Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Waychel · Mar 28, 2004, 07:43 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)
What's the difference between your hypothetical and woman A getting married to another man while pregnant? Now there are two fathers.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

90% of the time, unless the mother is proven to be unfit in some way, the courts will order in her favor instead of the father. Most courts would rather see a child go to a mother or mother-figure when they are young.

But this is just one scenario of millions we could not possibly foresee. My point was not in the one example, but the fact that you are introducing a whole new factor to family court and civil law. Courts would be FLOODED with new new cases and new questions of alimony, custody, property, etc.

Keep in mind also that if gay marriage were to become a national reality, we would be removing all pre-conceived definitions of marital law, leaving the door open for every other interest group in the country. The same words coming out of the mouths of homosexual couples right now has been coming out of the mouths of polygamous relationship groups since before this country even became a union. What makes the homosexual cause and argument any different from theirs? Legal polyamorous marriage would be the next step, followed by any other special interest group you could possibly comprehend seeking marital "rights". The courts would not be able to keep up with, let alone make fair or reasonable sense, in any of it.

Suburbanite · Mar 28, 2004, 08:10 pm

Most courts also would rather the child stay within a heterosexual family. Your hypothetical, while something to think about, is highly unlikely.

Waychel · Mar 28, 2004, 10:33 pm

Its not "hypothetical" that our entire legal system would be thrown out the window. Like I said before, my point was not in the example alone but the fact that new scenarios like it will be introduced to our courts.

Mozart1220 · Mar 28, 2004, 10:39 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (CitizenCOP,)
Gays are freaks, look up the word in the dictionary. They aren't safe to the public and to condone their actions and desires will encourage their spread. Freaks like them need to control their sexual desires and act like the rest of the people, just like the pedophiles.. we can't fix them and we can live with them, as long as they keep their sickness on a leash. The moment they can't we need to lock them up as sexual predators and keep them locked up for lack of control. There is no other real solution then to keep them on a leash. They aren't people when they do things that are immoral and dangerous. Consenting adults can't be used, because adults to me are men and woman, they are neither they are queers, freaks, of neither sexual gender as they fail to properly make use of which they were delt, like a white male saying he is black or black as being white. Age doesn't make you an adult.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

So you are saying that since 95% of the world believes in some sort of "God". The 5% that don't are "freaks" and should just go along and find a church? !/4 of the worlds population is Chinese, so anyoione who isn't is a "freak". we should all turn communist and learn to eat with chopsticks right?

BAD LOGIC.

Mozart1220 · Mar 28, 2004, 10:42 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (CitizenCOP,)
What part of freaks of nature was not comprehended?
Something out of character, weird, strange acts..

Definition: [n] someone who is so ardently devoted to something that it resembles an addiction; "a golf addict"; "a car nut"; "a control freak"

[n] a person or animal that is markedly unusual or deformed

[v] lose one's nerve; "When he saw the accident, he freaked out"

Synonyms: addict, freak out, gross out, lusus naturae, monster, monstrosity, nut

See Also: enthusiast, leviathan, mutant, mutation, panic, partisan, partizan, sport, variation<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

With any luck, bigots and homophobes will be the "freaks" soon. Then they will have to "go along" right?

Mia · Mar 28, 2004, 10:55 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,)
Its not "hypothetical" that our entire legal system would be thrown out the window. Like I said before, my point was not in the example alone but the fact that new scenarios like it will be introduced to our courts.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You can't come up with a hypothetical that doesn't happen now with heterosexuals. In your second example, the woman can get her best guy friend to marry her or whatever. The issues won't change.

Right now it's worse because gay couples adopt or get sperm doners or surragate mothers, but only one has legal rights. This causes huge problems for the children and is more difficult legally.

How does anything get turned upside down? The courts will hear the same type of custody and divorce cases as now. And please remember the miniscule numbers we're talking about too. Approximently 10% of the population is gay and not all will get married.

Suburbanite · Mar 29, 2004, 12:45 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,)
Its not "hypothetical" that our entire legal system would be thrown out the window. Like I said before, my point was not in the example alone but the fact that new scenarios like it will be introduced to our courts.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Is that a reason in and of itself NOT to do it?

Leopard · Mar 29, 2004, 01:40 am

And where do we go from here? Do we go on to legalize polygamy? Bigomy? Incest? Because this is where we are going if we are looking for a totally liberal and unrestricted outlook on marriage altogether.

