Gay Marriage Fails In Maine

[ThePickledPunk]

Um ... not according to the studies done on the few families with gay parents.

non-sequiter

No ... it's fact.

yes, its a fact that one statement falls out of sequence with its predecessor.

 

[bodecea]

However, gay couples such as ourselves use the artificial insemination technology first invented for infertile STRAIGHT couples. Plus gay couples adopt as do STRAIGHT couples. And gay couples have children from previous straight relationships as do STRAIGHT couples.
QUOTE]

so we do at least agree that there is no such thing as homosexual reproduction, right???

And....? Is that a requirement of marriage?

 

[ThePickledPunk]

Social Security provides spousal benefits. Homosexual couples are excluded from these benefits by virtue of their unequal status as currently provided under most state laws.

So mom could cruise the local nursing home and grab herself some social security benefits by virtue of our sacred marriage laws, whereas committing to a relationship with the woman she loves does not provide her those same benefits.

Despite what you see, DOMA is all about protecting this sort of "sacred" and I think that's sad.

Unmarried couples are similarly excluded. By that same logic, why should non-married heterosexual couples not be given all the benefits of marriage? Answer: because society has an interest in promoting marriage.

I thought you said it wasn't about social engineering?


Hint: Those supposed "interests" do not depend upon heterosexual marriage either! (see my previous examples of shitty marriages that qualify as "sacred")

You must point out to me where I ever mentioned that marriage is not about social engineering.

 

[KittenKoder]

And gay couples have children from previous straight relationships as do STRAIGHT couples.

kind of blows a hole in the "homosexuality is not a choice" theory, at least for many (like my mother).

Actually, no, it supports that it's not a choice. Many people who come out after having been in a "straight" relationship were often abused or tormented by their families whenever they showed any signs of being gay, thus they "try" hard to be straight ... only to ruin an entire family after they finally accept themselves for who they are.

 

[Fatality]

No, you're hammering me on an unnecessary technicality as though this was a philosophy paper though. You knew what I meant.

I only know what youve written, I see an argument for gays to marry one another, but i do not see a provision for ALL people to marry someone of the same sex. So if you dont mind a clarification, is it only for gays or is it for everyone?

Everyone so-long as it doesn't harm society, like bro/sis lovers because of their offspring.

"harming society?" interesting term, is that only a physical manifestation (genetic defectiveness) or is the psyche of a nation included?

 

[G.T.]

"harming society?" interesting term, is that only a physical manifestation (genetic defectiveness) or is the psyche of a nation included?

It's creating a baby while harboring the knowledge said-baby will be defective, which is an abuse on the very baby itself and also an abuse of our Health-Care system.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

you've been given the answer. the brother and sister harm society. gays do not. three people take extra advantage because of the tax benefits. where's your why not for gays?

a married brother and sister does not harm society anymore than gays do.

My why not for gays is this- marriage is the central facet around which society is built. It is the strongest foundation for the raising of a family, which ideally involves children. And the ideal situation for a child to be raised in involves the social, emotional, and intellectual input from both a mother and a father. In short, heterosexual marriage is more wrth promoting.

Umm, yea they do. Because marriage assumes sexual partnership and bros and sis's create bad offspring. Now, prove gay sex hurts society.

Marriage is not the ******* central facet. That's honkey dorey bullcrap. Single parents raise fine individuals all the ******* time. I think heterosexual marriage and gay marriage are equally worth promoting.

If marriage is about healthy reproduction you make my point for me. And children raised within a marriage are, by and large, better off than those raised by single parents.

Gay and heterosexual marriage may be equal in your eyes. Fine by me. I certainly understand the opposing sides opinion that heterosexual marriage is preferable to society.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

And gay couples have children from previous straight relationships as do STRAIGHT couples.

kind of blows a hole in the "homosexuality is not a choice" theory, at least for many (like my mother).

Actually, no, it supports that it's not a choice. Many people who come out after having been in a "straight" relationship were often abused or tormented by their families whenever they showed any signs of being gay, thus they "try" hard to be straight ... only to ruin an entire family after they finally accept themselves for who they are.

And many- like my mother, spent most of their lives in committed, healthy, heterosexual relationships with partners they loved. To say that homosexuality is never a choice is ludicrous.

 

[G.T.]

a married brother and sister does not harm society anymore than gays do.

