W
whatevergirl
Guest
We probably will go round and round in this thread then–ever see two people talking at once, but neither is really getting what the other is saying? That will be you and me.
But, you never know.
- Status
But, you never know.
K
KarenNC
Guest
The spouse of the mother of the child in a heterosexual marriage is automatically considered to be the full legal parent of that child unless the mother lists someone else on the birth certificate. That chld is then automatically eligible for a variety of benefits based on the husband’s employment history, veteran status, etc., particularly if the husband were to die before the child reaches majority. If the child is conceived through artificial insemination, for instance, the husband does not have to legally adopt the child to make the child eligible. In a married heterosexual couple, joint adoption is considered a given—the spouses are not looked at as separate adopters. The ability of the partner in a same sex couple to adopt as a co-parent varies depending on area.What legal support and protections? I work for a company whereby they offer same sex couples medical, life, etc…insurance for their life partners, and their children. If I were not married to my husband…my kids would have access to legal protections, and support. I’m confused by what you mean by support.
aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;109/2/341?fulltext=homosexuality&searchid=QID_NOT_SET
aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;109/2/339
gaylife.about.com/od/gayparentingadoption/a/gaycoupleadopt.htm
If the couple is not able to have a second parent adoption, then that child is not usually considered a legal dependent of the second parent, affecting access to a multitude of benefits including Social Security, insurance, veteran’s benefits, etc.
K
KarenNC
Guest
I don’t see why when the topic at hand is civil same sex marriage. I could see it being an issue if we were discussing sacramental marriage, but that is not the topic.We probably will go round and round in this thread then–ever see two people talking at once, but neither is really getting what the other is saying? That will be you and me.
My stance is that I see no reason to deny same sex couples who are seeking a a civil marriage the ability to do so unless we also use the same criteria to deny a civil marriage to heterosexual couples.
Sacramental marriage is an entirely different topic. There is plenty of precedent for legal civil marriages that would not be be sacramentally allowable by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is not required to grant such couples a sacramental marriage or to consider their civil marriage sacramentally valid. I don’t see why some folks assume that same sex marriages would be any different.
R
RachelsAlumni
Guest
It’s the same with divorce and remarriage within heterosexual relationships. A child has a biological mother and father. They are usually named on a birth certificate. So let’s say Pat & Jordan have a biological child together but are not married. Jordan is on the birth certificate as the child’s parent. Pat decides to get involved in a SS relationship with Riley. Riley is not the child’s biological parent, Pat & Jordan are. Riley would have to get Jordan to give up their parental rights in order to adopt. The State rightly assumes Pat & Jordan are the legal parents. The State rightly assumes every child has a mother and a father and rightly assumes that the husband of the mother is the biological father unless otherwise indicated. That’s just the natural order of things and as it should be.
I don’t feel sympathy for same sex couples who choose artificial insemination and/or surrogate mothers to bring a fatherless child into the world. I feel they are committing a gravely immoral act, one that does violence to the inherant rights of a child. They are putting their wants above a child’s needs from the get-go and are unfit to be parents. IMO. The issue of a child not being able to get health benefits through the biological parents SS partner’s employer is just one more way the SS couple are neglecting the child’s needs in favor of their ‘wants’. It’s not as though they didn’t know this prior. They just didn’t care enough to put the child’s best interests first and foremost.
L
ljprevo
Guest
Yeah because homosexual supporters as yourself figure , he, he, he the only way we can get this socially acceptable is to get into the minds of the children! “Then we will win, YEAH!”
Why so many campains out there that say being gay is ok, when clearly every angle I have shown it is not.
And if it was SO ok socially then why have campains at all trying to say it is?
What does being able to mate with more than one female have anything to do with homosexuality, again, it is wrong biologically.
Oh ok, so things that were moral and are no longer moral is the case here? Tell me something that was immoral that became moral? Yes all them things you mentioned are NOW immoral and well should be, just as homosexuality is immoral as well, you are saying it shouldn’t be, sorry but ALOT of people think it is immoral behavior. It is not ness. religion that determines all morals.
There you go again, yes there were many heads of states the had multiple wives in HETRO relationships. I bet there were some that had homosexual relationships, but probably hid it in the past. Can you name any that had multiple same sex partners?
