Advertisement

LJWorld.com weblogs The Free Market

Gay Marriage, Gay Adoption

Advertisement

Why shouldn't gay marriage be legalized? What harm could it cause to others? The answers to these questions are always fuzzy. It harms the "sanctity" of marriage, or somehow, in some indirect fashion, increases divorce or some other harm. The harm of not legalizing gay marriage is definite and direct--gay couples are not allowed to marry.

So on the one hand we have some abstract harm that may not even exist and on the other hand we have a concrete harm that directly affects people's lives in a negative way. In addition the proposed harms are always harms against society in general. No one is brazen enough to claim that gay marriage would in any way harm them directly. The gay couple down the street getting married doesn't hurt you in the slightest. Morally, people should be given the freedom to live as they choose--so long as it doesn't harm others. As such gay couples should have the freedom to enter into marriage if they want to.

Regarding gay adoption, yes, it is true that the ideal situation is for a child to have a mother and a father. But it is certainly better for a child to have two same sex parents than no parents at all, and that makes giving a child to the foster care system a worse option than allowing gay couples to adopt them. In addition, socio-economic status has a huge effect on children regarding things like high school dropout rates, drug addiction and criminal behavior. It's a fact that gay couples tend to make more money and live in nicer neighborhoods than their non-gay counterparts. If we are to truly examine all factors, this certainly weighs in favor of allowing gay adoption. Also the state doesn't take action to prevent children from living in other non-ideal situations like single-parent households or living with grandparents, and the state doesn't act to prevent gay people from keeping their own biological children either.

Finally there is the question of rights. If someone wants to give up their child for adoption, and a gay couple wants to adopt that child, why shouldn't they have the right to do so if they meet all the same qualifications that a non-gay couple meets like a criminal background check and financial ability to care for a child? The default position in a country founded on freedom is that people have a freedom unless there is a good reason to take it away. I see no good reason to deny gay couples the freedom to adopt.

Comments

Liberty_One 3 years, 4 months ago

Oh, and religious reasons are not legitimate as our government and laws are secular only.

0

BorderRuffian 3 years, 4 months ago

It is always so fun to come back and visit the LJWorld and remember how people with Judeo-christianic views are just plain wrong, and how they should just shut up so the Demolibs and other bleeding heart liberals can espouse their self-righteous scientific-only beliefs.

Our government is hardly "secular-only. Not only are our laws based on Judeo-Christian values (try arguing that silly little things like murder are right or wrong WITHOUT some background reference to religion). And take a look at the persons in our governmnet, on either a state or national level. How many strict atheists are in office? How many practice their religion? If they have a religious background, how can one imagine that their votes and actions are not in some way affected by their religious convictions?

So to say that persons with religion-based convictions or opinions are illegitimate is pretty dumb. IMHO.

0

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

Hey, a LO position that I can agree with 100%!

Isn't that nice?

0

jhawkinsf 3 years, 4 months ago

I may not agree with what you're saying, but I will defend your right to say it. Won't you defend their right to full human rights and human dignity? The "benefit" you get is knowing that you defended the rights of those amongst us. Your fellow Americans, your fellow humans. Isn't that benefit enough?

0

jhawkinsf 3 years, 4 months ago

I'll try this one from memory. First they came for the communists and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist Next they came for the trade unionists and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist Next they came for the Jews and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak up for me. It was said by a man of the cloth as I recall. It said in reference to the Nazis, who by the way also came for the gays. Yes, I would like to think I would defend your rights, even those that I disagree with. If you went to church this morning, your tax exempt organization, both you and your church benefitted to the detriment of non church goers who pay taxes. Yes, I defend that. Your welcome. And if you can't bring yourself to defend the rights of gays, please shout loud and from all the rooftops that you want your church to pay it's fair share of taxes.

0

deec 3 years, 4 months ago

You think gay people choose to be gay. You choose to be a born-again Christian. You want to restrict and curtail rights based on a choice to be gay. Your choice to be Christian should then, also, be removed from protected status. Your religious institution should no longer be afforded tax-free status, since it is just another social organization subject to taxation.

0

jhawkinsf 3 years, 4 months ago

I'm certainly not calling you a Nazi. What the author said and what I was trying to say is that we all need to stand up for human rights and human dignity, even if we do not benefit from it. I also meant to say that if you really believe that the teachings of churches should be imposed upon others, then we've moved away from a separation of church and state. The foundation of the tax exempt status is that separation. You can't have it both ways, it's either/or. The churches beliefs imposed upon us all defies the separation and you should lose tax exempt status. Choose.

0

BigPrune 3 years, 4 months ago

This comment will most likely be removed, but what about the children of adopted gay couples? I don't have time to post links, but from what I've read gay couples compared to straight couples adopting, the child benefits much more from the straight couple because there is much less stress in the child's life. We live in a selfish society, it's the kids who get the shaft. From the studies I've read, gay couples adopting shouldn't even be a consideration.

0

ivalueamerica 3 years, 4 months ago

Besides the fact that what you said is not true based on scientific study, there is noting offensive about your post. It is reasonable to have issues about homosexuality and to ask questions without attacking and I respect this post prune, very much. I do not agree with it as it is clearly wrong based on overwhelming studies of Lesbian and Gay parents, but it is at least presented in a reasonable way.

0

JohnC_goblue 3 years, 4 months ago

the "stress" on the child's life is not the same-sex couples fault. it is, in fact, everyone else who is making it difficult. so right there, you can see that it has nothing to deal with how same-sex couples raise their kids, but instead how everyone else seems to have a beef with it. therefore, the fault is on the one with the judging eye.

you could argue that biracial couples having biracial children experience "stress" due to the close-minded, bigoted few....but again, this is no fault of the couple's and therefore, it is entirely illogical to use that as a basis to limit the parenting rights of otherwise good parents.

besides, I think a coddled youth (living in a "bubble" of idealism brought on by their parents) is more detrimental to a child, and the sooner you expose them to the beauties of the real world, then the sooner they will become successful members of society.

0

coderob 3 years, 4 months ago

Do a search for the Zach Wahls video of testimony he gave to the Iowa congress.

Wahls was raised by two women, lesbians, and seems to have turned out just fine. It's no scientific study, but it's a lot better than broad generalizations stemming from links you don't have time to post.

