What is a human right?

[NuclearWinter]

Something Anti military, pacifists and Liberals fail to grasp is we have only those rights we can enforce. In the case of the US our rights are spelled out in several documents with the added caveat that unless the Government gets our permission any power the Government is NOT granted they do not have.

Well unless your a liberal and then any power you like exists if you can gain political power. **** the laws, the Constitution and the rights and powers of Individuals and Governments.

A Human Right is anything a Human Being can do in the absense of any other Human Being or without the approval/interference of such another Beings presence.

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh I love tearing such paragraphs apart piece by piece. Here we go. Conservatives support the continued restriction of marriage from homosexual couples – limiting it to heterosexual couples. Just because something has a tradition does not make it right. America has a tradition of slavery. There was a tradition of keeping women from voting. Should return to those traditions? No. The marriage of one woman to one man is not necessary for the identification of a family. There are single-parent families. There are blended families. There are all sorts of families. I question your claim that for the most effective rearing of children, it is necessary that there be a heterosexual couple.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349#SEC6

There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents. The rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage can further strengthen these families.

Homosexual families do not prevent science for determining genetic traits any more than does adoption of children to heterosexual couples. Don’t be so vague. What biological relationships do laws regulate – sodomy? If so, is it illegal (or should it be illegal) for heterosexuals to commit sodomy? What laws regulate communicable disease? Again, plese be specific.

You want to make it a homosexual issue. I don't. Nor at any time have I suggested that marriage was a right.

As the law is currently written, nobody of any race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic group, or hair color is treated any differently than any other person. The law applies 100% equally to every single person.

If you think all children, straight or gay, do not benefit from having a loving and competent mother and father in the home, that is your right. It is also my right to believe that all children, gay or straight, benefit from having a loving and competent mother and father in the home.

I don't want the law changed, and I am exercising a fundamental unalienable right by expressing that opinion.

 

[Annie]

...America has a tradition of slavery.

1776-1865. 1865-2008. Where is the tradition?

There was a tradition of keeping women from voting.

Better analogy, but still getting long in the tooth.

Should (sic) return to those traditions? No. The marriage of one woman to one man is not necessary for the identification of a family. There are single-parent families. There are blended families. There are all sorts of families. I question your claim that for the most effective rearing of children, it is necessary that there be a heterosexual couple.

Based upon what, other than 'your gut?' Personally, I think a child is better in a stable home, than in an institution. I think they are better off with the traditional family than single parent or gays or some other combo or singular I fail to come up with. With that said, don't see how that argument in favor of effective parenting over institution is an endorsement of gay marriage?

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349#SEC6

There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents. The rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage can further strengthen these families.

Homosexual families do not prevent science for determining genetic traits any more than does adoption of children to heterosexual couples. Don’t be so vague. What biological relationships do laws regulate – sodomy? If so, is it illegal (or should it be illegal) for heterosexuals to commit sodomy? What laws regulate communicable disease? Again, plese be specific.

Where are the links? Just because a pediatric journal 'says so', doesn't make it so.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Curious but last I checked it was conservatives that wanted to invade the privacy of our personal life, who want to create an amendment on who we can marry, who want to prevent me from the morning after pill, who want to bring their religion into the public sphere, who want to eavesdrop on private citizens, who want to renege on social security....Freedom is a curious word for any conservative to use.

Give me a break, the Social Security system is dying because the Liberals won't agree to ONLY spend SS tax on Social Security. And last I checked murdering babies is a liberal view point. As to Gay marriage you better check your facts, Democrats are against it as well as Republicans. And no one wants to bring religion into the Government, we just want OUR right to be free to be religious to include the right to pray in public and to show you morons there is no Seperation of Church and State in the manner you retards claim there is.

Conservatives believe in freedom, that includes being responsible for the actions an individual choses and the consequences of those actions.

 

[mattskramer]

1776-1865. 1865-2008. Where is the tradition? Better analogy, but still getting long in the tooth. Based upon what, other than 'your gut?' Personally, I think a child is better in a stable home, than in an institution. I think they are better off with the traditional family than single parent or gays or some other combo or singular I fail to come up with. With that said, don't see how that argument in favor of effective parenting over institution is an endorsement of gay marriage?

Where are the links? Just because a pediatric journal 'says so', doesn't make it so.