We know dang well that the democratic party is in favor of homosexul marriage!And some political groups are for it.
Again they are not dealing with parents in a homosexual relationship. It causes confusion for a child, I don’t care how the gay community wants to spin it, but it DOES cause confusion. If not for the child in the relationship, but children brought up in traditional family setting. And even though people may divorce, there is only ONE MOTHER AND ONE FATHER, that is the way the child is concieved and born, why shouldn’t a person be raised by the persons bio parents, the family unit has attacked and is being destroyed. And usally when parents of opposite sex remary, they are then with another of the same sex, male and female role model in the home. Again having two of the same sex parents causes confusion and even loyality issues. Kid falls on bike and scraps his arm and cries out “Mommy” Ahh, which mommy, mommy #1 or mommy #2? Mommy Sue or Mommy Laura?
You know what, the original poster wanted arguments other than religious why being gay is wrong, I gave them, and weather you agree or not, they all have merit. You even accept that it is wrong morally, however argue “Well we can change that!” Just what the gay community has been trying to do for years.
W
whatevergirl
Guest
ooooohhh…Ok. I might have assumed otherwise – my bad. I have mixed feelings on it, but I can see what you’re saying here…
K
KarenNC
Guest
What does being able to mate with more than one female have anything to do with homosexuality, again, it is wrong biologically.
The actions of humans are not merely and simply driven by biological imperatives, either for homosexuals or heterosexuals.
Allowing a woman who was raped not to be forced to either be stoned or marry her rapist. Allowing a woman to vote. Allowing interracial marriage. Wearing clothing made from mixed fibers. Kindling fire on the Sabbath. Not stoning people for any number of things. Leviticus gives plenty of fodder for that.
A lot of people think a lot of things with which I do not agree. If you agree that these examples were at one time judged as moral actions but are not now judged as moral actions, then you must also agree that a society’s standards of judging moral behavior change over time.
So you don’t consider it immoral that a head of state had multiple wives, or multiple mistresses, or even same sex relationships as long as they weren’t multiple? Interesting position. By that do you mean multiple concurrently or sequentially? I have to admit that I am not privy to the bedroom activities of all heads of state throughout human history.
So same sex couples should not marry or raise children because it might confuse your children? Do you base your decision to marry or have children on what the children of your neighbors might think? How do you determine it—take a poll? What if you move and the new neighbors’ children become confused? Should you then abandon your children or get a divorce?
You are then in favor of requiring a heterosexual woman who seeks artificial insemination from a sperm donor to divorce her husband to marry the sperm donor? What about any other children that might be the biological children of her husband?
The presence of specific genitalia does not guarantee that a person will be a superior or even adequate role model.
I suppose you have objective studies that support that statement?
Probably whichever one is to hand, or, if both are available, I bet either one would do.
I don’t agree. For the record I did not say that I accepted that it is wrong morally, I said that there are many things that one society in one time period may consider morally wrong that another society or even the same one in a different time period will not consider so.
E
Elric
Guest
Is that right?
I think that you might find that “A vast majority” dont really give a fig.
If you are talking about procreation and furthering the species, then monogomy would also go against this argument.
Morallity is a funny thing when it comes to societies and cultures.
There have been those that are against homosexuality to the point of executing or imprisioning those who are guilty of it.
There have been those that simply accept it and allow homosexual relationships.
And there have been those that expect it, where you were expected to have a homosexual relationship.
Marriage also has its share of issues when it comes to morality. On numeruos occasions the only reason for marriage was so that the male had an incubator that would be able to produce a legitimate child who could inheriate the family estate. Of course there are other examples of questionable morality involving marriage.
Thats true, but I dont think that homosexuals are actually trying.
Oh yes and every one of those marriages are done out of love or because the couple choose it freely arnt they?
Please!!!
Different political parties are for and against a lot of different things, some things being quite strange indeed.
Thats not really an argument.
You mean like: “gee I have a drug addict mother and a drunk and abusive dad, how great!”
They might give me gay?
B
Bennie_P
Guest
A tree doesn’t grow from a stick stuck in a buffulo chip.
K
KarenNC
Guest
It is not be the norm in the plant kingdom, but it certainly can if the environment around it is conducive and it is the right kind of stick
----faq.gardenweb.com/faq/lists/tips/1998054614009627.html
“Willows contain root stimulants which allow branches to root by themselves if set into wet ground in the spring. Poplars and dogwoods have the same property to a lesser extent. That property can help to root other plants as well.”
