In response to:

Democratic Debate on Marriage Better Than Judicial Commands

scoobydoosmj Wrote: Feb 08, 2013 11:54 AM
Let me put the Christians minds to rest. Gay people are not out to destroy marriage or the family. As a husband and a father gay people will never be a threat to my marriage. or yours. Only straight people can destroy their marrige. Children do not define marrige. I have two marriages in my family who never wanted children. That does not make their marrige any less valid. I was married for 3 years before the birth of my son. belive me my marrige was every bit as fullfilling then as it is now. I just wonder how much socitey benifits from 3rd & 4th marriages. Usally those people are only iterested in their own happiness Funny how communistic conservatives get about marrige when they reject social welfare on just about every other issue.
Cambermeister Wrote: Feb 08, 2013 12:20 PM
Scoobydoosmj, 99% of homosexuals won't get 'married'.
So if it's not marriage they seek, what are they really after?
DCM in FL Wrote: Feb 08, 2013 12:28 PM
Come on, Camber, I think you know the answer to that: To appear normal, and be officially declared normal, without having to do the heavy lifting of actually *being* normal.
DCM in FL Wrote: Feb 08, 2013 12:12 PM
"Gay people are not out to destroy marriage or the family" -- Perhaps not directly.

"gay people will never be a threat to my marriage. or yours" -- Old strawman argument. Nobody's saying the issue has to do with individual, existing marriages.

"Children do not define marrige [sic]" -- True, but children are a primary purpose of it. And in marriages where children are not had (by choice or otherwise), there is still something in the committed male/female dynamic that nothing else comes close to approximating.
scoobydoosmj Wrote: Feb 08, 2013 1:01 PM
If a child grows up without a mother or a father that is the failure of straight people 99.9999999999999999% of the time. Gay people will rasie a very small precentage of childern. You could get rid of homosexuality today it would not affect the well being of children one bit. Untill conservatives start worring about the vast majory of children suffering from the affects of straight devoirce as much as the small precent who are rasied by gay parents, the "For The Children" argument seems like hollow excuse for their bigotry.
Jack2894 Wrote: Feb 08, 2013 1:07 PM
IF they are "indirectly" out to destroy marraige, please provide some evidence of that.

It is not a strawman. The implication throughout this and many other articles is that somehow gay marriage will negatively effect straight marriage. If you are equally clear that will never happen, then say so.

Your third point may be true, but seems meaningless. ANy number of non child producing marriage arrangements are operating, including mine. WHy does this matter in any way to those who will have children.


DCM in FL Wrote: Feb 08, 2013 1:07 PM
Societal acceptance of homosexuality negatively affects even children who aren't raised by "gays."

Besides, who says conservatives aren't concerned with divorce?

P.S.: Opposition to legitimizing homosexuality is never "bigotry," any more than opposition to legitimizing pedophilia would be "bigotry."
DCM in FL Wrote: Feb 08, 2013 1:11 PM
"IF they are 'indirectly' out to destroy marraige, please provide some evidence of that" -- Counterfeiting anything devalues it.

"It is not a strawman. The implication throughout this and many other articles is that somehow gay marriage will negatively effect straight marriage." -- The strawman is that it would affect anyone's individual marriages. Who's ever claimed that?

"Your third point may be true, but seems meaningless" -- As I said, there is something in the committed male/female dynamic that nothing else comes close to approximating. That is far from meaningless.
Jack2894 Wrote: Feb 08, 2013 1:12 PM
How does social acceptance of homosexuality negatively affect children? That's a significant claim, even extraordinary. DO you have extraordinary proof? I don't think conservatives aren't' concerned with divorce, but they do seem many orders of magnitude more concerned about homosexuality.

You can have your opinion regarding bigotry. I get to have mine. I think you are a bigot. You don't feel like one. OK by me.
Jack2894 Wrote: Feb 08, 2013 1:39 PM
Counterfeiting? That's kind of absurd, given that there is no way to quantify the value of that social institution to check to see if it is true.

If gay marriage will not affect ANY of the individual marriages, then how does it affect the institution? How can you qualify or quantify that change?

Regarding the male/female dynamic, you must have some evidence of some sort that gay couples do not have an equally vibrant dynamic. Do you?
ca7 Wrote: Feb 08, 2013 1:56 PM
" And in marriages where children are not had (by choice or otherwise), there is still something in the committed male/female dynamic that nothing else comes close to approximating. "

Please, tell us what this something is because I really do fail to see how a childless committed relationship between opposite-sex partners is that different from a childless committed relationship between same-sex partners.
DCM in FL Wrote: Feb 08, 2013 2:07 PM
"How does social acceptance of homosexuality negatively affect children?" -- Will respond to above.

"I think you are a bigot." -- My life proves I am not one.

"I really do fail to see how a childless committed relationship between opposite-sex partners is that different
from one between same-sex partners." -- Then that's your ignorance, not my failure to explain.

NOTE: This is the second column in a series of columns related to National Marriage Week, Feb. 7-14, 2013. The first is available here.

Not content with government “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” some have brought their case for same-sex marriage to the courts and asked them to overturn the policy of states such as California—where the people voted to affirm man-woman marriage’s benefits to society, not just once, but twice in an eight-year span.

These advocates lean upon a constitutional interpretation that requires the fundamental redefinition of marriage in a manner, not only unknown...