[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Still not one reason, remarkable. So essentially you are saying there is no reason other than your prejudice to be against it. Very compelling, you should go into law.[/quote]
Still not one reason for gay marriage. So essentially you are saying that it is your naivete which is causing you to be jumping up and down over changing our societal norms. No, can’t be you’re not that stupid…are you?
And if you new anything about law you would know that any new bill introduced must first have a compelling reason for its existence. Can you imagine standing before Congress and saying “does anyone have any reason why we should not pass this bill that I’m really excited about but have no reason whatsoever to support it?”
Not hardly little man. You must first have a compelling reason why it should be passed.
Finally, if you cannot answer this most basic question you either do not understand why you are for gay marriage, or you are like the rest of your brethren who think it’s a good idea because “those people would be so very happy…bla bla bla…” Is that it Brian are you afraid of what I’d say about your silly little answer?
And why does this not surprise me? Most starry eyed liberals, like yourself, are pretty much clueless.
And for the record this is the second topic you were unable to give me any good answer for. You do remember the first I’m sure, no problem I’ll remind you (again). That is how liberals have failed to reduce poverty in the US and in fact it has grown by leaps and bounds. And this is after your ilk has spent trillions since the mid 60’s.
your argument fails on two levels (at least) the first and most obvious being that in an ideal world children would all be cared for by their loving, capable, living, biological parents.[/quote]
So children being raised by their biological parents is the best scenario, and superior to all other alternatives? Yes or no?
That is irrelevant, because this “rule” would also apply to households of gay couples. We don’t want guarantees - we want the best of the alernatives.
In any event, of course we don’t live in an ideal world, and that is the entire point of publicly recognizing marriage at all - we enact marriage to try and remedy some of those imperfections by steering people toward the desired outcome (intact family, two biological parents, low-conflict marriage).
if we lived in an ideal world, we wouldn’t have the public policy of marriage because we would have no need for it.
This is just blather to hear yourself make blather - question is: are children raised by their biological parents better served than those who aren’t?
Yes? Or no?
Hollow arrogance - my favorite.
[quote]Lets start at the beginning:
“…infertile couples support the model that we want”
who is “we” exactly? Do you mean you and your fellow right wingers?[/quote]
The overwhelming majority of society’s members, that being stakeholders in the perpetuation of society.
Idiocy. The 51% “failure” rate isn’t a failure of the “marriage model” - it’s a failure of people to fulfill it. In any event, is there any reason to think gay marriage wouldn’t suffer from these same divorce rates, which would in turn, by your definition, make it a “failure”?
Would you have gays fly an airline boasting such successful standards?
Marriage is just fine, plus or minus a couple of adjustments.
See above. Looks like you simply want to do away with marriage. Why not just say so?
Dumbest thing I’ve read in this thread.
I am all for adoption - so let’s cut the red tape, reduce the obstacles and cost, increase tax incentives (and subsidies), and let people adopt away. If that is your concern, there are innumerable families out there who would like to adopt, but we’ve placed too many obstacles in their way. That’s an easy fix, if you think we have a public policy problem of not enough children being in good homes.
Children being raised by loving, attentive biological parents is ideal, children being abused and ignored by incompetent and/or malicious parents is not. No one is suggesting gay couples get to pick children to adopt from the homes of loving biological parents, people are suggesting that gays be allowed to adopt and raise unwanted and/or discarded children.
If you can’t see a difference you are either so stupid that you need someone to turn on your computer for you or you are being ignorant to support your flawed argument, either way you are wrong.
the 51% failure rate is a perfect example of a flawed model, the only way for marriage to be experienced is through marriage, the model fails because people fail, parents fail, husbands and wives fail, you are again arguing an indefensible position that the outcomes don’t matter. Please tell me you are not that naive.
much like you I am all for adoption, and yes I would like it to be easier and more affordable for couples (gay and straight) to bring an unwanted child into their lives.
your argument that the “overwhelming majority…” supports your position is flawed in that we do not function by mob rule (at least we’re not supposed to) and I am sure if you asked the majority of folks in any certain area what they support you would find an overwhelming majority of people supporting things like Sharia Law, Segregation, White Supremacy, Black Supremacy etc. The overwhelming majority doesn’t get to make rules that take rights away from others, not in the US anyway.
i have no desire to do away with marriage, I have been happily married to my wife for 17 years we have to kids and I couldn’t be more pleased with it’s role in my life, which is why I think it would be good for “the gays” as well.
