Why do SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

[RoshawnMarkwees]

make so many unhappy, just asking

And of course most of those unhappy people are conservative.

They're unhappy because conservatives, for the most part, are reactionaries who fear change, diversity, and expressions of individual liberty.

Most conservatives incorrectly perceive gay Americans realizing their comprehensive civil rights as some sort of a 'threat' to society and 'social order,' along with other similar fallacies and unsupported nonsense.

The ultra-conservatives are the homo marriage advocates who refuse to accept the reality of empirical data that proves that unstructured families (e.g., homo 'families') are at the root of social demise and the homo advocates refuse to budge from their outdated and refuted opinion.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Quick question.....................how is it that homosexual families are "unstructured"?

I mean....................I lived with a lesbian couple who had a daughter, and she had a pretty good amount of structure in her life, even without a strong male model.

Interestingly enough, I'm a person who was orphaned at 8 years old.

I would have done almost anything to have a family like what I saw in Cindy and Connie (the lesbian couple).

Instead, I got a bunch of people who were exploiting the system, which is why I ran away from them and back to my Grandparents.

 

[ninja007]

its all about the benefits $$$$.

 

[auditor0007]

make so many unhappy, just asking

I don't believe it makes them unhappy. In my opinion, what makes folks uneasy about it, is the way it's brought to the forefront, used as a national battle ground, and flaunted like world war three was just won by a landslide. It should have never been a national issue. It's a personal issue, and should've remain that way. If folks want to be in a same-sex relationship, that's no one business but theirs. If same-sex couples want to marry, so be it, let them marry. But, when something is flaunted, used for political reasons, and used as leverage, it makes folks angry. The same with the Confederate flag issue. No one forces anyone to look at, honor, salute, nor praise the Confederate flag. Yet, it's become a national issue after 150 years of just waving in the wind atop flag poles.

In today's society, making noise pays off. And, during campaign season, the noise is magnified 100 fold. We're going backwards by giving so much attention to special causes, while losing sight of the big issues that'll determine the present as well as the future. We're not marching in the streets protesting government corruption, the injustices in our judicial system, poverty, homelessness, illegal immigration, taxation without fair, equal, and just representation, senseless deadly costly wars, the mistreatment of our Vets, mental illnesses, the abuse of power and authority by members of law enforcement, the lack of alternative energy sources, our unfair, unjust, and one-sided foreign trade agreements and policies, and many other issues that are so very important for the social and economic well-being of this nation and her citizens.

We're turning away from the big issues, and focusing on gay marriage, the Confederate flag, and the candidates for president. Our priorities are misdirected, which is what professional politicians want. We're not unhappy, we're tired of special interests getting all the attention while this once great nation continues its fall into the abyss of ruin.

You do understand that you just stated that same sex couples should be permitted to marry, but you fail to acknowledge that they were not permitted to do this in many states. If they had been given the right in the first place, maybe they wouldn't have had a need for gay pride parades and all the stuff you can't stand. They will still be discriminated against, because there are just way too many who will use their religions to condemn them and make their lives as miserable as they can. We have all kinds of laws giving Blacks equal rights, and they've had those rights for how many years? Yet they still are discriminated against and looked down upon by many.

 

[JoeB131]

I worry about the moral fabric of this country. Personally I really don't care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom. If we are going to shift the line on society yet again where does the next line get drawn. There are some who would want to marry animals,objects or children, do they have a Constitutional right also?

Uh, no.

Animals and Objects can't legally form contracts, which is what a marriage is. Children are understood to be to young to understand the consequences of a contract, so they can't, either.

So how about instead of silly "Slippery slope' arguments, do you have any arguments against Gay marriage that don't involve...

"I think it's Icky"

and

"My Imaginary Friend In the Sky says it's bad."

 

[JoeB131]

The entire issue is about the legal status of marriage, not marriage itself. Marriage alone is a concept. A personal agenda. You can marry anything or anyone or any group of things or people. Your own issue. But legal marriage is when the law makes others concede to it and impacts the lives of children. Then specific criteria needs to be considered. Homo marriage opens the door to more children being denied their birth parents and creates more unstructured family circumstance which leads to social decay. The data is empirical.

It would strike me that if you guys were really concerned about the possibility of Children not having two parents, you'd be more upset about divorce than gay marriage, as that would effect a lot more children.

Gay marriage is not going to keep Lesbians from using artificial insemination or gay men from employing surrogates. They do that already. It might keep gay people from making kids because society and their families pressure them to be "Straight".

Plus, legal marriage forces all others to subsidize homo marriage for absolutely no reason. Employers are forced to provide health coverage for 'spouses' with no real potential for procreation which could impede career and self-sufficiency, thereby warranting that assistance. The rest are forced to foot that bill.