Okay. I may have come up with some examples that you don't like. The point remains in logic that an appeal to tradition is a fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

---------
Fox made the claim that for the most effective rearing of children, it is necessary that there be a heterosexual couple. I’d like him to supply some statistical proof.

My article, from the respected journal of the America Academy of Pediatrics, says that “there is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents.

It further states that ---

The AAP is not alone in supporting the right of every child and family to the legal, financial, and psychosocial security that results from having legally recognized parents who are committed to each other and to the welfare of their children.

The American Academy of Family Physicians' Congress of Delegates agreed to "establish policy and be supportive of legislation which promotes a safe and nurturing environment, including psychological and legal security, for all children, including those of adoptive parents, regardless of the parents' sexual orientation."

The American Psychological Association (APA) adopted resolutions stating that "the APA believes that it is unfair and discriminatory to deny same-sex couples legal access to civil marriage and to all its attendant benefits, rights, and privileges ... and shall take a leadership role in opposing all discrimination in legal benefits, rights, and privileges against same-sex couples."

"The APA opposes any discrimination based on sexual orientation in matters of adoption, child custody and visitation, foster care, and reproductive health services; believes that children raised by a same-sex couple benefit from legal ties to each parent; supports the protection of parent-child relationships through the legalization of joint adoptions and second parent adoptions of children being raised by same-sex couples; and shall take a leadership role in opposing all discrimination based on sexual orientation in matters of adoption, child custody and visitation, foster care, and reproductive health services."

The American Psychoanalytic Association position states, "Accumulated evidence suggests the best interest of the child requires attachment to committed, nurturing and competent parents. Evaluation of an individual or couple for these parental qualities should be determined without prejudice regarding sexual orientation. Gay and lesbian individuals and couples are capable of meeting the best interest of the child and should be afforded the same rights and should accept the same responsibilities as heterosexual parents."

The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) "encourages the adoption of laws that recognize inheritance, insurance, same-sex marriage, child custody, property, and other relationship rights for lesbians, gay, and bisexual people. NASW supports the adoption of local, state, federal and international policies/legislation that protect the rights and well-being of the children of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people."

Related policy from the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) states, "The basis on which all decisions relating to custody and parental rights should rest [is] on the best interest of the child. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals historically have faced more rigorous scrutiny than heterosexuals regarding their rights to be or become parents. There is no evidence to suggest or support that parents with a gay, lesbian, or bisexual orientation are per se different from or deficient in parenting skills, child-centered concerns and parent-child attachments, when compared with parents with a heterosexual orientation. It has long been established that a homosexual orientation is not related to psychopathology, and there is no basis on which to assume that a parental homosexual orientation will increase likelihood of or induce a homosexual orientation in the child. Outcome studies of children raised by parents with a homosexual or bisexual orientation, when compared with heterosexual parents, show no greater degree of instability in the parental relationship or developmental dysfunction in children. The AACAP opposes any discrimination based on sexual orientation against individuals in regard to their rights as custodial or adoptive parents."

In June 2005, the American Medical Association (AMA) House of Delegates overwhelmingly endorsed a policy that calls on the AMA to "support legislation and other efforts to allow adoption of a child by the same-sex partner or an opposite-sex non-married partner who functions as a second parent or co-parent to that child."

On the matter of same-gender marriage, in May 2005 the Assembly of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) approved a statement in support of legalizing same-gender marriage. Approval by the organization's board of directors in July 2005 made psychiatry the first medical specialty to publicly support same-gender civil marriage. Specifically, the APA policy states, "In the interest of maintaining and promoting mental health, the American Psychiatric Association supports the legal recognition of same-sex civil marriage with all rights, benefits, and responsibilities conferred by civil marriage, and opposes restrictions to those same rights, benefits, and responsibilities.”

The article has over 61 references and has itself been reverenced in over.

It clearly states and supports its conclusion that there is little difference in children reared in homosexual families or heterosexual families. Read it and follow the references for yourself (if you have the time).

 

[jreeves]

Okay. I may have come up with some examples that you don't like. The point remains in logic that an appeal to tradition is a fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

---------
Fox made the claim that for the most effective rearing of children, it is necessary that there be a heterosexual couple. I’d like him to supply some statistical proof.

My article, from the respected journal of the America Academy of Pediatrics, says that “there is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents.

It further states that ---

The AAP is not alone in supporting the right of every child and family to the legal, financial, and psychosocial security that results from having legally recognized parents who are committed to each other and to the welfare of their children.

