Homosexual Marriage

[republicantiger]

I pity children that have to grow up in a gay home. It obviously has negative affects on their entire lives. A child is better off with a single parent. It should be illegal for gays to adopt.

[italiangm]

Quote by: republicantiger I pity children that have to grow up in a gay home. It obviously has negative affects on their entire lives. A child is better off with a single parent. It should be illegal for gays to adopt.

Of course, you can't provide any evidence to support your obviously uneducated opinion.

[republicantiger]

gays make me physically sick. They disgust me. They make me want to puke.

[italiangm]

Quote by: republicantiger gays make me physically sick. They disgust me. They make me want to puke.

Ignorant people make me physically sick. They disgust me. They make me want to puke.

[republicantiger]

Just because I'm not "tolerant" doesn't make me ignorant. I'm tired of tolerance and political correctness. Tolerance is ruining our country.

[italiangm]

Quote by: republicantiger Just because I'm not "tolerant" doesn't make me ignorant.

Without evidence to support your "negative effects on children" assertion, all you've got is an unsubstantiated opinion. The absence of fact in any reasonable discussion is one sign of ignorance at work.

Quote by: republicantiger I'm tired of tolerance and political correctness. Tolerance is ruining our country.

There are instances where I would agree with this statement. With respect to children raised by gay parents however, nothing could be further from the truth.

I suspect you're tired of using critical thinking skills (if they exist at all).

[republicantiger]

I don't think a child can grow up well- balanced when he grows up in a gay home. I believe homosexuality is morally wrong.

[italiangm]

Quote by: republicantiger I don't think a child can grow up well- balanced when he grows up in a gay home. I believe homosexuality is morally wrong.

That's all fine and dandy until you actually look at the evidence. You can believe as you wish until you turn blue in the face, but you can't support your assertion with facts.

I suggest you go whine elsewhere until you can.

[puellamore]

Quote by: republicantiger Just because I'm not "tolerant" doesn't make me ignorant. I'm tired of tolerance and political correctness. Tolerance is ruining our country.

No, tolerance is not ruining our country. It's just allowing people who, in your small-minded ignorance, you don't agree with to have rights.

Just more evidence of Richard Dawkins assertion, that religion is HIV for the brain - a virus that attacks the brain's immune system, the ability for critical thinking.

[Mr. Jaggers]

We live in a democracy, and one should be free to be as miserable as one chooses, whether with a partner of the same sex or the opposite.

[Dirty Name]

I would submit that this is an obfuscation. The primary reason is for the rearing of children and that is something that a same-sex couple can do as well as a hetero couple.

You're still not quite there. The primary purpose for the societal recognition of marriage, in my opinion, is to encourage procreation and child rearing in the most efficient and effective family structure possible - the nuclear family.

Anything else is sub-optimal (generally speaking - there are always extraordinary cases).

So while same-sex couples are certainly capable of raising children, they are not capable of conceiving them, carrying them to term, and birthing them.

Thus, heterosexual couples are ESSENTIAL to the survival of society, and also happen to be the most efficient model for child-rearing.

No matter how you slice it, same-sex couples (again generally speaking) are simply not equal to a heterosexual couple. It's physically impossible for same-sex couples to be of the same value to our society.

[puellamore]

But considering the current state of population vs sustainability, we don't need to increase the worlds population. So the ability to reproduce is not really a significant part of the equation.

[Mr. Jaggers]

Marriage is a three-party contract between a man and a woman (although some state laws use the term “persons capable of contracting” or similar language, that would exclude minors and incompetents, but not necessarily persons of the same sex) and the state, which acknowledges its consent to the marriage contract through the issuance of a license. Few person realize that the state is a party to their marriage until they want to get divorced, which they consider a great inconvenience, not to mention the legal expense. In this regard, the state has a legitimate, even compelling, interest in the incidents of the marriage, viz. marital property rights, custody and care of minor children (whether born of the union or adopted), and obligations of support; which issues are subject to the jurisdiction of the several states based upon the parties’ residence or domicile.

