Laymen's Closing Arguments on Gay Marriage

[Syriusly]

Of course, every time you need to get your "I hate gays" fix is not sporadic.

So...any objection whatsoever to gay marriage and forcing people to participate in it automatically means that person "hates gays"..

...that actually sounds prejudiced. Has that ever occured to you? And I'm the bigot?

No- they were pointing out that your objections are based on your pathological hatred of gays.

 

[Syriusly]

This debate is missing the forest for the trees. The most important social problem facing our country is the decline of marriage in favor of having children out of wedlock. The question is whether gay marriage will serve to reverse or add to this decline. For the small minority of gay couples, the answer is obvious. But for the large majority of the population, corrupting the traditional definition of marriage will further undermine its status as a respected institution.

Somehow I don't see that Jane and Bob suddenly decide that since gays can get married, there is no reason for them to get married if they have a child.

 

[Syriusly]

Instead of you LGBT militant *regulars* usual smoke and mirrors gang-rape

The state reluctantly grants divorce only when it sees it would benefit the children involved:

.

You keep making this claim- but there is absolutely no evidence to support it.

Like every other claim you make.

 

[Silhouette]

This debate is missing the forest for the trees. The most important social problem facing our country is the decline of marriage in favor of having children out of wedlock. The question is whether gay marriage will serve to reverse or add to this decline. For the small minority of gay couples, the answer is obvious. But for the large majority of the population, corrupting the traditional definition of marriage will further undermine its status as a respected institution.

So you are of the opinion that male children can be just fine without a father figure in their life and female children can be just fine without a mother figure in their life? Because if you think this wouldn't be fine, you're saying gay marriage is not OK for that reason.

 

[SwimExpert]

The most important social problem facing our country is the decline of marriage in favor of having children out of wedlock

 

[Cassandro]

This debate is missing the forest for the trees. The most important social problem facing our country is the decline of marriage in favor of having children out of wedlock. The question is whether gay marriage will serve to reverse or add to this decline. For the small minority of gay couples, the answer is obvious. But for the large majority of the population, corrupting the traditional definition of marriage will further undermine its status as a respected institution.

So you are of the opinion that male children can be just fine without a father figure in their life and female children can be just fine without a mother figure in their life? Because if you think this wouldn't be fine, you're saying gay marriage is not OK for that reason.

No, I don't think it is just fine. My point was that gay marriage will likely increase the percentage of children born out of wedlock.

 

[Skylar]

This debate is missing the forest for the trees. The most important social problem facing our country is the decline of marriage in favor of having children out of wedlock. The question is whether gay marriage will serve to reverse or add to this decline. For the small minority of gay couples, the answer is obvious. But for the large majority of the population, corrupting the traditional definition of marriage will further undermine its status as a respected institution.

So you are of the opinion that male children can be just fine without a father figure in their life and female children can be just fine without a mother figure in their life? Because if you think this wouldn't be fine, you're saying gay marriage is not OK for that reason.

Studies on the topic from around the world have come to the same conclusion: the children of gays and lesbians are fine.

Worse, denying a lesbian couple marriage doesn't magically mean their children have opposite sex parents. All it guarantees that they never have married parents. Gays and lesbians are having kids already.

There's nothing about denying gay marriage that helps any child. It only hurts kids by the 10s of thousands. And you know this. But you want to do it anyway.

No thank you.

 

[Skylar]

This debate is missing the forest for the trees. The most important social problem facing our country is the decline of marriage in favor of having children out of wedlock. The question is whether gay marriage will serve to reverse or add to this decline. For the small minority of gay couples, the answer is obvious. But for the large majority of the population, corrupting the traditional definition of marriage will further undermine its status as a respected institution.

So you are of the opinion that male children can be just fine without a father figure in their life and female children can be just fine without a mother figure in their life? Because if you think this wouldn't be fine, you're saying gay marriage is not OK for that reason.

No, I don't think it is just fine. My point was that gay marriage will likely increase the percentage of children born out of wedlock.

How so? Gays get married and.....what?

 

[Silhouette]

As an institution, the "what" is sons without fathers and daughters without mothers. Both vital role models that can't be mimicked.

 

[Skylar]

As an institution, the "what" is sons without fathers and daughters without mothers. Both vital role models that can't be mimicked.

Two huge problems with your analysis. First, gays and lesbians are already having kids by the 10s of thousands. Denying gays and lesbians marriage doesn't mean their kids magically have opposite sex parents. It only guarantees that they never have married parents. Which hurts children but doesn't benefit them.

So...denying same sex couples marriage helps no child. And hurts 10s of thousands. Which you know. And you apparently don't care about.

Two....how would anything you described increase the number of children born out of wedlock? That is the question I was replying to. If you want to jump into the middle of it, then your comments are framed by the discussion you jump into. And obviously nothing you've cited would increase the number of children born out of wedlock. Obviously, it wouldn't. Gay marriage would reduce the number of children born out of wedlock.

Your proposal on the other hand would do the exact opposite. And increase the number of children born out of wedlock by 10s, of thousands.

So once again....your proposal does nothing but hurt children and hurts society. While helping no one.

