Defending Heterosexual Marriage: Did you hear Melissa Ethridge's comments?

[siamesecat]

The point I’m trying to make is that there are people who want to marry their animals. Again you have to draw the line somewhere. Marriage is between a man and a woman. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

But why draw the line there? Who says who marriage is between? “God created Adam and Eve” is not a legal argument.

 

[danih37]

OK, let’s try an example. Suppose you’re a parent and you have a young toddler. As he or she begins to take those first few steps, you know that there will be mishaps along the way. At first you give as much guidance and support as you can, but eventually you back away and let the child continue to learn through experience. Later comes running, bike riding, car driving, etc. You try to provide all of the needed information and guidance to your child along the way so that the mishaps and injuries are hopefully be kept to a minimum. But you know that some will occur. Now you could lock your child up in a room so that he or she will never experience the pain that comes with getting hurt walking, riding, driving, etc. But that’s not love and that’s not giving your child free will. Ultimately your child must make his or her own decisions, hopefully in light of the wisdom that you have shared.

But just because you know there will be accidents, doesn’t mean that you know all. You have an idea of what could possibly happen, not what will happen. God on the other hand knows everything, so how could you possibly be held accountable for your actions if God already knew exactly what you were going to do? How would that be sin?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

What research? I would like to see it.

all research

And in the same way, gay couples will continue to fight for their equality and have their relationships.

They already have equality, that is why their argument is fatally flawed

But they would still be raising that child and it would be theirs, regardless of who conceived it. That’s like saying adoptive parents aren’t legitimate parents.

Adoptive parents are a great service, they show our human abilities. Gays can only raise children through human subverting of Natural Laws, and Natural relationships. I do not fear gay people helping children. The question is “Should children be place by man in gay parenting when natural pairs are available?”

Gay women give birth. I don’t know how this helps your argument. Yes, gay women need an outside man, but they are still giving birth to their child.

Certainly a gay woman can experience single motherhood equal to a hetero who does not bond with any man, however again you note the gay woman still needs a man to do that and both women have failed pair bonding additionally the gay woman will have an abnormal influence concerning male/female relationships

Then why would you expect gay people to marry into straight relationships? People don’t choose who they love.

I never asked gay people to marry straight people so why the comment? Again research shows homo bonds are different than hetero bonds

And so will gay people. Regardless of law, people love who they love, so who are you to deny that happiness to someone?

again your proving the difference, hetero’s do not need gay approval nor government approval. They do not marry because of the law.

:

So just because through gay couples having sex they can’t create babies, means that they shouldn’t get the same protections when they raise a family? Children wear out gays as much as they wear out heteros…so I don’t understand this argument.

Natural processes do not produce this condition, only if people intervene can gays have children

And homosexuals will still want to be equal, regardless of laws. I don’t see how this is valid. Lesbians will still fall in love with women and gay men will still fall in love with men.

Lesbians and gay men are still equal to hetero, you’re asking to 1) produce children through natural process then 2) force those children into gay households, 3) then apply new tax laws to those households. And thus the problem natural processes do not produce these conditions.

I hope you can understand I do not want any unhappiness or punishment for any SSA conditions.

 

[tyson]

Whoa this thread is ripe!

In my opinion to compare humans to animals does not hold much. Animals are just that “animals” they have no soul, however they were put on the earth to procreate as well. Gay animals is a new one to me. Never heard of Fido and Rover hooking up. I think that the “gay” argument for that does nothing to help the “gay” cause.

Marriage was given to us to pro-create plain and simple. 10-15% of heterosexual couples are infertile, thats IT. It’s 100% for the homosexual couples who cannot pro-create (with the same sex that is).

 

[danih37]

Whoa this thread is ripe!

In my opinion to compare humans to animals does not hold much. Animals are just that “animals” they have no soul, however they were put on the earth to procreate as well. Gay animals is a new one to me. Never heard of Fido and Rover hooking up. I think that the “gay” argument for that does nothing to help the “gay” cause.

Marriage was given to us to pro-create plain and simple. 10-15% of heterosexual couples are infertile, thats IT. It’s 100% for the homosexual couples who cannot pro-create (with the same sex that is).

And gay people only make up 10% of the population…so infertile couples are an even greater population, yet they can marry.

 

[tyson]

And gay people only make up 10% of the population…so infertile couples are an even greater population, yet they can marry.

But you miss my point. They cannot pro-create so why the need for marriage. Just to be recognized cuz their abnormal relationships can be recognized and shoved down the throats of heterosexual couples? I don’t understand this agenda.

 

[danih37]

all research

Then give me an example of some credible research.

They already have equality, that is why their argument is fatally flawed

How are they equal? They can’t marry the person they love and want to create a family with. How is that equal?

Adoptive parents are a great service, they show our human abilities. Gays can only raise children through human subverting of Natural Laws, and Natural relationships. I do not fear gay people helping children. The question is “Should children be place by man in gay parenting when natural pairs are available?”

So you’re saying that equally loving parents who are gay aren’t as good parents? It takes much longer and it’s much harder for a gay couple to adopt, so the love would be overwhelming in these situations. How would that be bad parenting?

Certainly a gay woman can experience single motherhood equal to a hetero who does not bond with any man, however again you note the gay woman still needs a man to do that and both women have failed pair bonding additionally the gay woman will have an abnormal influence concerning male/female relationships

But if a gay woman is with another woman, she hasn’t failed pair bonding, she’s just achieved it slightly differently than the average straight couple.

I never asked gay people to marry straight people so why the comment?

Sorry. Must have been someone else.

