I still have yet to hear a good reason as to why gay marriage should be illegal. Somebody give one decent one at least.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
- Women who can’t have children due to medical or some other issues.
- Old people, my grandfather just got re-married at 85 and both of them are functionally unable to have children.[/quote]
Sorry, I guess the better word would be “form.” The general function or form, of a marriage allows for children, though it does not require it. After all that is the primary purpose of marriage, the raising and protecting biological children.
Obama is pure evil, no doubt – he hates freedom, intelligence, science, technology. Now the POS even betrays his religion. He is pure scum.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
marriage is based on the commitment to 1 other person in an equal partnership. [/quote]
Since when? I love how we get to define crap and say we win.
Marriage is based on a man and woman, which makes up the form and substance of a marriage in order to allow the fulfilling of the primary end or purpose of marriage, to raise and protect children and strengthen society as a whole. Only secondary is it about the actual people in the marriage.
[quote]optheta wrote:
I still have yet to hear a good reason as to why gay marriage should be illegal. Somebody give one decent one at least.[/quote]
I don’t find it entertaining to making things illegal that aren’t real, either.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]storey420 wrote:
But my point to the one you are referring to is that there isn’t going to be some holy grail of research that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt either side, so arguing as to the veracity of source a versus source b is kind of futile.
[/quote]
Alright then, just go on straight non-sciency stuff and tell me why the Franks and Steves, all over this great land, will do an equivalent or better job of raising children vs. the Roberts and Amandas.
Does even just the tiniest bit of common sense pound against the interior of your cranium and suggest Mama and Daddy is the better way to go rather than Daddy and Daddy? Do you not concede that a child who grows up seeing the interaction between the two sexes as parents has got to trump the situation of the child growing up hearing daddy poking daddy in the ass every night?[/quote]
I don’t know if they would but I do know that their sexuality does not inherently mean they won’t. Personally the though of going over to a friend’s house when I was younger and seeing his “dads” make out would be gross as shit but I also believe in America enough to allow people the freedom to pursue those choices.
In growing up what I have come to realize is that the notion that mommy and daddy being inherently better is not exactly true. I just have met way too many dysfunctional people that came from “traditional families” --define that as mommy and daddy, married through the full term of their children being born to becoming adults (18).
Could Steve and Steve be awesome parents while still giving each other moustache rides after hours? Sure I think so and actually I do know a handful of folks raised by gay parents/partners and they pretty much all are straight up genuine good people.
See, take your previous? habit of swinging with your wife. Does that instantly mean you’re a bad parent or would be? To some absolutely, but to me what is more defining is what you do with the children outside of your own bedroom decisions.
I still stand by this:
“The superior familial arrangement for a stable, healthy society, and the most beneficial environment for a child to be raised in, is that of one or more supportive, loving, stable adults that are committed to providing that child with a safe environment that fosters education, discipline, and room for development of their talents.”
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Stop, please. This isn’t 1941. I live in a country with a genuine welfare crisis on its hands. They care enough about the problem to subsidize the birth and health of my children, and to provide a monthly stipend for each child that increases for every child born. And believe it or not, they didn’t make us fill out one single extra form to receive these benefits. So me, my wife, and about 150,000,000 Japanese people have decided that this IS what is important. And anything that detracts from solving this problem can be viewed as dilution, at best, and outright sabotage, at worst.
And trust me, my analogy carries over to the western hemisphere fully intact. [/quote]
Alright. I had a different impression based on your previous posts about Japanese Nationalists and the names used to describe your son as you mentioned.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
No. Superior in that there is a MOTHER and a FATHER, one of each, to raise the child. What is so difficult to grasp about this? Broken homes have NOTHING, ZERO to do with the issue. Now, please answer my question instead of dodging it. [/quote]
I wasn’t trying to evade the question. Let me try again:
The superior family unit is not defined by the sex of the two parents. It is defined by how nurturing and stable the environment created by the parents for the children is. There are countless examples where a mother and father provided a home of neglect and instability.
The reality is there are shitty straight parents and there are shitty gay parents.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION has a hidden agenda? Maybe they support gay marriage because they can’t find a reason not to.[/quote]
Maybe.
Then again maybe they DO have a hidden agenda.[/quote]
If you have any evidence to prove they are biased or have a hidden agenda I will take it seriously. Feel free to share.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Yes, of course. Millenia of proof that gay marriage raised children will devolve into parasites of society. Tons of that evidence for that floating around on the interwebz somewhere I’m sure…
[/quote]
Exactly.
There hasn’t been ANY substantial numbers for gay marriage raised children for ANY time period in history because it’s never existed in substantial numbers.
My statement on conjecture stands.
[/quote]
Studies on gay parenting date back 20+ years.
You’re doing exactly what you did in the evolution thread. You set unattainable standards of evidence for position you disagree with while setting bare bones standards for positions you agree with.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
- Women who can’t have children due to medical or some other issues.
- Old people, my grandfather just got re-married at 85 and both of them are functionally unable to have children.[/quote]
Sorry, I guess the better word would be “form.” The general function or form, of a marriage allows for children, though it does not require it. After all that is the primary purpose of marriage, the raising and protecting biological children.[/quote]
Your next post is basically this same idea so I am only replying to this one. I mentioned at least 1 case that has no primary purpose according to you that is still a valid marriage. Marriage is “based” on a man and women but that doesn’t limit it to that. So I have yet to hear a good reason why it MUST be limited to a man and women.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
marriage is based on the commitment to 1 other person in an equal partnership. [/quote]
Since when? I love how we get to define crap and say we win.