0

dcase 3 years, 4 months ago

In my four years at KU, I've been a senior staff resident assistant, orientation assistant, fraternity member and officer, and intern at the Kansas State Senate. In three weeks, I will graduate with two degrees and two certifications. I also have two dads who were much more supportive of me and my education than my mother ever was. Study that, instead.

0

NurseRatched 3 years, 4 months ago

I wish there was like buttons on here!!! Your statement gave me goosebumps. I hope one day my daughter can say the same thing!!! Good for you and GREAT JOB DADS!!!

0

llama726 3 years, 4 months ago

Links, like this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink except to something you're citing (studies you've read) would add substance to your post.

0

Olympics 3 years, 4 months ago

gay marriage = incest polygamy bestiality, pedophile argument. Nice one.

Rick Santorum's attack on homosexual sodomy in which he lumped it in with bestiality and incest, David Cross replies, "Incest? Incest. Come on, man. Isn't that -- well, let's ask the girl who was raped by her father. Hey sweetheart, what was it like when your father was holding you down and raping you? (in little girl's voice) 'Ooo, it was gross! It was like two guys making out!' Okay, alright, I gotcha. Well, maybe Rick was right." -David Cross

0

Olympics 3 years, 4 months ago

Your slippery slope argument is ridiculous. You, as a christian fundy, are the slippery slope leading to christian sharia law. Sounds stupid, doesn't it? It's a cheap and simplistic approach to a subject.

~35% of Americans claim to be Born Again...Your beliefs are deviation from the cultural norm. Please refrain from drinking from public fountains the rest of us "normals" so enjoy. Thank you.

0

llama726 3 years, 4 months ago

And interracial marriage was considered a deviant practice, and women working was considered a deviant practice.... What's that? Time moves forward? Society makes progress as knowledge overcomes ignorance?

0

50YearResident 3 years, 4 months ago

Then aren't you really saying society is becoming more deviant which is now the norm? Looks like a downward progress.

0

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

I guess you think inter-racial marriage and working women are a bad thing?

0

llama726 3 years, 4 months ago

I'm saying that ignorance eventually loses out, at least ideally. If you oppose women's rights and interracial marriage I suppose you think society is more deviant. If you realize there is no reasonable basis for prejudice against certain viewpoints, you probably would look at what has happened in our nation's history as progress with the ending of slavery, women getting to vote and work, etc.

0

speak_up 3 years, 4 months ago

Stats please? Back up your claim that the majority of American citizens consider homosexuality deviant. I'm not sure that is true anymore. And those stats better not come off the Fox website.

0

speak_up 3 years, 4 months ago

Yes, in fact, there is great harm in incest (to the child) and beastiality (to the animal) because in both cases one participant is not CONSENTING. Amazing that you need this spelled out for you. As for polygamy, I can't really argue against it as long as polyandry is also allowed :).

0

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

What about incest between adult siblings, cousins, etc.?

0

speak_up 3 years, 4 months ago

In theory, the harm would be to children who are the product of such relationships, as they are at an increased risk of birth defects, but otherwise, I think you're right. Mostly, it is the "ick factor." Perhaps, someday, the contingent of love-lorn, consenting adult family members will mobilize against discrimination. And when the time comes, if science backs up their claims, I will be the first to support them. At this time, however, I sincerely doubt that there are as many of these people being denied their freedoms as there are homosexuals in this country.

0

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

Right.

But if they don't have children, ...

The question is interesting because the "consenting adults" position would actually support consenting adult incest, but most folks won't take it there.

0

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

And, older women who get pregnant also have greater risks of children with birth defects, but we don't stop them from doing it.

0

speak_up 3 years, 4 months ago

True. I was saying that I don't disagree with you. I also can't honestly say that my gut response is "Ew," but I also believe that consenting adults should be able to do what they wish in the privacy of their own homes. I'm not entirely sure why we are arguing about this since it appears we are on the same side (opposed to BAA, that is).

0

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

Not arguing, just fleshing out the question.

I share the "ick" reaction, by the way.

0

JohnC_goblue 3 years, 4 months ago

1. learn to spell.

2. the game of association goes any which way one pleases. I could say, "if we allow religion in this country, who is to say that we then don't allow for animal sacrifice/human sacrifice? and then what about polygamy and incest and pederasty? Many laws have been made to protect our way of life and preserve our culture, and religion imposes on those"...this is not the movie Minority Report; there is no such thing as pre-crime as it opens up a host of problems of determining which crazy idea of pre-blame is correct (mine or yours. which idiot yells louder).

3. marriage actually strengthens traditional intimate bonds, versus allowing for polygamy/incest/bestiality. if you don't let people psychologically bond with another person through matrimony, they are more likely to break apart and not keep the relationship going (as well as having children helps strengthen the bond between two people). so these acts of "incest" and "bestiality" would not be increased by eliminating the bans on gay marriage. In fact, Massachusetts, the first state in the US to remove the ban on gay marriage, has the lowest divorce rate in the country, so if anything, one could argue (albeit causally) that gay marriage lets an environment of strong relationships thrive.

0

hujiko 3 years, 4 months ago

"4. Exactly how does gay marriage benefit me personally if it does not harm me? No one has answred that one yet."

Not everything has to be about you. Your arguments against homosexuality are all derived from your fear of anything different from yourself. You hate anything that you don't agree with because some old book told you so. Some life.

0

llama726 3 years, 4 months ago

If you are so happy with your life, why is it of any of your concern if individuals with whom you do not associate engage in consenting relationships with one another?

If those values are personal, and your morality is personal, in what way is it your right to impose that upon others? In what way are you entitled to encroach upon that liberty?

0

deec 3 years, 4 months ago

How do other people making civil contracts and obtaining equal protection under the law impose anything on you?

0

llama726 3 years, 4 months ago

How are your values being imposed upon? How is there a real impact on your marriage, or your life, if two men are wed? Or two women?

0

speak_up 3 years, 4 months ago

BM's primary arguement is that incest does not hurt anyone. Clearly the man is not rational, so there is little point in trying to rationalize with him.

0

speak_up 3 years, 4 months ago

Sorry, I meant BA. Freudian slip, I suppose.

0

Thunderdome 3 years, 4 months ago

Which does not mean your personal values should be imposed on others. As a heterosexual, I find it appalling that our state and federal governments legislate how people choose to live their lives when the heterosexual divorce rate hovers consostently around 50% and the rate of infidelity is even higher. And most of this is based on religious fervor despite the principle of separation of church and state. People deserve the same rights regardless of how they couple.