 

[Silhouette]

As an institution, the "what" is sons without fathers and daughters without mothers. Both vital role models that can't be mimicked.

Two huge problems with your analysis. First, gays and lesbians are already having kids by the 10s of thousands. Denying gays and lesbians marriage doesn't mean their kids magically have opposite sex parents. It only guarantees that they never have married parents. Which hurts children but doesn't benefit them....So...denying same sex couples marriage helps no child. And hurts 10s of thousands. Which you know. And you apparently don't care about.....Two....how would anything you described increase the number of children born out of wedlock?.

Well since 10s of thousands is so tiny compared to 100s of millions of children who would be adversely affected as the core of society(marriage) itself shifted our mores so radically as to institutionalize fatherless sons and motherless daughters, your argument is one of numbers. And surely you can see that from your point of view, if even one child was deprived of the benefits of marriage (say if they were the child of polygamists or adult brother and sister incest), that would be a travesty? Yes? Or is your argument inconsistent and the only "special children needing consideration" have to be part of a demographic that is numbering in "the 10s of thousands"?

So, properly, this isn't an argument about existing kids in their unfortunate situations. It is about the institution into the future. And that radical change you propose: fatherless sons and motherless daughters as the new core of society, stands to harm many many more children than just 10s of thousands. Indeed it stands to harm the core of society itself over time in such a way that we cannot tolerate it.

We know. We have statistics that tell us what happens when a boy grows up and does not see himself represented in a functioning adult model. We know. We have statistis that tell us what happens when a girl grows up and does not see herself represented in a functioning adult model. We have the Prince's Trust study of 2,000 young adults talking about how many drug problems and maladjustments they are suffering through from not having their gender (ie: seen as "themselves") represented in their daily adult world. It's hard on them. They describe a lack of a sense of belonging, internalized in the deepest sense. This is bad. Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And like I keep reminding you Skylar, statistically you grew up with the benefit of a mother and father role model. Yet you would subject untold numbers of children to an experiment of which we already know the results of, in order to finally try to legitimize homosexuality where "everyone is cool with it". And the fact is that everyone isn't. And for good reasons. It's like bulimia. It happens. You shouldn't hate bulimics. Your heart should go out to them. But you shouldn't require that society teach bulimia to children in the most bold way: by modeling it as normal. And you shouldn't require restaurants to provide vomit urns on tables in order to not "be hateful and exclusionary" to bulimics.

I always brought up bulimia in the past because it is very similar to homosexuality. It is an acquired habitual behavior that is unacceptable as a norm to model to learning children. And that is because it is socially learned, and repugnant. Bulimics hurt no one but themselves, just like homosexuals. They enjoy a shorter lifespan because their habit predisposes them physically to disease. Except that with gay men their habit is facilitating the spread of one of the worst epidemics of the 20th and 21st Centuries. So I correct myself on that last point about the similarities.

Imprinted behaviors are stubborn and difficult. But they do not enjoy "rights" in and of themselves simply because it's hard for the afflicted to cast them off. And they do not enjoy access as "rights" to marriage with the stamp of society's implied approval thereby. Children are watching and learning from what adults do. Including approving or disapproving of certain ways of eating and certain ways of having sex. They are our little sponges. And perhaps this was the ultimate goal of "gay marriage" when you boil it down in the bottom of the pan...

#2 was not my theory. That was another poster's theory. I don't believe it to be true.

 

[Silhouette]

Somehow I don't see that Jane and Bob suddenly decide that since gays can get married, there is no reason for them to get married if they have a child.

Read my last post Syriusly. Having a child does not automatically qualify you to ransack the meaning of the word and institution of thousands of years called "marriage". It's too bad for your child, but even worse for the institution of marriage and many more 100s of millions more children therefore. So, we choose the lesser of two evils

 

[bodecea]

Of course, every time you need to get your "I hate gays" fix is not sporadic.

So...any objection whatsoever to gay marriage and forcing people to participate in it automatically means that person "hates gays"..

...that actually sounds prejudiced. Has that ever occured to you? And I'm the bigot?

Yes you hate gays. If it was JUST that you don't like gay marriage, you wouldn't have one and be done with it. No.....you try to shut it down for us. I'm not fond of serial marriages....I don't try to shut them down. I'm not fond of quicky marriages....I don't try to shut them down. I'm disgusted by marriages between obese people....but I don't try to shut them down.

 

[Syriusly]

Somehow I don't see that Jane and Bob suddenly decide that since gays can get married, there is no reason for them to get married if they have a child.

Read my last post Syriusly. Having a child does not automatically qualify you to ransack the meaning of the word and institution of thousands of years called "marriage". It's too bad for your child, but even worse for the institution of marriage and many more 100s of millions more children therefore. So, we choose the lesser of two evils

What 'evils' are you speaking of?

Jane and Bob getting married is not evil- Jane and Bob not getting married is not evil- and whether Jane and Bob get married has nothing to do with whether or not Bill and Andy down the street get legally married- or not.

And none of that has anything to do with any children- anywhere.

Preventing homosexuals from marrying only ensures that their children don't have married parents.