My why not for gays is this- marriage is the central facet around which society is built. It is the strongest foundation for the raising of a family, which ideally involves children. And the ideal situation for a child to be raised in involves the social, emotional, and intellectual input from both a mother and a father. In short, heterosexual marriage is more wrth promoting.

Umm, yea they do. Because marriage assumes sexual partnership and bros and sis's create bad offspring. Now, prove gay sex hurts society.

Marriage is not the ******* central facet. That's honkey dorey bullcrap. Single parents raise fine individuals all the ******* time. I think heterosexual marriage and gay marriage are equally worth promoting.

If marriage is about healthy reproduction you make my point for me. And children raised within a marriage are, by and large, better off than those raised by single parents.

Gay and heterosexual marriage may be equal in your eyes. Fine by me. I certainly understand the opposing sides opinion that heterosexual marriage is preferable to society.

I didn't say it's about healthy reproduction. However, unhealthy offspring does effect society, and doing it purposely shouldn't be allowed. This hasn't a thing to do with gay reproduction(they don't) to me, but the societal harm that bro/sis reproduction does. 2 different beasts, can ya walk and chew gum?

 

[KittenKoder]

a married brother and sister does not harm society anymore than gays do.

My why not for gays is this- marriage is the central facet around which society is built. It is the strongest foundation for the raising of a family, which ideally involves children. And the ideal situation for a child to be raised in involves the social, emotional, and intellectual input from both a mother and a father. In short, heterosexual marriage is more wrth promoting.

Umm, yea they do. Because marriage assumes sexual partnership and bros and sis's create bad offspring. Now, prove gay sex hurts society.

Marriage is not the ******* central facet. That's honkey dorey bullcrap. Single parents raise fine individuals all the ******* time. I think heterosexual marriage and gay marriage are equally worth promoting.

If marriage is about healthy reproduction you make my point for me. And children raised within a marriage are, by and large, better off than those raised by single parents.

Gay and heterosexual marriage may be equal in your eyes. Fine by me. I certainly understand the opposing sides opinion that heterosexual marriage is preferable to society.

There you go ... evidence proves you are wrong. Gay couples often provide a much better environment for children, based on percentages, gay couples are better parents than straight couples by far.

 

[Valerie]

Unmarried couples are similarly excluded. By that same logic, why should non-married heterosexual couples not be given all the benefits of marriage? Answer: because society has an interest in promoting marriage.

I thought you said it wasn't about social engineering?


Hint: Those supposed "interests" do not depend upon heterosexual marriage either! (see my previous examples of shitty marriages that qualify as "sacred")

You must point out to me where I ever mentioned that marriage is not about social engineering.

>>>

thats beside the point. our drug laws treat potheads and heroin abusers differently than caffeine users. In much the same way that heterosexual couples are treeated differently from homosexual couples under marital law.

My point is the Bible teaches that all people have their "sins" and because some people are SO afraid of the "sin" of homosexuality, they feel righteous in keeping people from being treated equally as if we can socially engineer homosexuality out of existence. All law abiding citizens deserve equality under the law.



As far as how it affects the children.....

How sacred is mommy has three children by three daddies? How sacred is that 4th heterosexual marriage.....to a heroine addict?

Is "Daddy has a mistress" on the school curriculum? How about "Mom married the old man for money 101" ? Or "Why do I look just like the mailman" ?

Never met someone that thought homosexuality could be socially engineered out of existence, so I cant comment on that. And I agree about equal protection. Especially as it pertains to marriage. Noone should be denied the right to marry. But they may not be able to marry whomever they want.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

"harming society?" interesting term, is that only a physical manifestation (genetic defectiveness) or is the psyche of a nation included?

It's creating a baby while harboring the knowledge said-baby will be defective, which is an abuse on the very baby itself and also an abuse of our Health-Care system.

They dont have to have babies. I thought you libs did not equate marriage with reproduction, in any event...

 

[Fatality]

"harming society?" interesting term, is that only a physical manifestation (genetic defectiveness) or is the psyche of a nation included?

It's creating a baby while harboring the knowledge said-baby will be defective, which is an abuse on the very baby itself and also an abuse of our Health-Care system.

that does not answer the question.

is "harm to society" only a physical manifestion (genetic defectivness) or does it include the psyche of the nation?

 

[G.T.]

"harming society?" interesting term, is that only a physical manifestation (genetic defectiveness) or is the psyche of a nation included?