0

Eddie Muñoz 3 years, 4 months ago

I don't understand why you seem to think giving rights to a group of which you are not a part has to, in any way, benefit you.

I also don't understand why you seem to think that it has to either benefit or harm you - it will have NO effect on you if two women get married.

There is, in fact, a middle ground.

0

mom_of_three 3 years, 4 months ago

who is to say all of the "traditional" values of our country are correct? Many native american cultures prior to the 20th century were matrilineal, and they shared their land and made the most of it - they farmed what they needed and left the rest to another family to farm. Then Americans came in and tried to change them and their culture because it wasn't traditional. Slavery was once thought to be a normal and traditional part of culture as well, and dont forget not allowing women to vote.
Our ancestors haven't always made the best decisions in deciding traditional culture and values of the country.
We need to change a bit so those who are gay do not have to hide their orientation to be accepted.

0

llama726 3 years, 4 months ago

Last I checked, anyone having sex in public is typically breaking the law and can be arrested. So, how is who people choose to have sex with, beyond the laws we have in place to protect children, anyone else's business?

0

BorderRuffian 3 years, 4 months ago

They certainly do NOT have to hide their peculiarity - all they have to do is move to Larryville. They seem to have almost a preferred status there.

0

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

"Orientation" is not synonymous with "peculiarity", in my view.

0

coderob 3 years, 4 months ago

Oh culture and the argument that it shouldn't change. If that were true, we should be living like the Amish.

And then there's this cute notion of yours that heterosexuality has been the only show in town for as long as anyone can remember, and homosexuality is trying to push it out. Homosexuality is nothing new. A few Greeks and Romans enjoyed it. Kinsey found out how common it really is. Even the Bible has something to say about it. That said, the only change being asked for is that people aren't going to have to lie about who they are, and that they can experience the joys of parenthood just like anyone else.

0

coderob 3 years, 4 months ago

Call it a deviance if you want, but there's been a good percentage of the population that's been practicing that deviance for a long time. To say those deviants can't get married is simple tyranny of the majority

0

coderob 3 years, 4 months ago

The Jewish population in the US is around 2 percent. What I hear from your reasoning is that Jewish people shouldn't be given the right to practice their religion because they're too small.

0

ivalueamerica 3 years, 4 months ago

what born again is afraid to tell you, the studies that suggest 3-6% of the population only identify with gay as opposed to the 10-12% Kinsey and dozens of other studies suggest...

Also list 88% of the population that identify as heterosexual. Born again does not tell you that because..well. it would not serve his argument and make him look foolish.

0

ivalueamerica 3 years, 4 months ago

traditional marriage was arranged, traditional marriage did not allow the woman to leave even if she was being beaten, traditional marriage was a civil ceremony until the 14th century. Traditional marriage barred biracial marriage, traditional marriage allowed women 12 or younger to marry a man who could be more than 5 times her age.

Exactly what traditions are you embracing? Or are you picking and choosing?

Gay marriage has been around since the dawn of time, with various levels of governmental and religious recognition. It is a tradition.

There are 10 countries that allow gay marriage and many others that that have had civil unions. Gay marriage has been a legal definition on this planet for nearly 12 years and civil unions for nearly 30. Every single time the same tired false argument comes up about beastiality and pedofiles or marrying your vacuum cleaner. Those who use those 2 arguments are morons, plain and simple because if they can not understand the difference between consenting adults, animals, children and inanimate objects have far greater problems to deal with than this.

Further, in the nearly 30 years of gay marriage and civil unions as a legally recognized status, not once has any of those false claims ocurred meaning the perceived threat is not a reality.

So, do you have anything to add to the debate that is not ignorant and false, or is that all you can come up with? If that is it, I suggest you keep walking as you have nothing of value to add here.

0

ivalueamerica 3 years, 4 months ago

I should also add

Traditional marriage allowed poligamy

Traditional marriage said a woman could not be raped by her husband because having her was his right.

0

Fred Mertz 3 years, 4 months ago

i don't know about pedofiles, but pedophiles certainly cause harm to individuals and society. As far as swinger and masochists, they exist today and no laws prohibit their activity and lifestyle.

Laws have been enacted, but one law reigns supreme and that is the US Constitution. Under it, I believe that there can be no laws against homosexuality or gay marriage.

Adultery, oral sex and other acts by heterosexuals were once against the law. Want to go back to the era where the government wanted to control what you did in the privacy of your home? Not me. Keep the government out of my private life as long as there is no infringement upon anothers rights by my actions.

Gay marriage does not infringe upon your way of life or culture.

0

slshogrin 3 years, 4 months ago

Not that it matters to me, but the big argument about same-sex marriage is the actual definition of "marriage". Are we to now go through every dictionary and change the definition to suit a few people? Same-sex union is and should be an acceptable term for every side of the fence. To quote from just one dictionary : marriage |ˈmarij| noun 1. the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife. The states that have same-sex unions also give the same "rights" as those governed by marriage law, it's just what they call it. Gays have just as much right to lose half their crap when/if the relationship falls apart as anybody else. As far as my stance on adoption, my biggest problem is with the adoption agencies period. It's easier and cheaper to adopt from another country than to adopt here at home. Why do you think all the celebratards are doing that? Why do you think everyday Americans are adopting from out of this country? It's because the adoption process is too difficult and costly. The reality is it's the children that end up suffering because of these agencies.

0

coderob 3 years, 4 months ago

If we're changing the dictionary, I personally hope the word celebratards doesn't make it in there.

0

llama726 3 years, 4 months ago

What?

You know that whenever a word changes meaning, they don't collect every dictionary ever made and rewrite it, right? You know it just goes into new editions? Are you aware that it is actually people who give meaning to words, and not dictionaries?

0

speak_up 3 years, 4 months ago

That is, indeed, ONE definition of marriage. The complete entry, however, includes many others (this is from dictionary.com):

"mar·riage   /ˈmærɪdʒ/ Show Spelled [mar-ij] Show IPA

–noun 1. a. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. b. a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage. 2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage. 3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. 4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage. 5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song. 6. a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger. 7. a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture. 8. Cards . a meld of the king and queen of a suit, as in pinochle. Compare royal marriage. 9. a piece of antique furniture assembled from components of two or more authentic pieces. 10. Obsolete . the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock."