A tree doesn’t grow from a stick stuck in most places, however, nor would even the willow grow if it were wrapped in rubber before being placed in the ground.
Again, as participating in the types of sexual activities in which many same sex couples engage is not a barrier to legal civil marriage in heterosexual couples, I see no ground to deny legal civil marriage to same sex couples on that basis. I guarantee you there very few sexual techniques used by same sex couples that at least some opposite sex couples do not also employ on a regular basis.
And again, as to whether the “tree will grow”, there are states in the US that allow legal civil marriage to certain heterosexual couples only if they are not able to have children (see marriage.about.com/cs/marriagelicenses/a/cousin.htm)). These are levels of consanguinity that the Catholic Church would also consider to unable to marry, as I understand it. Neither lack of the ability to procreate or the express intent to use various methods of contraception is a barrier to legal civil marriage in this country.
L
ljprevo
Guest
A tree doesn’t grow from a stick stuck in a buffulo chip.
As far as the other question. We are talking about homosexual behavior. We are not talking about raped women, abusive husbands, Drunk parents who beat their kids.
I agree them are all wrong, just as homosexuality is wrong, period. I will not be baited into saying homosexuality is not wrong, religiously and other ways that I have pointed out that DO have MERIT!
E
Elric
Guest
Actually, we are talking about if there are any non-religous arguments against gay marriage. Unfortunatly it doesnt look good.
As far as the other question. We are talking about homosexual behavior. We are not talking about raped women, abusive husbands, Drunk parents who beat their kids.
But it does seem as though hetrosexual marriage isnt always a good thing.
Mate, all of your “points” have been debunked and now it appears that you cant respond to those debunkments.
Im sorry to say that your “points” do not have any merit (some of them were not even “points” at all) and it wont matter how many times you say that they have.
L
ljprevo
Guest
I ain’t no “MATE” of yours. Just because I don’ care to go back and forth and argue with some I feel is wrong says that the points I brought up other than religion against gay marriage have no merit.
It is a matter of interpretation and I am sorry I feel my interpretation is correct and has VERY good merit. I am not in the mood to debate this with you as there is no debate. We are talking homosexual behavior only and you and the other person bring up, multiple wives and kids in abusive families. They are not disputed as being moral and improper. I am sorry, no matter what way you spin it being GAY is improper and immoral, religion or not.
How do you know that the mass majority don’t give care if people are gay, why would several states overwhelmingly vote against gay marriage then?
It is a matter of interpretation and I am sorry I feel my interpretation is correct and has VERY good merit. I am not in the mood to debate this with you as there is no debate. We are talking homosexual behavior only and you and the other person bring up, multiple wives and kids in abusive families. They are not disputed as being moral and improper. I am sorry, no matter what way you spin it being GAY is improper and immoral, religion or not.
How do you know that the mass majority don’t give care if people are gay, why would several states overwhelmingly vote against gay marriage then?
R
RyanL
Guest
Wow. In reading through this thread I’ve seen some of the sorriest arguments I’ve seen in a long time. Eesh. I’ve seen kids do better.
Ok. Here are some basics:
Enter same sex relationships, stage left. Again, what’s the state’s interest in marriage? It’s not about “recognizing a loving relationship” (as brothers and sisters love each other as well). It’s about making sure that “baby making activity” happens in the most responsible manner possible. Can same sex couples engage in “baby making activity”? No. So where’s the government interest?!?
Now…the rejoinder may be that we allow infertile couples to marry and so this invalidates the argument. I would say that’s a cute attempt at logic, but wrong. Even infertile couples can engage in sexual intercourse, i.e., baby making activity, even if babies don’t result. They’re still engaging in the type of activity which makes babies, and the government’s interest is in ensuring that this occurs in the most responsible way. Second, even “infertile” couples occasionally conceive. Third, making couples take a fertility test would violate the Democrat-beloved Constitutional right to privacy. Fourth, the law favors bright line rules, and one man / one woman is a pretty bright line.
Ok. Please resume the bickering.
God Bless,
RyanL
P.S.,
For those so inclined, there’s some interesting reading here focusing on secular justifications for banning same sex marriages I haven’t mentioned. It’s the tip of the iceberg.
