Opposing view points on sexuality.

Heterosexual couples have a strong, natural tendency to produce children. Homosexual couples have no such tendency.

And the result, almost half the children are born to single mothers, 9 times more likely to be in poverty than children born to their married mother and father.

What does any of that have to do with your insistence on "gay" marriage? So many more "families" made up of two closely related adults with children than there are "families" made up of a gay couple. The preference for mothers and fathers providing and caring for their children together, IS NOT because they are heterosexual and it is instead because they are the only two people in the world, morally and legally obligated to care for that child. Its a preference for biological parents, not heterosexual parents. Insisting that the law give homosexual parents the same preference given to biological parents is absurd while excluding by law from marriage two closely related adults who form so many more alternate families than gay couples. Reveals your true intent to promote homosexuality and demonstrates the hypocrisy of your concern for "families".

 

So if I'm interpreting your post correctly, you are of the belief that marriage is only about procreation? I can understand that if you were only looking at the tax credits one gets for children when you file taxes, but the other rights ascribed to marriage have little or nothing to do with promoting procreation.

 

honestly, I don't want marriage to be happy, I am already happy. I don't want marriage to be accepted, nobody that doesn't accept me now will accept me in the future. I want it so that my spouse and I can get the benefits.

It isn't about sex either.

- - - Updated - - -

I would agree. Not sure why the government involved itself.

- - - Updated - - -

I am still not going to troll with you.

 

Given that procreation occurs as readily outside of a marriage contract as within it, and given that couples procreating is in no way a requirement of marriage, it's difficult to understand why those who cling to gender discrimination in marriage focus upon such an irrelevancy.

If one were to put the welfare of children foremost, one would prohibit poor people marrying since poverty is such a major contributory factor to poor academic performance, low earning power, criminal behaviour, etc., but speculative progeny has nothing whatsoever to do with the licensing of marriage contracts.

 

Traditional marriage is about improving the wellbeing of children that result from procreation. This new "gay marriage", where gender and procreation are declared to be irrelevant, the courts claim its about fostering the formation of stable homes. Being gay, has no relevance to the need or benefit of a stable home.

??? Its not about promoting procreation. Its about promoting the man and woman who brought about the procreation, providing and caring for the product of that procreation together in a nuclear family. Marriage inhibits procreation. Not too many decades ago, it was against the law for a man to engage in sexual relations with a woman that was not his wife. States didn't make it against the law to have heterosexual relations without being married, to encourage procreation. Precisely the opposite, to stop it from occurring.

Men and women are going to engage in sexual relations and procreation is going to occur, regardless of marriage. Look at the black population in the US, Lower marriage rates than whites, and yet they have a HIGHER birth rate. Marriage inhibits procreation and does not promote it. A father of a sexually active 18 yr old daughter doesn't hope she picks one guy to marry, to promote procreation. He does so because procreation is likely to occur, whether she is married or not.

 

We're not going to have a conversation if you insist on asking insolently stupid questions.

 

Yeah, until the courts declared that first one unconstitutional. The definition of marriage that had been in place for thousands of years, declared to be unconstitutional.

 

So you're just talking in circles now. Your post is just a projection of your prejudices. Seriously, you're trying to put the cart before the horse. It makes no sense. Are you implying that marriage should be used as a social engineering tool?

 

Actually that is not true. The definition of marriage throughout time has generally involved more than one wife. Polygamy is far more common from an historical perspective.

 

I find it funny that those adamantly opposing gay marriage give reasoning that sounds almost reminiscent of the twisted logic used by state run authoritarian regimes. They want a cookie-cutter mentality forced on everyone.

I still have yet to hear a plain reason for opposing gay marriage that doesn't involve children. Maybe we should only give marriage licenses to people with kids already?

 

There is no reason to accept homosexuality. It has not been proven to be anything other than a perverted behavior. Glad I could clear that up for ya....you're welcome.

 

You mean like you are demonstrating here? Why should I accept your inane juvenile myopic view to rob other people of their pursuit of happiness? All you have proven is the power of a thread like this to attract asinine idiots to vent their phobias.

 

Wow, insults and name calling instead of a post of substance....how predictable. Thanks for demonstrating the point I so eloquently made earlier.

 

Please don't pay attention to the trolls.

 

I wasn't exactly like the other boys. Butthan again I am only looking back on it from the place that I am now. I felt different, after coming out, and seeing shock on most people's faces, I think that was just how I saw myself.

As a little boy, seven or so, I found myself having crushed on men and other boys, other boys did that with girls.

 

If it were impossible why would you have a problem with the "bans" being lifted? Why would you have a problem with a gay couple(*)obtaining a marriage license? If it's impossible why are you against it?

 

Hahaha! You have to label me so you can dismiss the fact you cannot defeat my logic. Classic dodging.

 

Thanks...Do you have any physical anomalies? We should rule out (or in) any obvious genetic biases, for instance, hormones can significantly affect sexuality and even physical appearance. I am thinking that genetic male/female biases can be controlled by hormonal flow. BTW...Thank you. Your candor is appreciated.

I am thinking that sexuality is a logarithmic scale ranging from uber-female to uber-male. I believe that (I say 'believe' because I have no actual proof, this is just a hypothesis) there is a collective consciousness controlled by no one individual that includes all the ways in which human beings communicate.

Media, local neighborhood or community, extended family, close family, acquaintances, close friends, intimate friends, etc. These are all opportunities for communication from more cerebral (news, media) to eye contact, talking to other private individuals, hanging with friends, (eyes, touch, smell).

OK now....Depending on external threats (non-human environmental) to the well-being and the continuance of the human species, it may well be advantageous to shift hormonal flow toward non-replicating couples. This may not mean that homosexuality is ever going to represent the vast majority but it is a minor but influential force.

 

Don't forget to take your ball away and stick out your tongue.

 

Nah, why would I stoop to their level?

 

You already went below their level with your first post. What you assert has never been proven. In fact it has been observed in over 1200 different spieces of animals. Calling it perverted is your opinion and is also not a fact.

 

I don't really quite understand this response.(*)I don't know what you are trying to
"rule out." I don't understand what you mean when you say you think sexuality is logarithmic.

You seem like you have some interest in discussing with me some things, but I am having difficulty following you. No offense intended, it just seems like you have put more information in that post than out can handle. Let's go one at a time.

 

That would be a much more appropriate question to a homophobe, because, apparently, ALL of them "chose" to be straight. In fact, it was, apparently, a really difficult thing for most of them to do, as they seem to believe all our kids will become gay and they'll all leave their wives if we allow what they seem to see as the pure unadulterated bliss of gay marriage, so enjoyable it MUST be SIN, to be openly practiced.

 

Please pay no attention to trolls.

I don't speak to him because I want an open dialogue here in this thread. Focusing myself against declarative statements isn't dialogue.

I frankly want people that disagree with me to post here, but I want a conversation. There are a million other threads that contain the "i am right you are wrong" diatribe. Let's make this one the exception.

I would happily address any discussion on this subject. But often times some people only wish to stir the pot as it were.