Language is fluid. Language constantly evolves to suit the society which is serves. Therefore, changing the definition is not a problem. Meanings of words change all of the time. For example, "cool" does not only refer to temperature, as I'm sure you are aware.

0

Olympics 3 years, 4 months ago

RE: changing the definition for a few people.

Same-sex union legislation that provides for the similar rights as married people is not supported and often openly attacked by conservative/republican lawmakers. They don't want gay people to have equal rights.

On the bright side, these people are likely to die off soon and their kids/grandkids think they are nuts to believe this way.

0

coderob 3 years, 4 months ago

If you only knew what it was like to be in the closet...

0

coderob 3 years, 4 months ago

And tange takes the literal definition of closet instead of the metaphorical one. Zing.

0

coderob 3 years, 4 months ago

Aren't you supposed to be celebrating Easter? :-P

0

coderob 3 years, 4 months ago

C'mon. Yesterday wasn't Halloween.

0

llama726 3 years, 4 months ago

This seems like a really fancy and elaborate way to simply say that there's something special and unseen - a certain magic - to heterosexual relationships. As someone who isn't a believer in magic, I'd like to see some sort of actual study or something to prove your point.

0

llama726 3 years, 4 months ago

"Hmm... how did civilization ever find its way without "some sort of actual study or something" to help it along?"

Plagues, feudalism, slavery, illiteracy, religious persecution...

"And, far from being "really fancy or elaborate," what I have offered are some rather simple postulates."

Simple and plausible is not always correct.

"But you may be onto something with your reference to "magic." Beyond being the basis for existence itself, there is something rather magical about human sexuality—It has its own mechanics, its chemistry."

Ah, the (not actually) lock and key hypothesis. Thus, marriage is only for procreation and sex. Thus, older people, sterile people, people with genital mutilation shouldn't be married. Gotcha.

"As such, I suppose it could be considered the oldest "technology"—not so much the application of science as an expression of its underpinnings. Where would we be without it?"

Largely irrelevant. No one is arguing to get rid of male-female relationships.

"Arthur C. Clarke may be instructive here, with his Third Law, which states: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.""

Perhaps to you.

"As for complementarity, well, Heinlein had it pegged: "In the eighty or ninety years I have given to this subject, trying to trace out the meanderings of their twisty little minds, the only thing that I have learned for certain about women is that when a gal is gonna, she's gonna. All a man can do is cooperate with the inevitable" (from Stranger in a Strange Land). Encapsulate Heinlein's observation within a reciprocal, moral sphere, and, well, you have a basis for marriage."

Great novel and a great defense of male female relationships/marriage without addressing why homosexual marriage should or should not be allowed, let alone homosexual adoption. Interesting.

0

llama726 3 years, 4 months ago

Haha. A fallacy. Correct, yes, I was painting your views in a ridiculous light by drawing an irrational conclusion based upon your postulated idea that the mechanics of human sexuality are akin to those of chemical reactions (which is truly funny, since the properties of chemical reactions can vary widely in different roles, environments, etc). My apologies for offending your sense of logic.

You have mentioned next to nothing advocating any sort of stance. So, I take it that you are unable or unwilling to debate this topic, and instead crave an outlet for your lyrical fancies. Fantastic, but even less productive than regular arguing on the Internet. Have a good evening.

0

Kirk Larson 3 years, 4 months ago

Heinlein was a bit of a misogynist as I recall.

0

Kirk Larson 3 years, 4 months ago

"llama726 (anonymous) replies… "Hmm... how did civilization ever find its way without "some sort of actual study or something" to help it along?" Plagues, feudalism, slavery, illiteracy, religious persecution..."

Most excellent, Good Sir!

0

deec 3 years, 4 months ago

There is nothing magical about a human male impregnating a human female. It's just biology, shared with all mammals. Marriage is a civil contract which imparts legal rights and obligations on its participants. It is not magical. It is a legal contract. I had one of those magical church-blessed marriages. It failed due to the inability of one of the participants to not break one of the ten commandments. All the folks who've got their skivvies in a wad about gay marriage would be better served to devote their time to addressing adultery, perhaps in their very own marriages, and stop worrying about what other people might be doing.

0

deec 3 years, 4 months ago

Well that's what the priest said, but the fundie catholic ex failed to pay attention. I'm sorry you don't understand there is no difference between us and other mammals biologically. If a guy's little guy happens to get lucky and meet up with an egg, conception happens. No different than any other mammal. Marriage has always been a legal contract; that's why parents routinely married off their children for political gain, to obtain land, move up socially, etc.

0

deec 3 years, 4 months ago

Mammalian reproductive biology is the same regardless of species. Pregnancy is nothing more than the accidental meeting of a sperm and an egg. Chimps aren't "married" but they still manage to get knocked up and raise their babies. I've no clue what card you're referring to, unless you mean confession, of which he partook after each and every affair. Note the past tense when referring to marrying off children. In modern America, civil marriage is no different than a lease or car note. Its a contract.

0

speak_up 3 years, 4 months ago

So love is not meaningful unless it results in "an expression of life"? Well, my partner and I were able to conceive, but I'm sure there are plenty of heterosexual couples struggling with fertility who would take great offense to your ridiculous arguments.

Furthermore, same-sex couples may "complement" (your spelling) each other in ways that heterosexual couples do not/ cannot. Who are you to say that this pairing is not as special? Absurdity thinly veiled by pseudo-philosphy.

0

speak_up 3 years, 4 months ago

"No one who expresses him-/herself as a homosexual finds expression in life because of a homosexual act.

Everyone finds expression in life because of a heterosexual union."

0

pizzapete 3 years, 4 months ago

So Liberty, you think these gay people should be able to drink from the same fountain as the rest of us?
As others have pointed out, it's a slippery slope, next thing you know they'll be putting up highrise apartments and asking the city to give them a free parking garage or parking lot, too.

0

coderob 3 years, 4 months ago

"Regarding gay adoption, yes, it is true that the ideal situation is for a child to have a mother and a father."

I agree mostly with this post, except for that quote. It still has just a smidge of homophobia in it, but I guess you can't win 'em all with this crowd.