The American Academy of Family Physicians' Congress of Delegates agreed to "establish policy and be supportive of legislation which promotes a safe and nurturing environment, including psychological and legal security, for all children, including those of adoptive parents, regardless of the parents' sexual orientation."

The American Psychological Association (APA) adopted resolutions stating that "the APA believes that it is unfair and discriminatory to deny same-sex couples legal access to civil marriage and to all its attendant benefits, rights, and privileges ... and shall take a leadership role in opposing all discrimination in legal benefits, rights, and privileges against same-sex couples."

"The APA opposes any discrimination based on sexual orientation in matters of adoption, child custody and visitation, foster care, and reproductive health services; believes that children raised by a same-sex couple benefit from legal ties to each parent; supports the protection of parent-child relationships through the legalization of joint adoptions and second parent adoptions of children being raised by same-sex couples; and shall take a leadership role in opposing all discrimination based on sexual orientation in matters of adoption, child custody and visitation, foster care, and reproductive health services."

The American Psychoanalytic Association position states, "Accumulated evidence suggests the best interest of the child requires attachment to committed, nurturing and competent parents. Evaluation of an individual or couple for these parental qualities should be determined without prejudice regarding sexual orientation. Gay and lesbian individuals and couples are capable of meeting the best interest of the child and should be afforded the same rights and should accept the same responsibilities as heterosexual parents."

The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) "encourages the adoption of laws that recognize inheritance, insurance, same-sex marriage, child custody, property, and other relationship rights for lesbians, gay, and bisexual people. NASW supports the adoption of local, state, federal and international policies/legislation that protect the rights and well-being of the children of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people."

Related policy from the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) states, "The basis on which all decisions relating to custody and parental rights should rest [is] on the best interest of the child. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals historically have faced more rigorous scrutiny than heterosexuals regarding their rights to be or become parents. There is no evidence to suggest or support that parents with a gay, lesbian, or bisexual orientation are per se different from or deficient in parenting skills, child-centered concerns and parent-child attachments, when compared with parents with a heterosexual orientation. It has long been established that a homosexual orientation is not related to psychopathology, and there is no basis on which to assume that a parental homosexual orientation will increase likelihood of or induce a homosexual orientation in the child. Outcome studies of children raised by parents with a homosexual or bisexual orientation, when compared with heterosexual parents, show no greater degree of instability in the parental relationship or developmental dysfunction in children. The AACAP opposes any discrimination based on sexual orientation against individuals in regard to their rights as custodial or adoptive parents."

In June 2005, the American Medical Association (AMA) House of Delegates overwhelmingly endorsed a policy that calls on the AMA to "support legislation and other efforts to allow adoption of a child by the same-sex partner or an opposite-sex non-married partner who functions as a second parent or co-parent to that child."

On the matter of same-gender marriage, in May 2005 the Assembly of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) approved a statement in support of legalizing same-gender marriage. Approval by the organization's board of directors in July 2005 made psychiatry the first medical specialty to publicly support same-gender civil marriage. Specifically, the APA policy states, "In the interest of maintaining and promoting mental health, the American Psychiatric Association supports the legal recognition of same-sex civil marriage with all rights, benefits, and responsibilities conferred by civil marriage, and opposes restrictions to those same rights, benefits, and responsibilities.”

The article has over 61 references and has itself been reverenced in over.

It clearly states and supports its conclusion that there is little difference in children reared in homosexual families or heterosexual families. Read it and follow the references for yourself (if you have the time).

http://www.narth.com/docs/gendercomplementarity.html

Here's a little research done with homosexual child rearing vs. heterosexual child rearing

http://www.valuesadvocacycouncil.org/download/EvidenceIsClear.pdf

 

[jillian]

http://www.narth.com/docs/gendercomplementarity.html

Here's a little research done with homosexual child rearing vs. heterosexual child rearing

http://www.valuesadvocacycouncil.org/download/EvidenceIsClear.pdf

From the values advocacy council??? lol...

 

[Annie]

Okay. I may have come up with some examples that you don't like. The point remains in logic that an appeal to tradition is a fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

---------
Fox made the claim that for the most effective rearing of children, it is necessary that there be a heterosexual couple. I’d like him to supply some statistical proof.

My article, from the respected journal of the America Academy of Pediatrics, says that “there is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents.

