Today is a sad day in American history

[anygunanywhere]

Yes. It means you can't think of something to show where it has an impact on your marriage.
Unless you want to go down the nice collectiveist route of course. Sorry but that doesn't work for me.

Actually, saying that homosexual marriage does not affect those in the normal definition of marriage and even society as a whole is conforming to the collectivist route. Homosexual marriage falls in line with the collectivist reasoning that morality, and right and wrong are objective and that there really is no wrong as long as what people do does not affect someone else.

You can continue to assert your contention that since no one can (more likely will since it involves sin) state ways in which their marriage is affected by homosexual marriage if you want to have some moral high ground. Tell us ways in which it doesn't. Convince us. Convince us that this is an appropriate way to raise children. Convince us that this is the way God intended for us to live.

Anygunanywhere

[mamabearCali]

There is an impact. It is slow,creeping, and hard to see but certain. As the definitions of marriage become more and more watered down by easy divorce, gay marriage, plural marriages (to come next) the protections that have long surrounded the products of marriage (children) erode as well. Right now it is understood that children are entrusted to their parents care by default. Parents are understood to have by default their children's best interests at heart. That is how it is here. In other countries more and more children are thought of as property of the state. In Scotland they were recently debating a bill that would assign every child a social worker at birth to see to it that the interests of the state were protected in the children's upbringing.

We have seen this in our own country. As the family has broken down more and more, the state schools have take on more and more of the upbringing. Comprehensive sex Ed done by a cold impersonal state has been successful only at making more unwed moms. When parents don't do their job at teaching kids right from wrong the state steps in and we get stupid no tolerance nonsense.

The family is the central unit of society. Divorce has already taken a terrible toll on it. Gay marriage will water down the legal definitions of mother and father and leave children with less protection from the state.

Can we stop it. I doubt it. Is it terrible. Yes.

[cb1000rider]

I'm actually serious when I say that I dont understand why homosexuals would want to live in a conservative state when the whole west coast is ready to welcome them with open arms . Each state has a different social environment , Texas is a conservative state so why try to change it . Does not make sense .

Couldn't you ask that same question about Texas in regard to African Americans about 30 years ago? Should we have kept things the way they were?

In regard to Texas being a conservative state, it is. Head over to Austin - you know, the capital of Texas. It might open your eyes.

Things evolve.

In a more serious response to your question, lots of homosexuals seek like minded people in communities, cities, and I'm sure states.. However, they've got to make a living and you can't always pick and choose the best geography and social conditions for your career/job/etc.

[RoyGBiv]

I think the gay community made a serious error not referring to a homosexual union as something other than "marriage". Religiously, "marriage" IS between a man and a woman. (I am very surprised to see how many religious organizations bless homosexual marriages, but again, they are at Liberty to do so.) Using the term "marriage" is just asking for that unsolvable conflict to be brought to the forefront. That would not have been my strategy. "Civil Union", whatever... would be an infinitely better choice if what you're after is for your union to be recognized within secular law, IMO.

Gay activists have been quite clear that their goal is not marriage. They could care less about marriage, and their idea of marriage is an "open" relationship where sex with other parties is perfectly acceptable. Their real goal is to destroy the institution of marriage entirely. To devalue it to the point that it disappears from society entirely.

Furthermore, approving of gay marriage fundamentally changes the the purpose of marriage from child rearing to sexual satisfaction. Now that that goal has been accomplished, marriage is already on the road to extinction. If you don't think that affects you and your children, you're crazy or blind. If you don't think that affects society as a whole, then you're even more crazy or more blind.

I won't provide the cites because those who disagree won't bother to read them, and those who are aware of this already don't need to see them. If you are sincerely open minded, then use Google and prepare to be shocked.

- Plenty of hetero couples are having three or more-party sex. Do we revoke their marital contract? How about adulterers?
- How about hetero couples that have no intention of having children? I have several friends in such relationships (25+ years each)
- I'd certainly read your best 1 or 2 citations supporting your broad generalizations...
- I frequently use "bad examples" to teach my kids. It's a GREAT learning tool. For example, we have a close friend.. their child (in their 20's) had a baby out of wedlock. It was an EXCELLENT opportunity for my kids to experience the consequences without having to live the experience. Then this kid had another child out of wedlock with a different father. My kids were ahead of me in condemning the irresponsible behavior. I made my kids watch the TV show "Cops" for similar reasons. A bad example is sometimes a better example, better still when it doesn't involve you directly. I'm not afraid of what effect gay activism has on my kids... I'm a better parent than that. That said..... Do you think homosexuality is a choice? I could certainly argue that social acceptance leads to more experimentation, certainly..... but.. fundamentally.... and not including people you read about in the tabloids..... do people choose homosexuality? And if you think it's possibly not a choice, why exclude homosexual partners from the protection of secular law?
- If we deny secular domestic partnership law to homosexuals, who's next?...... Interfaith? interracial? May/December couples (or maybe only May/December couples where the woman is unable to bear children?