0

coderob 3 years, 4 months ago

For me, sometimes I'm not sure how important it is to even try to convince people of gay marriage. Statistically, their are already more likely to support it. It's really just a shame that gay people have to wait.

0

coderob 3 years, 4 months ago

Oops! Their kids are already more likely to support it.

0

Liberty275 3 years, 4 months ago

"Or is the moral philosophy of libertarians simply that "if it doesn't hurt anyone then it's OK? "

In a nutshell, that's sort of right. The "anyone" part has to be a consenting adult. Also, if one of the consenting adults agree to a greater risk of getting hurt, even that is OK. The hinge isn't on right, wrong, good,bad, moral or immoral, it is on the ability of every person to control his own life as long as he causes no harm to others.

0

deec 3 years, 4 months ago

An ye harm none, do as you will? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?

0

Liberty275 3 years, 4 months ago

Do unto others what they consent to, not what I would consent to.

Of course, that is an ideal. There are exceptions such as defense, retribution and capacity to consent.

0

llama726 3 years, 4 months ago

Your argument rests on the assertion that something which doesn't impact you, personally, in even the slightest sense, should be against the law because you think it is gross.

My five year old cousin doesn't like to eat broccoli because she thinks it's gross. My aunt doesn't rule her house on the emotional whims of her daughter. I don't think we should run our country on the emotional whims of the masses, particularly when the masses have demonstrated throughout the course of history a tendency to misunderstand anything that isn't like them, and often fear it as a result.

0

Eddie Muñoz 3 years, 4 months ago

No, Liberty's argument rests on the assertion that two consenting adults should be able to choose to be married. This is about equality, not whether someone's sexual orientation is harmful or harmless.

0

llama726 3 years, 4 months ago

I know it's weird because of the threaded comments, but my reply was to BornAgain, not Liberty.

0

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

There are always those who are afraid that a change in the culture will lead to terrible outcomes, and so they resist it on those grounds.

People thought things would turn very bad when women got to vote, when black and white people were allowed to intermingle and marry, etc.

I'm with the libertarians on this one - anything that involves consenting adults is ok with me. That's what rules out bestiality, by the way - consent. Polygamy is fine, as would be group marriage. Incest is a little tricky for me - the original taboo was most likely due to the problems of genetics, which wouldn't necessarily apply given modern birth control. But it still makes me feel a little funny, which is in conflict with the "consenting adults" idea.

The idea that something should only be ok with one if it directly benefits them is a bit odd to me. I think it's the other way around - something is only not ok with me if it harms me, or others.

0

Liberty275 3 years, 4 months ago

"Incest is a little tricky for me."

How far removed is your cousin/significant-other?

0

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

Is that a joke?

I'm married to somebody with whom I have no familial relationship with at all.

The question is, for those who believe in "consenting adults", what would be the justification for disallowing incest between willing relatives who fit that profile?

0

Liberty275 3 years, 4 months ago

We all share a common ancestor, therefore we are all cousins of some blood. For isntance, Dick Cheney and obama are 8th cousins.

I'm surprised you are shocked by this.

0

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

That's probably right.

So, you're in favor of allowing incest between willing adult relatives, I take it?

0

Liberty275 3 years, 4 months ago

"what would be the justification for disallowing incest between willing relatives who fit that profile?"

While I suppose you could use genetics to argue against the union of anything closer than first cousins, I wouldn't. If they are adults and consent, I say let them get it on.

0

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

Yep.

Nobody elected me, or you, to the post of "moral leader", whose job it would be to make sure that people act only in ways that we approve of.

If you don't believe in pre-marital sex, do you think you should have the right to outlaw it?

Or other sexual practices?

Consent and the lack of harm seem like very good reasons that it is none of my business (or anybody else's).

0

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

I don't know about the numbers - according to what I've heard, the younger generation is much more accepting of homosexuality than the older one.

Probably because they know they won't change anybody else's mind, and vice-versa.

Let's say you're right - and many people feel as you do. So what? There was a time that the majority of voters (men) felt that women shouldn't have the right to vote.

You can feel however you like about homosexuality, as I've said before - I'm not trying to change your point of view. If you want to believe that it's a sin, and that God will punish them, etc. that's fine with me. In fact, I'd defend your right to believe that, since we believe in religious freedom in this country.

Stopping them from getting married is a different story, of course. Your religious belief doesn't entitle you to do that, in my view, any more than it would if you felt that interracial marriage was sinful.

0

therxbandit 3 years, 4 months ago

Because they're too stubborn minded to open up and think that maybe, just maybe, gay marriage doesn't take away the sanctity of anything about heterosexual marriage.

No, heterosexual marriage and the 50% divorce rate did that all by itself.

List for me, please, the physical and/or ACTUAL psychological harm that allowing homosexuals to marry would cause you. There are none, other than you claiming that it "devalues" your morals.

They're YOUR morals. How can anyone else devalue your own morals?!

0

TheBigCbeer 3 years, 4 months ago

Ok i was a kid that grew up in the system i wanted a mom and dad so bad but never found one, as i grew i seen all kinds of stuff in the system if it came down to a home with a gay couple or strait couple i would want a straight couple cause i would find it weird so i say if a gay couple wants to adopt, adopt a kid under three but let the kids know that there is more then the gay life style that is my own concern, but as married i say let them have there way but keep it out of church and make it a state marriage this is my opinion

0

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

I'm sorry to hear that you weren't able to have a real home.

If it came down to a choice between staying "in the system" or being adopted by gay folks, which would you have chosen?

0

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 4 months ago

Yes indeed, I was once told about the Marines. I wouldn't want to quote exactly what I was told in here, but it sure made it sound as though gay people would be rather popular among the Marines. At least, when no one was around.

And, I was told just about exactly the same thing about the Navy.

0

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 4 months ago

OK people, it's time to line up to receive your rights as an American.

Christians go to the head of the line. Aethists, get in line behind the Christians. Jews, get in line behind the Aethists, along with all those other weird religions that real Americans don't believe in.

And you gay people, do I really need to point out to you that you go clear to the back of the line behind everyone else.

0

verity 3 years, 4 months ago

Mostly children need parents who love them. I think that pretty much covers it.

0

grammaddy 3 years, 4 months ago

Hear, hear! Anyone know where to find the stats on how many children are born outside of wedlock and how many are born to parents who are married to each other? Procreation isn't a problem.Our species is doing just fine.