It further states that ---
...

You don't ask your 'trusted' sites for backing? I do.

 

[jreeves]

From the values advocacy council??? lol...

If you bothered to read the website, it is based on different studies that were done....I understand it's not the most unbiased source. As is half the crap that gets posted on this board as evidence of a point of view.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If you bothered to read the website, it is based on different studies that were done....I understand it's not the most unbiased source. As is half the crap that gets posted on this board as evidence of a point of view.

Standard practice, as I have said before, of the left,is to try and discredit the messenger. Only adressing the message if forced to.

Now if you or I point out a biased source from a Democrat they get all hot and bothered and point out how the site is not the problem. Double standard. Another usual tactic of the left.

 

[midcan5]

Liberals would change that definition and make marriage into something that it was never designed to be. You cannot change the definition of something without making it into something different than what it was.

Prolife Conservatives do not deny the morning after pill to you; they deny it as a means of intentionally destroying what they perceive to be a human life.

Conservatives don't propose bringing religion in the public sphere. Religion has always been in the public sphere coexisting in all of public and private life quite nicely for 200 years without any hint of a theocracy developing.

Freedom is a word Conservatives do not take lightly nor define for political expediency. And who is attacking whose freedoms is obviously in the eye of the beholder as illustrated in your arguments versus my arguments.

Marriage is not the family and given our divorce rates not a very successful institution.

Sex is a powerful instinct and everyone destroys life monthly or maybe daily if they are young. So support education and the means to prevent unwanted pregnancies and you have done something.

Then keep religion out of the public sphere. Your behavior can be religious but the idea that religion should guide public policy is unconstitutional.

Conservatives believe in freedom so long as it within their world view, they don't praise Scalia and a restrictive supreme court because they have an openness to new ideas.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=943

 

[Taomon]

Standard practice, as I have said before, of the left,is to try and discredit the messenger. Only adressing the message if forced to.

WHAT?!?! That move was created by and used to death by the Neo-Conservatives.

Now if you or I point out a biased source from a Democrat they get all hot and bothered and point out how the site is not the problem. Double standard. Another usual tactic of the left.

The double standard is all you display.

 

[Larkinn]

You want to make it a homosexual issue. I don't. Nor at any time have I suggested that marriage was a right.

As the law is currently written, nobody of any race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic group, or hair color is treated any differently than any other person. The law applies 100% equally to every single person.

Incorrect. Gays and lesbians are not allowed to marry those they fall in love with. Straights are.

 

[Larkinn]

http://www.narth.com/docs/gendercomplementarity.html

Err, this is an article about how women and men act differently, and that effects how they raise children. Really? No shit, sherlock. There is, however, no evidence that they turn out WORSE, just different. In some respects evidence seems they may turn out BETTER...males raised by lesbian parents are "more chaste and have less partners" according to the study. So, shall we in the name of abstinence only programs have all males be raised by lesbians?

Oh, the other idiotic thing that this article does is that it provides little evidence, only cites. Cites can be helpful, but the interesting thing is that most of the books written were written in the eighties. I know...in the eighties there was just a plethora of kids with gay parents to choose from to study and discover how they are different.

Here's a little research done with homosexual child rearing vs. heterosexual child rearing

http://www.valuesadvocacycouncil.org/download/EvidenceIsClear.pdf

[/quote]

Actually that isn't research so much as it is cherry picking negative studies and leaving out the positive ones. On the first page the author pretty much says that any study that supports homosexual parents is flawed and any study that goes against homosexual parents is accurate. Ridiculously shoddy.

 

[mattskramer]

If you bothered to read the website, it is based on different studies that were done....I understand it's not the most unbiased source. As is half the crap that gets posted on this board as evidence of a point of view.

