Why Are You Against Same Sex Marriage?

Or because their family wasn't able to bring them back in yet, or they were not there long enough to be placed permanently but the fact is they ARE in a family a foster family. Homosexual couples can sign a contract now with their attorney nothing stopping them from doing so. The purpose of legal marriage and the sanctioning of that is to encourage and support heterosexual unions in the hope they produce a nuclear family because that heterosexuality is vital to our survival. You have yet to point to any necessary or vital reason we do so for homosexuality's.

 

Because they can still form nuclear families and as we have seen in recent trends more senior couples are divorcing after the children leave the home.

Again to what advantage is it to our species and society to encourage, support and sanction homosexuality? And there are 72,400,000 children under the age of 18 in this country and your entire focus is on 27,000 all of which do not even apply to your point, that is .03%.

Let's agree to find a way to improve the foster system and get those kids into nuclear families if that is concerned we don't have to turn the idea of traditional marriage on hit's head in order to do so.

 

"As usual, the goal for most children was to return home, with 56 percent having a case plan of reunification with their birth parents. Another 3 percent had a plan to leave care to live with relatives and 27 percent had an adoption plan. Sadly, the case goal for 2 percent (9,012) of children was to remain in long-term foster care, and for 4 percent (17,147) of children the goal was to emancipate from care. "
https://www.nacac.org/2019/01/18/fo...ercent,reunification with their birth parents.

 

Forget about "Unions" Marriage etc...The point is that marriage should between two procreating people...These people does natures bidding...how many would want to do with one, if sex wasn't natural between two people of different gender...When a man smells a woman, the harmone's develop into to sexual intercourse.... which is natural between a male and a female...Two guys dont have that fee

 

I wasn't claiming that you were purposefully misleading or anything. I just know that there is a proportion of the foster care system where the kids are not eligible to be adopted. So I wasn't sure whether the number you cited was the whole of the foster care system, or only that portion who were adoptable but still aged out.

 

Oh I didn’t think you were claiming that, you are a sensible poster — I was just proving my references.

The sources I found don’t cover that.
What kids are not eligible for adoption — I’ve never heard that before.

 

The social norm, even in the early days of the US, was arranged marriages, and based upon business not love. The "nuclear family" is a recent development that doesn't actually guarantee any advantage to the raising of children. Societal norm was to either foster children to other families and take on fosters, or to send children off to apprentice.

Marriage is not in any way necessary to the survival of our species. That is simple biological fact. Not a single species on this planet requires marriage to maintain the species, not even the ones that instinctually mate for life. And even among them, there are those who form same sex lifetime mattings. You are welcome to try to show otherwise on either of these two point.

 

To what benefit to our species and its survival is it to discourage and oppose and prohibit homosexuality? Especially since the actions in and of themselves cause no harm to any not participating, nor does it occur in any significant numbers as to adversely affect population numbers. And before you try any BS line of declining population, first you have to show that homosexual partnering exceeds heterosexual partnering that results in no children.

 

Playing Devil's Advocate here: What does adopting children have to do with marriage, especially since many agencies will allow for single parent adoption, and then still others will deny adoption to couples who have medical issues such as diabetes, as my wife well knows?

 

There are no actual numbers available for how many families wish to adopt children, but estimates place them at 1 to 2 million. However, those estimates would end up including same sex couples as well as poly families among the heterosexual couples. And yet the systems are such that a large number of these children are never adopted out, looking only at those who are available to be adopted.

 

You have yet to show how either of these things are VITAL and NECESSARY to our survival. I have already shown where they are not.

You are running off a false premise.

Nuclear family is not limited to what is your limited vision of it. Furthermore, as noted prior, nuclear family was not always the norm. Conjugal and consanguineal families were also very common, both in the first part of this country and across time and cultures.

 

I'm not so much against "same sex marriage" as just I think it is a made up term for a civil union i.e. I don't acknowledge that there is any such thing except in the minds of liberals backed up by a liberal court,, of course. And there in no such thing as "transgender" .. it's is and always will be best described as cross dressing... BECAUSE you can't change a person's DNA to another gender... as the libs love to say.. follow the science.

 

Most adoption agencies are more willing to work with couples just due to increased financial and envious stability. Marriage — either same sex or opposite sex — has been shown through many studies to provide better outcomes for children in those households.

Not to mention married couples are much more likely to adopt than single parent homes.

I know “children” are just an easy excuse for people against same sex marriage even though they ignore it for heterosexual marriages but even that doesn’t seem to hold much weight when looking through the data.

 

Based upon what? What difference does marriage make to procreation? Animals do it all the time without marriage. Marriage is purely a human construct.

This part seem rather rushed and incomplete, making little sense overall. But addressing the point of nature's bidding, given that we have documented cases of animals in nature engaging in same sex mating and homosexual behavior outside of dominance behaviors, it seems to me that nature's bidding is rather diverse. There are plenty of examples of rare natural occurrences, many of which people seem to repeatedly share on Facebook. Frequency of something, or lack thereof, is not an indicator of whether or not it is "nature's bidding", your anthropomorphizing aside.

 

Bluesguy covered that in 1903. There is a portion of children in foster care where they are not eligible for adoption because parental rights have not been given up or taken away, or reunification is still a possibility or at least a hope. And many kids age out before they are ever reunited with their families. Even with kids who were taken out of abusive homes, parental rights are not always removed, meaning that unless the legal parent agrees, the child can't be adopted.

 

Technically speaking, any government recognized joining is a civil union, whether heterosexual or homosexual, same sex or opposite sex. And I note such distinction because there is no legal requirement for sex in a legal marriage, thus two people of the same sex can get legally married purely for the legal benefits. So they can be two heterosexual women who agree to bed whatever men they wish while enjoying the legal benefits of legal marriage.

Your acknowledgement is irrelevant to the simple fact that marriage has held several forms across time and culture. Same sex, polygamy, ghost marriages, incest marriages....all have been a part of the history of marriage. Simple fact. Your acknowledgement is not required for such.

Off topic. Take your strawman off to the appropriate threads.

 

I don't disagree with the later part, but I do with the first part. Especially since the estimates are that people who want to adopt outnumber foster system children, even before weeding out the children who can not be adopted.

Probably not as much as you might think.

Read the whole article. It explains why the numbers of single parents adopting dropped.

 

IMHO

 

If pleases the homosexual couple. What more do you need? It isn't like we are suffering a human extinction crisis. We have plenty of humans.

Why not just live and let live?

 

What does this mean, in what context? who are you replying to? What point are you replying to?

 

Should we encourage, support and legally sanction every thing that pleases everybody?

 

You need a reason why their inclusion is harmful to discriminate against specific groups. Something you have been unable to do thus far

 

Calling them "marriage" excludes same sex partnerships from the same legal status.. why not call them .. uh ... civil unions? Marriage has and always will have a religious connotation and no major religion recognizes a homosexual union.

 

well, no. Marriage has meant many different things throughout human history. Religious people don't own it. Currently, in the US, it is simply creating a legal kinship where none existed prior. The gender of the couple is completely irrelevant. A same sex marriage is identical to an opposite sex marriage.

 

Encourage? Naw. Allow? Yes. Who are we to tell them they can't get married?

Gay marriage doesn't mean they want you to get gay married.