two closely related adults than have ever been raised by gay couples.

 

There is no unequal treatment of gays. It is unequal treatment of ALL other than heterosexual couples. Two heterosexual men arent excluded from marriage because it is believed they are gay and are instead excluded because they are of the same sex. Has nothing to do with being gay.

 

Are you trying to say that you are involved in every heterosexual marriage that happens, and that NOT getting involved in all those marriage would be an insult to allt hose heterosexual couples?

I don't think it is what you really mean. . . You and everyone else are totally indifferent to most heterosexual marriage, if the couple is not in our close circle of friend, family, or celebrities! Why can't you take the same detached attitude with gay marriage? Neither approving or disapproving, just not judging and certainly not criticizing.

That is ALL that gays ask of you.. . That you let them lead their life with the protection of EQUAL RIGHT under the law, like ANY other loving, consenting, adult couple.

Pretty simple, isn't it?

As soon as the bigots stop bad mouthing gay couples and respect their constitutional right to "pursue happiness" and to choose whom they want to spend their life with, under the protection of the law, there will be no more "push" to obtain those rights. . . .since there will be no more discriminating barriers in ANY couple's way.

- - - Updated - - -

Duh!

What makes them "gay" if it is not being in love with someone of the same sex?

- - - Updated - - -

 

Single mother and grandmother down the street raising their children/grandchildren for over a decade are of the same sex and love each other. Gays engage in sexual relations with people of the same sex.

 

And I have no problem paying more tax to help children and loving couples of any gender, vut I have huge problems seeing my tax go to subsidize the defense industry and buying drones to kill people all over the world, or buing war weapons to send to Israel to fight to kill Palestinians.

Yet, I don't think, to this day at least, our tax return gives us a choice of what we want our tax dollars applied to, right?

So get over it!

 

And? What does that have to do with the whole issue? Does gay people having sex take money from grandmother?

Does gay couple getting married change ANYTHING to single mothers or grandmothers raising children?

Your comments smell more and more of desperation and are vecoming less and less logical!

 

I was disputing your claim that two people in love, of the same sex are gay.

 

If you want equal and not mess with tradition call the govt registration for ALL couples something else, like a couple's union act or something. Or better yet, if all relationships are the same then register none of them, theres no point. We have men and women to describe different genders yet are treated equally under the law, so im not advocating gays not being allowed to get together or have their union registered or treated different by the courts. My point is its BS people can take a tradition of thousands of years turn it into a law and then change its meaning. Its no longer a tradition the moment that happens it simply a law.

 

Marriage has always been governed by law in this country.

 

You keep talking about tradition and I understand that it's important to you. However, you still refuse to address or even acknowledge the reasons that I presented for why tradition should not trump other considerations. You're stating your conclusion without basing it on a viable premise. You're relying on an appeal to tradition and dogmatic assertions to the exclusion of a viable argument.

A few more thoughts on tradition. Where same sex marriage is legal, perhaps 3% or less of the married population will be made up of same sex couples. That is hardly sufficient to undermine or dilute the institution of marriage as we know it. Regardless of the percentage, YOU will still have YOUR traditional marriage.

The viability of a tradition is not dependent on all or even most people participating in it. For instance, there are many minority religions and cultures that have traditions that are not practiced within the larger culture. Even within those minority groups, not all members experience and practice those traditions in exactly the same way.

To those who are concerned about the viability of marriage as a traditional institution in the face of gay marriage, allow me to point out that heterosexuals have been doing a pretty good job of undermining that institution without the help of gays. They often enter into it with hast, and throw in the towel and get divorced with equal recklessness. In addition, we know that some percentage of divorces are the result of people who are gay entering into traditional sham marriages because they feel that they can’t be open about who they are, but find that it doesn’t work. The institution of marriage may actually be strengthened by broadening the base to include all those who are committed to each other.

To those who feel that their own marriage will be threatened or undermined by the acceptance of gay marriage, I say; if in fact that is true- that what a few other are doing outside of your own marriage can have such a negative impact on you, then perhaps your own marriage is already circling the drain.

I want to thank you for provoking me to think more rigorously about the issue of tradition. Now it's your turn. Take your time and collect your thoughts and formulate an actual argument.

 

What you're referring to is what we call Civil Unions here. It's an issue that keeps coming up, and it’s most often in the context of “ I support full rights for gays but they should not be able to call it marriage” and “Civil Unions are the same thing, why all the fuss ?” Why all the fuss indeed? First of all there is much in words, especially such a powerful, universally understood word as marriage. A word conveys a status, it means that people who that word applies to have certain rights that others may not have. “Citizen” or Citizenship is another such word. What if the law of the land was, that while all citizens had all the same rights and protections, naturalized citizens could not actually call themselves “Citizens.” Perhaps they could be called “Permanent Civil Residents” Does anyone think that these people would actually feel like real citizens who are full accepted by society? How long would it be before these people got sick of explaining what a “Permanent Civil Resident” is. It would be especially difficult when dealing with people from other countries, or travelling abroad where everyone is just a “citizen” They would have to explain their status every time they applied for a job, applied for a passport, or renewed a drivers license. They would be sure to encounter people who were ignorant of the term, or perhaps looking for a reason to stand in their way and deny them their rights. Get the point?