It's creating a baby while harboring the knowledge said-baby will be defective, which is an abuse on the very baby itself and also an abuse of our Health-Care system.

They dont have to have babies. I thought you libs did not equate marriage with reproduction, in any event...

It doesn't, but it's a declaration of a sexual partnership in my eyes at least, and promoting that on brothers and sisters is bad for society for said reasons.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

Umm, yea they do. Because marriage assumes sexual partnership and bros and sis's create bad offspring. Now, prove gay sex hurts society.

Marriage is not the ******* central facet. That's honkey dorey bullcrap. Single parents raise fine individuals all the ******* time. I think heterosexual marriage and gay marriage are equally worth promoting.

If marriage is about healthy reproduction you make my point for me. And children raised within a marriage are, by and large, better off than those raised by single parents.

Gay and heterosexual marriage may be equal in your eyes. Fine by me. I certainly understand the opposing sides opinion that heterosexual marriage is preferable to society.

I didn't say it's about healthy reproduction. However, unhealthy offspring does effect society, and doing it purposely shouldn't be allowed. This hasn't a thing to do with gay reproduction(they don't) to me, but the societal harm that bro/sis reproduction does. 2 different beasts, can ya walk and chew gum?

If a brother and sister could not have a child, thus alleviating your concern, why should they not be given the same rights you would extend to your fellow poofters?

 

[G.T.]

"harming society?" interesting term, is that only a physical manifestation (genetic defectiveness) or is the psyche of a nation included?

It's creating a baby while harboring the knowledge said-baby will be defective, which is an abuse on the very baby itself and also an abuse of our Health-Care system.

that does not answer the question.

is "harm to society" only a physical manifestion (genetic defectivness) or does it include the psyche of the nation?

I'd say physical. It takes up our Doctors in a devious way, because they knew the consequences. Psyche? I don't follow how it would, taboo aside.

eta: again, it's also an abuse to the child they have.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

Umm, yea they do. Because marriage assumes sexual partnership and bros and sis's create bad offspring. Now, prove gay sex hurts society.

Marriage is not the ******* central facet. That's honkey dorey bullcrap. Single parents raise fine individuals all the ******* time. I think heterosexual marriage and gay marriage are equally worth promoting.

If marriage is about healthy reproduction you make my point for me. And children raised within a marriage are, by and large, better off than those raised by single parents.

Gay and heterosexual marriage may be equal in your eyes. Fine by me. I certainly understand the opposing sides opinion that heterosexual marriage is preferable to society.

There you go ... evidence proves you are wrong. Gay couples often provide a much better environment for children, based on percentages, gay couples are better parents than straight couples by far.

I understand that you hold such an opinion.

 

[G.T.]

If a brother and sister could not have a child, thus alleviating your concern, why should they not be given the same rights you would extend to your fellow poofters?

Thye should be given them in my eyes, but this statement makes no sense. Bro and Sis CAN reproduce for the most part.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

I thought you said it wasn't about social engineering?


Hint: Those supposed "interests" do not depend upon heterosexual marriage either! (see my previous examples of shitty marriages that qualify as "sacred")

You must point out to me where I ever mentioned that marriage is not about social engineering.

>>>

My point is the Bible teaches that all people have their "sins" and because some people are SO afraid of the "sin" of homosexuality, they feel righteous in keeping people from being treated equally as if we can socially engineer homosexuality out of existence. All law abiding citizens deserve equality under the law.



As far as how it affects the children.....

How sacred is mommy has three children by three daddies? How sacred is that 4th heterosexual marriage.....to a heroine addict?

Is "Daddy has a mistress" on the school curriculum? How about "Mom married the old man for money 101" ? Or "Why do I look just like the mailman" ?

Never met someone that thought homosexuality could be socially engineered out of existence, so I cant comment on that. And I agree about equal protection. Especially as it pertains to marriage. Noone should be denied the right to marry. But they may not be able to marry whomever they want.

Oh. so you think my statement that I had never met someone that thought we could socially engineer homosexuality out of existence was actually a statement that marriage is not social engineering. come on now.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

If a brother and sister could not have a child, thus alleviating your concern, why should they not be given the same rights you would extend to your fellow poofters?

Thye should be given them in my eyes, but this statement makes no sense. Bro and Sis CAN reproduce for the most part.

there are medical procedures to prevent that. And I totally agree that such a relationship should not be given legal status. I also understand why many would exclude gays from marital laws based on similar considerations.