The Great Controversy -- or Is It Really?

[Dad_Scaper]

You're thinking of some goofball out west who was grazing his cattle on government land, and acting like he was some kind of martyr. Jerks can have causes too.

I'll look for a link later but I'm pretty sure that's what you're thinking of.

Edit: hold on a sec. Marrowick, which is the easy rule to follow?

[dart48]

OK first off this is my opinion so if it offends anyone, sorry, Im not trying to.

First off, I am very against this passing. Yes part of it is religious reasoning, but what other people do moraly is between them and God. The main thing I have against this is the biological side of it.

Homosexuals can not reproduce and continue on the human race. To my knowledge there is no species that naturally is homosexual while physically being bisexual. It just doesn't work that way. I'm sorry if you're not attracted to the opposite sex. It's not natural not to be.

Marriage has originally been a union to raise a family within that has gained the other legal benifits. It should always be between a man and a women only.

Against the argument of equality, it has been proven that the ideal situation for a child to be raised is with a mother and a father. If a child lacks one of those, he/she is being hurt. How is that fair for that child while others have a father and mother. Marriage should be kept between a man and a women. If two guys or two girls want to have a relationship and whatever, that's between them. But the marriage status should be kept between a man and a women.

dart48~hoping saying this doesn't blow up in my face

[wriggz]

Originally Posted by dart48

OK first off this is my opinion so if it offends anyone, sorry, Im not trying to.

First off, I am very against this passing. Yes part of it is religious reasoning, but what other people do moraly is between them and God. The main thing I have against this is the biological side of it.

Remember the government has not forced religions to accept the Homosexual Marriage into their churches. It has only extended a set of rights to any two people who claim to share their lives together. Marriage certificates cost money, Filing taxes together can actually result in the government getting more taxes. Loving parents raise good kids, regardless of gender. The wedding industry is good for the economy (trust me, Canada and Vermont saw an influx of "Wedding Vacations" from Gay couples. Really, this might be as much about lost revenue as it about equal rights.

Homosexuals can not reproduce and continue on the human race. To my knowledge there is no species that naturally is homosexual while physically being bisexual. It just doesn't work that way. I'm sorry if you're not attracted to the opposite sex. It's not natural not to be.

Marriage has originally been a union to raise a family within that has gained the other legal benifits. It should always be between a man and a women only.

Against the argument of equality, it has been proven that the ideal situation for a child to be raised is with a mother and a father. If a child lacks one of those, he/she is being hurt. How is that fair for that child while others have a father and mother. Marriage should be kept between a man and a women. If two guys or two girls want to have a relationship and whatever, that's between them. But the marriage status should be kept between a man and a women.

dart48~hoping saying this doesn't blow up in my face

I respect your courage to exercise your freedom to hold your personal beliefs and share them with those that are willing to listen. I'm proud we can do so without fearing being banished, stoned or murdered. As long as your actions don't impede others in doing what they believe is right without imposing themselves on others I don't think you will have any problems.

By the way, Check out Bonobos, Studies on children raised in Loving Homosexual Families, Studies on children raised by parents with abusive parents, the history of Interracial Marriage in the US and the history of equal rights Humans that behave differently (i.e. religion) and there various stories of suffering and isolation.

Remember our governments are based on Human Rights, not religious rules, biological statistical norms or even physical laws. It is the rights that we all share (every human) that rule our lands. Picking and choosing which rights various groups get and other groups get denied is Ethically and Legally Wrong, (possibly Morally). The right to life, the right to hold belief, the right to share love with a consenting adult, and all baggage that comes with that (share taxes, hospital visits, etc.) are all rights that I think we can agree all Humans deserve.

Except for red heads. They have no soul.

[Joseph Sweeney]

Originally Posted by Scaperedude

I do not support them passing it, and I know that although the people are not evil, homosexuality is wrong. Say what ever you will against me, but I will hold my ground!

Might I inquire, though?

From a strictly religious point of view -- do you believe it's okay to take away a right bestowed upon someone by God? Namely, the right of free will?

Originally Posted by wriggz

If you are Catholic, I hope you are fighting Global warming since your Pope told you too.

Actually, that's inaccurate. Provided that the Church does not make a Papal Bull, or it's not in Doctrine, then you're not required to do what the Pope tells you. The Pope is human and can be in error, only under specific circumstances are we required to obey the Pope; that is not one of them.

Originally Posted by dart48

OK first off this is my opinion so if it offends anyone, sorry, Im not trying to.

First off, I am very against this passing. Yes part of it is religious reasoning, but what other people do moraly is between them and God. The main thing I have against this is the biological side of it.

