New York Appeals Court Won't Allow Gay Marriage

[26 X World Champs]

Being African American means you are born into a race........You can't change that.............I don't believe your born gay but even if you are thousands have changed their sexual Orientation........Ann Heche come to mind off the top who was a lesbian living in a lesbian relationship and she gave it all up and now is happily married to a man with children......

As I just wrote...."some of my best friends are..." Michael Jackson used to be Black...Why is that you cannot understand that you're not allowing someone the same rights you enjoy and expect? How hard is that to get?

What about discrimination against someone for their religious preference? Lots of Americans are prejudiced against Muslims simply because they're Muslim. Is it OK to discriminate against someone for their religion? Afterall they choose their religion and to quote you with a twist "thousands have changed their religion and are now happily practicing their new religion."

2+2=4 with each two being individual American couples....

 

[Stace]

Being African American means you are born into a race........You can't change that.............I don't believe your born gay but even if you are thousands have changed their sexual Orientation........Ann Heche come to mind off the top who was a lesbian living in a lesbian relationship and she gave it all up and now is happily married to a man with children......

And Michael Jackson sure isn't black anymore, so yes, you CAN change your skin color.

You can't really say that anyone who lived a gay lifestyle before and is now in a hetero relationship "changed". For all you know, they could still be gay, but have just succumbed to the pressures gay bashers put on them - I'd hardly call that happy. Or maybe they weren't really gay to begin with - there sure are plenty of gay people out there that pretend to be straight just to conform with social expectations.

And with all of the medical and scientific evidence coming out these days, I really don't see how you can deny that people are born either gay or straight.

 

[Alex]

Being African American means you are born into a race........You can't change that.............I don't believe your born gay but even if you are thousands have changed their sexual Orientation........Ann Heche come to mind off the top who was a lesbian living in a lesbian relationship and she gave it all up and now is happily married to a man with children......

You have no evidence to suggest that being gay isn't something people are born into. What makes you such an expert on it?

Thousands have NOT changed their sexual orientation. They are only brainwashed into believing that they have. Exodus, a camp that claims it can turn gays into straights, is one such misleading institution. Camps like this drill you with reparative therapy. That means "During counselling much stress is placed upon the perceived risks, health and otherwise, of same-sex attraction." They even use fasting as a means to do it.

Also, "techniques used in the past have included controversial therapies such as electroconvulsive therapy and aversion therapy (such as showing subjects homoerotic material whilst inducing nausea and vomiting through drugs).

They convince the person that their "gay desires mask an underlying issue, like abuse and neglect from early development."

"There is no solid evidence that it works, and many psychologists believe it may be harmful, particularly to young people. The American Psychiatric Association's official position statement on the issue states "In the last four decades, "reparative" therapists have not produced any rigorous scientific research to substantiate their claims of cure."

Many people that Exodus has claimed to "cure" have fallen back to homosexuality. "...Michael Bussee (one of the five co-founding members who had helped organize the 1976 conference that led to Exodus' inception) left the group to be with Gary Cooper, a volunteer at the local Exodus ministry where they both worked, who was also volunteering for the first Exodus conference."

John Paulk was used as a promotional face for the program and was a member of Focus on the Family. He also admits to being gay now.

"Exodus claims to helped "hundreds of thousands" of ex-gay men and lesbians, however the claim hasn't been certified by an independent audit. To date, Exodus has also declined to release any information on what the estimate is based upon, or how the program success rate is measured."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_%28organization%29

Gays turning straight? What a joke.

 

[Navy Pride]

As I just wrote...."some of my best friends are..." Michael Jackson used to be Black...Why is that you cannot understand that you're not allowing someone the same rights you enjoy and expect? How hard is that to get?

What about discrimination against someone for their religious preference? Lots of Americans are prejudiced against Muslims simply because they're Muslim. Is it OK to discriminate against someone for their religion? Afterall they choose their religion and to quote you with a twist "thousands have changed their religion and are now happily practicing their new religion."

2+2=4 with each two being individual American couples....

Mihale Jackson is blac and everyone in the world knows it but you....

The rest of your post I have no clue..........

 

[Navy Pride]

You have no evidence to suggest that being gay isn't something people are born into. What makes you such an expert on it?

Thousands have NOT changed their sexual orientation. They are only brainwashed into believing that they have. Exodus, a camp that claims it can turn gays into straights, is one such misleading institution. Camps like this drill you with reparative therapy. That means "During counselling much stress is placed upon the perceived risks, health and otherwise, of same-sex attraction." They even use fasting as a means to do it.

