Would it make any difference if you knew that the medical and mental health organizations have compared children raised by straight vs. gay parents and found that both are equally healthy and adjusted?
What about children that would otherwise be raised in a foster facility? Don’t you think they would be better off in a loving home, even if that home consists of a gay or lesbian couple?
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Most polls show that most Americans are not in favor of gay marriage.
When it is brought to a vote of any kind most Americans vote down gay marriage.
[/quote]
By continuously shrinking margins, in both cases. Opposition to gay marriage is highly correlated with age. Younger voters tend to be more accepting of gay marriage than older voters.
Assuming those trends hold, it is logical to assume that gay marriage will be legalized eventually. Whether this constitutes a moral “downward spiral” depends on whether you think that fidelity or orientation are more important to morality.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Edit: as to why, look no further than his picture on “Christianity” - George Washington said no such thing. That phrase was a part of the Treaty of Tripoli, and was part of a declaration to keep the understanding that the United States had no religious pretext to start wars as religious conflicts.
One Google search could verify the truth, but Makavali isn’t interested.[/quote]
Actually he DID say it, but you’re missing the point. The USA is not a Christian nation. It is not even meant to be a RELIGIOUS nation. The individual citizen is to have the right to choose.
That’s what is supposed to make the USA the best country in the world.
Freedom.
[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]
No, he doesn’t and he never will. I’m not going to pretend that I think that kids raised by two gay parents in a monogamous relationship will, by and large, be as well off as kids in a healthy, stable home with a mother and father. They will face unique challenges and difficulties.
BUT, they will be better off growing up in a house with stable, monogomous gay parents in a committed relationship than otherwise. Same-sex marriage will encourage this. It’s better for the couple, better for any children involved, and better for society at large.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Edit: as to why, look no further than his picture on “Christianity” - George Washington said no such thing. That phrase was a part of the Treaty of Tripoli, and was part of a declaration to keep the understanding that the United States had no religious pretext to start wars as religious conflicts.
One Google search could verify the truth, but Makavali isn’t interested.
Actually he DID say it, but you’re missing the point. The USA is not a Christian nation. It is not even meant to be a RELIGIOUS nation. The individual citizen is to have the right to choose.
That’s what is supposed to make the USA the best country in the world.
Freedom.[/quote]
What? The U.S. certainly is still a Christian nation and was founded as one. The fact that this country was largely predicated on freedom of religion does not mean that we are not a mostly Christion nation.
It’s also not true that we were not ‘meant’ to be a religious nation. We were not ‘meant’ to be a nation where government imposes religion on its citizens and persecutes religous (or atheist) minorities.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Makavali wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Edit: as to why, look no further than his picture on “Christianity” - George Washington said no such thing. That phrase was a part of the Treaty of Tripoli, and was part of a declaration to keep the understanding that the United States had no religious pretext to start wars as religious conflicts.
One Google search could verify the truth, but Makavali isn’t interested.
Actually he DID say it, but you’re missing the point. The USA is not a Christian nation. It is not even meant to be a RELIGIOUS nation. The individual citizen is to have the right to choose.
That’s what is supposed to make the USA the best country in the world.
Freedom.
What? The U.S. certainly is still a Christian nation and was founded as one. The fact that this country was largely predicated on freedom of religion does not mean that we are not a mostly Christion nation.
It’s also not true that we were not ‘meant’ to be a religious nation. We were not ‘meant’ to be a nation where government imposes religion on its citizens and persecutes religous (or atheist) minorities.
[/quote]
The nation isn’t Christian. The majority of people might be, but the majority doesn’t constitute the nation, everyone does. But yeah, I see what you mean.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,465413,00.html
Anyone care to comment?
[quote]forlife wrote:
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.
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]
Two hetero roommates, and committed bachelor’s, could raise children. Shall we extend marriage benefits to them also? Why not? Because they’re not screwing each other? What business do you have with their bedroom behavior?
Or, for that matter, a bisexual relationship consisting of 4 adults could raise children. What about them? Does their arrangement recieve state benefits?
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
No, he doesn’t and he never will. I’m not going to pretend that I think that kids raised by two gay parents in a monogamous relationship will, by and large, be as well off as kids in a healthy, stable home with a mother and father. They will face unique challenges and difficulties.
BUT, they will be better off growing up in a house with stable, monogomous gay parents in a committed relationship than otherwise. Same-sex marriage will encourage this. It’s better for the couple, better for any children involved, and better for society at large.[/quote]
For the most part, I agree. Kids raised by gay parents do face unique challenges, but they are better equipped to meet those challenges with married parents in a stable, loving home. Fortunately, the research has shown that children with gay parents do pretty well despite the challenges, and in fact tend to develop greater maturity on some measures (tolerance for diversity, etc.).