Marriage is based on a man and woman, which makes up the form and substance of a marriage in order to allow the fulfilling of the primary end or purpose of marriage, to raise and protect children and strengthen society as a whole. Only secondary is it about the actual people in the marriage.[/quote]
I still recommend you do some research on the history of marriage.
For much of European history it was used solely as a business agreement and forming alliances etc. Love marriages are not as old you think.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
- Women who can’t have children due to medical or some other issues.
- Old people, my grandfather just got re-married at 85 and both of them are functionally unable to have children.[/quote]
Sorry, I guess the better word would be “form.” The general function or form, of a marriage allows for children, though it does not require it. After all that is the primary purpose of marriage, the raising and protecting biological children.[/quote]
Your next post is basically this same idea so I am only replying to this one. I mentioned at least 1 case that has no primary purpose according to you that is still a valid marriage. Marriage is “based” on a man and women but that doesn’t limit it to that. So I have yet to hear a good reason why it MUST be limited to a man and women.[/quote]
Because it’s the only match that can produce children…the purpose of marriage. Exceptions just prove the rule.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
- Women who can’t have children due to medical or some other issues.
- Old people, my grandfather just got re-married at 85 and both of them are functionally unable to have children.[/quote]
Sorry, I guess the better word would be “form.” The general function or form, of a marriage allows for children, though it does not require it. After all that is the primary purpose of marriage, the raising and protecting biological children.[/quote]
Your next post is basically this same idea so I am only replying to this one. I mentioned at least 1 case that has no primary purpose according to you that is still a valid marriage. Marriage is “based” on a man and women but that doesn’t limit it to that. So I have yet to hear a good reason why it MUST be limited to a man and women.[/quote]
Because it’s the only match that can produce children…the purpose of marriage. Exceptions just prove the rule.[/quote]
Now we are going in circles. I gave you 2 examples of a “match” that cannot produce children yet is still a valid marriage. So children are not a requirement so lets not bring it up anymore.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Obama is pure evil, no doubt – he hates freedom, intelligence, science, technology. Now the POS even betrays his religion. He is pure scum.[/quote]
Ohh look at you mr cherry picker.
Joke you are headhunter.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Does even just the tiniest bit of common sense pound against the interior of your cranium and suggest Mama and Daddy is the better way to go rather than Daddy and Daddy? Do you not concede that a child who grows up seeing the interaction between the two sexes as parents has got to trump the situation of the child growing up hearing daddy poking daddy in the ass every night?[/quote]
There it is ladies and gentlemen the douchiness of Mr Push. lol how sad are you Push, its true people are petty.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
- Women who can’t have children due to medical or some other issues.
- Old people, my grandfather just got re-married at 85 and both of them are functionally unable to have children.[/quote]
Sorry, I guess the better word would be “form.” The general function or form, of a marriage allows for children, though it does not require it. After all that is the primary purpose of marriage, the raising and protecting biological children.[/quote]
Your next post is basically this same idea so I am only replying to this one. I mentioned at least 1 case that has no primary purpose according to you that is still a valid marriage. Marriage is “based” on a man and women but that doesn’t limit it to that. So I have yet to hear a good reason why it MUST be limited to a man and women.[/quote]
Because it’s the only match that can produce children…the purpose of marriage. Exceptions just prove the rule.[/quote]
Now we are going in circles. I gave you 2 examples of a “match” that cannot produce children yet is still a valid marriage. So children are not a requirement so lets not bring it up anymore.[/quote]
No, children are not a requirement. When did I say that? I said “allows” and has the “form.” Now, you’re just making shit up since I never said that children are a requirement, being as allowing for children and children are not the same thing.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
No, children are not a requirement. When did I say that? I said “allows” and has the “form.” Now, you’re just making shit up since I never said that children are a requirement, being as allowing for children and children are not the same thing.[/quote]
And Adoption?
What the hell is so special about homosexuals that they need government recognition of their private relationship? What absolutely critical function is met by recognizing their marriages, for the orderly propogation of our citizenry, beyond that of two best-friends? What is this bizarre faddish infatuation? IF homosexuality is biological, and a cure (prenatal hormonal care, gene therapy, etc.) was not only discovered, but also became routine-cheap medical care during pregnancy, it would for all intents and purposes vanish from developed nations. Liberal and conservatives moms alike would take the screening and the ‘cure.’ And you know what? The world wouldn’t even notice. That’s how pointless homosexuality is to public welfare. Put their relationship up above any and all other forms (excepting the present one) of relationships? Without any kind of critical justification? What kind of faddish weepy-eyed soft-bigotry is that?
One male and one female is the smallest unit capable of producing it’s own viable offspring within intact homes, with both biological parents present. Even those who can’t or won’t have children add to the incidence of encountering married heterosexual couples in daily life, therefore, still serving as a model–the orderly matching of the opposite sexes in committed households. Which, is PARAMOUNT to the continuing prosperity of our society.
Stop pretending you don’t get it.