Do you honesty take NARATH to be unbiased. It stands for the “National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality. The very name implies that homosexuals are in need of therapy. Therefore, I give very little weight to whatever study they cherry-pick to present in support of their pre-established opinion. The same applies for the “values advocacy council”. As for the American Academy of Pediatrics, I really don’t have time to go through all of their references for you. They are all right there. You should be able to do it yourself, but I’ll pick a few of the references for you.


http://content.apa.org/journals/dev/39/1/20

Existing research on children with lesbian parents is limited by reliance on volunteer or convenience samples. The present study examined the quality of parent-child relationships and the socioemotional and gender development of a community sample of 7-year-old children with lesbian parents. Families were recruited through the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, a geographic population study of 14,000 mothers and their children. Thirty-nine lesbian-mother families, 74 two-parent heterosexual families, and 60 families headed by single heterosexual mothers were compared on standardized interview and questionnaire measures administered to mothers, co-mothers/fathers, children, and teachers. Findings are in line with those of earlier investigations showing positive mother-child relationships and well-adjusted children.

http://haworthpress.com/store/ArticleAbstract.asp?ID=1879

Courts determine custody and visitation on the basis of the ''best interests of the child.'' Current judicial rulings in some jurisdictions reflect a bias against awarding custody or granting visitation rights to homosexual parents, favoring the heterosexual parent or heterosexual relative of the child(ren). Should the sexual orientation of the parent play a part in the determination of custody or visitation in order to protect the child? This meta-analysis summarizes the available quantitative literature comparing the impact of heterosexual and homosexual parents, using a variety of measures, on the child(ren). The analyses examine parenting practices, the emotional well-being of the child, and the sexual orientation of the child. The results demonstrate no differences on any measures between the heterosexual and homosexual parents regarding parenting styles, emotional adjustment, and sexual orientation of the child(ren). In other words, the data fail to support the continuation of a bias against homosexual parents by any court.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/q1xu25071243162j/

Two types of single-parent households and their effects on children ages 3–11 years were compared. One type comprised 50 homosexual mothers and their 56 children, and the other was a group of 40 heterosexual mothers and their 48 children. There were 30 daughters and 26 sons of homosexual mothers and 28 daughters and 20 sons of heterosexual mothers. The sexual identity and social relationships of the children were assessed in relation to the sexual orientation of the mothers. The samples consisted of families from rural and urban areas in 10 American states. All have lived without adult males (18 years or older) in the household for a minimum of 2 years (average 4). Families with heterosexual mothers were matched to families with homosexual mothers on age and race of mother; length of mother and child separation from father; educational level and income of mother; and number, age, and sex of children. Data are reported from childrens' tests designed to provide information on general intelligence, core-morphologic sexual identity, gender-role preferences, family and peer group relationships, and adjustment to the single-parent family. No significant differences were found between the two types of households for boys and few significant differences for girls. Concerns that being raised by a homosexual mother might produce sexual identity conflict and peer group stigmatization were not supported by the research findings. Data also revealed more similarities than differences in parenting experiences, marital history, and present living situations of the two groups of mothers. The postulated compromised parental fitness of lesbian mothers, commonly asserted in child custody cases, is not supported by these data.

It is my belief, from actually reading these (and many more) referenced statistical studies presented in this article from the American Academy of Pediatrics, that there is very minimal and insignificant difference (if there is any difference at all) in children raised by homosexual couples and children raised is heterosexual couples. It is my belief that there is overly unwarranted concern (bordering on paranoia in some people) about homosexual families because such families are not well known. They are a relatively new phenomenon. Also, the notion that such families thrive flies in the face of common Biblical interpretation that such relationships are destructive to the nation.

 

[Foxfyre]

Incorrect. Gays and lesbians are not allowed to marry those they fall in love with. Straights are.

There is absolutely nothing in the marriage code/laws in any state in the union that refers to love or affection or devotion or one's attitude toward anybody. Straights are not allowed to marry those they fall in love with either if the one they fall in love with do not wish to marry or are already married or are underage or too closely related or, in some states, suffer from certain communicable diseases, etc.

I agree a separate social contract needs to be developed that would be available to everybody, not just gays, who don't meet the specifications for marriage or for whatever reason don't want to marry but do want/need to form themselves into recognized family groups for purposes of inheritance, hospital visitation rights, qualification for certain kinds of insurance, etc. Those who wanted to could add a religious ceremony acknowledging the event that could be every bit as meaningful as a marriage ceremony. Just pick a different word for this and I don't think you would get much resistance.

It isn't working, however, to continue to denigrate marriage or claim that it isn't necessary for anything, but demand to change the definition so that you can use the word. If you really think about it, it's kind of silly isn't it.

 

[Larkinn]

There is absolutely nothing in the marriage code/laws in any state in the union that refers to love or affection or devotion or one's attitude toward anybody.

It is a de facto law.

