[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
You gay marriage by nature means your children aren’t being raised by their biological parents.
So if gay marriage didn’t exist, my children would be raised by their biological parents? Are you even thinking any more?[/quote]
If gay marriage didn’t exist there is a far better chance for you to be with the mother raising the child. Are you even thinking any more?
[quote]John S. wrote:
If gay marriage didn’t exist there is a far better chance for you to be with the mother raising the child. [/quote]
Why the fuck would gay marriage make me any less likely to stay with my wife? Obviously, we consensually divorced even without gay marriage existing so the presence of gay marriage would be irrelevant to our decision.
[quote]forlife wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
If your relationship is stabilized by a government incentive I doubt you will have that relationship for long because the foundation of the relationship is not strong enough.
You don’t think a couple is more likely to stay together when there are financial incentives to do so, and when breaking up would mean financial penalties?
Obviously, the rights/responsibilities of marriage play a role in the stability of the relationship. Fully half of marriages end in divorce, but the number would be even higher if the civil consequences of marriage didn’t exist.[/quote]
I agree that people marry for financial benefits in some cases. I know people who use to get married in the military just to move out of the bricks and into a house/collect BAH. We called those contract marriages and by my definition only a civil union not marriage. I however disagree that people get divorced less due to financial penalties. First off what penalties do you mean? Secondly in many cases one of the two parties is better off then they were originally due to pre nups and equal splits. Lastly I still think most people get married for the wrong reasons, but not for money or financial gains. Usually there is a pregnancy involved or who knows what that causes an early marriage. Otherwise people get married because they think they are in love. In that case I doubt money is a consideration during the creation or divorce of the civil union.
Note per my definition of marriage I do not think in today?s world most people that get a divorce are only voiding their civil union not their pact with God.
[quote]forlife wrote:
John S. wrote:
If gay marriage didn’t exist there is a far better chance for you to be with the mother raising the child.
Why the fuck would gay marriage make me any less likely to stay with my wife? Obviously, we consensually divorced even without gay marriage existing so the presence of gay marriage would be irrelevant to our decision.
[/quote]
I’m looking at the big picture here(are gay people really this self centered?). When I say you I am meaning all gay people. 2 gay people together can’t have kids I know its shocking. So if a gay couple wants kids guess what they have to do. Are you getting it yet, I can go into great detail if I have too.
[quote]forlife wrote:
John S. wrote:
If gay marriage didn’t exist there is a far better chance for you to be with the mother raising the child.
Why the fuck would gay marriage make me any less likely to stay with my wife? Obviously, we consensually divorced even without gay marriage existing so the presence of gay marriage would be irrelevant to our decision.
[/quote]
Because we don’t want to incentivize even more of this behavior.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I agree that people marry for financial benefits in some cases. I know people who use to get married in the military just to move out of the bricks and into a house/collect BAH. We called those contract marriages and by my definition only a civil union not marriage.
I however disagree that people get divorced less due to financial penalties. First off what penalties do you mean? Secondly in many cases one of the two parties is better off then they were originally due to pre nups and equal splits.
[/quote]
I was referring to alimony payments, child support, etc. which usually equates to supporting two separate households instead of one with a commensurate increase in cost.
People do stay together for financial reasons, no question about it. Now, should they stay together? Clearly not in a lot of cases.
But the point is that marriage provides additional stability to the relationship, for better or worse.
[quote]John S. wrote:
I’m looking at the big picture here(are gay people really this self centered?). When I say you I am meaning all gay people. 2 gay people together can’t have kids I know its shocking. So if a gay couple wants kids guess what they have to do. Are you getting it yet, I can go into great detail if I have too.[/quote]
Why don’t you try reading this thread, which has extensively discussed how gay couples can and do have children, and get back to us?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Because we don’t want to incentivize even more of this behavior.[/quote]
Maybe it’s just me, but it makes more sense for gays to marry gays than for gays to marry straights.
Crazy idea, I know.
[quote]forlife wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
I agree that people marry for financial benefits in some cases. I know people who use to get married in the military just to move out of the bricks and into a house/collect BAH. We called those contract marriages and by my definition only a civil union not marriage. I however disagree that people get divorced less due to financial penalties.
First off what penalties do you mean? Secondly in many cases one of the two parties is better off then they were originally due to pre nups and equal splits.
I was referring to alimony payments, child support, etc. which usually equates to supporting two separate households instead of one with a commensurate increase in cost.
People do stay together for financial reasons, no question about it. Now, should they stay together? Clearly not in a lot of cases.
But the point is that marriage provides additional stability to the relationship, for better or worse.[/quote]
Alimony and child support are not government incentives though. Both come out of, usually, the mans pocket.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Because we don’t want to incentivize even more of this behavior.