0

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

No kidding.

Actually we have the opposite problem - overpopulation.

0

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

Is that really your fear?

It would only occur if homosexuality became the overwhelmingly majority activity.

Are you afraid that everybody will turn into homosexuals if we don't maintain a strongly disapproving view of it?

0

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

For me, morality is directly connected with harm to others.

That's why I don't have a moral concern with activities involving consenting adults that don't harm anybody. Disease, genetic deformities, etc. do harm others, so that's a different story.

It hasn't been proven that heterosexuality isn't a learned behavior either, as far as I know.

0

llama726 3 years, 4 months ago

Sexual free for all with no regard to disease, genetic deformities, and decline of moral values which separate us from the animals, eh?

1) Procreating outside of your race actually tends to reduce disease for your offspring. No one is advocating spreading STDs. Adults can be reasonably safe about their sexual behavior of we teach them how.

2) Genetic deformities? In a case where you attempt to reproduce within your very direct family, I'll buy that. As a species, though, when you grow up with your sister/brother/mom/dad, you are "wired" generally not to find them to be attractive by the time you are sexually mature. In fact, reproducing inter-racially (also considered deviant) produces "hybrid vigor," as your "bad" genes are covered by their good ones, and their bad genes are covered by your good ones.

3) Decline of moral values how? Warfare, murder, rape, theft... These things still existed 100-200-400+ years ago.

If you want an argument articulated against incest: -Strain on society as it produces more genetically unhealthy offspring -Could be a result of abuse during upbringing.

Now, if you sleep with your second cousin without ever knowing they were related to you? Hmm. That's less deviant and also more likely to be just random chance.

If you want an argument articulated against bestiality: -Strain on society as it is more likely to produce disease than other sexual behavior -An animal is unable to consent to sex, which is why most people (there are exceptions) do not believe it is acceptable.

Homosexuality (despite media perception and falsehoods that have been spread throughout our lifetimes) doesn't cause increased sexually transmitted infection rates or disease rates. There is not a single disease that would only affect someone if they were homosexual (contrasted with bestiality which would produce diseases unique to having sex with a specific animal). Up until recently, condoms as an example were thought of primarily as pregnancy preventers and basically taught that way to kids. Instead, we should have been emphasizing the massive reduction in sexually transmitted infections brought about by condom usage (without promising they would work). We're drifting into public health, which is more in my wheelhouse than yours, but if you want to keep discussing that I'm glad to.

0

nepenthe 3 years, 4 months ago

What are you talking about? No one has condoned bestiality. Everyone's said the animal cannot consent anyway so yeah, bad mojo. What everyone is attempting to jack hammer into your brain is that no one really has any business peering into someone else's bedroom to mandate what they can and cannot do with each other.

Also, not everyone is Christian. Cripes, give an upstart religion control for too long and they think there wasn't anything before them.

0

libra101 3 years, 4 months ago

Isn't something that occurs in nature by definition natural? Homosexuality is well documented throughout the animal world. I doubt penguins and chimps were indoctrinated by reruns of MASH or Sex and the City.

0

Kirk Larson 3 years, 4 months ago

So when my elderly, widowed grandfather remarried, his marriage had no meaning because he and his wife could not procreate. Or when younger couples with reproductive issues marry, their unions have no meaning. Or couples who do not plan to have children for whatever reason, they just shouldn't even get married. I'm sure they will all be interested to hear that.

0

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

I was getting ready to go there as well.

Also, should we then require all heterosexuals to have children?

It's interesting, with all of the other things to worry about, like overpopulation, the destruction of our natural environment and depletion of non-renewable resources, etc. that BAA is worried we'll stop reproducing.

I have no fear of that at all, somehow. I think it's much more likely we'll destroy ourselves, either by destroying nature, or by our military power and conflicts.

0

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

Sorry, you don't get to tell me what I can and can't write on these comments, much as you might like to do so.

My point, which you seem to have missed, is that I think your fear of the massive homosexualization of the nation, followed by the cessation of child bearing, leading to the elimination of human beings, is extremely far-fetched.

If you want to worry about things we might do that will destroy us, I suggest you consider my list instead.

0

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

It's interesting that you want to control my responses here - have I tried to do that to do, or do I simply respond to what you post?

And, you're the one who wants to make some sort of personal attack - "I know it's hard for you libs, ..."

Have I ever referred to you in such a manner?

I've already explained the connection between some of your comments, and mine regarding environmental issues, so I won't insult you by repeating it again.

0

deec 3 years, 4 months ago

"The union of 2 men or 2 women cannot procreate and cannot maintain the species from a biological standpoint. Therefore, it threatens the propagation of species and therein lies the harm. " War, famine, disease and environmental pollutants actually do have a negative effect on procreation. Pollutants cause birth defects and miscarriage. 3-10% of the population not churning out babies, depending on which statistics are used, do not.There are currently about 6.7 billion people on this planet. I don't think we are in danger of dying out.

0

llama726 3 years, 4 months ago

BAA: Too simple. Sorry.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html

There are a number of evolutionary explanations for homosexuality, the most intriguing and compelling of which is this: Homosexuals tend to spend more time with their nieces and nephews, who do share some of their genes (they are family). In that sense, having an extra set of eyes or an extra good influence on a child that early aids in propagation of species. If your most conservative estimates place homosexuality at about 3-6% of the population, but the other 94-97% of us are cranking out babies, then I think our species should be just fine.

0

llama726 3 years, 4 months ago

Please, please, please do me a favor and don't attempt to talk about science if you have no idea how it works. Of course it doesn't speak in absolutes. If you want to explain human behavior, you have to accept a multitude of hard-to-measure third variables, all of which can influence your studies.

Science very, very rarely speaks in absolutes. I know that, since I understand science. Religion likes to speak in absolutes, and absolutes are a really convenient and simple way to look at the world. If you want a convenient and simple way to look at the world, I suggest you don't attempt to use science or "laws of nature," because these are far, far more complex than you give them credit for, and there are so many plausible explanations...