Alrighty! Now we are talking!!! Get the government totally out of the marriage business altogether...

Suburbanite · Mar 29, 2004, 02:27 am

I don't care if three homosexual family members all get wed. None of my business, none of yours.

Mozart1220 · Mar 29, 2004, 10:11 am

I'm still trying to figure out how same sex marraige threatens or hurts "traditional" marraige. All this controversy over something you'd never hear about if it were accepted. How many couples get married every day? How many do you actually hear about? Only the people you actually know, or maybe you flip past a picture in the paper on your way to the box scores.

These people are forced to "get in our faces" to get us to listen now, but would probably just fade back into the woodwork of society if we'd let them. That's all they want, to be accepted into society, and isn't that what everyone wants, to be accepted? Why do we fight so hard to keep America "exclusive"?

Suburbanite · Mar 29, 2004, 07:37 pm

The Christian Right is making a last ditch effort to regain the power they once had.

Pale RIder · Mar 29, 2004, 08:34 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)
which nations? how much of a decline?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The Scandinavian countries have seen the percentage of children born outside of traditional families grow from just over 28% 10 years ago, to slightly less than 67% today.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)
I've read studies about broken homes, but not the ones mentioned here. can you cite?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I don’t take much information off the internet. I can provide a bibliography for you, or cross reference a bibliography against the internet to see which articles are available on the net without a subscription. I would be happy to do this for you, IF it would make any difference in your views.

Not to be insulting, but in reading your posts, you cast the impression that you have an agenda, and facts that contradict that agenda don’t mean much to you.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)
I don't see how<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

My thinking is that once you redefine marriage, it immediately begins to lose its importance as a social institution. This is certainly born out by the nations that have in fact given it a new definition. Since it really can’t be argued that the best way to raise kids is in a traditional family (mom, dad, kids) with access to an extended family (grandmothers, grandfathers, aunts etc), it stands to reason that if we have fewer people making traditional families, we will have more kids living outside traditional families and therefore more kids with one or more dysfunctions.

Given a generation or two of this trend, we will have very few people making traditional families (as evidenced in the Scandinavian countries) and therefore very few kids who actually have a real connection to their past. The continuity from one generation to the next is very important to us in that it helps us establish our place in the world.

If you follow most mental dysfunction (those with no organic cause) to its root, you will find that people with mental disorders most often simply do not have a firm grasp of their place in the world…anxieties, fears, phobias, depressions etc, all have detachment at their heart.

The evidence, and common sense, suggests that the cumulative, generational effect of redefining marriage will have serious consequences to society as a whole. It is the young who suffer most in this arrangement, and they in turn will inflict the same harm upon their kids.

Once started, just like with welfare, the damage will be very difficult and very painful to reverse.

As I said, homosexual marriage can't really hurt my family, because I grew up in a time when family had a certain meaning. If we change the meaning of family, then we change the dynamic of family. We know what kind of family is best for kids so why would we do anything to further weaken this institution simply because a very small part of the population is asking for a right that simply does not exist?

Suburbanite · Mar 29, 2004, 08:39 pm

Marriage has no importance as it stands regardless. If you CARED about marriage you would address the problems it does have, not make up problems it doesn't.

Pale RIder · Mar 29, 2004, 08:40 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mozart1220,)
I'm still trying to figure out how same sex marraige threatens or hurts "traditional" marraige. All this controversy over something you'd never hear about if it were accepted. How many couples get married every day? How many do you actually hear about? Only the people you actually know, or maybe you flip past a picture in the paper on your way to the box scores.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Motzart, same sex marriage doesn't just hurt traditonal marriage, it redefines marriage all together. "Traditional" marriage is the only kind of marriage that there is. If you redefine it, it no longer exists. We all know that traditional family is the best environment for kids. Why would we weaken the institution, for anyone. Kids are our future, the less dysfunctional kids the better. Changing the definition of marriage is going to create more dysfunctional kids.

Look at the teen suicide and depression statistics in the Scandanavian countries. The numbers don't lie. Now take those little numbers move them to the US and multiply them by an order of magnitude. The problems that the welfare state has created will be small time compared to the new crop of social ills we will have created.

Pale RIder · Mar 29, 2004, 08:42 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Suburbanite,)
Marriage has no importance as it stands regardless. If you CARED about marriage you would address the problems it does have, not make up problems it doesn't.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Exactly! Since we know that traditional marriage is the best way to raise kids, it stands to reason that thinking people would be trying to restore marriage to its deserved importance rather than redefining and degrading it further.

jaXbeech · Mar 29, 2004, 09:51 pm

Western Civilization is based on the family.

