- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Sure they can.
Meanwhile, some hetero marriages can't create families, yet you seem completely unconcerned with them.
This is why I said you are playing the God card, because you throw in the Bible and say that since something in there says something is this way or that way, it must be so.
Yawn.
Contradiction #1
Ah, so ... prolonged indoctrination? :rofl
Something we finally agree on. I agree its wrong.
Infertile couples, interracial marriage and incest: these and other topics this thread is NOT about can all be yours with only one RedHerring.
This is why I said you are playing the God card, because you throw in the Bible and say that since something in there says something is this way or that way, it must be so.
I'll pose it to everyone else - if this is about having children, why do you allow those who can't have children (post-menopausal women, for instance) the right to marry?
They were always seen as a benign exception.
A couple married in order to form a family, but their biology failed.
You now want to expand the exception into the rule, where instead of allowing people who wanted to start a family but couldn't, now you want people who have no intention of forming a family.
Uh, no, people who have no intention of forming a family get married every day.
Last I checked, this was America and having a family or desire to have a family or plans to have a family were not pre-requisite to obtaining a marriage license. The biology argument against same sex couples fails on all fronts.
So consider gays a benign exception too.
That covers infertility, but what about post-menopausal women? We know they can't have children. It's normal, not a failure or an exception. How many older women get married every day, yet you seem completely unconcerned with that?
Uh, no, people who have no intention of forming a family get married every day. Some dont' want to, many cannot (like post-menopausal women). And, as you have been reminded, gay couples can indeed start families through adoption, artifical insemination, or by caring for children they had from previous heterosexual marriages.
Society already routinely accepts the marriage of people who can't have children, and who we know can't have children (post-menopausal women). So saying that marriage is for children is a completely load of bull****. So everyone stop saying that, or else advocate banning marriage for old ladies. You gonna do that again, Jerry?
I'm sorry your personal religious beliefs are not in line with modern science,
but sociologically speaking marriage is about socializing children no matter what culture you look at, anywhere in the globe, at any point in history.
Where gay marriage is about socializing children, I support gay marriage.
The reason "gays" are not a benign exception is due to the fact that not all gays are childless. "Childless couples" are the benign exception whether they are gay or straight only when child raising couples are the rule.
So, I can consider gay childless couples a benign exception when the typical average gay couple is raising children; hence my continued struggle to pry like teeth actual number from you people about gays raising children, and the continued effort to steer you all away from the loosing 'rights' argument.
Hmm...…Stuff and Things…
You're confusing me, probably not purposely, but something's not right ...#1 Your question was "Because you said so?."
Because you asked me I threw in the Bible when you knew what my answer would be?
Then you completly ignore the rest of what I said?
Not very honest.
Yawn.
An ass with jokes.Now you are just acting like an ass. :roll:
So you support allowing gays to marry when they have children or intend to?
And where STRAIGHT marriage is NOT about children, do you oppose it?
So you support gay marriage with kids, and oppose straight marriage without kids. Right?
So if you are divorced or widowed, and you want to marry an older woman who can't have children, that's too damn bad, huh?
You're confusing me, probably not purposely, but something's not right ...
Religion and what something says in the Bible are not practical sources of information when it comes to fighting gay marriage, mainly because the world we live in has so many religions and views.
Also, I yawned first. :rofl
An ass with jokes.
Here's another detail which I'm an example of: Divorced parents with minor children should not marry until the youngest child in the home turns 18. The reason behind it is that the leading cause of divorce among second marriages are fights related to step children v. step parents; especially in the teen years. In Jerry Land your marriage license application would be denied if you had minor children in home no different then if you were trying to marry your 1st cousin.
Not true. It is a fact children with 2 parents do much better than children with one.
And considering the success of the mother and father family set up for many centuries. Your comment is just anecdotal garbage.
Sorry, no cigar.
Are you going to debate or just rant?
one man / one woman .. God's plan .. God's design . . . any deviation is perversion
one man / one woman .. God's plan .. God's design . . . any deviation is perversion
one man / one woman .. God's plan .. God's design . . . any deviation is perversion
This poll is obviously biased. Not the OP, but the fact that people are multi-voting since getting the number of "yes" or "no" votes up is far more important than actually debating.
Interesting.
I'd like to point out that "a sexually molesting dad and an alocoholic mother" do not qualify as a true father or mother in my book.Stick to the point. You said, "No. It's a fact children do better with a mother and a father." and that is a load of junk. Children with a sexually molesting dad and an alocoholic mother are not better off than children of a caring and nurturing single parent or gay couple.
Cigar? You think that you are operating in a superior position or something? :roll:
Stick to the point. You said, "No. It's a fact children do better with a mother and a father." and that is a load of junk. Children with a sexually molesting dad and an alocoholic mother are not better off than children of a caring and nurturing single parent or gay couple. Arguing against that is either ignorant or arrogant, either way doesn't look to well.
If you want ot qualify your statement, then please, go ahead and do so. But such an open and broad statement is simply a joke.
There Is No Scientific Basis for Concluding That Gay and Lesbian Parents Are Any Less Fit or Capable Than Heterosexual Parents, or That Their Children Are Any Less Psychologically Healthy and Well Adjusted.
According to:
- American Psychological Association
- California Psychological Association
- American Psychiatric Association
- National Association of Social Workers
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/...er_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf
So what is that expression again? Oh yeah... Put up or shut up.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?