Homosexuals can not reproduce and continue on the human race. To my knowledge there is no species that naturally is homosexual while physically being bisexual. It just doesn't work that way. I'm sorry if you're not attracted to the opposite sex. It's not natural not to be.

Marriage has originally been a union to raise a family within that has gained the other legal benifits. It should always be between a man and a women only.

Against the argument of equality, it has been proven that the ideal situation for a child to be raised is with a mother and a father. If a child lacks one of those, he/she is being hurt. How is that fair for that child while others have a father and mother. Marriage should be kept between a man and a women. If two guys or two girls want to have a relationship and whatever, that's between them. But the marriage status should be kept between a man and a women.

dart48~hoping saying this doesn't blow up in my face

Questions -- so say they're not attracted to someone of the opposite sex (because they are not). They won't reproduce anyway because they won't marry anyone, so why not let them do what they want? Do you believe they should marry someone of the opposite sex despite not actually being attracted or in love with them?

Another questions -- it can sometimes be harmful if a child lacks one of the two parental figures in their life. Should we then force everyone who has kids and their spouse dies to remarry, in order to reduce damage done to children?

~JS, who despite what he said, seems to be getting involved

[dart48]

Originally Posted by wriggz

Remember our governments are based on Human Rights, not religious rules, biological statistical norms or even physical laws. It is the rights that we all share (every human) that rule our lands. Picking and choosing which rights various groups get and other groups get denied is Ethically and Legally Wrong, (possibly Morally). The right to life, the right to hold belief, the right to share love with a consenting adult, and all baggage that comes with that (share taxes, hospital visits, etc.) are all rights that I think we can agree all Humans deserve.

This is where things get hard to debate. Based solely on human rights, it passes. Really, it should take more than just that into account, but it doesn't. I just really hope this "equality in everything" fight doesn't get out of hand. I'll give you that one though.

Originally Posted by wriggz

Except for red heads. They have no soul.

That made me laugh sooo hard.

Originally Posted by Joseph Sweeney

-- so say they're not attracted to someone of the opposite sex (because they are not). They won't reproduce anyway because they won't marry anyone, so why not let them do what they want? Do you believe they should marry someone of the opposite sex despite not actually being attracted or in love with them?

There doens't seem to be a winning situation to this one. Let me think on it.

Originally Posted by Joseph Sweeney

Another questions -- it can sometimes be harmful if a child lacks one of the two parental figures in their life. Should we then force everyone who has kids and their spouse dies to remarry, in order to reduce damage done to children?

~JS, who despite what he said, seems to be getting involved

It seems unreasonable, even to me, to force that. It would make sense if it was based solely on the children, but there are too many other factors for it to be a solution.

[marrowick]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

Edit: hold on a sec. Marrowick, which is the easy rule to follow?

(For those who believe it to be a rule) being straight. At least that's my understanding. I don't fully understand the mental impulses gays have.

[wriggz]

Originally Posted by dart48

This is where things get hard to debate. Based solely on human rights, it passes. Really, it should take more than just that into account, but it doesn't. I just really hope this "equality in everything" fight doesn't get out of hand. I'll give you that one though.

Nope Human rights is the beginning and the end, the alpha and omega if you will, of Governments and Laws. Every Man created equal under God... I believe that is how it goes.

Oh and I said Human rights. Not equality in everything only human rights. It is an important distinction. You work harder you get more money. You commit crimes, your freedom is limited. You say stupid things, ain't no guaranty that I need to listen or give you a forum to say your stupid words, you can say 'em but I don't have to listen.

[Dad_Scaper]

Originally Posted by dart48

OK first off this is my opinion so if it offends anyone, sorry, Im not trying to.

The opinion parts are the opinion parts. Let's separate it out and see where we are.

First off, I am very against this passing.

"Passing"? This wasn't legislation. It was the Supreme Court saying that marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution - not really a new idea, but this was a new context in which it was expressed - and homosexuals should get to marry their loved ones too, just as the rest of us do.

Yes part of it is religious reasoning, but what other people do moraly is between them and God.

"Religious reasoning"? I don't know what you mean. Moving on.

The main thing I have against this is the biological side of it.

Got it! Until now, you've been presenting your opinions. Now you wish to discuss science, which suggests to me some *facts*. Ok, what have you got.

Homosexuals can not reproduce and continue on the human race.

Well, sure. Neither can people born without the ability to reproduce. So what?

To my knowledge there is no species that naturally is homosexual while physically being bisexual. It just doesn't work that way.

I don't know what this means. Are you saying that homosexuality does not exist outside of humans? (a) If that's true, so what? And (b), do these penguins know about your theory? Honestly, it took me several seconds to find that article. Did you look?