Also, "techniques used in the past have included controversial therapies such as electroconvulsive therapy and aversion therapy (such as showing subjects homoerotic material whilst inducing nausea and vomiting through drugs).

They convince the person that their "gay desires mask an underlying issue, like abuse and neglect from early development."

"There is no solid evidence that it works, and many psychologists believe it may be harmful, particularly to young people. The American Psychiatric Association's official position statement on the issue states "In the last four decades, "reparative" therapists have not produced any rigorous scientific research to substantiate their claims of cure."

Many people that Exodus has claimed to "cure" have fallen back to homosexuality. "...Michael Bussee (one of the five co-founding members who had helped organize the 1976 conference that led to Exodus' inception) left the group to be with Gary Cooper, a volunteer at the local Exodus ministry where they both worked, who was also volunteering for the first Exodus conference."

John Paulk was used as a promotional face for the program and was a member of Focus on the Family. He also admits to being gay now.

"Exodus claims to helped "hundreds of thousands" of ex-gay men and lesbians, however the claim hasn't been certified by an independent audit. To date, Exodus has also declined to release any information on what the estimate is based upon, or how the program success rate is measured."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_%28organization%29

Gays turning straight? What a joke.

I am not and expert..........Neither are you.........Your a liberal you believe there born that way.....I am a conservative I don't........No one knows for sure though.............As far as changing I have 2 words for you, Ann Heche.......

 

[26 X World Champs]

Mihale Jackson is blac and everyone in the world knows it but you....

The rest of your post I have no clue..........

So you're saying that you're clueless when it comes to this subject?

 

[Navy Pride]

You have no evidence to suggest that being gay isn't something people are born into. What makes you such an expert on it?

Thousands have NOT changed their sexual orientation. They are only brainwashed into believing that they have. Exodus, a camp that claims it can turn gays into straights, is one such misleading institution. Camps like this drill you with reparative therapy. That means "During counselling much stress is placed upon the perceived risks, health and otherwise, of same-sex attraction." They even use fasting as a means to do it.

Also, "techniques used in the past have included controversial therapies such as electroconvulsive therapy and aversion therapy (such as showing subjects homoerotic material whilst inducing nausea and vomiting through drugs).

They convince the person that their "gay desires mask an underlying issue, like abuse and neglect from early development."

"There is no solid evidence that it works, and many psychologists believe it may be harmful, particularly to young people. The American Psychiatric Association's official position statement on the issue states "In the last four decades, "reparative" therapists have not produced any rigorous scientific research to substantiate their claims of cure."

Many people that Exodus has claimed to "cure" have fallen back to homosexuality. "...Michael Bussee (one of the five co-founding members who had helped organize the 1976 conference that led to Exodus' inception) left the group to be with Gary Cooper, a volunteer at the local Exodus ministry where they both worked, who was also volunteering for the first Exodus conference."

John Paulk was used as a promotional face for the program and was a member of Focus on the Family. He also admits to being gay now.

"Exodus claims to helped "hundreds of thousands" of ex-gay men and lesbians, however the claim hasn't been certified by an independent audit. To date, Exodus has also declined to release any information on what the estimate is based upon, or how the program success rate is measured."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_%28organization%29

Gays turning straight? What a joke.

Please stop citing that stupid link........There are as many lies there as there are on moveon.org...........

Ann Heche has won and Academy Award.........

Like I told stace............Your a bleeding heart liberal, you say there born that way........I am a Conservative.....I say they are not..........No one knows for sure but one thing that can not be denied many have changed..........

 

[Navy Pride]

So you're saying that you're clueless when it comes to this subject?

as far as gays being born that way, I don't know and am clueless just like you

 

[Alex]

I am not and expert..........Neither are you.........Your a liberal you believe there born that way.....I am a conservative I don't........No one knows for sure though.............As far as changing I have 2 words for you, Ann Heche.......

Being gay does give me first-hand knowledge of being gay. Much more than straight people, including you.

You do not know for sure that Ann Heche was a lesbian. She could have been a struggling actress who took advantage of the situation.

A person cannot honestly change their sexuality. It is something inside you. All I remember from a very young age (as far back as 9 years old) is being drawn to men.

 

[Alex]

Please stop citing that stupid link........There are as many lies there as there are on moveon.org...........

Ann Heche has won and Academy Award.........

Like I told stace............Your a bleeding heart liberal, you say there born that way........I am a Conservative.....I say they are not..........No one knows for sure but one thing that can not be denied many have changed..........