ZEB,
Once again the combination of reactionary blinders and failed reading comprehension bites you in the ass. This is a great opportunity for you to cancel your internet service and stop acting stupid.
You managed to not refute one thing I said.[/quote]
Uh, yeah, I did.
[quote]Children being raised by loving, attentive biological parents is ideal, children being abused and ignored by incompetent and/or malicious parents is not. No one is suggesting gay couples get to pick children to adopt from the homes of loving biological parents, people are suggesting that gays be allowed to adopt and raise unwanted and/or discarded children.
If you can’t see a difference you are either so stupid that you need someone to turn on your computer for you or you are being ignorant to support your flawed argument, either way you are wrong.[/quote]
I’d be careful calling other people stupid given your low-wattage posts, but in any event, good, we agree - children raised by their biological parents is the best arrangement, bar none.
And that has been my response to you - we have no public policy interest in channeling children into alternatives. We want to steer children toward the best we have. We do so because…wait for it…we have an imperfect world that requires us to do so because so many people would like to…wait for it…raise children outside of the confines of the best arrangement (or they simply don’t care enough to). If it weren’t for so many people trying to raise kids outside of the best arrangement, we wouldn’t need to privilege the best arranagement in law.
Marriage laws exist precisely to encourage people not to engage in alternative child raising, and always has. Gay marriage undermines that pirnciple, as would every other inferior alternative.
How can I be naive when I just recognized the 51% failure rate? You’re avoiding my question - if think marriage is a bust a “flawed model”), why have it at all?
And, no, it’s not a flawed model. The model is fine. Asked and answered.
Good, and since we can achieve this goal by simply promoting more adoption my straight couples - as there are more than enough to handle the surplus load of adoptees - we’ll be fine just keeping traditional marriage.
Got anything better than this, Einstein? Because this has already been answered, with footnotes.
Once again you are completely dead wrong. Just restating your incorrect assumptions does not improve their value, additionally adding your interpretation of my words doesn’t help either of us, you just sound like a person with a 3rd grade reading comprehension at best or a malicious little sneak at worst.
You have not refuted anything, you have merely said the same thing again, a bad argument made worse by the fact that you actually are citing my sentences and then saying “SEE” while you answer something else.
I can only hope your college education was free.
Hey Brian, do us a favor and go ask your wife real quick if she agrees that another man could step in and replace her as mother to your children and do just as good as she could, maybe even better. Let her know that “children raised by LGBT couples have very similar (and depending on region of the country) often superior outcomes.”
Make sure you record the reaction and post it to youtube, if you are still able to at that point.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Hey Brian, do us a favor and go ask your wife real quick if she agrees that another man could step in and replace her as mother to your children and do just as good as she could, maybe even better. Let her know that “children raised by LGBT couples have very similar (and depending on region of the country) often superior outcomes.”
Make sure you record the reaction and post it to youtube, if you are still able to at that point. [/quote]
Hey Brian you should also ask your wife if another woman could fill her shoes
i see you also failed the reading comprehension part of life. how about this, go ask those three kids they found abandoned in a shed last week (ages 15 months to 3 years i believe) how there biological parents are doing at raising them.
In the meantime, I’ll repost my abridged list of reasons that we, collectively, are best served by recognizing one type of marriage over all others. You throw up your reasons below and we’ll do a Ben Franklin (no homo, haha) and see what the results look like side by side. You might want to do this before telling your wife about how another man could do her job just as good as she does. Or maybe wear a helmet. Or something.
Here you go:
In the case of heterosexual marriages, the benefit is absolutely essential, so the bar is set pretty damned high.
We’re not talking about some benefit just because. Homosexual marriage proponents are obligated to demonstrate that recognition of gay marriage fulfills a CRUCIAL societal need. And to further demonstrate how their particular relationship differs from other human relationships such as that of Bob and Harry, the two lifelong hetero bachelor fishing buddies who share a cabin on the Potomack. What is the actual difference, beyond sex?
One more time, I’ll go over some of the benefits heterosexual marriage entails:
Promotes stable families in which children are raised by their biological parents.
Children and mothers who are not a drain on the welfare system.
Children who, when raised in these families, grow up statistically more likely to become productive, taxpaying members of the society.
Children who, when raised in these families, grow up statistically more likely to go on to form stable families of their own.