I'm sorry if you're not attracted to the opposite sex. It's not natural not to be.

Err, I don't know about that. It's not natural for you not to be. It's not natural for me to be attracted to people of the same sex. But are you such an expert on human behavior that you presume to speak for everyone? I mean, are you interested in what actual scientists have to say on the subject?

Marriage has originally been a union to raise a family within that has gained the other legal benifits.

Marriage offers lots more than the opportunity to raise kids. Regardless, same-sex couples can raise kids perfectly well.

It should always be between a man and a women only.

Based on what?

Against the argument of equality, it has been proven that the ideal situation for a child to be raised is with a mother and a father. If a child lacks one of those, he/she is being hurt.

Really? Do you know better than the American Academy of Pediatrics? You would think they'd know what's best for kids.

How is that fair for that child while others have a father and mother.

Even assuming for a moment that your argument that it's *better* for a kid to have opposite sex parents - even though to the best of my knowledge that is not actually supported by contemporary science - you appear to be saying that, given the choice between one parent, no parents, or same sex parents, it's better to have anything-but-same-sex-parents. Which seems a little far fetched.

Marriage should be kept between a man and a women. If two guys or two girls want to have a relationship and whatever, that's between them. But the marriage status should be kept between a man and a women.

I understand that this is your opinion.

Your biology argument, however, is not supported by actual science. You don't offer any support for your "history of marriage" argument. The fact is, children benefit from same-sex marriage. It legitimizes real relationships, both in the eyes of the children and their friends and in the eyes of important institutions (schools, hospitals) that relate to the married parents of the children.

The real question, though, is this, and I want you to think carefully about the answer: There are many people you'll never meet; people who are content and far away from you; people contribuing significantly to society, just as you and your family are contributing significantly to society. Setting aside everything else, why is it your business who they get to marry?

So. There are my questions to you. If you have facts, give me some links, as I have given some to you. If you have opinions, feel free to share them but also be prepared to discuss them and, if necessary, to change them. My own opinion on this subject has matured in my adult life; perhaps some others here can say the same.

[dart48]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

The real question, though, is this, and I want you to think carefully about the answer: There are many people you'll never meet; people who are content and far away from you; people contribuing significantly to society, just as you and your family are contributing significantly to society. Setting aside everything else, why is it your business who they get to marry?

It isn't my business who they specifically do. However, once something is legalized, it becomes state endorsed. Even if I don't support it, a portion of my tax money will go to it, it'll become taught in schools to be normal, and it'll become required to accept. Just like racism and gender discrimination have.

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

So. There are my questions to you. If you have facts, give me some links, as I have given some to you. If you have opinions, feel free to share them but also be prepared to discuss them and, if necessary, to change them. My own opinion on this subject has matured in my adult life; perhaps some others here can say the same.

This one gets the topic started

This one covers the majority of my points with evidence.

This backs up the previous link

There is a lot of evidence supporting both sides of gay marriage.
This last link is a religious one.
https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng

[Sydcomebak]

Originally Posted by dart48

Homosexuals can not reproduce and continue on the human race. To my knowledge there is no species that naturally is homosexual while physically being bisexual. It just doesn't work that way. I'm sorry if you're not attracted to the opposite sex. It's not natural not to be.

So there needs to be a fertility test now to get married? So much for the sterile, disfigured, elderly...

Originally Posted by dart48

Marriage has originally been a union to raise a family within that has gained the other legal benifits. It should always be between a man and a women only.

No, Marriage was a business transaction first.

Originally Posted by dart48

Against the argument of equality, it has been proven that the ideal situation for a child to be raised is with a mother and a father. If a child lacks one of those, he/she is being hurt.

This is simply, factually incorrect. Unless you have a degree in child psychology, you are going to have to provide a pile of research sources.

Originally Posted by dart48

dart48~hoping saying this doesn't blow up in my face

Nope.

[wriggz]

I'm fairly sure that inclusive marriage is an economic boon not cost. I was just married and couldn't get over the cost of the certificate and licence. my taxes stayed the same or may have went up as a joint income home. Invetro fertilization lesbians and adoption for gay men costs a fortune in medical or legal fees that need to be paid before the baby shows up. Vermont will likely see a drop in tourism as will Canada as people me stay home and have local weddings.

weddings themselves generate local economic growth. governments even get a cut from legal fees from devorce. The only deficit may be from families with same gendered parents with the child tax benifits. however currently those families are likely claiming as single parents so the will like end up paying more taxes as joint rather than less.

economically the decision is good for the government.

[ollie]

Originally Posted by wriggz

Except for red heads. They have no soul.

The next battle?