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
What? The U.S. certainly is still a Christian nation and was founded as one.[/quote]
Did you read the quotes I provided earlier? There is no question many of the founding fathers were NOT Christian, that they vehemently opposed Christianity, and that they did not intend the United States to be a Christian nation.
That said, it is true that the majority of Americans are Christian. That number is declining, but I expect that will continue to be true for some time. Which is why America is unfortunately behind the social progression curve compared to other industrialized nations, and is more on the level of 3rd world countries.
[quote]forlife wrote:
John S. wrote:
Really you and another man can have a child naturally? Are you sure you want to continue posting?
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]
alright Ill play ball.
1). So your saying the gays will get into a relationship with a women have a kid or 2 then split. Which makes me bring up the question how can you be gay if you are sleeping with a women.
2). Adoption should be for legitiment couples. You know the Man and women who are unable to concieve. Or for the ones who take them in out of the kindness of there heart like HH.
3). I do not believe this should even be an option for anyone.
Are you sure you want to continue posting in this thread its starting to look like a train wreck.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Two hetero roommates, and committed bachelor’s, could raise children. Shall we extend marriage benefits to them also? Why not? Because they’re not screwing each other? What business do you have with their bedroom behavior?
Or, for that matter, a bisexual relationship consisting of 4 adults could raise children. What about them? Does their arrangement recieve state benefits?[/quote]
Asked and answered many times in this and other threads. Nice red herring, but it has nothing to do with what we were just talking about. Can you at least come up with an original herring…maybe a pink one this time?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Two hetero roommates, and committed bachelor’s, could raise children. Shall we extend marriage benefits to them also? Why not? Because they’re not screwing each other? What business do you have with their bedroom behavior?
Or, for that matter, a bisexual relationship consisting of 4 adults could raise children. What about them? Does their arrangement recieve state benefits?
Asked and answered many times in this and other threads. Nice red herring, but it has nothing to do with what we were just talking about. Can you at least come up with an original herring…maybe a pink one this time?[/quote]
Of course it does, it follows the same principle. A single parent, 2 parents, or 6 parents could raise an unwanted children. Do you want marriage benefits extended to all?
[quote]John S. wrote:
1). So your saying the gays will get into a relationship with a women have a kid or 2 then split. Which makes me bring up the question how can you be gay if you are sleeping with a women.
2). Adoption should be for legitiment couples. You know the Man and women who are unable to concieve. Or for the ones who take them in out of the kindness of there heart like HH.
3). I do not believe this should even be an option for anyone.
[/quote]
How is that “playing ball” when you haven’t remotely addressed the point being made? How do any of these situations result in fewer children raised by both biological parents? These children wouldn’t have been raised by both biological parents anyway, so obviously gay marriage doesn’t decrease that number.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Of course it does, it follows the same principle.[/quote]
It is a completely different argument, and has zero bearing on whether or not gay marriage is a threat to straight marriage.
It is also a horse that has been kicked so much it is now a quivering pile of glue.
[quote]forlife wrote:
John S. wrote:
1). So your saying the gays will get into a relationship with a women have a kid or 2 then split. Which makes me bring up the question how can you be gay if you are sleeping with a women.
2). Adoption should be for legitiment couples. You know the Man and women who are unable to concieve. Or for the ones who take them in out of the kindness of there heart like HH.
3). I do not believe this should even be an option for anyone.
How is that “playing ball” when you haven’t remotely addressed the point being made? How do any of these situations result in fewer children raised by both biological parents? These children wouldn’t have been raised by both biological parents anyway, so obviously gay marriage doesn’t decrease that number.[/quote]
It decreases the number of legitiment couples being able to take care of a child. There are some cases where the child wont be raised by there biological parents and thats sad. But putting them into a home of a same sex couple isn’t doing them any favors either. Men and women are very different in many ways. A child learns from both and no matter what you try and argue there is no substitute.
[quote]John S. wrote:
It decreases the number of legitiment couples being able to take care of a child.
[/quote]
How does gay marriage decrease the number of legitimate couples being able to take care of a child?
[quote]forlife wrote:
John S. wrote:
It decreases the number of legitiment couples being able to take care of a child.
How does gay marriage decrease the number of legitimate couples being able to take care of a child?[/quote]
Because gay marriage isn’t legitimate. A marriage is between a man and a women.
[quote]John S. wrote:
Because gay marriage isn’t legitimate. A marriage is between a man and a women.[/quote]
Let’s try again, and see if you can actually answer the question this time:
How does gay marriage decrease the number of legitimate couples being able to take care of a child?