But here's the thing. Employers were providing health coverage to "Domestic Partners" long before even the first state legalized gay marriage. Employers really didn't have a problem with this, as they knew that health benefits were a method of attracting better employees.

I should also point out that if you want to argue the 'Rest of us are footing the bill", then gays paying into the system are footing YOUR bill if they don't get sick and you do.

 

[Marianne]

I worry about the moral fabric of this country. Personally I really don't care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom. If we are going to shift the line on society yet again where does the next line get drawn. There are some who would want to marry animals,objects or children, do they have a Constitutional right also?

Uh, no.

Animals and Objects can't legally form contracts, which is what a marriage is. Children are understood to be to young to understand the consequences of a contract, so they can't, either.

So how about instead of silly "Slippery slope' arguments, do you have any arguments against Gay marriage that don't involve...

"I think it's Icky"

and

"My Imaginary Friend In the Sky says it's bad."

There are already people calling for animals and children to be included. Yes they can't give consent or can they? Don't forget we just "redefined" the meaning of marriage so there's no reason to think that other things can't be "redefined" if enough support is raised. I know most people think Child marriage isn't going to happen here but consider that it's common in other parts of the world. Those immigrants move here and bring there culture with them. At some point they may gain enough political strength. They may "redefine" the age of adulthood therefore lowering the age of consent. But that possibility is way off in the future. The more immediate thing that you will probably see soon is polygamy. Those are already consenting adults, many already practice it and yes they have already called for the law to be changed.

Again where does it stop? That's the actual question I asked, not what new things are and aren't plausible. It's got nothing to do with Gays being "Icky." As you can see by my original statement I said I really don't care what two consenting adults do in their bedroom. I don't have a problem with the new law. The only issue I have is the term marriage being used because I still believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I just use the term "gay marriage" and that works for me. As for your reference to God, religion plays no part in the statement I made so I can only assume you are grasping at straws because you have no real argument.

So again I ask, where does the line get drawn? Are we stopping at gay's, are we moving on to polygamy,If the line can be erased and redrawn according to public pressure, where does it officially end? I think you need to re-examine what a "silly slippery slope" really is or maybe just read the actual post before you stick your foot in your mouth.

 

[Marianne]

I worry about the moral fabric of this country. Personally I really don't care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom. If we are going to shift the line on society yet again where does the next line get drawn. There are some who would want to marry animals,objects or children, do they have a Constitutional right also? When the founding fathers wrote the Constitution they no doubt always thought that some things like gay marriage would be social taboo's forever because they always had been in the past. We need to make a limit before this gets out of hand. Some people think the line should be drawn after gay marriage and some before gay marriage was allowed.

My answer is in part of your answer, "who cares what adults do in their privacy?" Let them marry animals.. let them marry a hot dog its none of our business. We shouldn't worrying what people are doing in their houses,but oh wait the government spying on every American? Is that ok??

Yes lets say we open it up to all things, what does that get us? If a person wants to marry a hot dog isn't that more of a mental health issue? Don't we have a moral responsibility to get that person some real help rather than let them live in mental illness? Should the government feed into that by allowing the mental issue? Marriage to animals could be considered animal abuse so who speaks for the animal? Does Bubbles the chimp really want to be there? Don't we have a moral responsibility to consider Bubbles the chimp might not agree with the actions against him? Age of consent in many states is 16. Now what if the age of adulthood is lowered to accommodate marriage, then what? Will we have child brides and say that's OK. Then there's the most likely scenario of Polygamy which is already widely practiced in some states. The problem with that which some states have already seen is if a man has five wives and 50 kids he can't possibly support them all unless he's got Oprah's money. They go in Welfare which creates a bigger burden on taxpayers. Taxpayers are already overburdened by welfare, we don't need to create more. If they don't go on Welfare the family then runs the risk of living in poverty. Is that fair to the children? If the government has a way to prevent that shouldn't they? Now that we've crossed the long established line,all these issues are going to come out and we need to start thinking of the consequences and make ethical decisions. Where do we draw the new line?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Quick question.....................how is it that homosexual families are "unstructured"?

I mean....................I lived with a lesbian couple who had a daughter, and she had a pretty good amount of structure in her life, even without a strong male model.

Interestingly enough, I'm a person who was orphaned at 8 years old.

I would have done almost anything to have a family like what I saw in Cindy and Connie (the lesbian couple).

Instead, I got a bunch of people who were exploiting the system, which is why I ran away from them and back to my Grandparents.