This is your response? I present solid evidence to support my claim and you come back with this?

Show me some evidence that suggests gays have turn straight and stayed that way.

If places like Exodus do in fact work as they say they do, then why not present that evidence to the public?

Get real.

 

[26 X World Champs]

I am not and expert..........Neither are you.........Your a liberal you believe there born that way.....I am a conservative I don't........No one knows for sure though.............As far as changing I have 2 words for you, Ann Heche.......

You're one helluva debater! I think it is utterly wrong to think that it's in dispute that someone has the choice to be Gay or not.

The only rebuttal you can come up with is Ann Heche?????

Try this instead Navy?

http://www.borngayprocon.org/pop/conflicts.htm

Note that on the "Born Gay" side the people cited are scientists and from highly respected institutions. Then note that the people on the "Gay by Choice" side are from crazy organizations like the Family Research Council or are individual opinions. The "Born Gay" side are from non-partisan scientific studies.

BTW - Neither side used the "I have two words for you" argument because even the people who believe that Homosexuality is a choice would not resort to such an inane and ridiculous tactic.

 

[Alex]

Please stop citing that stupid link........There are as many lies there as there are on moveon.org...........

Ann Heche has won and Academy Award.........

Like I told stace............Your a bleeding heart liberal, you say there born that way........I am a Conservative.....I say they are not..........No one knows for sure but one thing that can not be denied many have changed..........

How about this from the American Psychiatric Association?

"Recent publicized efforts to repathologize homosexuality by claiming that it can be cured are often guided not by rigorous scientific or psychiatric research, but sometimes by religious and political forces opposed to full civil rights for gay men and lesbians"

Or this?

"Psychotherapeutic modalities to convert or "repair" homosexuality are based on developmental theories whose scientific validity is questionable. Furthermore, anecdotal reports of "cures" are counterbalanced by anecdotal claims of psychological harm. In the last four decades, "reparative" therapists have not produced any rigorous scientific research to substantiate their claims of cure."

Or this?

""Reparative" therapy literature also tends to overstate the treatment's accomplishments while neglecting any potential risks to patients. "

Still in denial?

http://www.psych.org/psych_pract/copptherapyaddendum83100.cfm

 

[Geekybrunette]

I am not and expert..........Neither are you.........Your a liberal you believe there born that way.....I am a conservative I don't........No one knows for sure though.............As far as changing I have 2 words for you, Ann Heche.......

Ann Heche proves nothing. Maybe she is bisexual. Maybe she is lesbian, but wants kids a lot and is willing to make that sacrifice. Maybe she just wants straight priveledge.

I'll tell you something - I'm more of an expert on being able to change from being gay to straight than you are. I happen to be a lesbian. I am attracted to women - and not at all attracted to men. This is absolutely not a choice. I can't force myself to stop being attracted to women and become attracted to men. HOWEVER, is my being in a relationship with another woman a choice? I suppose ultimately it is... as long as you also accept the fact that you being in your relationship with your wife is a choice as well.

Could I force myself to be in a relationship with a man or just be celebate? Yes, I suppose so. Could I change my nature though, and would it be very fufilling for me? No, it wouldn't on both counts. Even if you or I could change which sex attracts me, would it be the right thing to do? Or would it be playing God? It's a part of who I am. Changing my attraction to women would be like changing my ice cream preference from vanilla to chocolate, making me become an art person rather than a math/science person, or making me like sports instead of video games.

Even if you could do it, you would effectively be creating a different person...

Still think it's a choice?

 

[Binary_Digit]

Still think it's a choice?

Personally I dont, but I think people who believe it's a choice can actually see themselves making the choice. Just my opinion though...:rofl

 

[doughgirl]

Danarhea said, ”Marriage is between whoever decides they are going to be married, and the government can go screw itself.”

Thats what I feel the government should do with the issue of abortion. I am however constantly reminded by those who are pro-abortion,,,”To bad abortion is legal, get over it.”

Gay marriage is illegal. Should I say the same thing to them? Get over it?

“ I must admit that my wife and I got married by obtaining a marriage license, then performing a ceremony. It is not hypocrisy. This was from my former days as a Republican, when I did not know any better.”

So hell…………burn the bra honey!!!! Divorce her and throw that piece of paper out the window………..why do ya need it?

Kandahar said, “3-10% is certainly a significant proportion of the population, especially compared with the <0.1% who would be interested in polygamy.”

Come on……..you are avoiding “rights for everyone”. EVERYONE. Don’t the polygamists count? It is about doing what is right and wrong……..isnt it?