Secondly, jurisdictions where civil unions exist do not always provide full equality. Now you will say that can be remedied by legislation. Well, I’m here to tell you that is not so easy. A few years ago, the New Jersey Supreme Court mandated that Civil Unionized people have all of the same rights as married people. However, the reality is a different thing” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/nyregion/28civil.html

And you might also want to read http://www.gardenstateequality.org/issues/civilunions/

In addition, under federal law, the disparity is even greater, especially now that DOMA has been overturned but couples who are restricted to civil unions do not benefit from that http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/marriage_unions.html

Lastly, I don’t believe for a nanosecond that those who claim that they support equal rights for gays but not marriage actually want and support equality. They are threatened by the idea of gays being able to call their unions “marriage” because if they did , THEN they would ACTUALLY be equal. All of the hoopla about the word is based on that fear. They must defend at all costs the great and stable institution of traditional marriage where the median age for a woman’s pregnancy is now lower that the median age of marriage and where half of these traditional unions end in divorce. Please consider the possibility that redefining marriage may actually strengthen the institution with an influx of stable relationships , and committed partners. Please consider that married same sex couples will simply blend in and become part of the social fabric. However, if you can’t do that, at least be honest and admit that you really don’t buy the “equality” line either.

 

I know children that are being raised by married same sex couples, they are better off than if they were being raised by a single parent, same sex marriage has produced a superior result in these particular cases and in hundreds more like them.

What is the benefit of putting children in a less nurturing environment, as you propose to do, other than placating your imaginary friend who lives in the sky and hates gay people....

 

It would include gays on the zero preference. Any law that takes heterosexuals over homosexuals is flat wrong. this really should not be an issue, the fact it is this day and age is upsetting

 

ANY two consenting adults could join together to raise a child together. Does nothing for the arguments for "gay marriage".

 

Its a grasp on reality. A reality that does seem to greatly offend the gays, but their inability to deal with reality isn't our concern. And the only preference is for biological parents to raise their own children together as opposed to apart or not at all. THE "LAW" recognizes the very real difference that only heterosexuals forming couples leads to procreation. The law has no applicability in the case of gay couples.

23-2208. Presumption of paternity. (a) A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) The man and the child's mother are, or have been, married to each other and the child is born during the marriage

 

Does nothing to argue against it you mean, there are lots of differences between unrelated consenting adults and a married couple, which have a lot to do with raising children. Providing health insurance through work is a huge one, parental rights in the case of divorce is another one, visiting the children in hospital is another, giving parental consent for school trips, for medical procedures and a whole host of things.
And consider this, you are working on an argument as to why something should be prohibited, something that is allowed now, you have a huge threshold to overcome, and you really are on the defensive already.
Same sex marriage doesn't need arguments for it, most people want to allow it.
And right now, "traditional marriage" as in what we have right now, includes same sex marriage, you need to come up with something huge to take away peoples rights, and frankly, "My imaginary friend doesn't like it" isn't much of an argument.....

 

Dear. . . two people of the same sex can LOVE EACH OTHER and not be gay. . .but if they are IN LOVE with each other, they very probably are gay.

I love my daughter. . .that doesn't make me gay (duh!).
I love my son. . .and that doesn't make me heterosexual.
I even love a few of my girl friends, and most of them (nor I) are NOT gay.

However, I am IN LOVE with my husband and THAT makes me an heterosexual. But If I were IN LOVE with another woman. . .that would probably identify me as gay.

Capish? It's all really pretty simple if you try!

 

Those differences all apply in the case of related consenting adults so not sure of your point.

Not at all. I am justifying why marriage is limited to men and women, where it has always been limited to men and women.

 

Huh? those are all differences between a pair of consenting adults and married parents, I couldn't go to the school and sign permission slips for my girlfriend's daughter, even though we lived together for years, when she died, her daughter went to her father in Chicago, even though I had lived with her for 8 of her 11 years.
I had no say as to what happened, so don't tell me that consenting adults are the same as a married couple.

No, it's not limited to men and women, it's available to same sex couples, in most what used to be called the civilized world.
It's only places like Saudi Arabia, Uganda and Mississippi that don't allow it.

Catch up with the times, you are trying to take away a right that people currently enjoy, you can't turn the clock back to 1997 to make your argument, it's 2014 and we're moving towards 2015...

 

Not sure of your point. The single mother and grandmother, raising their children/grandchildren for over a decade experience those same differences.

Not sure of your point. The same would apply to the single mother and grandmother if the father of the children was still alive. All of this does nothing for the arguments for "GAY marriage"

Actually its 178 out of the 193 nations that limit marriage to a man and a woman. Fascinating how your ideology actually alters your perception of the real world.

 

Because you call Kenya the "real world?"

Look at which countries not only discriminate, but also exterminate gay people. . . and look at which countries accept the FACT that human rights goes beyond gender. ..that EVERY individual has the right to choose his/her partner. ..and tell us which group YOU would rather belong to in terms of philosophy and respect of human rights.

And if you STILL want to be part of the group of bigoted countries. . .you may want to plan to get your passport ready and move there, because THIS country is better than that, and in the next few years, gay rights, ALL RIGHTS, will be recognized by the law of the United States.

 

????? Evidently the absence of the US from your list escapes you.

 

Absolutely not. . .and I NEVER want the US to be on those lists. . .but it seems that YOU do?