Structured family refers to the parents who create the children raising the children. Alternatives would be considered unstructured. It's just nomenclature. Keeps the discussion organized.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The entire issue is about the legal status of marriage, not marriage itself. Marriage alone is a concept. A personal agenda. You can marry anything or anyone or any group of things or people. Your own issue. But legal marriage is when the law makes others concede to it and impacts the lives of children. Then specific criteria needs to be considered. Homo marriage opens the door to more children being denied their birth parents and creates more unstructured family circumstance which leads to social decay. The data is empirical.

It would strike me that if you guys were really concerned about the possibility of Children not having two parents, you'd be more upset about divorce than gay marriage, as that would effect a lot more children.

Gay marriage is not going to keep Lesbians from using artificial insemination or gay men from employing surrogates. They do that already. It might keep gay people from making kids because society and their families pressure them to be "Straight".

Plus, legal marriage forces all others to subsidize homo marriage for absolutely no reason. Employers are forced to provide health coverage for 'spouses' with no real potential for procreation which could impede career and self-sufficiency, thereby warranting that assistance. The rest are forced to foot that bill.

But here's the thing. Employers were providing health coverage to "Domestic Partners" long before even the first state legalized gay marriage. Employers really didn't have a problem with this, as they knew that health benefits were a method of attracting better employees.

I should also point out that if you want to argue the 'Rest of us are footing the bill", then gays paying into the system are footing YOUR bill if they don't get sick and you do.

As for divorce, yeah, that adds to the problem and you won't find me using that as an excuse to create more of the same.
Employers choosing to provide homo butt-buddies with health coverage was just that; choice. This is about coercion.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Okay conservatives..................explain something to me..................

How does 2 people who you probably don't even know affect YOUR marriage, or later marriage if you're engaged?

Got news for you...................it doesn't.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Okay conservatives..................explain something to me..................

How does 2 people who you probably don't even know affect YOUR marriage, or later marriage if you're engaged?

Got news for you...................it doesn't.

Suppose a hetero couple and a homo couple vied for the same adoptee. It would now result in a coin flip. That's one way it affects non-homos. The other is contrived unstructured families adding to an existent problem caused by unstructured families.

 

[JoeB131]

There are already people calling for animals and children to be included. Yes they can't give consent or can they?

Really? Who? Link!!!!

Again where does it stop? That's the actual question I asked, not what new things are and aren't plausible. It's got nothing to do with Gays being "Icky." As you can see by my original statement I said I really don't care what two consenting adults do in their bedroom. I don't have a problem with the new law. The only issue I have is the term marriage being used because I still believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I just use the term "gay marriage" and that works for me. As for your reference to God, religion plays no part in the statement I made so I can only assume you are grasping at straws because you have no real argument.

Yet those are the only real two arguments you have... Icky and God. You really don't have anything else, do you?

 

[JoeB131]

Suppose a hetero couple and a homo couple vied for the same adoptee. It would now result in a coin flip. That's one way it affects non-homos. The other is contrived unstructured families adding to an existent problem caused by unstructured families.

well, no, it wouldn't result in a coin flip.

It would result in an examination of who is better prepared psychologically, financially and culturally to meet the needs of that child. Except that examination will happen without being colored by sexual phobias.

So let's put it another way. Couple A is a young couple. She doesn't have a job and he has a history of spotty employment. He's even been arrested for a few typical white trash offenses.

Couple B is a young gay couple. They both have good jobs and have built a solid life for themselves.

But the probability is, the adoption agency will still opt for Couple A.

 

[Syriusly]

Quick question.....................how is it that homosexual families are "unstructured"?

I mean....................I lived with a lesbian couple who had a daughter, and she had a pretty good amount of structure in her life, even without a strong male model.

Interestingly enough, I'm a person who was orphaned at 8 years old.

I would have done almost anything to have a family like what I saw in Cindy and Connie (the lesbian couple).

Instead, I got a bunch of people who were exploiting the system, which is why I ran away from them and back to my Grandparents.

Structured family refers to the parents who create the children raising the children. Alternatives would be considered unstructured. It's just nomenclature. Keeps the discussion organized.

So this was not a 'structured family'?

 

[Syriusly]

The entire issue is about the legal status of marriage, not marriage itself. Marriage alone is a concept. A personal agenda. You can marry anything or anyone or any group of things or people. Your own issue. But legal marriage is when the law makes others concede to it and impacts the lives of children. Then specific criteria needs to be considered. Homo marriage opens the door to more children being denied their birth parents and creates more unstructured family circumstance which leads to social decay. The data is empirical.

It would strike me that if you guys were really concerned about the possibility of Children not having two parents, you'd be more upset about divorce than gay marriage, as that would effect a lot more children.