Again research shows homo bonds are different than hetero bonds

I won;t believe this until you show me some type of citation and research. I don’t believe it for a second until I see sources.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

And gay people only make up 10% of the population…so infertile couples are an even greater population, yet they can marry.

probably true however the hetero’s are acting naturally while the homo couples are acting in methods which can not procreate this is why the church teachs the sexual thinking is “disordered” in SSA relationships

 

[danih37]

But you miss my point. They cannot pro-create so why the need for marriage. Just to be recognized cuz their abnormal relationships can be recognized and shoved down the throats of heterosexual couples? I don’t understand this agenda.

Every relationship is abnormal.
The push is for protection under the law. Protection for gay families. Protection for each other. And protection for children of gay parents. What is so fundamentally wrong with that?

 

[Jennifer123]

hasikelee;4569218:

Try this out.

amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=031225377X/scottbidstrupshoA/

A whole book. Written by Bruce Bagemihl PhD

I got one for you:

amazon.com/Future-Marriage-David-Blankenhorn/dp/1594030812/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207203472&sr=8-1

Written by a self-professed liberal with no religious axe to grind. I recommend it to all.

 

[tyson]

Every relationship is abnormal.
The push is for protection under the law. Protection for gay families. Protection for each other. And protection for children of gay parents. What is so fundamentally wrong with that?

To consider Every relationship abnormal is a very broad statement and is open to interpretation. However the abnormality with homosexual couples is simple. Its like comparing said relationships to a hammer and a hammer, or a nail and a nail, not how they should be a hammer and a nail that work together in union that serve a purpose. What good are two hammers without a nail? Or vice versa.

 

[danih37]

To consider Every relationship abnormal is a very broad statement and is open to interpretation. However the abnormality with homosexual couples is simple. Its like comparing said relationships to a hammer and a hammer, or a nail and a nail, not how they should be a hammer and a nail that work together in union that serve a purpose. What good are two hammers without a nail? Or vice versa.

But if two hammers are in love and want to make a family with little hammer and nail babies, why would you try to deny them protection?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Only because you asked

familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet7.html

theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/MarrHoVsHet.htm

This is rough but a better source
marysremnant.org/Friends/DBK/BKHomAids.html

The point here is not because of monogamy but rather this is another sign of problems

 

[danih37]

probably true however the hetero’s are acting naturally while the homo couples are acting in methods which can not procreate this is why the church teachs the sexual thinking is “disordered” in SSA relationships

Just because they can’t procreate just not make them unnatural.
There are some who believe that gays are part of the population as a form of population control. All part of God’s plan.

 

[tyson]

But if two hammers are in love and want to make a family with little hammer and nail babies, why would you try to deny them protection?

Well then they have to rely on another tool box to get a “proper” hammer that will nail the nail that is going to give them their little nail! Because its something they cannot do with each other…confusing isn’t it. Imagine the poor little nail that has to be raised with all the confusion and has to go to school and get teased by all the other mean little nails about him having two hammers for parents instead of a hammer and a nail.

 

[danih37]

Only because you asked

familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet7.html

theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/MarrHoVsHet.htm

This is rough but a better source
marysremnant.org/Friends/DBK/BKHomAids.html

The point here is not because of monogamy but rather this is another sign of problems

Ok. The first two articles are fully propaganda. They are written highly skewed and made to make people believe that homosexuality is perverse and wrong.
I know more gay couples who have been together for over 30 years than I do straight ones who have been together more than 15.

They list all the things about divorce…what’s the divorce rate of heterosexual couples in the US right now? Over half? And that doesn’t so much look like research to me as it does bias.
And how many unmarried straight couples live together? The articles are equating living together as the same as marriage, which isn’t how it works, gay or straight.

So the one who are in a committed loving relationship shouldn’t be allowed to marry because other gay people commit dangerous sex acts? Does that make sense to you?

 

[danih37]

Well then they have to rely on another tool box to get a “proper” hammer that will nail the nail that is going to give them their little nail! Because its something they cannot do with each other…confusing isn’t it. Imagine the poor little nail that has to be raised with all the confusion and has to go to school and get teased by all the other mean little nails about him having two hammers for parents instead of a hammer and a nail.

Well kids getting teased isn’t the parents fault. That is society’s fault. And over time people get more accepting, because gay relationships are normal.

 

[Gamera]

Well if the government is the problem, why is this one minority suffering for the governments screw ups?

Who is “suffering?”

And you do realize that before interracial marriage was legal, people were making the same arguments about it destroying the family.

What source can you cite for this claim? I never heard any such thing. Racists opposed interracial marriage because they didn’t like the idea, not because they felt an interracial union wouldn’t constitute valid marriage. The two situations are nothing alike.

 

[tyson]

Well kids getting teased isn’t the parents fault. That is society’s fault. And over time people get more accepting, because gay relationships are normal.

Yeah but isnt it the fault of gay parents to thrust thier child in a society’s school system…we’re not talking about a nerdy lil kid who will be teased for having bottlethick glasses and highwater pants. Kids are mean, and you cant blame it all on society. I see it at my childs school, I live in Santa Fe (huge gay population) and I have seen some seriously mean things happen to those poor children that have no fault in the matter.

Regarding gay relationships being natural, thats a topic for a whole other thread.

 

[Gamera]

So they have the right to be miserable because their country or state doesn’t recognize their love?

1. A “right to be miserable?” It isn’t the government’s job to keep people from being “miserable.” Government exists to maintain civic order and protect its subjects from external threats. Not to make people happy.
2. Anyone who relies on the government to keep from being “miserable” will be miserable no matter what.
3. Marriage is not a “recognition of love.” Marriage is an institution upon which all of family life relies.