Destroy the family, you destroy the West. The liberals true goal is to destroy the West and bring it to its knees. By making the West feel guilty for its empires, its crusades they can finally console it for its defeat.

If gay marriage is installed, then first off kids will be raised in a screwed up society where they have the same sex partners. Kids will then have a hard time in life, and rely more on the government. Liberals like this. They then can implement more social services, thus allowing for bigger government. This will then allow for a totalitarian regime.

Suburbanite · Mar 29, 2004, 10:39 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pale RIder,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Suburbanite,)
Marriage has no importance as it stands regardless. If you CARED about marriage you would address the problems it does have, not make up problems it doesn't.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Exactly! Since we know that traditional marriage is the best way to raise kids, it stands to reason that thinking people would be trying to restore marriage to its deserved importance rather than redefining and degrading it further.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

We don't know that. That is speculative bullshit. It isn't degrading it, that is hardly factual, that is just your homophobic feelings rearing there ugly head. Seeing as states WITHOUT bans on homosexual marriages have an over all lower divorce rate to states with it, I don't think homosexuals will degrade anything. You can't simply say it is a problem because of your own bigotry without proof. Even if you express heterosexual couples as more capable of raising children it has no bearing. I am sure there are statistics showing one race is better at parenting than another, should they not reproduce or adopt? Should the poor not reproduce because wealthier families raise more successful children?
Say what you're thinking, the act of a man sticking his penis in another man's asshole makes you want to punch something. Either that or you’re just bandwagoning with the Christian Right’s last ditch attempts at the third great awakening.

Suburbanite · Mar 29, 2004, 10:39 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jaXbeech,)
Western Civilization is based on the family.

Destroy the family, you destroy the West. The liberals true goal is to destroy the West and bring it to its knees. By making the West feel guilty for its empires, its crusades they can finally console it for its defeat.

If gay marriage is installed, then first off kids will be raised in a screwed up society where they have the same sex partners. Kids will then have a hard time in life, and rely more on the government. Liberals like this. They then can implement more social services, thus allowing for bigger government. This will then allow for a totalitarian regime.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

sigh... I'll let LB reply to this one.

Leopard · Mar 30, 2004, 12:44 am

Pale Rider,
Look at the teen suicide and depression statistics in the Scandanavian countries. The numbers don't lie. Now take those little numbers move them to the US and multiply them by an order of magnitude. The problems that the welfare state has created will be small time compared to the new crop of social ills we will have created.

So you attribute the increase in suicides and depression stats to be 'proof' of the evils that changing the requirements for marriage participation cause? are not scandanavian countries extremely socialist n general when compared to the US, including total national medical care and retirement care? You are correct - numbers don't lie - but liars use numbers... The scandanavian countries and cultures are so far from our own that it is not honest to use them in this isolated and exact instance. Sure, use numbers to compare to different states (in the US)... those might actually mean something, but comparing the US to Scandanavian countries in such a societal context is wrong.

Its pretty smple - the US family IS deteriorating (just as you presume), but not because of homosexuality, or violent films... it is SOLELY because the government is substituting itself for personal responsibility across the board in matters of family and social interaction (not to mention economic/financial). Let the church (every church or any organization) determine their own requirements (and definitions) of 'marriage'. And get the government out of the business altogether and stop creating class warfare by treating its citizens as if they were 'groups' and assigning particular 'rights' to these different groups... the 'family' and its values will soar simpley because on the free market of ideas and social contracts, family is the best solution that humans have developed to date in history.

michael

Mia · Mar 30, 2004, 01:11 am

If you want to help out heterosexual marriages, why don't we get a ban on adultary?