Gay marriage is not going to keep Lesbians from using artificial insemination or gay men from employing surrogates. They do that already. It might keep gay people from making kids because society and their families pressure them to be "Straight".

Plus, legal marriage forces all others to subsidize homo marriage for absolutely no reason. Employers are forced to provide health coverage for 'spouses' with no real potential for procreation which could impede career and self-sufficiency, thereby warranting that assistance. The rest are forced to foot that bill.

But here's the thing. Employers were providing health coverage to "Domestic Partners" long before even the first state legalized gay marriage. Employers really didn't have a problem with this, as they knew that health benefits were a method of attracting better employees.

I should also point out that if you want to argue the 'Rest of us are footing the bill", then gays paying into the system are footing YOUR bill if they don't get sick and you do.

As for divorce, yeah, that adds to the problem and you won't find me using that as an excuse to create more of the same.
Employers choosing to provide homo butt-buddies with health coverage was just that; choice. This is about coercion.

Coercion when employers have to get married homosexual partners the same coverage that they give heterosexual coverage?

Or are you just okay with coercion to benefit heterosexuals?

 

[Pop23]

The entire issue is about the legal status of marriage, not marriage itself. Marriage alone is a concept. A personal agenda. You can marry anything or anyone or any group of things or people. Your own issue. But legal marriage is when the law makes others concede to it and impacts the lives of children. Then specific criteria needs to be considered. Homo marriage opens the door to more children being denied their birth parents and creates more unstructured family circumstance which leads to social decay. The data is empirical.

It would strike me that if you guys were really concerned about the possibility of Children not having two parents, you'd be more upset about divorce than gay marriage, as that would effect a lot more children.

Gay marriage is not going to keep Lesbians from using artificial insemination or gay men from employing surrogates. They do that already. It might keep gay people from making kids because society and their families pressure them to be "Straight".

Plus, legal marriage forces all others to subsidize homo marriage for absolutely no reason. Employers are forced to provide health coverage for 'spouses' with no real potential for procreation which could impede career and self-sufficiency, thereby warranting that assistance. The rest are forced to foot that bill.

But here's the thing. Employers were providing health coverage to "Domestic Partners" long before even the first state legalized gay marriage. Employers really didn't have a problem with this, as they knew that health benefits were a method of attracting better employees.

I should also point out that if you want to argue the 'Rest of us are footing the bill", then gays paying into the system are footing YOUR bill if they don't get sick and you do.

As for divorce, yeah, that adds to the problem and you won't find me using that as an excuse to create more of the same.
Employers choosing to provide homo butt-buddies with health coverage was just that; choice. This is about coercion.

Coercion when employers have to get married homosexual partners the same coverage that they give heterosexual coverage?

Or are you just okay with coercion to benefit heterosexuals?

You assume the same sex married couple will be homosexual. Many hetrosexual couples will marry just for the benefits.

Tax, insurance, inheritance. It's there for the taking. The best part is this pair can just keep dating.

Beautiful.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Suppose a hetero couple and a homo couple vied for the same adoptee. It would now result in a coin flip. That's one way it affects non-homos. The other is contrived unstructured families adding to an existent problem caused by unstructured families.

well, no, it wouldn't result in a coin flip.

It would result in an examination of who is better prepared psychologically, financially and culturally to meet the needs of that child. Except that examination will happen without being colored by sexual phobias.

So let's put it another way. Couple A is a young couple. She doesn't have a job and he has a history of spotty employment. He's even been arrested for a few typical white trash offenses.

Couple B is a young gay couple. They both have good jobs and have built a solid life for themselves.

But the probability is, the adoption agency will still opt for Couple A.

I was talking in terms of all things being equal except gender. Kids need a mom and dad, not one or two of either. This is current data and unique beyond the 1960's.

 

[JoeB131]

I was talking in terms of all things being equal except gender. Kids need a mom and dad, not one or two of either. This is current data and unique beyond the 1960's.

I know same-sex couples who have done a great job raising children. I know oppossite sex couples who have the parenting skills of Feral Wolves.

And frankly, given most straight couple are people who COULD have had kids when they were in their 20's and are just trying to scoop up a kid in their 40's after their biological clocks have run down, I'm not working up lots of sympathy.

 

[JoeB131]

I was talking in terms of all things being equal except gender. Kids need a mom and dad, not one or two of either. This is current data and unique beyond the 1960's.

I know same-sex couples who have done a great job raising children. I know oppossite sex couples who have the parenting skills of Feral Wolves.

And frankly, given most straight couple are people who COULD have had kids when they were in their 20's and are just trying to scoop up a kid in their 40's after their biological clocks have run down, I'm not working up lots of sympathy.