Children who, when raised in these families, grow up statistically less likely to turn to a life of crime.
Propagation of the population in general (think of Japan).
Promotes a model that encourages others to marry, have children, and continue to propagate this healthy ideal.
Children being raised by loving, attentive biological parents is ideal, children being abused and ignored by incompetent and/or malicious parents is not. No one is suggesting gay couples get to pick children to adopt from the homes of loving biological parents, people are suggesting that gays be allowed to adopt and raise unwanted and/or discarded children.
If you can’t see a difference you are either so stupid that you need someone to turn on your computer for you or you are being ignorant to support your flawed argument, either way you are wrong.
the 51% failure rate is a perfect example of a flawed model, the only way for marriage to be experienced is through marriage, the model fails because people fail, parents fail, husbands and wives fail, you are again arguing an indefensible position that the outcomes don’t matter. Please tell me you are not that naive.
much like you I am all for adoption, and yes I would like it to be easier and more affordable for couples (gay and straight) to bring an unwanted child into their lives.
your argument that the “overwhelming majority…” supports your position is flawed in that we do not function by mob rule (at least we’re not supposed to) and I am sure if you asked the majority of folks in any certain area what they support you would find an overwhelming majority of people supporting things like Sharia Law, Segregation, White Supremacy, Black Supremacy etc. The overwhelming majority doesn’t get to make rules that take rights away from others, not in the US anyway.
i have no desire to do away with marriage, I have been happily married to my wife for 17 years we have to kids and I couldn’t be more pleased with it’s role in my life, which is why I think it would be good for “the gays” as well.
ZEB,
Once again the combination of reactionary blinders and failed reading comprehension bites you in the ass. This is a great opportunity for you to cancel your internet service and stop acting stupid.[/quote]
Hey B r i a n it seems that you’ve now accused several of us of poor reading comprehension. It just could be that we are interpreting your words correctly but what you’re saying is ineffective and weak.
Since I’ve been at it with you longer (on other threads) than the others I can safely state that when you cannot answer a question you resort to ad hominem attacks. In addition to that there are two or three questions hanging out there that you are still avoiding. But I won’t accuse you of reading problems, just a lack of even one original thought. You are spouting tired liberal talking points that have been shot down in this thread and many others. And as I’ve said when you’re not doing that you are avoiding the issue.
i see you also failed the reading comprehension part of life. how about this, go ask those three kids they found abandoned in a shed last week (ages 15 months to 3 years i believe) how there biological parents are doing at raising them.[/quote]
Well, you can hardly blame me. I do the best I can with your atrocious grammar, style and spelling.
you just sound like a person with a 3rd grade reading comprehension at best
or a malicious little sneak at worst.
I can only hope your college education was free.[/quote]
The above is not a good defense, and in fact it’s silly. It’s ad hominem attacks like this that weaken your point and prove to us that you are out of ideas.
i see you also failed the reading comprehension part of life. how about this, go ask those three kids they found abandoned in a shed last week (ages 15 months to 3 years i believe) how there biological parents are doing at raising them.[/quote]
Now, what do these kids have to do with State recognition of gay marriage?
Will gays NOT abandon their own children?
Will gay marriage put an end to such inhumanity?
Will gay marriage put an end to your faux outrage?
And finally, what do these kids have to do with State recognition of gay marriage?
Once again you are completely dead wrong. Just restating your incorrect assumptions does not improve their value, additionally adding your interpretation of my words doesn’t help either of us, you just sound like a person with a 3rd grade reading comprehension at best or a malicious little sneak at worst. [/quote]
Translation: I don’t have good rebuttals to Thunderbolt’s arguments, and everyone rading this can see that, so I will just declare him wrong and try and insult his intelligence, even though I know it won’t work.
I am directing your incoherent red herrings to the points that need to be addressed - ones you conveniently skip and then declare “victory!”. i’ve given you the short-form argument as to why we have marriage as public policy, and why alternatives don’t support that public policy.
You haven’t done anything except confirm that you are yet another half-educated poster who thinks he can hide his folly behind boasting and declarations of “yer just…wrong!”.
That’s just silly. If you are going to declare yourself so much smarter than me (or anyone else), shouldn’t your posts be better?