 

[Kandahar]

Come on……..you are avoiding “rights for everyone”. EVERYONE. Don’t the polygamists count? It is about doing what is right and wrong……..isnt it?

If you had read the rest of my previous post instead of quoting a single sentence from it, you'd see that I've already answered that question.

 

[RightinNYC]

So....slightly back on topic...

Did anyone read the actual decision/dissent? It was nowhere near the huge deal that both sides are making it out to be.

It was a logical, well reasoned argument completely within precedent.

The question before the court was not "Should gay marriage be legal," but rather "Does the NYS Constitution as written and as governed under the US Constitution contain an inherent right for gay couples to marry, and if not, does the state have the power to legislate these matters."

Completely reasonably, the court held that:

a) The NYS Constitution does not, as it was written, contain inherent rights to marriage for gay couples.
b) The US Constitution does not grant such rights either (if they had said it did, it would have been drastically outside their authority)
c) In forbidding gay marriage, the state does so out of what it considers to be rational reasons, not out of simple bigotry.

This is the part that so many people have such a hard time dealing with. It is NOT the job of the court to determine how valid the reasons of the legislature are, and what policy should be. That is the job of the legislature and the legislature alone. The court's only responsibility in matters such as this is to see whether the state claims reasonably to have a reason for doing what it did.

The majority even said something to the effect of "While we may not agree with the validity or the effectiveness of these stated reasons, it is the duty of the legislature to enact policy."

And it is.

 

[Kelzie]

So....slightly back on topic...

Did anyone read the actual decision/dissent? It was nowhere near the huge deal that both sides are making it out to be.

It was a logical, well reasoned argument completely within precedent.

The question before the court was not "Should gay marriage be legal," but rather "Does the NYS Constitution as written and as governed under the US Constitution contain an inherent right for gay couples to marry, and if not, does the state have the power to legislate these matters."

Completely reasonably, the court held that:

a) The NYS Constitution does not, as it was written, contain inherent rights to marriage for gay couples.
b) The US Constitution does not grant such rights either (if they had said it did, it would have been drastically outside their authority)
c) In forbidding gay marriage, the state does so out of what it considers to be rational reasons, not out of simple bigotry.

This is the part that so many people have such a hard time dealing with. It is NOT the job of the court to determine how valid the reasons of the legislature are, and what policy should be. That is the job of the legislature and the legislature alone. The court's only responsibility in matters such as this is to see whether the state claims reasonably to have a reason for doing what it did.

The majority even said something to the effect of "While we may not agree with the validity or the effectiveness of these stated reasons, it is the duty of the legislature to enact policy."

And it is.

"C"s iffy. I have yet to see a rational reason to oppose gay marriage.

 

[RightinNYC]

"C"s iffy. I have yet to see a rational reason to oppose gay marriage.

But that's not the point. It's not whether the court can see a rational reason, its whether they believe that the legislature could reasonably believe they have found a rational reason.

The critical question is whether a rational legislature could decide that these benefits should be given to members of opposite-sex couples, but not same-sex couples. The question is not, we emphasize, whether the Legislature must or should continue to limit marriage in this way; of course the Legislature may extend marriage or some or all of its benefits to same-sex couples. We conclude, however, that there are at least two grounds that rationally support the limitation on marriage that the Legislature has enacted. ..

First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman, and the Legislature could find that this will continue to be true. The Legislature could also find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary. It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an inducement -- in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits -- to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other.

The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with comparable force to same-sex couples. These couples can become parents by adoption, or by artificial insemination or other technological marvels, but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse. The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships will help children more. This is one reason why the Legislature could rationally offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only.

There is a second reason: The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father. Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like. It is obvious that there are exceptions to this general rule -- some children who never know their fathers, or their mothers, do far better than some who grow up with parents of both sexes -- but the Legislature could find that the general rule will usually hold.

Plaintiffs, and amici supporting them, argue that the proposition asserted is simply untrue: that a home with two parents of different sexes has no advantage, from the point of view of raising children, over a home with two parents of the same sex. Perhaps they are right, but the Legislature could rationally think otherwise.

To support their argument, plaintiffs and amici supporting them refer to social science literature reporting studies of same-sex parents and their children. Some opponents of same-sex marriage criticize these studies, but we need not consider the criticism, for the studies on their face do not establish beyond doubt that children fare equally well in same-sex and opposite-sex households. What they show, at most, is that rather limited observation has detected no marked differences. More definitive results could hardly be expected, for until recently few children have been raised in same-sex households, and there has not been enough time to study the long-term results of such child-rearing.