Ok. Here are some basics:
- The government’s interest in marriage has nothing to do with “recognizing a loving relationship”. I’m not about to fork over my tax dollars because some couple has warm fuzzies for each other - straight or otherwise. Love is irrelevant to the state’s interest. Having an emotion is (1) not a sound basis for a lasting relationship (what happens when you don’t feel it anymore?!?) and (2) no source of entitlement to ride the Social Security train. Something more is needed.
- Heterosexual marriage in this country has problems, true (high divorce rates, spousal abuse, etc.) – but that doesn’t mean the answer is to further exacerbate the problems by making marriage some amorphous and nebulous concept which means whatever-the-heck we say it means. Either words have meaning or they’re meaningless. Pick a side.
- Stare decisis (that favorite term of democrats everywhere) says don’t change precedent without a compelling reason. The state has no compelling interest to protect whatever it is LGBT folks want do in their bedrooms. Whatever it may be, it doesn’t (and can’t) make babies.
- There’s no presumption that artificial insemination is a good way to go. In fact, I (and many others) would assert that it’s not. I would argue that this (i.e., invalid premises) makes any argument resting on the moral acceptance of artificial insemination invalid.
- Here’s the facts, jax: when a man and a woman have sex, babies are a possible result. Men and women will have sex with each other whether or not the state recognizes marriage, and this sex can (and often does) lead to babies whether or not the state recognizes marriage.
Enter same sex relationships, stage left. Again, what’s the state’s interest in marriage? It’s not about “recognizing a loving relationship” (as brothers and sisters love each other as well). It’s about making sure that “baby making activity” happens in the most responsible manner possible. Can same sex couples engage in “baby making activity”? No. So where’s the government interest?!?
Now…the rejoinder may be that we allow infertile couples to marry and so this invalidates the argument. I would say that’s a cute attempt at logic, but wrong. Even infertile couples can engage in sexual intercourse, i.e., baby making activity, even if babies don’t result. They’re still engaging in the type of activity which makes babies, and the government’s interest is in ensuring that this occurs in the most responsible way. Second, even “infertile” couples occasionally conceive. Third, making couples take a fertility test would violate the Democrat-beloved Constitutional right to privacy. Fourth, the law favors bright line rules, and one man / one woman is a pretty bright line.
Ok. Please resume the bickering.
God Bless,
RyanL
P.S.,
For those so inclined, there’s some interesting reading here focusing on secular justifications for banning same sex marriages I haven’t mentioned. It’s the tip of the iceberg.
M
mlchance
Guest
Even if that is true, it only demonstrates his points are insufficient. It hardly justifies homosexual “marriage”. In order for that to occur, those who advocate homosexual “marriage” would actually have to make a positive case for it, which never actually seems to happen.
– Mark L. Chance.
E
Elric
Guest
Ok, let the good times roll I guess.
Are you saying that you have no interest in trying to defend the points that you brought up?
Doing the proverbial covering your ears and shouting “La la la, I cant hear you, my points have merit” wont help and wont make them have any merit.
Actually there was quite a lot more that was raised (its a shame thats all you got out of it though, there was some interesting information involved).
Now we are not debating “homosexual behaviour only”, we are debating non-religous arguments against homosexual marriage.
You raised some issues under catagories (ie: historically, morally, mentally ect), the problem was that they dont stand as reasons for not allowing gay marriage and some even raised questions about hetrosexual marriage.
By the by, the mentally one isnt supported by anything. Apparently the research that has been done is inconclusive as to if it is a detriment to the child.
Thats cool, now prove it.
Yet others voted for it and countries have voted for it.
Most people dont care because it does not affect them personally. Frankly I dont really care as it doesnt affect me in any way and allowing gay marriage wont give me gay.
E
Elric
Guest
Its quite possible that is the only issue about them, in which case more debate would be needed about it points to expand/refine them as they dont really stand on their own. But the other person is not interested in that (for what ever reason), which makes such a thing impossible to achieve.
But then again, its quite possible that they dont have any merit.
No, they were opposing homosexual marriage.
Well that statement is blatently false, but that is beside the point.
The thread is about arguments against gay marriage, of the non-religous type, not arguments for gay marriage. The idea is not to justify gay marriage but to justify not allowing gay marriage.
