sidneyworld
Senior Member
- Thread starter
- #41
Well, I have two choices here, Colorado in your initial post on this thread. I can either reciprocate point by point or simply generalize. I appreciate your post by the way. I'll go with the generalization.
What you have failed to do here, is acknowledge the crux of the story. Acceptance is a very difficult issue when the belief system of people are being challenged to the point of extinction. Opinions are largely benign until it's met with unreasonable challenges of the moral integrity of that individual. Core values are part of the quality of life we are afforded especially something as fundamental as marriage. Something most of us are raised with and respect and have embraced as the core structure of traditional family life. While it's certainly not perfect, especially in this increasing secular society where everything goes, it still represents a foundation of structure which essentially demonstrates the values of the moral majority of this country.
Change should not mean the encroachment of the quality of life of any citizen in this country. Change should only accommodate basic discrimination and prejudices but marriage is not part of such a scenario. The discrimination of homosexuals, historically, in this country is indeed prejudicial. However, life choices of partners does not fit into the arena of changing the protocols of an institution whose most fundamental cannon is intended for the joint, legal union of a man and a woman, with the potential, if possible or if desired, of the procreation of children. Marriage does not require procreation, however any natural children deliberately conceived in a same sex marriage does not legally protect the child under such a law, nor the child's absentee natural parent whom, by whatever arrangement, was commissioned to conceived. If you legislate for the right to marry someone of the same sex, you must also account for the potential of that couple to conceive, no matter how small a percentage. So how would this be done? And what about the natural legacy of that child's outside natural parent? Neither the child nor this "third" entity have any rights in marriage. They still don't. Why did this couple get married? To create this entity in a child's life is completely compromising the rights of that child to be conceived and raised by a mother and a father. We do not own our children. By that's another story altogether. A huge story.
To begin with, Homosexuals in this country can be together as a couple, and raise children and they do. There are no laws against this. There are no issues of constitutional violation of human rights or civil rights. Marriage is not a civil right. It requires a license which, among other things requires that marriage is between a man and a woman. This
issue concerns circumventing the definition of marriage. It's not an issue of the prevention of an individual from joining an institution who is simply NOT qualified to do so.
Procreation is a human right. Being with whomever we please and raising a family is also a human right. However there are loose ends to the coupling of same sex genders even on a secular standpoint. The paternal legacy of that child is forever compromised for one. And this is not exclusive to homosexual couples with children. It's a phenomena in this country. The indiscrimate multiplicity of parents, having children through every imaginable dynamic. Children are conceived with complete disgard in this country. Married individuals having children outside the marriage. Teenagers packing together to bring children into this world. And a percentage of single parents raising their children which exceeds well over 50% in this country. There is no real political representation of children. Only when there is a marriage, and of course, that vow is as good as the total commitment by both parents too ensure that proper rightful representation.
You simply cannot legislate the right of marriage to same sex couples and not include the inherent right of any potentially conceived child to be raised by a man and a woman. To be raised by its natural parents. And again, there is the issue of that child's other natural parent who is not legally or ethically a part of that child's life by design, by choice.
In this country, we can do as we please, on such critical matters. But only one thing ensures the integrity of a viable family structure on every level. Traditional Marriage is an institution and as a core principled value for future generations as it has been for thousands of years. There are no loose ends as a matter of legitimacy. And this requires a sense of discipline and choice to not further perpetuate an increasing dilemma of dyfunctional lifestyles which have outlived itself in terms of self-gratification.
Anne Marie
What you have failed to do here, is acknowledge the crux of the story. Acceptance is a very difficult issue when the belief system of people are being challenged to the point of extinction. Opinions are largely benign until it's met with unreasonable challenges of the moral integrity of that individual. Core values are part of the quality of life we are afforded especially something as fundamental as marriage. Something most of us are raised with and respect and have embraced as the core structure of traditional family life. While it's certainly not perfect, especially in this increasing secular society where everything goes, it still represents a foundation of structure which essentially demonstrates the values of the moral majority of this country.
Change should not mean the encroachment of the quality of life of any citizen in this country. Change should only accommodate basic discrimination and prejudices but marriage is not part of such a scenario. The discrimination of homosexuals, historically, in this country is indeed prejudicial. However, life choices of partners does not fit into the arena of changing the protocols of an institution whose most fundamental cannon is intended for the joint, legal union of a man and a woman, with the potential, if possible or if desired, of the procreation of children. Marriage does not require procreation, however any natural children deliberately conceived in a same sex marriage does not legally protect the child under such a law, nor the child's absentee natural parent whom, by whatever arrangement, was commissioned to conceived. If you legislate for the right to marry someone of the same sex, you must also account for the potential of that couple to conceive, no matter how small a percentage. So how would this be done? And what about the natural legacy of that child's outside natural parent? Neither the child nor this "third" entity have any rights in marriage. They still don't. Why did this couple get married? To create this entity in a child's life is completely compromising the rights of that child to be conceived and raised by a mother and a father. We do not own our children. By that's another story altogether. A huge story.
To begin with, Homosexuals in this country can be together as a couple, and raise children and they do. There are no laws against this. There are no issues of constitutional violation of human rights or civil rights. Marriage is not a civil right. It requires a license which, among other things requires that marriage is between a man and a woman. This
issue concerns circumventing the definition of marriage. It's not an issue of the prevention of an individual from joining an institution who is simply NOT qualified to do so.
Procreation is a human right. Being with whomever we please and raising a family is also a human right. However there are loose ends to the coupling of same sex genders even on a secular standpoint. The paternal legacy of that child is forever compromised for one. And this is not exclusive to homosexual couples with children. It's a phenomena in this country. The indiscrimate multiplicity of parents, having children through every imaginable dynamic. Children are conceived with complete disgard in this country. Married individuals having children outside the marriage. Teenagers packing together to bring children into this world. And a percentage of single parents raising their children which exceeds well over 50% in this country. There is no real political representation of children. Only when there is a marriage, and of course, that vow is as good as the total commitment by both parents too ensure that proper rightful representation.
You simply cannot legislate the right of marriage to same sex couples and not include the inherent right of any potentially conceived child to be raised by a man and a woman. To be raised by its natural parents. And again, there is the issue of that child's other natural parent who is not legally or ethically a part of that child's life by design, by choice.
In this country, we can do as we please, on such critical matters. But only one thing ensures the integrity of a viable family structure on every level. Traditional Marriage is an institution and as a core principled value for future generations as it has been for thousands of years. There are no loose ends as a matter of legitimacy. And this requires a sense of discipline and choice to not further perpetuate an increasing dilemma of dyfunctional lifestyles which have outlived itself in terms of self-gratification.
Anne Marie