Stop being lazy, stop trying to play "gotcha" with me, and just admit that your argument has no logical basis. At all. You said it impairs with the propagation of species. It clearly doesn't. If it did, as we identify more cases of homosexuality, we'd expect the species to lose numbers. It doesn't. I gave you a number of other equally plausible explanations and you didn't accept them. I just showed you correlation data that significantly implies genetics has a large role in this. You will dismiss it as not conclusive enough, because you want this to be black and white. Except you've made no demonstration of how it interferes with propagation of the species (homosexuals allow for members of the species to care for children that are not their own, but rather, belong to relatives), you've made no compelling evidence-based argument at all. That's all I ask. You can't provide it, and that's fine, but there's no reason to act like I'm being dishonest - the link is RIGHT THERE for anyone to click on it.

0

llama726 3 years, 4 months ago

I'm not being arrogant - I'm pointing out that you don't understand what the links mean. Let's look at this. If your hypothesis were true - if there were no genetic basis for homosexuality - then we'd expect that there would be no correlation in twins for that trait.

There is a correlation, though. You just want the explanation to be simple - a choice. It's not simple. That's it. I'm sorry that you cannot accept the complexity of the topic. There are a lot of possible explanations because there are a lot of factors involved.

0

llama726 3 years, 4 months ago

Yes, lots of possible explanation and like many things when you consider human behavior, it's much, much more likely to be a combination of factors than exclusively any one thing or another. Which means that morality has no place in it.

0

llama726 3 years, 4 months ago

Cool. Yes. It's also possible than homosexuals are aliens who have managed to infiltrate our society.

I gave you evidence. You gave me snarky comments and seem to be patting yourself on the back for getting me to admit (I've never claimed otherwise) that science simply doesn't deal in absolutes.

"The union of 2 men or 2 women cannot procreate and cannot maintain the species from a biological standpoint. Therefore, it threatens the propagation of species and therein lies the harm."

I have demonstrated in the links above that this simply is not the case. The evolutionary biological standpoint suggests that an organism is inclined to pass along its genetic material. Homosexuality serves no purpose, according to you, because homosexuals do not directly pass their genes along. But homosexuals have brothers and sisters, and parents, and nieces and nephews, and the same genes they have are indeed protected and passed along. There are more ways to ensure most of your genes are passed along than simply to procreate, and they include supporting your family. Homosexuality is exhibited in many species, and a majority of these are far from trending toward extinction.

I get that you want to split hairs with me because I will not say that homosexuality is only genetic (because it's not - it's way, way more complicated than that, but the evidence suggests that genetics play a significant role), but that's getting way outside of the point.

I appreciate your concern about my ability to perform medical services. I'm actually a student. I know a lot about health care because of what I study, who I know and because of what I do in my free time (volunteering). At the point where I am working in my profession, I will be ethically bound to help people regardless of how I feel about them, which really isn't hard. I already do that in my daily life. I was raised in a home where instead of bashing science, my parents encouraged me to learn as much as possible and spend time helping others. They taught me how to forgive. They taught me that the most important thing to do was to be a good example of how to live a truly moral life without judging what others chose to do with theirs. That contrasts with Evangelism. I understand that. I don't begrudge you despite the fact that we are both politically and ethically opposed on a good number of issues, and honestly, I don't see how your political views could possibly impact your professional life (I trust that you are capable of professionalism - perhaps misplaced?), nor do I see how my political views would influence my profession, but thank you for sharing your concern that I may be bad at my job because I disagree with you politically. All the best.

0

llama726 3 years, 4 months ago

Okay. I want you not to take any medicine, because they are linked to helping deal with problems, but they aren't PROVEN. Deal?

0

speak_up 3 years, 4 months ago

The species is in no danger of dying out. Quite the opposite, in fact.

0

ivalueamerica 3 years, 4 months ago

I clearly and directly accuse you of false witness.

The same part of the Bible that tells you man shall not lie with a man also tells you that you can not sleep in a bed if a woman has menstruated in it...that you can not wear clothes of mixed fibers (I will be you anything you have a closet full of poly cotton blends) That you can not eat shellfish or plant the same crops in the same field or eat of those crops if so planted.

Yet you only choose 1 of those laws as Gods word and ignore the rest.

How embarassing for you.

0

ivalueamerica 3 years, 4 months ago

You brought up the Bible, I was putting it in context. Obviously something that upsets you. I realize you do not like to held accountable for what you say...but that just goes to your character, not to the topic at hand.

0

ivalueamerica 3 years, 4 months ago

For your information, false witness is a commandment, you have broken it.

Then you bore more false witness trying to divert when exposed.

Your lies are bad enough alone, but spreading lies in the name of God is really low, even for you.

0

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

How is IVA's feeling about this any different than your feeling about homosexuality?

You could ask yourself the same question, I would think.

0

ivalueamerica 3 years, 4 months ago

you lied, own up to it, for once

0

whats_going_on 3 years, 4 months ago

true, it isn't about those things, but Jesse is just making a point that it's highly hypocritical to just pick and choose which "rules" from the bible to live by. He's not trying to start a convo about those other things, but they just prove a point.

0

rwwilly 3 years, 4 months ago

Let me get this straight, PennyOne... you're saying the Ten Commandments (which, apparently by your reckoning, were just recently revealed and published for the first time) came AFTER the US Constitution? Practically ALL law has a religous foundation. You obviously don't understand the meaning of secular as pertaining to the birth of law.

0

llama726 3 years, 4 months ago

So if you don't hold a faith, you won't follow the law, but if you do hold a faith, you won't violate the law. That's why, as we would expect, atheists are the only ones who commit murder.

0

Kirk Larson 3 years, 4 months ago

So rwwillly brings up the Ten Commandments. The old saw that somehow they are the basis of our laws is absurd. Let's break it down:

1 through 4 are clear violations of the establishment clause, therefore they are unconstitutional. The government is not in the business of enforcing one particular religion's practice. 5 is nowhere the law of the land, but it is nice to honor your father and mother...unless they are abusive, then to heck with them. 6 is law, but is codified in pretty much any religion. 7 is law in Louisiana, but it's not like adultery in unheard of there. Just ask David Vitter. 8 and 9 are like 6; pretty much part of any religion and practical to boot. 10 is interesting considering that our economic system is largely based on coveting what your neighbor has.

So we have 1-4 as unconstitutional; 5 and 7 impractical as law; 6,8,and 9 as law, but not unique to any religion; and 10 as anti-capitalistic.

0

Armored_One 3 years, 4 months ago

A lot of folks seems to be more interested in what is going on in the neighbor's house than what is going on in their own.

