[quote]Sloth wrote:
Hasn’t it only been outright legal throughout Canada for 4 years? [/quote]
Something like that. Slightly longer in Ontario where I’m from. Beleive it or not, the sky hasn’t fallen yet. My marriage hasn’t been cheapened and society still works.
The only difference is that some people feel a bit more accepted. Why people see this as a bad thing continues to be a mystery to me.
[quote]OBoile wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Hasn’t it only been outright legal throughout Canada for 4 years?
Something like that. Slightly longer in Ontario where I’m from. Beleive it or not, the sky hasn’t fallen yet. My marriage hasn’t been cheapened and society still works.
The only difference is that some people feel a bit more accepted. Why people see this as a bad thing continues to be a mystery to me.[/quote]
We don’t expect the sky to fall. We expect it to take time.
[quote]Gregus wrote:
The Gay movement is hell bent on changing that, as opposed to just building up their own institution. [/quote]
Marriage is just a contract. Marriage is not an institution as such. It is a partnership. That is all.
We could argue all day about what is “normal” and what is not. We could argue all day if it is “healthy” for children to be raised by gays or not.
As far as I am concerned it’s none of anyone’s business what two or three or four consenting adults do with each other.
It’s time for the busy bodies to get a life and admit they have no idea what is best for everyone else.
[quote]Gregus wrote:
The Gay movement is hell bent on changing that, as opposed to just building up their own institution. [/quote]
I’d missed this before. Do you really think this would make them happy? Were black people content with their own water fountains?
“Seperate but equal” doesn’t really exist.
[quote]OBoile wrote:
Gregus wrote:
Some I’m sure can be born gay, but whatever. They Need to lay off the title of “marriage” and fight for all equal protection under law if they have a lifetime partner. Then they need to make up another name for their club so as to not offend heterosexual and traditional couples.
Why are they hell bent on “marriage”? As in using that title. That’s the real reason there is controversy. Members of the the “marriage” club feel it is their own and defined as between a man and a woman. The Gay movement is hell bent on changing that, as opposed to just building up their own institution.
I’m a member of the “marriage” club who is in a traditional heterosexual marriage and having gay people refer to themselves as married doesn’t offend me one bit. I certainly don’t feel like it is my own, or defined as between a man and a woman.
Heaven forbid people, who aren’t hurting anybody, want to feel accepted.
Maybe the problem isn’t them… maybe its you.[/quote]
Maybe i am the problem. Yes it bothers me. And why do i have to be demonized for it bothering me. Im not prejudiced against gays and have an open mind. I like my marriage institution to stay between a man and a woman.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Gregus wrote:
The Gay movement is hell bent on changing that, as opposed to just building up their own institution.
Marriage is just a contract. Marriage is not an institution as such. It is a partnership. That is all. [/quote]
I’d argue that this line of thinking is what’s gone so wrong with marriage already in the past, I don’t know, 50 or 60 years. Getting worse and worse as time goes by. How the hell…I’m being serious here, notice I said hell instead of heck…how in the hell does one not consider marriage an institution, but instead, just a partnership? You better support it as an institution, because all those broken homes are going to replace mommy, daddy, or maybe both, with checks, vouchers, and social workers via Uncle Sam. The less of an institution marriage is, the greater an institution the government is.
Anyways, this thread is supposed to be for all of you to support this other “alternative lifestyle.” Please, continue.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
John S. wrote:
The problem with debating alternative marriage is we are avoiding the real question.
Is marriage a Government concern or is it Religious concern?
As long as we ignore this these problems will keep popping up.
Yep.
Presently it’s both. And since I assume this thread is about the government concern I have to say that from a constitutional perspective it must remain a state government concern if a gov’t concern at all. The federal government has no legal say in the matter.
IMO, the states therefore have the power via the Tenth Amendment and through their duly elected representatives to regulate whether or not they choose to recognize marriages of any stripe. There is definitely no “right” to any particular type of marriage.[/quote]
Word, push.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Anyways, this thread is supposed to be for all of you to support this other “alternative lifestyle.” Please, continue.[/quote]
It’s not about supporting. It’s about not caring. It’s not the government’s business to ban it and it’s not my business to care.
If the relationship takes place between consenting adults, it doesn’t bother me. The reason the gays are probably trying to distance themselves is that oftentimes, from what I can tell, polygamists of the religious type tend to also be associated with child abuse.