*As an aside, maybe Gambit Lost will come and wrap you over the knuckles for all of your idiotic and uncivil attempts at trash-talking…but I doubt it.
i see you also failed the reading comprehension part of life. how about this, go ask those three kids they found abandoned in a shed last week (ages 15 months to 3 years i believe) how there biological parents are doing at raising them.[/quote]
Now, what do these kids have to do with State recognition of gay marriage?
Will gays NOT abandon their own children?
Will gay marriage put an end to such inhumanity?
Will gay marriage put an end to your faux outrage?
And finally, what do these kids have to do with State recognition of gay marriage? [/quote]
You’re confused Cortes, you see if gay marriage were allowed in all 50 states (or 57 states if you’re Obama) then everything would be fixed. No more pain and suffering just love and prosperity for all.
i see you also failed the reading comprehension part of life. how about this, go ask those three kids they found abandoned in a shed last week (ages 15 months to 3 years i believe) how there biological parents are doing at raising them.[/quote]
Now, what do these kids have to do with State recognition of gay marriage?
Will gays NOT abandon their own children?
Will gay marriage put an end to such inhumanity?
Will gay marriage put an end to your faux outrage?
And finally, what do these kids have to do with State recognition of gay marriage? [/quote]
You’re confused Cortes, you see if gay marriage were allowed in all 50 states (or 57 states if you’re Obama) then everything would be fixed. No more pain and suffering just love and prosperity for all. [/quote]
Saaaay, maybe that’s the answer to poor education standards, as well! I hadn’t made the connection until now, but he does seem rather obsessive about reading comprehension…
thank you for your list of reasons for heterosexual marriage
Promotes stable families in which children are raised by their biological parents.- if you exclude the 51% of marriages that end in divorce, and you exclude the 700,000 unique cases of child abuse (530,000 of these by the parents), you might be on to something.
Children and mothers who are not a drain on the welfare system. - a misleading argument, if half of marriages end in divorce and single mothers are more likely to be on welfare/PA, it stands to reason (ooooo and it’s backed up by data) that only half the marriages qualify for this positive outcome.
Children who, when raised in these families, grow up statistically more likely to become productive, taxpaying members of the society. Yes indeed they do now what about the kids that need adoption? Here you go
“A groundbreaking study by researchers at the University of Virginia and George Washington University finds that children adopted by lesbian and gay male couples develop just as well as those adopted by heterosexual parents.”
Children who, when raised in these families, grow up statistically more likely to go on to form stable families of their own. see above
Children who, when raised in these families, grow up statistically less likely to turn to a life of crime. see above
Propagation of the population in general (think of Japan). obviously we need a positive growth rate to handle the tax burden of old people but it seems we have plenty of kids in need of adoption and the heteros aren’t getting the job done. since there are not diminished outcome for the children of same sex couples and by their very nature they NEED to adopt, why stop them?
Promotes a model that encourages others to marry, have children, and continue to propagate this healthy ideal. Except in the case of the 51% that fail, which is cited as a reason for the decline in marriage over the past decade.
Keep avoiding the issue. Why is gay marriage bad? Gay’s are already here, they will not “die off”. They are not bad people (any more so than the population at large) so explain why gay marriage is bad. All you have tried to do, and tried poorly I might add, is bolster the reasons for the existing marriage structure. If you don’t have an answer just stop posting, it’s easy.
I like that you routinely use insults, not as much as ZEB certainly, but when anything is directed at you it seems that you pee…just a little bit.
None of you have explained why NOT? with regards to gay marriage, you have all just tried to prop up the existing marriage structure (which I am a fan of) the title of the thread is “Obama Supports Gay Marriage” not “Obama bans Hetero Marriage”, you may just be confused.
[quote] One more time, I’ll go over some of the benefits heterosexual marriage entails:
Promotes stable families in which children are raised by their biological parents. [/quote]
Maybe, certainly not a guarantee and plenty of the opposite. Either way the same could be said for a gay couple raising a kid (say if the biological Mom divorced and took on a lesbian partner).
Maybe, certainly not a guarantee and plenty of the opposite. Either way the same could be said for a gay couple raising a kid.
I think this thread has proven that there aren’t enough studies to validate or invalidate this position.
No argument here, kids raised in stable family environments will do better, although that stability could be provided by a gay couple.
No argument here, kids raised in stable family environments will do better, although that stability could be provided by a gay couple.
Agreed but consider that a gay couple could raise a child that is heterosexual and then has their own children thus propagating society