Mar 28, 2004, 07:43 pm	#221 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,) What's the difference between your hypothetical and woman A getting married to another man while pregnant? Now there are two fathers.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> 90% of the time, unless the mother is proven to be unfit in some way, the courts will order in her favor instead of the father. Most courts would rather see a child go to a mother or mother-figure when they are young. But this is just one scenario of millions we could not possibly foresee. My point was not in the one example, but the fact that you are introducing a whole new factor to family court and civil law. Courts would be FLOODED with new new cases and new questions of alimony, custody, property, etc. Keep in mind also that if gay marriage were to become a national reality, we would be removing all pre-conceived definitions of marital law, leaving the door open for every other interest group in the country. The same words coming out of the mouths of homosexual couples right now has been coming out of the mouths of polygamous relationship groups since before this country even became a union. What makes the homosexual cause and argument any different from theirs? Legal polyamorous marriage would be the next step, followed by any other special interest group you could possibly comprehend seeking marital "rights". The courts would not be able to keep up with, let alone make fair or reasonable sense, in any of it. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Mar 28, 2004, 10:33 pm	#223 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	Its not "hypothetical" that our entire legal system would be thrown out the window. Like I said before, my point was not in the example alone but the fact that new scenarios like it will be introduced to our courts. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Mar 28, 2004, 10:39 pm	#224 (permalink) (top)
Mozart1220 Igneous Magma Posts: 687	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (CitizenCOP,) Gays are freaks, look up the word in the dictionary. They aren't safe to the public and to condone their actions and desires will encourage their spread. Freaks like them need to control their sexual desires and act like the rest of the people, just like the pedophiles.. we can't fix them and we can live with them, as long as they keep their sickness on a leash. The moment they can't we need to lock them up as sexual predators and keep them locked up for lack of control. There is no other real solution then to keep them on a leash. They aren't people when they do things that are immoral and dangerous. Consenting adults can't be used, because adults to me are men and woman, they are neither they are queers, freaks, of neither sexual gender as they fail to properly make use of which they were delt, like a white male saying he is black or black as being white. Age doesn't make you an adult.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> So you are saying that since 95% of the world believes in some sort of "God". The 5% that don't are "freaks" and should just go along and find a church? !/4 of the worlds population is Chinese, so anyoione who isn't is a "freak". we should all turn communist and learn to eat with chopsticks right? BAD LOGIC. Big Jr is watching you!

Mar 28, 2004, 10:42 pm	#225 (permalink) (top)
Mozart1220 Igneous Magma Posts: 687	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (CitizenCOP,) What part of freaks of nature was not comprehended? Something out of character, weird, strange acts.. Definition: [n] someone who is so ardently devoted to something that it resembles an addiction; "a golf addict"; "a car nut"; "a control freak" [n] a person or animal that is markedly unusual or deformed [v] lose one's nerve; "When he saw the accident, he freaked out" Synonyms: addict, freak out, gross out, lusus naturae, monster, monstrosity, nut See Also: enthusiast, leviathan, mutant, mutation, panic, partisan, partizan, sport, variation<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> With any luck, bigots and homophobes will be the "freaks" soon. Then they will have to "go along" right? Big Jr is watching you!

Mar 28, 2004, 10:55 pm	#226 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,) Its not "hypothetical" that our entire legal system would be thrown out the window. Like I said before, my point was not in the example alone but the fact that new scenarios like it will be introduced to our courts.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You can't come up with a hypothetical that doesn't happen now with heterosexuals. In your second example, the woman can get her best guy friend to marry her or whatever. The issues won't change. Right now it's worse because gay couples adopt or get sperm doners or surragate mothers, but only one has legal rights. This causes huge problems for the children and is more difficult legally. How does anything get turned upside down? The courts will hear the same type of custody and divorce cases as now. And please remember the miniscule numbers we're talking about too. Approximently 10% of the population is gay and not all will get married. "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 28, 2004, 08:10 pm	#222 (permalink) (top)
Suburbanite BANNED Location: Los Angeles Posts: 3,203	Most courts also would rather the child stay within a heterosexual family. Your hypothetical, while something to think about, is highly unlikely.

Mar 29, 2004, 12:45 am	#227 (permalink) (top)
Suburbanite BANNED Location: Los Angeles Posts: 3,203	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,) Its not "hypothetical" that our entire legal system would be thrown out the window. Like I said before, my point was not in the example alone but the fact that new scenarios like it will be introduced to our courts.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Is that a reason in and of itself NOT to do it?

Mar 29, 2004, 01:40 am	#228 (permalink) (top)
Leopard Propertarian Posts: 568	And where do we go from here? Do we go on to legalize polygamy? Bigomy? Incest? Because this is where we are going if we are looking for a totally liberal and unrestricted outlook on marriage altogether. Alrighty! Now we are talking!!! Get the government totally out of the marriage business altogether... Take on the responsibility to be free

Mar 29, 2004, 02:27 am	#229 (permalink) (top)
Suburbanite BANNED Location: Los Angeles Posts: 3,203	I don't care if three homosexual family members all get wed. None of my business, none of yours.