I think this thread backfired… Thunder, did you expect a slew of anti-polygamy hatred from the people that say gay marriage should be legalized?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
OBoile wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Hasn’t it only been outright legal throughout Canada for 4 years?
Something like that. Slightly longer in Ontario where I’m from. Beleive it or not, the sky hasn’t fallen yet. My marriage hasn’t been cheapened and society still works.
The only difference is that some people feel a bit more accepted. Why people see this as a bad thing continues to be a mystery to me.
We don’t expect the sky to fall. We expect it to take time. [/quote]
How is the sky going to fall if gays can get married? What’s your “vision of the future” oh magical seer?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
The less of an institution marriage is, the greater an institution the government is.[/quote]
In fact, your reasoning is backward and wrong. The greater an institution government is the lesser an institution the family is.
Marriage is not a necessity to bring about a family.
I think I am going to get a sex change and become a lesbian so I can fit in with the NWO.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I think this thread backfired… Thunder, did you expect a slew of anti-polygamy hatred from the people that say gay marriage should be legalized?[/quote]
I won’t speak for TB, but I actually anticipated, and even counted on, responses such as yours.
[quote]Gregus wrote:
So let’s play with it. Let’s encourage same sex parents and such. Im sure the kids will be perfectly adjusted and normal. lol. [/quote]
The research on children raised by gay parents shows that they are normal on all standard measures of psychological and emotional health. Who woulda thunk?
I couldn’t care less what you call it. If you makes you feel more righteous to restrict the term “marriage” to a man and a woman, go for it. What my partner and I care about are the rights/responsibilities associated with the marriage contract, whatever you choose to call it.
Marriage = man and woman. Sorry for being “old fashined”
Civil Union = Man and Man, Woman and Woman. It should afford equal protection under the law to those individuals.
Their fixation on forcing to be able to use the term “Marriage” is their undoing.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Gregus wrote:
So let’s play with it. Let’s encourage same sex parents and such. Im sure the kids will be perfectly adjusted and normal. lol.
The research on children raised by gay parents shows that they are normal on all standard measures of psychological and emotional health. Who woulda thunk?
Why are they hell bent on “marriage”? As in using that title. That’s the real reason there is controversy. Members of the the “marriage” club feel it is their own and defined as between a man and a woman. The Gay movement is hell bent on changing that, as opposed to just building up their own institution.
I couldn’t care less what you call it. If you makes you feel more righteous to restrict the term “marriage” to a man and a woman, go for it. What my partner and I care about are the rights/responsibilities associated with the marriage contract, whatever you choose to call it.
[/quote]
Agreed on the second part. The first part was sarcasm i assume?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Gregus wrote:
So let’s play with it. Let’s encourage same sex parents and such. Im sure the kids will be perfectly adjusted and normal. lol.
The research on children raised by gay parents shows that they are normal on all standard measures of psychological and emotional health. Who woulda thunk?[/quote]
This is ironic as you are usually the first one to scream about statistics which are not solid enough to make a difference. Exactly how many grown children of gay couples are there? What source is this from some pro gay web site?
Come on forlife this is even flimsy for you.
[quote]Gregus wrote:
Maybe i am the problem. Yes it bothers me. And why do i have to be demonized for it bothering me. Im not prejudiced against gays and have an open mind. I like my marriage institution to stay between a man and a woman. [/quote]
Nobody cares if it bothers you, as long as you support equal rights for others. If you truly aren’t prejudiced against gays and have an open mind, why not support civil unions for gays that are recognized at the federal level? That way you get to keep the term “marriage”, while allowing gays to have the same basic responsibilites/benefits through the civil union contract.
[quote]Gregus wrote:
Marriage = man and woman. Sorry for being “old fashined”
Civil Union = Man and Man, Woman and Woman. It should afford equal protection under the law to those individuals.
Their fixation on forcing to be able to use the term “Marriage” is their undoing. [/quote]
I am against any sort of civil union status for homosexual couples as that would eventually lead to civil union status for other more “unique” couples and groups of people. Homosexuals simply need to accept that the lifestyle that they have chosen does not come with any sort of acceptance from civilized society. I think we would be smart to emulate the more successful societies of the past which, as a rule, did not accept homosexuality.
[quote]Gregus wrote:
Agreed on the second part. The first part was sarcasm i assume? [/quote]
You mean the part about research showing children raised by gay parents are equally healthy? No, that part is true as well.
I’m glad you support civil unions for gays, though, especially at the federal level. That works for me.