Can opponents of gay marriage give a single way that it interferes in their lives?

Exactly- and that's what many people here tend to forget. We're people, just like them- we are not disorders, we are not some curiosity of science to be put under a microscope like mice. We are people. And we want the same things everyone else does.

And when people talk about us in the abstract, it's very disconcerting. It's like we don't deserve common courtesy or respect.

 

Please go to the Homeless shelters or the battered women shelters ,and go on about the Wonders of marriage ,and the right to be abused. God says the Institution of marriage is sacred ,yep ,God as interpreted by Men with funny hats.

100% of domestic violence happens in Marriage, formalised or otherwise
100% of the social dislocation and mental illness of children comes out of MARRIAGE![Its called divorce]
Most unhappiness of adult humans I know comes from the "wonders of marriage " a lot of Murders happen within Marriage ,in fact they have a name for it ,Crimes of passion !

That's not mentioning marital RAPE, incest ,Domestic slavery ,Child slavery ,and many other social ills connected with ,Marriage!

 

So in other words you're an Internet troll?

 

I never have any idea what you're talking about.

 

Yeah, I suppose that the argument falls as an argument against gay marriage per se -as the SCOTUS siad- but as an argument justifying a policy aimed at heterosexual couples which might have kids though, it works. Anyways, I was just putting it out there. Seldom heard, needed some attention.

Regarding what the SCOTUS thinks about gay marriage over all I think that 'gays are icky' and 'god doesn't like it' are perfectly valid reasons, as far as the consitution is concerned. I am of the belief that the constitution should be intererpreted as literally as possible, and that it should as far as possible reflect the mindset and vision of the authors of it. Clearly they didn't have gay marriage in mind -or abortion for that matter- when they wrote it, and nor did anyone until very recently. I'm very sceptical to a constitutional justification of gay marriage.

Think about those black teenage sinlge-moms. That's what I'm talking about -though not specifically black of course. I agree with you, and I've already explained my position on this: I do in fact support monetary benefits for child raising couples. But I think that hetero couples are more likely to find themselves in teh situation of the teenage mom, and therefore I'd like to see a policy aimed at that.

Yes I know.

Alright, how nice that your views on it are irrelevant then. And it works perfectly for justifying a policy aimed at hetero couples as I've already explained.

When people want to raise taxes, it becomes personal for me but I don't get emotional about it. We are not discussing people here, we are discussing gay marriage (and related things). If some people cannot understand that, they ought not be engaged in such debates. And no, I really don't care about gay marriage in the sense that it could be outlawed or allowed: I don't care. I do care about the debate though, which is another matter.

 

The framers were quite specifically against a black man as president or allowing women to vote. The founders weren't all that smart. And the constitution provides a very specific justification for same sex marriage, the 14th amendment

Marriage has nothing to do with teenage pregnancy

Actually it doesn't work, that's why it keeps losing in court

Your taxes don't go up because gays can marry

 

Wow- talk about comparing apples to oranges. You're talking about civil rights vs taxes- hardly the same thing, as taxes apply to everyone.

And no, you don't get to tell anyone whether they can be involved in a debate. You want to take the entire human equation out of it. Sorry, you don't get to- that's part of the debate.

 

Yes they probably were, but as far as I know -not being an expert on a foreign constitution- there's an amendment prohibiting the government from discriminating based on race. The 14th amendment guarantess equal rights. That's not necessarily marriage, could be civil unions. Anyways, issues like marriage and abortion are to be left to the states.

I've already explained my position on this many times now. Re-read what you quoted.

I don't think the kind of policy I'm thinking about has been proposed actually.

You're missing the point. I didn't say that. I gave an example of somethin which would affect me personally -raising taxes.

No, it's a valid comparison.

I said 'ought', as an advice to not be engaged in debate if one cannot avoid making everything personal. It's really very simple. We're not talking about you lee, we are talking about gay marriage, just like we are not takling about me when we are talking about taxes. This forum is not for talking about other posters.

 

actually no. marriage is a civil right, and a civil union is separate but equal which was ruled unconstitutional.

I've read it.

then explain your policy in detail, because we all seem to be missing your point.

which is irrelevant to the topic. gays marrying doesn't raise your taxes.

 

It is really no ones business who gets married and who has children. Live and let live. I hate people that think they know what is better for everyone. I think they should live their life and let everyone else live theirs as they see fit for them.

 

Well, at least you admit it and that makes a refreshing change. (rollin' dem eyes)

 

Same sex marriage does not affect you nor does it raise your taxes. It does affect me, so therefore it's personal to me. And again, it is not up to you to say who should or should not be involved in a debate. Indeed, the people an issue affects are the very people who probably should be involved, if anyone.

One more time, raising taxes affects everyone. Same sex marriage only affects same sex couples. You're comparing apples and oranges.