Mar 29, 2004, 10:11 am	#230 (permalink) (top)
Mozart1220 Igneous Magma Posts: 687	I'm still trying to figure out how same sex marraige threatens or hurts "traditional" marraige. All this controversy over something you'd never hear about if it were accepted. How many couples get married every day? How many do you actually hear about? Only the people you actually know, or maybe you flip past a picture in the paper on your way to the box scores. These people are forced to "get in our faces" to get us to listen now, but would probably just fade back into the woodwork of society if we'd let them. That's all they want, to be accepted into society, and isn't that what everyone wants, to be accepted? Why do we fight so hard to keep America "exclusive"? Big Jr is watching you!

Mar 29, 2004, 07:37 pm	#231 (permalink) (top)
Suburbanite BANNED Location: Los Angeles Posts: 3,203	The Christian Right is making a last ditch effort to regain the power they once had.

Mar 29, 2004, 08:34 pm	#232 (permalink) (top)
Pale RIder Hot Lava Posts: 1,023	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,) which nations? how much of a decline?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The Scandinavian countries have seen the percentage of children born outside of traditional families grow from just over 28% 10 years ago, to slightly less than 67% today. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,) I've read studies about broken homes, but not the ones mentioned here. can you cite?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I don’t take much information off the internet. I can provide a bibliography for you, or cross reference a bibliography against the internet to see which articles are available on the net without a subscription. I would be happy to do this for you, IF it would make any difference in your views. Not to be insulting, but in reading your posts, you cast the impression that you have an agenda, and facts that contradict that agenda don’t mean much to you. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,) I don't see how<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> My thinking is that once you redefine marriage, it immediately begins to lose its importance as a social institution. This is certainly born out by the nations that have in fact given it a new definition. Since it really can’t be argued that the best way to raise kids is in a traditional family (mom, dad, kids) with access to an extended family (grandmothers, grandfathers, aunts etc), it stands to reason that if we have fewer people making traditional families, we will have more kids living outside traditional families and therefore more kids with one or more dysfunctions. Given a generation or two of this trend, we will have very few people making traditional families (as evidenced in the Scandinavian countries) and therefore very few kids who actually have a real connection to their past. The continuity from one generation to the next is very important to us in that it helps us establish our place in the world. If you follow most mental dysfunction (those with no organic cause) to its root, you will find that people with mental disorders most often simply do not have a firm grasp of their place in the world…anxieties, fears, phobias, depressions etc, all have detachment at their heart. The evidence, and common sense, suggests that the cumulative, generational effect of redefining marriage will have serious consequences to society as a whole. It is the young who suffer most in this arrangement, and they in turn will inflict the same harm upon their kids. Once started, just like with welfare, the damage will be very difficult and very painful to reverse. As I said, homosexual marriage can't really hurt my family, because I grew up in a time when family had a certain meaning. If we change the meaning of family, then we change the dynamic of family. We know what kind of family is best for kids so why would we do anything to further weaken this institution simply because a very small part of the population is asking for a right that simply does not exist? It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others.

Mar 29, 2004, 08:39 pm	#233 (permalink) (top)
Suburbanite BANNED Location: Los Angeles Posts: 3,203	Marriage has no importance as it stands regardless. If you CARED about marriage you would address the problems it does have, not make up problems it doesn't.

Mar 29, 2004, 08:40 pm	#234 (permalink) (top)
Pale RIder Hot Lava Posts: 1,023	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mozart1220,) I'm still trying to figure out how same sex marraige threatens or hurts "traditional" marraige. All this controversy over something you'd never hear about if it were accepted. How many couples get married every day? How many do you actually hear about? Only the people you actually know, or maybe you flip past a picture in the paper on your way to the box scores. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Motzart, same sex marriage doesn't just hurt traditonal marriage, it redefines marriage all together. "Traditional" marriage is the only kind of marriage that there is. If you redefine it, it no longer exists. We all know that traditional family is the best environment for kids. Why would we weaken the institution, for anyone. Kids are our future, the less dysfunctional kids the better. Changing the definition of marriage is going to create more dysfunctional kids. Look at the teen suicide and depression statistics in the Scandanavian countries. The numbers don't lie. Now take those little numbers move them to the US and multiply them by an order of magnitude. The problems that the welfare state has created will be small time compared to the new crop of social ills we will have created. It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others.