K
KarenNC
Guest
Agreed. Marriage also has to do with determining benefits, rights of inheritance, protecting the assets of each partner, etc. It is a binding lifelong legal commitment.
I don’t see how it is “making marriage some amorphous and nebulous concept which means whatever-the-heck we say it means”. It is saying that these two people are as fully expected to be entering into a lifelong monogamous relationship with all its legal benefits and responsibilities as are any heterosexual couple. This is not changing marriage, in fact it to me strengthens it precisely because it can become the norm and expectation for both same sex and opposite sex couples.
The state also has no compelling interest to protect whatever it is that heterosexual folks do in their bedrooms. It does, however, have a compelling interest in promoting stable relationships in legal terms among its citizens. This has been clearly shown not to be limited to making babies by the fact that there are several states who will grant legal marriage to some heterosexual couples only if they cannot “make babies”. The state seems to recognize that it does indeed have a compelling reason beyond making babies and raising children to grant legal recognition to those relationships.
I read it. I agree with him on many points. I agree that marriage is threatened by a society that encourages the view that sexual relationships are casual and that marriage is to be discarded when one doesn’t “feel in love”. I fully believe that marriage is and should be a lifelong monogamous commitment and that sexual activity only belongs between consenting adults in a committed relationship who are prepared to deal both emotionally and financially with the possible results of their activity.
I disagree that we should not allow same sex marriage because a writer believes that “gays may not take it seriously”. There is no basis for that or that they would only choose to marry to legitimate a very long term relationship. Yes, we are seeing that same sex marriages are being sought now by couples who have been together for decades, but that is because they are finally allowed to do so, no because they have been avoiding the legal commitment. Many of them have sought out and paid large amounts to lawyers to enter into the portions of that legal commitment that were possible. Certainly denying legal marriage as an option will continue to encourage same sex couples not to marry but to cohabit.
He seems to have fallen into the media trap of defining “love” as what one would better term “lust”. He complains that gay people only would marry for love (read “lust”) and would be incapable of having the more mature approach to relationships exhibited by (some) heterosexuals. This is simply not a reasonable argument. Same sex couples are made up of people and, just like heterosexual couples, form lasting relationships for a variety of reasons. Yes, the idea that marriage is only about love (read “lust”) is a major problem in our society, but that is neither the fault of nor exclusive to same sex relationships.
I disagree that same sex marriage would make marriage less of a stage of life. I believe that denying the option of same sex marriage, however, does exactly that for a substantial portion of the population.
S
Shiphrae
Guest
You have an interesting quote from Thomas Jefferson. But it seems to me to be rather arrogant. Most of us cannot fortell the future. We do not know how anthing will affect us years from now. How does anyone know the outcome in future generations of gay marriages. If one of our grandchildren is damaged in some way, it will no doubt affect us in some way.
Peace be with you.
Shiphrae
K
KarenNC
Guest
I am not sure what my quote from Thomas Jefferson has to do with telling the future or why it is arrogant. I see it as simply factual. What another person believes does not harm me. The way in which they choose to act on that belief may or may not do so.
We could certainly decide that same sex marriage was a really bad idea based on the possibility of divorce, extramarital affairs, people marrying with less than a realistic understanding of what a marriage requires in terms of commitment and flexibility, knowing they would not be able to have children of their own, being done for purposes of convenience only or even illegal reasons such as letting someone stay in the country under false pretenses, domestic violence, sexual practices that are considered “non-standard”, etc, etc, etc. But then we should ban heterosexual marriage as well because we already know right now that these issues occur regularly in heterosexual marriages and have been for centuries if not millenia.
No, we cannot know with 100% certainty how anything will affect us years from now, including continuing on with our current actions. This does not mean that we have to be catatonic in attempting to not do anything that might possibly be less than 100% fabulous 75 years from now. The best we can have are reasonable expectations of the positive effects of our efforts based on currently available evidence.
Do you have a reasonable expectation that one of your future grandchildren will be specifically harmed by the existence of gay marriage? Gay marriage in general or a specific gay marriage? In what way and on what basis?
What if one of your future grandchildren is gay and desires to be married or is harmed because of the lack availability of legal protections for his or her rights in a relationship? Will that affect you less?
- Status