 

[Syriusly]

As an institution, the "what" is sons without fathers and daughters without mothers. Both vital role models that can't be mimicked.

Two huge problems with your analysis. First, gays and lesbians are already having kids by the 10s of thousands. Denying gays and lesbians marriage doesn't mean their kids magically have opposite sex parents. It only guarantees that they never have married parents. Which hurts children but doesn't benefit them....So...denying same sex couples marriage helps no child. And hurts 10s of thousands. Which you know. And you apparently don't care about.....Two....how would anything you described increase the number of children born out of wedlock?.

Well since 10s of thousands is so tiny compared to 100s of millions of children who would be adversely affected as the core of society(marriage) .

So you just don't give a damn about the children of homosexuals- and are willing to cause them harm- in order to fuel your jihad against children.

Because if Bob and Andy get married, the only children affected would be their children- who would have married parents.

No one else.

Certainly not '100's of millions of children'(considering that the entire population of children in the United States is about 100 million).....

 

[Syriusly]

This debate is missing the forest for the trees. The most important social problem facing our country is the decline of marriage in favor of having children out of wedlock. The question is whether gay marriage will serve to reverse or add to this decline. For the small minority of gay couples, the answer is obvious. But for the large majority of the population, corrupting the traditional definition of marriage will further undermine its status as a respected institution.

So you are of the opinion that male children can be just fine without a father figure in their life and female children can be just fine without a mother figure in their life? Because if you think this wouldn't be fine, you're saying gay marriage is not OK for that reason.

Actually male children can be just fine without a father figure in their life and vice versa.

How do we know this- because we have all known kids who have been raised by single mom's and dad's and come out great.

I think having a mom and dad would be part of what I consider a perfect family for children- but only one part- even more important are parents who actually care and love their children- who want their children- and parents who provide the support necessary for their children to succeed, and parents who keep their kids feed, and a roof over their head and a bunch of other things.

But we have never insisted that Americans be perfect parents in order to be parents- we don't insist that they have enough money, or that they know what they are doing- or even that the parents stick together.

Telling gay people that they can't marry because they would not be ideal parents- opens the door to banning the marriage of any other people the majority deem to be less than desirable parents- perhaps smokers would be next?

 

[SwimExpert]

Having a child does not automatically qualify you to ransack the meaning of the word and institution of thousands of years called "marriage".

Oh, this bullshit argument again....

 

[Silhouette]

Having a child does not automatically qualify you to ransack the meaning of the word and institution of thousands of years called "marriage".

Oh, this bullshit argument again....

The Justices of the US Supreme Court would like your rebuttal to my point to be more specific. Would you care to clarify?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Having a child does not automatically qualify you to ransack the meaning of the word and institution of thousands of years called "marriage".

Oh, this bullshit argument again....

The Justices of the US Supreme Court would like your rebuttal to my point to be more specific. Would you care to clarify?

How many times must you be told that marriage is not about children? It never has been...

 

[Skylar]

Well since 10s of thousands is so tiny compared to 100s of millions of children who would be adversely affected as the core of society(marriage) itself shifted our mores so radically as to institutionalize fatherless sons and motherless daughters, your argument is one of numbers.

But how would denying gay marriage keep gays and lesbians from having kids? SSM has nothing do with the gender of parents. As one doesn't need to be married to have children.

So denying same sex marriage has *nothing* to do with 'fatherless daughters' and the like. Lesbians have been having kids for decades without SSM. Denying same sex marriage now won't magically insure that no lesbian ever has a child again.

Your 'cause' (denying gay marriage) doesn't have a thing to do with your effect ('fatherless daughters'). Meaning that your proposal is again, worthless. It produces no societal benefit to any child.

So your numbers are zero.

Meanwhile, your proposal hurts tens of thousands of children. The immediate legal harm that Justice Kennedy goes into in detail:

And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives..

....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.

So your proposal does nothing but harm children. And it helps no child. Here then is the score card of denying same sex marriage:

Children who benefit from denial of SSM: 0.0
Children who are harmed by denial of SSM: 10s of thousands.

The inverse is still worse for you:

Children who benefit from recognition of SSM: 10s of thousands
Children who are harmed by recognition of SSM: 0

Once again, by your own standards, your argument loses by the numbers. As it only hurts kids. And benefits no one.

So, properly, this isn't an argument about existing kids in their unfortunate situations. It is about the institution into the future. And that radical change you propose: fatherless sons and motherless daughters as the new core of society, stands to harm many many more children than just 10s of thousands. Indeed it stands to harm the core of society itself over time in such a way that we cannot tolerate it.

Properly the debate is about all the children you will be hurting today. AND all the children you will be hurting in the future. As remember, the children of same sex parents whose parents aren't allowed to marry will receive as deep and severe a harm in the future as kids today are now.

Denying SSM doesn't help any child. As gays and lesbians will still have kids. Your proposal only guarantees that these children can't have married parents.

Denying SSM hurts tens of thousands of children. See the Supreme Court ruling above. Now, and more in the future.

Your proposals helps no one. And hurts tens of thousands of children. No thank you.