You increase the happiness of 5-10% of population and you open the door to more orphan children being able to land in a happy familiar environment. [/quote]
Well, no you don’t, not categorically, and in any event you don’t pass laws to “make people happy” - that’s just dumb as hell.
Secondly, if we have a public policy problem of not enough orphaned kids going to family environments, that’s an easy fix - create more incentives for traditional/rational families to adopt them. That’s a piece of cake.
There isn’t a lack of interest in traditional/rational families to take on adopted children - it’s a matter of ability. So, we can easily improve their ability to take them on.
Problem solved. [/quote]
Really? Panem et circenses would like to have a word with you.
‘Dumb as hell’, ‘not categorically’, ‘in any event’ but it happens. Maybe not in USA, but in many European countries it does. Football being discussed in the parliament and approving laws concerning football and its availability so people watch it and don’t whine about politics IS exactly this.
You increase the happiness of 5-10% of population and you open the door to more orphan children being able to land in a happy familiar environment.[/quote]
That is a blatantly incorrect figure. The latest studies indicate that about 2%-3% of the population is homosexual. And out of that figure about half have claimed that they would marry if the right was given. That means we are down to about 1% - 1 1/2% of the population. Hardly an overwhelming statistic.
I only mention this because hyperbole is a very common tactic with the large pro gay lobbies.
As for your “making people happy” comment, I wonder why a 45 year old man is denied entry into the United States Army even though he is well able to pass all of their fitness requirements?
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
To my righteous Christian friends:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; etc…”
What part of that don’t you understand?
[/quote]
I understand it plenty, I have the right to exercise my religion when I please (legislation, voting, work, life, &c.); however, I’m not even freely exercising my religion (except for the part about seeking truth) at the moment.
I’m making a “secular” argument for marriage. It seems that only the atheists (and Tirib) in this thread are bringing up religion. I don’t quite understand why the atheists brought religion up first, as it had nothing to do with discourse. The fact that persons in the discourse maybe religious (I’m not sure all of them are) is accidental to their arguments for the most part (Tirib).
I’ve been against two men or two women getting married since I was an atheist (surprisingly I didn’t care before that). My stance on marriage may in fact be reinforced by religious understanding; however, my societal stance on the matter has nothing to do with my religion necessarily.
Really? Panem et circenses would like to have a word with you.
‘Dumb as hell’, ‘not categorically’, ‘in any event’ but it happens. Maybe not in USA, but in many European countries it does. Football being discussed in the parliament and approving laws concerning football and its availability so people watch it and don’t whine about politics IS exactly this.[/quote]
That is super-fantastic - take up with the Eurocrats or whomever is in charge on the continent. We are, after all, talking about gay marriage in the USA.
Let me guess - not an American, Edevus?
As for “bread and circuses”, that’s precisely the point - just as the frivolity of “bread and circuses” contributed to the decline of Rome with its debasing entitlement and distraction and superficial placating of the people at the expense of public virtue, I’m happy to take a proud stand against “bread and circuses” policy, which, we both agree, gay marriage certainly is, so that we can avoid the same fate.
You increase the happiness of 5-10% of population and you open the door to more orphan children being able to land in a happy familiar environment.
That is a blatantly incorrect figure. The latest studies indicate that about 2%-3% of the population is homosexual. And out of that figure about half have claimed that they would marry if the right was given. That means we are down to about 1% - 1 1/2% of the population. Hardly an overwhelming statistic.
I only mention this because hyperbole is a very common tactic with the large pro gay lobbies.
My computer is broken sorry, it’s not displaying the links you’re providing of those studies.[/quote]
I must have the same virus on my computer as I didn’t get the link where you proved that up to 10% of the population is homosexual.
[quote]Edevus wrote:
Homosexual couples can be parents as well[/quote]
Homosexual couples cannot both be the biological parent of the child. They have to go outside of the coupling for one of them to be the biological parent.
The part where you are completely incorrect about it being a constitutional matter. You don’t have a constitutonal right to “pursue happiness” (whatever that means exactly), and we - meaning society - have a right to pass laws for the good of society as long as they have a rational basis.
[/quote]Actually, we DO have a constitutional right not to be interfered with in our pursuit of happiness, so long as it doesn’t violate the law. Last time I checked, being a homosexual doesn’t violate any FEDERAL laws (I’m sure there are many obscure local and state laws that outlaw homosexuality - right along with blowjobs, having sex with the lights on, any position other than missionary, or any number of “Christian influenced” attempts to legislate THEIR version of “morality”). If it were up to “popular opinion” about what laws to pass and not pass, then inter-racial couples never would have been granted the right to get married because of bigoted people like you. [quote]
Is there a rational basis behind rational marriage? Yes. Rational marriage (primarily) helps govern the space in society that has to deal with procreation and the public impact when there is a lack of order in this process. This policy of rational marriage wouldn’t apply to gays, as they don’t procreate, have out-of-wedlock children, etc.
[/quote]By that logic, it couldn’t apply to anyone who get’s their tubes tied or has a vasectomy. I’ve been married and I don’t seem to remember being asked if my plumbing was intact… or if my fiance was in menopause… in fact, there was NOTHING in my marriage vows AT ALL that even MENTIONED offspring. THAT’S BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ONE ANOTHER[quote]
Rational. Again, it is the same policy rationale as not allowng young people to participate in Medicare - the policy aim of Medicare was to help senior citizens get health care coverage in their old age, not young people. Young people may be upset that they don’t get the same benefits as old people under Medicare, but that is irrelevant - the law wasn’t passed to deal with issues facing young people, it doesn’t apply to them and their situations. and young people don’t have some manufactured constitutional “right” to the Medicare benefits on account of being “discriminated against” as compared to privileged older people.
Rational.[/quote]
Bringing the Entitlements into the mix and creating a strawman argument that young people resent old people having Medicare only served to give your post the appearance of having a little more ‘meat’, it had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the subject at hand, you are simply muddying the waters and distracting people from the main issue of my post (your rebuttal of said issue being conspicuously absent): separation of Church and State and how Christians keep trying to legislate THEIR religious views to the detriment of the non-Christians in our society.
Really? Panem et circenses would like to have a word with you.
‘Dumb as hell’, ‘not categorically’, ‘in any event’ but it happens. Maybe not in USA, but in many European countries it does. Football being discussed in the parliament and approving laws concerning football and its availability so people watch it and don’t whine about politics IS exactly this.[/quote]
That is super-fantastic - take up with the Eurocrats or whomever is in charge on the continent. We are, after all, talking about gay marriage in the USA.
Let me guess - not an American, Edevus?
As for “bread and circuses”, that’s precisely the point - just as the frivolity of “bread and circuses” contributed to the decline of Rome with its debasing entitlement and distraction and superficial placating of the people at the expense of public virtue, I’m happy to take a proud stand against “bread and circuses” policy, which, we both agree, gay marriage certainly is, so that we can avoid the same fate.
Thanks for making my point for me. You’re useful.[/quote]
What is super fantastic is that we can only talk about USA stuff here now. The thread title is “Traditional Marriage?” and while the author of the entry speaks about Americans and so on, it also speaks about many other things.
It’s quite rude to now jump into “This is about USA”. Obviously not an American, but I guess I can be happy that you didn’t notice before considering that English is my third language.
I don’t know to what point it contributes to its decline, but it’s there, although you said that “categorically, not in any event, etc.” yet it does happen.
I’m glad that more countries are getting into it. It’s good to leave back the mentality that homosexuality is wrong because…??
[quote]Edevus wrote:
Homosexual couples can be parents as well[/quote]
Homosexual couples cannot both be the biological parent of the child. They have to go outside of the coupling for one of them to be the biological parent.[/quote]
So do many heterosexual couples, including two of my friends who recently adopted two former kids from a very troublesome couple (both in jail).
I’m glad that more countries are getting into it. It’s good to leave back the mentality that homosexuality is wrong because…??[/quote]
because it benefits society on so many levels? Noooo that couldn’t be it. I wonder what it does for the greater good?
I know of many things it does that harm people. Shall I drag out the CDC statistics so we can view the sickest (literally) group of people in the nation? They have worse health than smokers or even alcoholics.
So what good is this again?
Why are we promoting this behavior?
Oh yeah that’s right because it makes about 1 1/2% of the population temporarily happy.
[quote]Edevus wrote:
Homosexual couples can be parents as well[/quote]
Homosexual couples cannot both be the biological parent of the child. They have to go outside of the coupling for one of them to be the biological parent.[/quote]
That concept seems too difficult for them to comprehend.
I’m glad that more countries are getting into it. It’s good to leave back the mentality that homosexuality is wrong because…??[/quote]
because it benefits society on so many levels? Noooo that couldn’t be it. I wonder what it does for the greater good?
I know of many things it does that harm people. Shall I drag out the CDC statistics so we can view the sickest (literally) group of people in the nation? They have worse health than smokers or even alcoholics.
So what good is this again?
Why are we promoting this behavior?
Oh yeah that’s right because it makes about 1 1/2% of the population temporarily happy.
Got it![/quote]
Can you also share some statistics from the CDC on certain diseases and ethnic populations in the united states? If one of them stands out maybe we can pass a law to prevent them from getting married which will fix the problem…
But we all know these Christians aren’t logical… [/quote]
Incorrect. [/quote]
A logical person would would dismiss just about every single basic outrageous claim made by Christianity. From the “immaculate” conception to the “resurrection”. And all the bullshit in between.
Using LOGIC, what’s more likely: Mathew 1;18 “… His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.”? OR They had a little ‘fun time’ on the road. Or perhaps they were set upon by bandits and she was raped. Or any number of possible circumstances where a dick ended up in her and she got knocked up and LIED about it. What’s more likely?
Who’s exactly not able to keep pace here, the ones who support progress or the ones stuck in old beliefs? Yeah, that’d be you. [/quote]
Gay marriage isn’t “progress” - “progress” is creating solutions to existing problems. Gay marriage is a solution in search of a problem. It doesn’t solve anything - society doesn’t get any reciprocal benefits from the institutionalization of this kind of marriage.
But hey, if “renting a mother” is “natural”, maybe anything is possible?[/quote]
You increase the happiness of 5-10% of population[/quote]
Actually it would possibly increase the happiness of 4-5% of the population.
Except homosexual relationships are notoriously not happy indicated by domestic violence rates, at the highest counts 35.4% (highest 45%, lowest ~20%) of lesbian couples report DV compared to 20% of heterosexual couples and :
Source:
Burke, Leslie K., & Follingstad, Diane R. (1999).
Leeder, Elaine. (1994)
Lie, Gwat-Yong, & Gentlewarrier, Sabrina. (1991).
Iparv, 2002
Where it gets crazy is PVI and DV in male homosexual relationships, according to Merrill and Wolfe (2000) 79% of these relationships reported violence, of that 23% reported head injuries and 13% of forced sex with the intention of infecting the victim with HIV.
This is both sad situation and of course should not be tolerated in the least no matter what someone’s attraction is towards the same sex.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Homosexual people CAN HAVE CHILDREN (alternative methods as started above), will STAY MARRIED if they are in love and will provide STABLE HOMES to their children.[/quote]
They have to go outside of their SS relationship to do it. This is the point.
It’s not, we understand that one partner has to inseminate or be inseminated with someone OUTSIDE that relationship to make a baby. You have yet to give us a reason why this behavior should be encouraged by the government in the means of giving them benefits besides that it will make them happy…which you haven’t proven, yet we’ve shown is not in the interest of the government to make you happy.