[TxA]

Thats vague nonsense insufficient to support against the inalienable rights of individuals to do what they want in a free society. If thats your standard, just about everything in life violates it, and I'd bet good money you'd not like where that chain goes. If everything impacts the village, then the village can control everything.

No, the village cannot control everything and that's what we've been arguing. But it's interesting that you might bring up inalienable rights of individuals. Where do these inalienable rights come from? Do these spring from nature?

[TxA]

HOWEVER, when two consenting adults of any stripe decide to commit to a relationship, they should have the Liberty to do so, within the confines of secular law (in this case the age of the parties).

So you would have no problem with incest and would argue to repeal the prohibitions against it?

[RoyGBiv]

Thats vague nonsense insufficient to support against the inalienable rights of individuals to do what they want in a free society. If thats your standard, just about everything in life violates it, and I'd bet good money you'd not like where that chain goes. If everything impacts the village, then the village can control everything.

No, the village cannot control everything and that's what we've been arguing. But it's interesting that you might bring up inalienable rights of individuals. Where do these inalienable rights come from? Do these spring from nature?

Whose God is THE God?
Are we planning to deny marriage to Native Americans, Buddhists, Pagans, Ethical Culturists and Atheists?
If you can't win a debate about secular law without invoking God, you've not won. IMO

Please understand.... I would never suggest that gay marriage be forced on any religion.
Thankfully, we live in a secular society. How do the two coexist?

[RoyGBiv]

HOWEVER, when two consenting adults of any stripe decide to commit to a relationship, they should have the Liberty to do so, within the confines of secular law (in this case the age of the parties).

So you would have no problem with incest and would argue to repeal the prohibitions against it?

Incest increases the risks of genetically compromised offspring. No, I would not be a proponent of close relatives marrying and having children.
But it happens... yes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Cedar Park Dad]

It wasn't to very long ago that Homosexuality was considered a mental illness, now it is mainstream?

It was added to the DSM-I as personality disorder (sociopathic) the 50s and removed from the DSM-II 1973. The DSM-V was just released in 2013.

Personally, I'm happy to see how far medicine and psychology has come in 50 years, aren't you?

They are a minority for a reason, they cannot reproduce.

That statement indicates that it's a genetic defect and can be passed through DNA. Sure you don't want to argue that it's a choice? Alternately, if it is genetic, you're advocating unequal treatment due to the way a person was born. And yes, that strongly compares to racial issues. It's not very fair is it?

It's really too bad that straight couples keep having gay kids! Maybe we should make it illegal for people with the gay gene to reproduce. That might solve the problem!

Additionally following this logic means only people bearing children should be able to be married. Infertile couples or gasp, older couples should not allowed to be married.

[TxA]

If you can't win a debate about secular law without invoking God, you've not won.

I didn't invoke god, just asked the question. Because the argument against same-sex marriage is based on the nature of human persons as gendered beings who have a purpose that is derived from that nature.

[Cedar Park Dad]

Yes. It means you can't think of something to show where it has an impact on your marriage.
Unless you want to go down the nice collectiveist route of course. Sorry but that doesn't work for me.

Actually, saying that homosexual marriage does not affect those in the normal definition of marriage and even society as a whole is conforming to the collectivist route. Homosexual marriage falls in line with the collectivist reasoning that morality, and right and wrong are objective and that there really is no wrong as long as what people do does not affect someone else.

You can continue to assert your contention that since no one can (more likely will since it involves sin) state ways in which their marriage is affected by homosexual marriage if you want to have some moral high ground. Tell us ways in which it doesn't. Convince us. Convince us that this is an appropriate way to raise children. Convince us that this is the way God intended for us to live.

Anygunanywhere

I don't have to. There is nothing in the US Constitution that says I have to convince others that I have a right to marry.

[anygunanywhere]

Yes. It means you can't think of something to show where it has an impact on your marriage.
Unless you want to go down the nice collectiveist route of course. Sorry but that doesn't work for me.

Actually, saying that homosexual marriage does not affect those in the normal definition of marriage and even society as a whole is conforming to the collectivist route. Homosexual marriage falls in line with the collectivist reasoning that morality, and right and wrong are objective and that there really is no wrong as long as what people do does not affect someone else.

You can continue to assert your contention that since no one can (more likely will since it involves sin) state ways in which their marriage is affected by homosexual marriage if you want to have some moral high ground. Tell us ways in which it doesn't. Convince us. Convince us that this is an appropriate way to raise children. Convince us that this is the way God intended for us to live.

Anygunanywhere

I don't have to. There is nothing in the US Constitution that says I have to convince others that I have a right to marry.

You want others to post reasons supporting their statements but you don't have to? You have insisted at least three times. Also, my post had absolutely nothing to do with the constitutionality of your marriage.