Plaintiffs seem to assume that they have demonstrated the irrationality of the view that opposite-sex marriages offer advantages to children by showing there is no scientific evidence to support it. Even assuming no such evidence exists, this reasoning is flawed. In the absence of conclusive scientific evidence, the Legislature could rationally proceed on the common-sense premise that children will do best with a mother and father in the home. And a legislature proceeding on that premise could rationally decide to offer a special inducement, the legal recognition of marriage, to encourage the formation of opposite-sex households.

In sum, there are rational grounds on which the Legislature could choose to restrict marriage to couples of opposite sex. Plaintiffs have not persuaded us that this long-accepted restriction is a wholly irrational one, based solely on ignorance and prejudice against homosexuals. This is the question on which these cases turn.

The court's role is to stay as far away from policy as possible, and I think they did a good job of it here.


This should make the results of Fall 06 elections interesting. The NYS Democratic party came out in support for passing gay marriage laws, while they only had one of the branches of the legislature and not the governor's seat. Spitzer is significantly ahead, and the Dems look poised to take back both houses.

If things work out poorly this fall and this happens, I'll at least find solace in watching the Dems squirm as they try to figure out whether they actually want to follow through on their promise to legalize gay marriage, or whether they were just full of hot air. I'm pretty sure it's the latter. They did NOT want the ruling to come down this way, it means the legislature will have to do its job and actually pass laws.

 

[tecoyah]

As a resident of NY....I can say with some resolve, you folks have taken this far more seriously than we do. We are relatively sure the Dems will continue to be the power in this state (for good or bad) and the Same Sex Marriage issue is not even in the oven....most dont really care. When you have the worst legislature in the country, bad budgets, and corruption throughout the government.....marriage really does not make alot of difference.

Add to this the divorce rates, infidelity, and the track record of those who oppose the inclusion of Gays into an institution that is nothing but a legal document....who really gives a @#$% except Bigoots and Gays anyway.

 

[Alex]

So....slightly back on topic...

Did anyone read the actual decision/dissent? It was nowhere near the huge deal that both sides are making it out to be.

It was a logical, well reasoned argument completely within precedent.

The question before the court was not "Should gay marriage be legal," but rather "Does the NYS Constitution as written and as governed under the US Constitution contain an inherent right for gay couples to marry, and if not, does the state have the power to legislate these matters."

Completely reasonably, the court held that:

a) The NYS Constitution does not, as it was written, contain inherent rights to marriage for gay couples.
b) The US Constitution does not grant such rights either (if they had said it did, it would have been drastically outside their authority)
c) In forbidding gay marriage, the state does so out of what it considers to be rational reasons, not out of simple bigotry.

This is the part that so many people have such a hard time dealing with. It is NOT the job of the court to determine how valid the reasons of the legislature are, and what policy should be. That is the job of the legislature and the legislature alone. The court's only responsibility in matters such as this is to see whether the state claims reasonably to have a reason for doing what it did.

The majority even said something to the effect of "While we may not agree with the validity or the effectiveness of these stated reasons, it is the duty of the legislature to enact policy."

And it is.

It is not the duty of legislators to create policy that interferes in people's personal lives.

 

[Stinger]

"C"s iffy. I have yet to see a rational reason to oppose gay marriage.

The reasons have been posted over and over by me and others. That you don't agree with them doesn't mean they are not rational. Most of us believe we, as a species and as a society, are heterosexual beings, that we are designed to be in heterosexual families, that children are best served in a heterosexual family, and that society is best served if we encourage that behavior instead of abnormal behaviors such as homosexuality. In the long run it is best for women to encourage men to settledown in a home with a family and raise the children they create and the children of those children. That it is not best for women to bond together in family units, exluding men, and denying a sexually intimate relationship with one person, and taking fathers out of the picture when it comes to raising children, or the other way around. And of course the prime directive of any living species is propagation, which as a speices we have evolved as heterosexuals and the rearing of our offspring has evolved in heterosexual family units.

Now all that has been posted over and over in various forms, what do you find irrational about it and hard to understand, not disagree with we know you do that, but irrational and hard to understand?

Therefore it is in the interest of society to encourage heterosexual marriage and to if not discourage homosexual marriage to not support it.