I've known a lot of gay men and women. Same for bisexual men and women. Still friends with them, despite my getting married. Unless the wife is planning something I don't know about, my marriage is as rock solid as it was the first day.

Personally, I lump basically all sexual style things under my 3 Rules of the House... and they all require my not being involved to break one of the rules.

  1. I don't want to see it.
  2. I don't want to step in it afterwards.
  3. I don't want to hear it over the television.

I make my teenage son go by those three rules also. I do not want to be trying to watch a movie and have him and his girlfriend making out on the couch. Rule 2 just doesn't need any further explanation, and since I keep the television volume down, they can't get too involved in anything. Breaking rule 3 in my house is punishable with one or more glasses of ice water being thrown on you, regardless of what surface you are currently occupying.

I don't have any personal dire to do the nasty with a guy. He's not going to bring anything, anatomically speaking, to the party I can't bring. If I wanted to play with one of those, I got one already, thank you very much. Sex isn't really what I would consider a spectator sport, despite what the Internet says to the contrary... hence rule 1.

If you've made a mess from something fun, clean it up. I walk around my house barefoot, and that would just be icky to step in... rule 2.

If I'm not involved, I don't want to hear it... rule 3.

I don't see the big problem. For the most part, I confine my sex life to my bedroom, and I REALLY do not want spectators. You might want them, but that's just my thing. If I want that level of privacy, the least I can do is extend it to everyone else. Do you really want someone sticking their nose into your personal life without an invitation?

0

gr 3 years, 4 months ago

"A lot of folks seems to be more interested in what is going on in the neighbor's house than what is going on in their own."

But so called "gay marriage" isn't about what's going on in the neighbor's house, is it? It's about promotion and celebration, breaking your rule 1. And rule 3.

0

jonas_opines 3 years, 4 months ago

That's like saying that the civil rights movements were about black people shoving their liberties in your faces.

0

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

If that's true, then it's true of straight marriage as well.

Should we eliminate that?

0

BorderRuffian 3 years, 4 months ago

Instead of posing the argument for or against "gay marriage," why not back up about a step and redefine the argument a bit?

Marriage, or at least traditional marriage, has been and still predominantly is, a religious institution. Whether one is Muslim, Jewish, christian, or any number of significant religions, marriage has been, from the mists of time, fixed within the locus of religion.

Why we are trying to force the legitimization of homosexuality upon, whether actual or inferred, upon the facade of religion, is beyond me.

Why we do not simply allow for the civil recognition of gay persons living legally as a covenented couple with all the legal and civil rights normally accorded to hetero "married" couples, mystifies me. It wouldn't be much different from persons opting for civil (i.e. justice of the peace, judge, chips captain, etc.) ceremonies rather than religious ceremonies. In fact, at least here in Kansas, the marriage ceremony performed by clergy is actually a combination of conducting a civil ceremony in accordance with the licence, as well as a religious ceremony blessing the union as a marriage.

So many here advocate so strongly for an absolute (although unattainable) separation of religion and secular, that it astonishes me that there is such a demand that any legally recognized union between gay partners be labeled as 'marriage.'

0

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

I think his/her point was that it might be a lot easier to achieve civil unions for homosexual unions, if we bypassed some of the religious issues that way.

If I were gay/lesbian, I think that's what I'd put my energy towards, since I think it would be more easily achieved, and provide me/partner with the same legal benefits of marriage.

0

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

That seems to me like a very reasonable solution as well.

But, there are those in the gay community, and others, who view it as a "separate but equal" problem.

0

speak_up 3 years, 4 months ago

I am married, and I don't believe in God. It is a legal and social contract, not solely a religious one.

0

jonas_opines 3 years, 4 months ago

"Marriage, or at least traditional marriage, has been and still predominantly is, a religious institution. Whether one is Muslim, Jewish, christian, or any number of significant religions, marriage has been, from the mists of time, fixed within the locus of religion."

No, no it isn't. It has always been, fundamentally, a social and civil institution, tied to family lines, property, or both. The proof is simple. Take the religion out of it but leave the sharing of property and rights and you still have a marriage. Take the sharing of property and rights out of it and leave the religion and you do not. But since it is one of the fundamental practices and institutions in society, religions and religious officials have often tried to assimilate or otherwise control it in order to exert influence on society. And, of course, many people throughout history who maintain a large role for religion in their lives have sought to have it supported by the church as well.

But it really comes down to one thing in our society. If you want a legally recognized marriage, you have to go to the courthouse, so to speak. You don't have to go the church.

0

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

Why on earth would you think that?

Have you missed all of the various anti gay marriage amendments and legislation around the country?

0

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

I did read it, but I just re-read it.

It's an interesting comment, actually. If something looks a certain way from your point of view, you think it's a settled issue.

I never would have combined those two things that way - that's why I didn't get it at first.

Why would you call something a "settled issue", when many people have differing opinions about it, and our legal system hasn't weighed in in any sort of consistent way, the SC hasn't tackled the issue, etc. just because you have a certain point of view on it?

Not what most of us would mean with that phrase.

0

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

That's actually an interesting point - I wonder what the statistics show about countries that are more tolerant towards gay marriage.

Does the percentage seem to increase, and by how much, if so?

Any idea?

Obviously, we wouldn't include folks who emigrate to those countries because of the policy, that wouldn't tell us what we want to know, namely, does homosexuality increase because of social acceptance of it.

0

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

That's great, as long as it's a happy marriage.

I also married with the idea that it would be my only, and lifelong lasting marriage.

But, I wouldn't fault those in bad marriages who choose to end them.

0

Thunderdome 3 years, 4 months ago

Congratulations...16 for us. But what if I don't agree with your example for myself? If I did something different than you, does it really impact you? Why would you care? I don't get the concern about the actions of others.

0

Kontum1972 3 years, 4 months ago

question?

if two male dogs hump each other ...does that make them gay?

0

whats_going_on 3 years, 4 months ago

wow. I totally agree with you Liberty. Weird :)

0

gogoplata 3 years, 4 months ago

It is funny to me that one of the strongest presidential candidates in favor of the rights of gay people to get married is a republican.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/86545.html

0

salem58 3 years, 4 months ago

Some say the end is near. Some say we'll see armageddon soon. I certainly hope we will. I sure could use a vacation from this bull three ring circus sideshow of Freaks. Its a sticky situation this is.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.