Straights are not allowed to marry those they fall in love with either if the one they fall in love with do not wish to marry or are already married or are underage or too closely related or, in some states, suffer from certain communicable diseases, etc.

Then change it to make it two individuals of the same sex who are in love with each other and want to marry cannot, while two individuals of opposite sex can.

I agree a separate social contract needs to be developed that would be available to everybody, not just gays, who don't meet the specifications for marriage or for whatever reason don't want to marry but do want/need to form themselves into recognized family groups for purposes of inheritance, hospital visitation rights, qualification for certain kinds of insurance, etc. Those who wanted to could add a religious ceremony acknowledging the event that could be every bit as meaningful as a marriage ceremony. Just pick a different word for this and I don't think you would get much resistance.

Which is why civil unions have been so quick in coming, right? Oh no wait, they still haven't. Besides the thorny fact that we went over this before and separate but equal just ain't equal.

It isn't working, however, to continue to denigrate marriage or claim that it isn't necessary for anything, but demand to change the definition so that you can use the word. If you really think about it, it's kind of silly isn't it.

No, its not silly at all for gays and lesbians to wish society to recognize their relationship as equal to straight relationships. Symbolism is awfully powerful, especially for people who feel marginalized and discriminated against by society anyway.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It is a de facto law.





Then change it to make it two individuals of the same sex who are in love with each other and want to marry cannot, while two individuals of opposite sex can.



Which is why civil unions have been so quick in coming, right? Oh no wait, they still haven't. Besides the thorny fact that we went over this before and separate but equal just ain't equal.



No, its not silly at all for gays and lesbians to wish society to recognize their relationship as equal to straight relationships. Symbolism is awfully powerful, especially for people who feel marginalized and discriminated against by society anyway.

Yes yes and adult males that want to marry their 12 year old girl friend or their 12 year old boyfriend because they LOVE them can't get married either, we better change that too, right? Or the adult man that wants nothing but to love the 8 year old boy , he too should have the marriage laws changed. I mean love being all that is important after all. Adult women that want to marry children also are denied by our old out dated laws as well. And then of course we have the problem of not being able to marry your pet as well. The list of individuals denied true love and marriage is endless it would seem.

 

[mattskramer]

Yes yes and adult males that want to marry their 12 year old girl friend or their 12 year old boyfriend because they LOVE them can't get married either, we better change that too, right? Or the adult man that wants nothing but to love the 8 year old boy , he too should have the marriage laws changed. I mean love being all that is important after all. Adult women that want to marry children also are denied by our old out dated laws as well. And then of course we have the problem of not being able to marry your pet as well. The list of individuals denied true love and marriage is endless it would seem.

That is a classic example of the slipper slope and domino theory. “If we allowed for this, then we will soon be allowing for that. Then others will demand this.” I don’t buy into that fallacy. Values are not dominos. Understanding grows with experience and reason. We thought that alcohol consumption should be allowed. Then we thought that it should not be allowed. Then we decided that it should be allowed. We have changed minimum drinking ages. Different states have set different minimum ages for the same activity.

Let’s compare this “we better not allow homosexual couples to get married because then we will soon be allowing children to get married” to other things. Should we have never allowed people to smoke? One might reason that smoking cigarettes leads to the smoking of marijuana. Those who like marijuana will demand the right to smoke because cigarette-lovers get to smoke what they like. If we allow for the consumption of marijuana, then those that like cocaine will demand that they we allowed cocaine.

People argue about what is “equal rights” and what is “special rights”. As it applies to heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage, I draw the line thusly: Consenting informed adult human beings (those able to fully understand romantic sexual life-long commitment) should be allowed to enter such a commitment. If government recognizes such a union for heterosexual couples and grant such couples special recognition, rights, and responsibilities, then it should equally grant those things to homosexual couples.

 

[Larkinn]

Yes yes and adult males that want to marry their 12 year old girl friend or their 12 year old boyfriend because they LOVE them can't get married either, we better change that too, right? Or the adult man that wants nothing but to love the 8 year old boy , he too should have the marriage laws changed. I mean love being all that is important after all.

That you would equate the love of two consensual adults with the RAPE of a CHILD is disgusting even by your standards.

Adult women that want to marry children also are denied by our old out dated laws as well. And then of course we have the problem of not being able to marry your pet as well. The list of individuals denied true love and marriage is endless it would seem.

There are clear and obvious societal reasons to deny them that privilege. Got any for homosexuals?