 

[Alex]

The reasons have been posted over and over by me and others. That you don't agree with them doesn't mean they are not rational. Most of us believe we, as a species and as a society, are heterosexual beings, that we are designed to be in heterosexual families, that children are best served in a heterosexual family, and that society is best served if we encourage that behavior instead of abnormal behaviors such as homosexuality. In the long run it is best for women to encourage men to settledown in a home with a family and raise the children they create and the children of those children. That it is not best for women to bond together in family units, exluding men, and denying a sexually intimate relationship with one person, and taking fathers out of the picture when it comes to raising children, or the other way around. And of course the prime directive of any living species is propagation, which as a speices we have evolved as heterosexuals and the rearing of our offspring has evolved in heterosexual family units.

Now all that has been posted over and over in various forms, what do you find irrational about it and hard to understand, not disagree with we know you do that, but irrational and hard to understand?

Therefore it is in the interest of society to encourage heterosexual marriage and to if not discourage homosexual marriage to not support it.

People are not "design" to be in any kind of family. Families are create by individuals and the rules are governed by those individuals, not society. No one starts a family and thinks, "I hope this betters society." The vows of marriage do not state "Do you take society to be..."

Homosexuals have lived in society for ages and society has not crumbled. They have not destroyed the family unit. If there is any threat of your family being anything lesser because of same-sex unions, then your family is the one with the issue, not homosexuals.

So the argument about "the better of society" does not fly.

Children are better served in a heterosexual family? What makes you the expert on this? Do you have anything to back that up? If you do not, then you have made an irrational statement.

From the American Psychological Association:

"In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised in any respect relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth."

http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html

And of course the prime directive of any living species is propagation, which as a speices we have evolved as heterosexuals and the rearing of our offspring has evolved in heterosexual family units.

Homosexuals can have children as well as heterosexuals can, so this argument does not fly either. Also, marriage is not required to procreate. So marriage has nothing to do with families. Should it be illegal for heterosexuals, who cannot have children, to marry?

Is it alright for homosexuals that do not want children to marry? If they do not want children, then your whole argument is meaningless.

 

[Geekybrunette]

The reasons have been posted over and over by me and others. That you don't agree with them doesn't mean they are not rational.

True. However, it also doesn't necessairly mean that they are rational either.

Most of us believe we, as a species and as a society, are heterosexual beings,

The largest percentage of the world's population is asian. Let's try to emulate them and discriminate against anyone who is european, latino, native american, african, etc.

that we are designed to be in heterosexual families,

If you have a relative who you found out was gay or lesbian, would they no longer part of the family? If not, then you aren't a heterosexual family. If so, well, you're really cool and tough for disowning a family member for nothing that directly affects you.

that children are best served in a heterosexual family,

Gay marriage/civil union is not the same thing as a gay couple raising children.

In the long run it is best for women to encourage men to settledown in a home with a family and raise the children they create and the children of those children.

Probably, but this doesn't have anything to do with homosexuality.

That it is not best for women to bond together in family units, exluding men, and denying a sexually intimate relationship with one person

WOW. I'll censor myself so I don't get banned here, but I would consider your wanting to force myself and other women into a relationship with a man as the equivalent of putting us in chains. There are many women who want to be in a relationship with a man, which is 100% fine to me, but leave lesbians and women who wish to remain single out of that please.

The same thing goes for forcing men into a relationship with a woman.

and taking fathers out of the picture when it comes to raising children, or the other way around.

Just because someone is gay or lesbian doesn't mean they're going to take the other parent out of raising the children. In fact, if you would just leave them be more gays and lesbians would get into relationships with same sex partners. As it is now, many gays and lesbians get into forced relationships and live a lie just because they are so hated by a large percentage of the population. Children that they would have would most likely come from adoption, a sperm donor, or a surrogate mother. In all of these cases, the child would be better off (2 parents of one sex is better for a child than 1 parent of....... one sex!)

And of course the prime directive of any living species is propagation, which as a speices we have evolved as heterosexuals and the rearing of our offspring has evolved in heterosexual family units.

Call China or India and ask if they want more kids :mrgreen:

Now all that has been posted over and over in various forms, what do you find irrational about it and hard to understand, not disagree with we know you do that, but irrational and hard to understand?

1. That same sex marriage and same sex parenting are the same thing.
2. That homosexuals should be "forced" into straight relationships.
3. That the world needs more kids.
4. That same sex couples will be stealing children from heterosexual couples.

 

[ProudAmerican]

The largest percentage of the world's population is asian. Let's try to emulate them and discriminate against anyone who is european, latino, native american, african, etc.

how is affording someone the EXACT SAME RIGHTS as everyone else, but naming it something different so the definition of a traditional word doesnt change discrimination?