Anygunanywhere

[cb1000rider]

Gay activists have been quite clear that their goal is not marriage. They could care less about marriage, and their idea of marriage is an "open" relationship where sex with other parties is perfectly acceptable. Their real goal is to destroy the institution of marriage entirely. To devalue it to the point that it disappears from society entirely.

Let me get this straight: You believe that the gay agenda is really to destroy marriage as an institution? And you believe this because of gay activists?
Would you humor me with a reference to one of these activists? I'm curious if you actually believe that? I do believe that you can find a reference to any one nut-job regardless of political persuasion, but believing that this person speaks collectively for a group is pretty far out there.

I can't speak for these particular gay activists that will be referenced shortly, but I can tell you that none of the gay people that I know couldn't care at all about destroying marriage. They just want to be treated equally... Saying that they are out to destroy marriage is just political fear mongering and grand-standing. I guess it works with uneducated and weak minded people. It would certainly make me angry and motivate me if I believed it were true.

Furthermore, approving of gay marriage fundamentally changes the the purpose of marriage from child rearing to sexual satisfaction.

No one told me when I got married that I was required to have children. What if I married an infertile woman? The government really needs to make that more clear.

[RoyGBiv]

But it's interesting that you might bring up inalienable rights of individuals. Where do these inalienable rights come from? Do these spring from nature?

If you can't win a debate about secular law without invoking God, you've not won.

I didn't invoke god, just asked the question. Because the argument against same-sex marriage is based on the nature of human persons as gendered beings who have a purpose that is derived from that nature.

If you were not making a reference to natural rights coming from God, then I retract my comment... my misunderstanding.

However.... even "natural law" is not what's in question here...

Secular law includes a contract between two individuals that we commonly refer to as "marriage". In this discussion, I've tried to separate the religious definition of "marriage" from the secular, by terming the secular "civil union" or "domestic partnership". The fact is that when WifeGBiv and I got married we signed two documents. The first one was a civil document... a marriage contract. The second was religious in nature and the signatures were perfunctory. It was our oath that made our marriage binding from a religious perspective.

Homosexual unions should be subject to the same civil, secular law as hetero unions. As has been pointed out, hetero unions frequently have failings.... none of which cause them to lose the protections of civil law.

[baldeagle]

- Plenty of hetero couples are having three or more-party sex. Do we revoke their marital contract? How about adulterers?

The everybody does it argument is a poor response to why is this bad? Everybody doing it is also bad but irrelevant to the discussion.

EDITED TO ADD: To address your question directly, IMNSHO yes, we SHOULD revoke martial contracts of adulterers or couples engaging in sex with partners other than their spouse. Our country would be a much better place if we did that. As it is now, there are no consequences at all for bad behavior - which leads me right back to the pig sty aphorism.

- How about hetero couples that have no intention of having children? I have several friends in such relationships (25+ years each)

That's a personal choice that has nothing to do with the institution of marriage. As an institution, marriage's purpose WAS to have and raise children that would become responsible citizens so that society can survive. Now marriage is about having sex, which is a personal pleasure that does nothing to contribute to society.

- I'd certainly read your best 1 or 2 citations supporting your broad generalizations...

{{{sigh}}} I'll give you one, but it won't matter. http://www.catholicvote.org/gay-marriag ... not-exist/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If anyone sincerely wants to learn about the real issue behind gay marriage, read this academic paper.

- I frequently use "bad examples" to teach my kids. It's a GREAT learning tool. For example, we have a close friend.. their child (in their 20's) had a baby out of wedlock. It was an EXCELLENT opportunity for my kids to experience the consequences without having to live the experience. Then this kid had another child out of wedlock with a different father. My kids were ahead of me in condemning the irresponsible behavior. I made my kids watch the TV show "Cops" for similar reasons. A bad example is sometimes a better example, better still when it doesn't involve you directly. I'm not afraid of what effect gay activism has on my kids... I'm a better parent than that. That said..... Do you think homosexuality is a choice? I could certainly argue that social acceptance leads to more experimentation, certainly..... but.. fundamentally.... and not including people you read about in the tabloids..... do people choose homosexuality? And if you think it's possibly not a choice, why exclude homosexual partners from the protection of secular law?

One bad example doesn't destroy society. Many bad examples have an effect. When bad examples are codified in law as good and lawful behavior, society is destroyed - gradually - but destroyed nonetheless. See the Romans.

- If we deny secular domestic partnership law to homosexuals, who's next?...... Interfaith? interracial? May/December couples (or maybe only May/December couples where the woman is unable to bear children?

All the examples you give do not change the purpose of marriage. Homosexual marriage does. This is a much bigger issue than whether or not Adam or Steve can live happily ever after. No one with any ethics would care one way or the other. I have a homosexual couple living on my cul-de-sac. I could care less what they do in the privacy of their own home. But when they want to change a fundamental tenet of civilized society (that the purpose of marriage is to procreate and raise children who become responsible adult citizens) then I will oppose them. It has nothing to do with their behavior, and I have no problem with them getting favorable tax treatment under law just as married couples do.