Maybe it’s just me, but it makes more sense for gays to marry gays than for gays to marry straights.
Crazy idea, I know. [/quote]
It just makes more sense for men and women to marry, period. But, if you want to call yourselves married, promised, unionized, whatever. However, let’s not act stupid here and pretend homosexual marriage even comes close to fullfilling the role of heterosexual marriage in society. Which is why we choose to provide incentives for one, yet not the other.
You can’t propogate the citizenry. And, if you have children through other means, you aren’t going to raise them in an intact home with both biological parents present. There’s no chance of it.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Alimony and child support are not government incentives though. Both come out of, usually, the mans pocket. [/quote]
I said incentives and penalties. The government generally requires people to pay alimony on divorce, hence the penalties associated with marriage.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
It just makes more sense for men and women to marry, period.[/quote]
Even when one of them is gay?
The point, for the umpteenth time, is that these children wouldn’t have been raised in a home with both biological parents irrespective of whether or not gay marriage exists. Get it yet?
[quote]forlife wrote:
John S. wrote:
I’m looking at the big picture here(are gay people really this self centered?). When I say you I am meaning all gay people. 2 gay people together can’t have kids I know its shocking. So if a gay couple wants kids guess what they have to do. Are you getting it yet, I can go into great detail if I have too.
Why don’t you try reading this thread, which has extensively discussed how gay couples can and do have children, and get back to us?[/quote]
Really you and another man can have a child naturally? Are you sure you want to continue posting?
[quote]forlife wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
Alimony and child support are not government incentives though. Both come out of, usually, the mans pocket.
I said incentives and penalties. The government generally requires people to pay alimony on divorce, hence the penalties associated with marriage.[/quote]
I don’t think that is true. I know a lot of people that have gotten divorced and not paid alimony. Now child support you can call a penalty I guess, but as a man you should provide for your children regardless of what they government says.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
It just makes more sense for men and women to marry, period.
Even when one of them is gay?
You can’t propogate the citizenry. And, if you have children through other means, you aren’t going to raise them in an intact home with both biological parents present. There’s no chance of it.
The point, for the umpteenth time, is that these children wouldn’t have been raised in a home with both biological parents irrespective of whether or not gay marriage exists. Get it yet?[/quote]
That isn’t necessarily true if gay marriage didn’t exist the child that say two gay men adopt may have gone to a man and women that couldn’t have kids.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
It just makes more sense for men and women to marry, period.
Even when one of them is gay?
You can’t propogate the citizenry. And, if you have children through other means, you aren’t going to raise them in an intact home with both biological parents present. There’s no chance of it.
The point, for the umpteenth time, is that these children wouldn’t have been raised in a home with both biological parents irrespective of whether or not gay marriage exists. Get it yet?[/quote]
The point, for the umpteenth time, is to define marriage to the smallest possible unit equipped by nature to produce it’s own offspring. And then, to encourage the continued relationship while raising their biological offspring. Gay marriage, doesn’t fit the bill. Period.
[quote]John S. wrote:
Really you and another man can have a child naturally? Are you sure you want to continue posting?[/quote]
Ok dumb ass, since you can’t be bothered to read the thread here it is in a nutshell:
Some gay couples, like myself, have children from a prior marriage. These children are no more likely to be raised by both biological parents regardless of whether or not gay marriage exists.
Some gay couples choose to adopt children who would otherwise be raised by a foster facility. These children are no more likely to be raised by both biological parents regardless of whether or not gay marriage exists.
Some gay couples have children through surrogacy. These children are no more likely to be raised by both biological parents regardless of whether or not gay marriage exists.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
That isn’t necessarily true if gay marriage didn’t exist the child that say two gay men adopt may have gone to a man and women that couldn’t have kids. [/quote]
In that case, would the child be raised by its biological parents?
You’re arguing a totally different point now.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
The point, for the umpteenth time, is to define marriage to the smallest possible unit equipped by nature to produce it’s own offspring. And then, to encourage the continued relationship while raising their biological offspring. Gay marriage, doesn’t fit the bill. Period.[/quote]
I was addressing the statement by Thunder that gay marriage was a threat to straight marriage. At least get your arguments straight. The fact is that gay marriage poses absolutely zero threat to straight marriage.
That said, marriage also benefits children raised in families that don’t comprise both biological parents. If a straight couple adopts a child, that child will be better off if the couple is married than not. The same is true if a gay couple adopts the child.
[quote]forlife wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
That isn’t necessarily true if gay marriage didn’t exist the child that say two gay men adopt may have gone to a man and women that couldn’t have kids.
In that case, would the child be raised by its biological parents?
You’re arguing a totally different point now.[/quote]
I was never arguing the biological part. I think a child needs both a man and a women guidance to be raised properly. Trust me I have a real problem with men that get chicks pregnant and then run away