Working on my traditional marriage argument.

No one claimed they were and no one is making such a comparison.

 

There were same sex marriages between Native Americans.

Oops.

Special Pleading much?

 

If you knew what a special pleading was, you would have known you are the one doing it with the example of the indians. Not really same sex marriage when the individual is considered to be of the opposite sex. Would be compareable to a transgendered person marrying someone of the opposite sex. The same sex as their previous gender.

 

wait a second …you do realize your paradigm of marriage is becoming extinct.
in a few generations this concept of traditional marriage you so want to flog….will be moot…for marriage will be marriage.

Even the Pope has changed The Catholic Tune.

 

Other than the fact sex change operations did not exist at the time.

Whoops.

 

Indians didnt believe it was neccessary, like the current state in the law in the US do. They were considered female without the surgery.

 

Then male B doesn't consider it necessary to physically be a woman, and can therefore marry.

You guys seriously need to think before you type.

 

Then what relevance is there in raising how many countries don't allow it?

 

Why to directly refute the quoted claim

of course.

 

I just met my new neighbors who bought the house next door. They are a married Caucasian couple-both professional men in their 30s. They introduced a 3 year old African American, special needs child to me as their son, who they adopted through the state. His parents were killed in an auto accident a year ago and the child had been in 3 foster homes since then. There was no extended family able and willing to care for him. Special needs children, especially minorities are very hard to place and to find a stable home for, but these two men stepped up to take that responsibility.
Is there someone here that can honestly tell me that these two men do not deserve the benefits, protection and status of being married? Can anyone tell me that this child does not deserve the stability and security of having married parents? Please be honest and give your reasons

 

No more so than any two consenting adults with children, excluded from marriage. Nothing special about your neighbors, just because they are gay.

 

So then all marriage should be done away with, since there is nothing that a married couple can do that two consenting adults can't do....is that your argument?

 

No, my argument is that traditional marriage should be left in tact. Marriage is about building families. Only heterosexual couples create families. If we are to make marriage available to homosexual couples, government loses any justification they had for excluding any two consenting adults. If traditional marriage isn't maintained, equal protection requires marriage be made available to any two consenting adults. Nothing special when those two consenting adults happen to be gay that justifies such preferential treatment.

 

You have been handed about a half dozen examples of same sex couples creating families in this thread, and you answer has always been "any two consenting adults could have done that", what is it that a married couple can do that "any two consenting adults" can't do?

 

And if there's no good reason to block those other examples, then they should be included as well, what does that have to do with the question?

 

???? No, at most ONE of the couple and a third person can create a family. That isn't the "couple" doing anything.

 

It is an answer to his question.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23079276

3 genetic parents it is possible

 

Not really, it's a tangent to the question. His question was why such a couple is not deserving of marriage rights, to which you responded along the lines of "no more so than any other excluded couples". That doesn't answer the question of why, it just says that there are other excluded couples who may have their own reason for exclusion independent of the original question. So no, it doesn't answer the question, nor does it answer why (if there is any reason why) these other restrictions exist. It answers pretty much nothing other than saying that other restrictions exist, which we all kinda already knew.

 

Apparently you never heard of adoption or of children from a previous marriage, it happens quite a bit.....
But we are happy with our traditional form of marriage, between any two loving people, we've been doing it that way for years now, why do you want to change it?

 

Still isn't the couple creating the family, it is adopting a part of somebody elses family.

I am the one advocating that it stay the same.



...
But we are happy with our traditional form of marriage, between any two loving people, we've been doing it that way for years now, why do you want to change it?[/QUOTE]

 

I didn't claim they did not deserve the benefits so, of course I didn't explain why they do not deserve the benefits, of course.

 

Marriage isn't about creating a family, it's about sustaining a family, no matter how that family was created.

Me too, I say it should stay the same as it is now, Marriage equality for all.

Why would we want to go back to the rules of some earlier era?
Especially rules based on hatred.....

 

Considering that from the dawn of civilization until the 21st century, marriage was limited to men and women, clearly that is not the case. And if that's what you want to transform marriage into, not sure what you think that does for the arguments for "gay marriage. More families made up of two closely related adults and children, than their are families made up of homosexual couples and children.

And while heterosexual sex has a strong natural tendency to lead to the creation of a family through procreation, homosexual sex has no such tendency to lead to adoption. Absurd to insist that the same preferences for biological parents raising their children together in the home, must be given to gay couples, just because they rub genitals just like a real mom and dad. That we cant just encourage all heterosexual couples to marry because they might procreate, because not all heterosexual couples have the ability or willingness to procreate, but we can encourage all homosexuals to marry, because they might choose to adopt a child.

 

I am referring to marriage as it currently is in 33 states, not the very recent changes in the other 17. And marriage equality for all would involve marriage for any two consenting adults, not "gay marriage"