Mar 29, 2004, 08:42 pm	#235 (permalink) (top)
Pale RIder Hot Lava Posts: 1,023	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Suburbanite,) Marriage has no importance as it stands regardless. If you CARED about marriage you would address the problems it does have, not make up problems it doesn't.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Exactly! Since we know that traditional marriage is the best way to raise kids, it stands to reason that thinking people would be trying to restore marriage to its deserved importance rather than redefining and degrading it further. It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others.

Mar 29, 2004, 09:51 pm	#236 (permalink) (top)
jaXbeech Sedimentary Rock Posts: 8	Western Civilization is based on the family. Destroy the family, you destroy the West. The liberals true goal is to destroy the West and bring it to its knees. By making the West feel guilty for its empires, its crusades they can finally console it for its defeat. If gay marriage is installed, then first off kids will be raised in a screwed up society where they have the same sex partners. Kids will then have a hard time in life, and rely more on the government. Liberals like this. They then can implement more social services, thus allowing for bigger government. This will then allow for a totalitarian regime.

Mar 29, 2004, 10:39 pm	#237 (permalink) (top)
Suburbanite BANNED Location: Los Angeles Posts: 3,203	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pale RIder,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Suburbanite,) Marriage has no importance as it stands regardless. If you CARED about marriage you would address the problems it does have, not make up problems it doesn't.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Exactly! Since we know that traditional marriage is the best way to raise kids, it stands to reason that thinking people would be trying to restore marriage to its deserved importance rather than redefining and degrading it further.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> We don't know that. That is speculative bullshit. It isn't degrading it, that is hardly factual, that is just your homophobic feelings rearing there ugly head. Seeing as states WITHOUT bans on homosexual marriages have an over all lower divorce rate to states with it, I don't think homosexuals will degrade anything. You can't simply say it is a problem because of your own bigotry without proof. Even if you express heterosexual couples as more capable of raising children it has no bearing. I am sure there are statistics showing one race is better at parenting than another, should they not reproduce or adopt? Should the poor not reproduce because wealthier families raise more successful children? Say what you're thinking, the act of a man sticking his penis in another man's asshole makes you want to punch something. Either that or you’re just bandwagoning with the Christian Right’s last ditch attempts at the third great awakening.

Mar 29, 2004, 10:39 pm	#238 (permalink) (top)
Suburbanite BANNED Location: Los Angeles Posts: 3,203	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jaXbeech,) Western Civilization is based on the family. Destroy the family, you destroy the West. The liberals true goal is to destroy the West and bring it to its knees. By making the West feel guilty for its empires, its crusades they can finally console it for its defeat. If gay marriage is installed, then first off kids will be raised in a screwed up society where they have the same sex partners. Kids will then have a hard time in life, and rely more on the government. Liberals like this. They then can implement more social services, thus allowing for bigger government. This will then allow for a totalitarian regime.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> sigh... I'll let LB reply to this one.

Mar 30, 2004, 12:44 am	#239 (permalink) (top)
Leopard Propertarian Posts: 568	Pale Rider, Look at the teen suicide and depression statistics in the Scandanavian countries. The numbers don't lie. Now take those little numbers move them to the US and multiply them by an order of magnitude. The problems that the welfare state has created will be small time compared to the new crop of social ills we will have created. So you attribute the increase in suicides and depression stats to be 'proof' of the evils that changing the requirements for marriage participation cause? are not scandanavian countries extremely socialist n general when compared to the US, including total national medical care and retirement care? You are correct - numbers don't lie - but liars use numbers... The scandanavian countries and cultures are so far from our own that it is not honest to use them in this isolated and exact instance. Sure, use numbers to compare to different states (in the US)... those might actually mean something, but comparing the US to Scandanavian countries in such a societal context is wrong. Its pretty smple - the US family IS deteriorating (just as you presume), but not because of homosexuality, or violent films... it is SOLELY because the government is substituting itself for personal responsibility across the board in matters of family and social interaction (not to mention economic/financial). Let the church (every church or any organization) determine their own requirements (and definitions) of 'marriage'. And get the government out of the business altogether and stop creating class warfare by treating its citizens as if they were 'groups' and assigning particular 'rights' to these different groups... the 'family' and its values will soar simpley because on the free market of ideas and social contracts, family is the best solution that humans have developed to date in history. michael Take on the responsibility to be free

Mar 30, 2004, 01:11 am	#240 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	If you want to help out heterosexual marriages, why don't we get a ban on adultary? "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali