In response to:

Will Democrats End Marriage As We Know It?

DEmike Wrote: Aug 01, 2012 12:41 PM
Because many same sex marriages do provide stability and not all traditional marriages provide stability in any sense of the word. So in essence, this reward is not based on the behavior you claim it is meant for. Furthermore, marriage is about the joining of two lives through a sacred or ultimate pledge. It is not about propagation. Though an important part of life, the lack of children does not invalidate or devalue a traditional marriage. Finally if it is an all important goal of society to employ best method for raising the next generation of citizens, then it would enforce standards to that end and take steps against those who don’t provide such a setting. Are you calling for the government to come in and take away the child?
Jay Wye Wrote: Aug 01, 2012 7:22 PM
most same sex "marriages" do NOT provide stability.
Over half of them are OPEN "marriages",not any true marriage.

And marriage is the joining of **man and woman**,not "any two people".
you can't mate two connectors of the same polarity.
Stan432 Wrote: Aug 01, 2012 5:37 PM
Marriage IS a standard for raising children. And marriage is a social institution because of the possibility of children, that's why it's special. That doesn't mean it always does, but it exists socially to protect children. Without it children are more likely to either lack a mother or a father, be poorer, less educated etc. This is an effort by homosexuals to trivialize marriage, not encourage it.
Bill1895 Wrote: Aug 01, 2012 1:02 PM
Even if many "same sex marriages" provide stability so what? Being convicted of a crime at age 20 and receiving a life sentence also provides stability.

Is the possibility of a stable "same sex marriage", worth the costs to society and others? NO

Anominus Wrote: Aug 01, 2012 1:00 PM
Married couples living happy lives together are certainly beneficial to the involved individuals, but little to no benefit to society. Those couples who lack children are an exception to the rule because they meet the minimum standard. Whether through choice or defect they are unable or unwilling to provide children.

The government does take away children if the parents prove themselves to be unfit. Child Dependency is the other side of the juvenile court process. If the parents are proven to be neglectful, harmful or otherwise unable to care for their children, the children can be placed with relatives, foster homes, etc. until the situation is alleviated. If the situation cannot be corrected, the parents rights may be severed.
Kizarvexious Wrote: Aug 01, 2012 12:56 PM
Anominus Wrote: Aug 01, 2012 12:55 PM
The grand majority of homosexual unions do not provide stability, to the point where they are the exception rather than the rule. The grand majority of heterosexual marriages do provide stability along with the other things I have mentioned. In any case, society offers privileges to married couples to encourage stability because a stable family is the best place to raise children. Well-raised children are the primary benefit traditional marriage offers to society and the main reason society rewards marriage in return.

Marriage is about the joining of one man and one woman in a sacred pledge. Why? What happens when a man and woman are joined together? Generally, children.
DEmike Wrote: Aug 01, 2012 12:44 PM
I'm sorry, that was addressed to Anominus

When the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed in Congress in 1996, the vote was bi-partisan and overwhelming. In the House, the tally was 342-67. Only the farthest left of Democrats and a handful of Republicans voted against it. A majority of Democrats supported marriage. In the Senate, the vote was even more lopsided and bi-partisan, 85-14. Again, most Democrats backed marriage. In both houses of Congress, the DOMA passed with such strong margins that President Clinton could clearly see the measure had better than "veto strength." That is, if he had vetoed the Defense of Marriage Act, Congress could have...