On the other hand, the federal government has no interest in any of these things. There is no express provision in the Constitution granting a person the right of marriage; not that the framers thought marriage unimportant to the pursuit of happiness, but rather it is a right and power retained and reserved by the states and the people under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. It is the recent instances of states recognizing same-sex marriage that has prompted the move to amend the Constitution to provide a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman; which would be an intrusion on state’s rights to govern marriage, and an unwarranted limitation on the liberty of the people.

The problem, perhaps, is the failure to differentiate between marriage as a religious rite, and its place as a secular institution of society. In this regard, efforts to legislate the morality of marriage will not add to its sanctity, and only detract from its social purpose by making a federal case out of it.

[Dirty Name]

But considering the current state of population vs sustainability, we don't need to increase the worlds population. So the ability to reproduce is not really a significant part of the equation.

Population levels are irrelevant. Government doesn't recognize marriage or bestow benefits to encourage procreation...

It recognizes marriage to encourage efficient procreation and child rearing so that it takes place in a manner that is least burdensome on society at large.

[Dirty Name]

It is the recent instances of states recognizing same-sex marriage that has prompted the move to amend the Constitution to provide a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman; which would be an intrusion on state’s rights to govern marriage, and an unwarranted limitation on the liberty of the people.

I'm not sure you are on the right track here... It is my understanding that the idea behind a Federal Marriage Amendment is not to legislate morality and limit the power of the states, but rather it would be designed to limit the scope of the Commerce Clause which would currently require other states to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, even if their state law bans such marriages.

The point, as I understand it, is to protect state sovereignty more so than to restrict it. I believe the alternative for states that wish to allow same-sex marriage is to create a law establishing civil unions, but such laws would have no impact in, say, Ohio, thanks to the Federal Marriage Amendment.

I could be off base somewhat with regard to the legal machinations, but generally, I believe I have captured the spirit of the legal effort behind the Federal Marriage Amendment.

[Mr. Jaggers]

I think that you mean the “full faith and credit clause,” under Article IV, Section 1. A citizen’s right to marry is a strictly a matter of state law, which differ from state to state, and there are few situations where federal jurisdiction may be invoked to challenge state sovereignty over the subject. See Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287 (1942); and also Williams v. North Carolina, 325 U.S. 226 (1945).

[Mr. Jaggers]

By the bye, Texas recently passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage, which provides in pertinent part: “Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. (b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.” Interestingly, Texas is one of the few states that have recognized “common-law” marriage (viz., where a couple have held themselves out as being married); and one wonders how the new amendment will affect those who have failed to fulfill the necessary formalities of “getting hitched.”

[puellamore]

I'm curious, DN. Several times here, you have mentioned that "you're still not there yet" and "you're on the wrong track". Does this mean that someone has appointed you to be the final arbiter of this issue? Or are you saying that only your personal beliefs are valid?

Just curious.

And while efficiency is important, it is not the only standard. If it were, we would insist on all sorts of testing and/or education and/or skill levels before permitting procreation. So again, your protestation is not a valid one. It seems merely to be a rationalization for being homophobic.

[Dirty Name]

Does this mean that someone has appointed you to be the final arbiter of this issue? Or are you saying that only your personal beliefs are valid?

When it comes to someone attempting to encapsulate my views in their own post, yes, I am the final arbiter of what is an accurate representation of those views. And you aren't quite there yet.

[FIFI]

[/quote]Population levels are irrelevant. Government doesn't recognize marriage or bestow benefits to encourage procreation...

It recognizes marriage to encourage efficient procreation and child rearing so that it takes place in a manner that is least burdensome on society at large.
[/quote]

Why would you find a homosexuals child caring and raising burdensome to society at large?
I believe that homosexual couples are not only a good home for the many adoption-ready children availble, but that if proper parents, they will teach tolerence, morals, and even religion, to their offspring.
There are just as many "burdensome" straight family structures as there are homosexual. Sexuality is not, to me, a factor in parenting.