 

Of all the baseless and inane arguments against gay marriage, the most shameful ones are those by people who insist that same sex marriage and adoption of children by gays will be detrimental to those children, and that society as a whole, will somehow be harmed by these arrangements. They take the position that children are entitled to a “mom and a dad” That may be so but the reality is that many people in this life do not have everything that they are entitled to. There are many children without both a mother and a father, and some without either. Banning gay marriage and adoption is not going to change that.

Children also have a right to a stable, nurturing and permanent home and it is well established that that goal can be realized in a variety of family structures. The NJ Department of Families and Children-the public agency charged with the responsibility of finding adoptive homes for children –states, in part, on their web site that no one will be denied the opportunity to adopt based on sexual orientation. In fact, the Department’s Division of Child Protection and Permanency (formerly DYFS) has been placing children for adoption with gay and lesbian people- those who are single and those who are in a relationship- for decades with good outcomes for the children. And there are many, many more who still need homes while there is a dearth of people willing and able to adopt them. I know this because I worked in the foster care and adoption field in New Jersey for 26 years. I might add that children who are placed for adoption are already in a situation where they have neither a mother nor a father available to them. To imply that that a child would better off languishing in the foster care system as a ward of the state, than to be adopted into a nontraditional family is beyond absurd.

Furthermore, the vast majority of child psychologists will tell you that there are far more important factors that impact a child’s development than the gender or sexual orientation of the parents. No doubt that one could dredge up research studies that claim to prove that gay parenting is harmful. However, well established organizations like the American Psychological Association take the position that gay and lesbian parents are just as capable of rearing emotionally healthy children as anyone else. Yet even if family composition was, as some purport, a critical factor in children’s development, the fact is that there are and will always be children in non-traditional living situations where they do not have a mother and a father. Like it or not, it is also a fact that gay and lesbian people have children, be it from a prior relationship, adoption, or surrogacy. Denying gay and lesbians the opportunity to marry does nothing to ensure that any greater number of children will have a home with a mother and a father. All that will be accomplished will be to deny numerous children the legal rights, protections, status and stability that comes with having married parents. And, to deny gays the ability to adopt will only ensure that more children will have neither a mother nor a father.

Everyone is entitled to their moral views and religious beliefs but it is disingenuous and opprobrious to use children as pawns in the lost fight against equality by bloviating about how children would be harmed by it. While single people can be great parents, the benefits to children of allowing two people who are in a committed relationship to be married are obvious for anyone willing to look at the issue objectively. Those who truly care about children should be willing to open all of the possible pathways for them to be adopted and to have married parents when possible.

 

And yet there are socially conservative think-tanks that come out an advocate for exactly that:

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/110616

Don't let logic get in the way of a good narrative.

I don't think that caring for children has anything to do with the real impetus behind what these people say.

 

Oh right...Brian Fischer of the American Family Association which was named a hate group by the SPLC AND the US Army! http://townhall.com/tipsheet/carolp...lassified-as-a-hate-group-by-us-army-n1724500
Real credible!!

So what do you think that the "real Impetus " is?? I realize that there are people like you that just can't be helped. Wouldn't life be easier with out all the hate? I know, you'll deny hating anyone, but might as well save it. Not buying it. I don't think that people like you care at all about the kids but rather are all to willing to use them as pawns

 

I think you completely misread the tenor of my post since I've been advocating for gay rights on this forum since 2005!

 

OOPS Sorry....I got it now!!

 

You use funny words ,me Adult ,please explain Troll ,and I am deliberately writing in this way so as not to confuse you ,What is a Troll ,for older Adults ,its a Mythical beasty.

That mummy ,used to scare children with ,so what is Troll?

 

That's ok you probably don't understand anything scientific as science is hard deep thinking ,not fluffy ,lovey dovey Gay think!

I don't understand how any thinking human can associate Marriage with Love ,for example .Deluded stupidity if you ask me .,Love and marriage ,ROFL!!!!ROFL.[Roll on floor Laughing BIG]

See, only gay think or Anti Scientific \historical Think ,could say that Marriage is associated with LOVE!

 

That would be interesting if you ever presented anything scientific, which you don't.

 

Ahaha ooohh man. You haven't been on the Internet for very long have you? If you don't know what a troll is then that means you're probably totally serious with all your nonsense. lmao

Well here is the definition of an Internet troll since you don't know what one is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

 

Many people, businesses and churches face civil lawsuits as well as criminal charges as a result of recent changes to the laws regarding marriage:

 

Same-sex marriage and religious freedom can work together just fine despite the dichotomy of the Right who realise they have the exemptions and protections they need yet STILL demand more... The "more" being NO EQUAL MARRIAGE and the ability to tell the government how to treat gay people.

The whole "religious freedom" angle is a red-herring. The examples cited so far don't even involve religious freedom, they involve religious people pretending their religion prevents them from doing things it doesn't.

 

Once again, you're talking crap. Any business which claims to serve the public and has a business license may not discriminate according to business law. No church is required to marry anyone they do not want to.

 

Exactly!!