This Site's View on Same-Sex Marriage

[John Dibble]

Under the current system, same-sex marriage.

What the system should be - full civil unions for ALL couples.

[John Dibble]

Full marriage, adoption rights for all.  It's a joke that two trashy drunks can get married and have a kid but a stable gay couple can't.  It's more than a joke, it's insane and horrible.  Yea, go after the gays, but when 2 drunks get hitched in Vegas and wake up not knowing what the hell happened.....oh, its so beautiful, the sanctity of marriage has been preserved!!!!!  The only reason we don't have gay marriage has nothing to do with the sanctity of marriage, it's only insecure conseratives that couldn't bear to see their beliefs go into question.  On somwhat of a side note, the banning of gay marriage in MO by 70% was a sad, sad day in the history of our country.  

The problem is, we know for a fact that most children who are adopted by gay couples end up with psychological problems, while people who are adopted by straight couples arn't. Sure, alcoholism may be in a straight couple's family, but it's rare, and adoption agencies make sure there are no abusive relationships in the family- they make sure the family is perfect for the child. Drunks can be found in both homosexual and heterosexual lifestyles, and especially more in the homosexual one (homosexuals are more likely to be alcoholics or drug addicts than heterosexuals). Your argument is flawed; adoption agencies do not arbitrarily allow heterosexual couples to adopt children. It's much more extensive then that.

I want proof that children of gay couples end up with phychological problems.  And some more info.  Is it caused by the gay parents or the verbal abuse the family get from others?  What is the definition of "psychological problems", because i know conseratives who say being gay is a psychological problem.  

I agree, where's the proof of this? The couple people I know raised by homosexuals are perfectly normal(not to mention straight).

[John Dibble]

Well said angus.

[John Dibble]

I'm not in "favor" of any of these options. we will either have marriage or civil unions, unions are better. The only reason gays want to be married is to force society as a whole to accept thier actions, making them feel better about themselves.

So, the various benefits bestowed by marriage, like being able to go into the hospital emergency room in the event of such an emergency, has no bearing on the issue whatsoever?

[John Dibble]

I'm not in "favor" of any of these options. we will either have marriage or civil unions, unions are better. The only reason gays want to be married is to force society as a whole to accept thier actions, making them feel better about themselves.

So, the various benefits bestowed by marriage, like being able to go into the hospital emergency room in the event of such an emergency, has no bearing on the issue whatsoever?

I can't go see my best friend in the hospital emergency room, and me and him are like brothers... But you don't see me trying to change the law so it will fit how I like it.

That's not the point. He said the idea is that gays ONLY want to marry to feel better and force society to accept them, I say that that is not the case. Some homosexuals may want SSM for that reason, but many want the same benefits that is given to straight marriages recognized by law.

[John Dibble]

I'm not in "favor" of any of these options. we will either have marriage or civil unions, unions are better. The only reason gays want to be married is to force society as a whole to accept thier actions, making them feel better about themselves.

So, the various benefits bestowed by marriage, like being able to go into the hospital emergency room in the event of such an emergency, has no bearing on the issue whatsoever?

I said civil unions were acceptable. As long as we give them a civil union that includes all of the benefits of marriage, then the argument will be voided. After that then the only argument they can make is that it's discriminatory to not give them marriage, and they will lose on that front every time because the American people don't buy that crap.

Personally, I think ALL government recognized marriage should be civil unions, since in reality that is what they really are. I can see no logical reason to have a seperate term for same-sex relationships.

[John Dibble]

I'm not in "favor" of any of these options. we will either have marriage or civil unions, unions are better. The only reason gays want to be married is to force society as a whole to accept thier actions, making them feel better about themselves.

So, the various benefits bestowed by marriage, like being able to go into the hospital emergency room in the event of such an emergency, has no bearing on the issue whatsoever?

I can't go see my best friend in the hospital emergency room, and me and him are like brothers... But you don't see me trying to change the law so it will fit how I like it.

That's not the point. He said the idea is that gays ONLY want to marry to feel better and force society to accept them, I say that that is not the case. Some homosexuals may want SSM for that reason, but many want the same benefits that is given to straight marriages recognized by law.

Oh ok, but like I said, they don't need to get married. Because it is wrong.. And I can prove it... Can two guy makes kids? No.

Now you might say so if the women can have kids she can't get married... No that is not the case, she could if she did not have problems. But two guy and two girls can't make kids..

Once again the argument that marriage is for the purpose of having children - please stop defining the purpose and meaning of marriage for the rest of us. In many areas(not all though) homosexual couples can adopt(and in reality, only one has actual custody, so in the event of a breakup there is no visitation rights, though I find myself wondering if you would care about it in this kind of case) and those children normally end up fine. And yes, a lesbian couple can produce a child, though a little outside help is required, usually in the form of a sperm bank.

[John Dibble]

I'm not in "favor" of any of these options. we will either have marriage or civil unions, unions are better. The only reason gays want to be married is to force society as a whole to accept thier actions, making them feel better about themselves.

So, the various benefits bestowed by marriage, like being able to go into the hospital emergency room in the event of such an emergency, has no bearing on the issue whatsoever?

I said civil unions were acceptable. As long as we give them a civil union that includes all of the benefits of marriage, then the argument will be voided. After that then the only argument they can make is that it's discriminatory to not give them marriage, and they will lose on that front every time because the American people don't buy that crap.

Personally, I think ALL government recognized marriage should be civil unions, since in reality that is what they really are. I can see no logical reason to have a seperate term for same-sex relationships.

I agree with that. I think "marriage" should be left up to religious groups. Unfortunately legal marriage is too embeded into the American psyche.

I don't like that Idea... Because not only will gay people be able to get married, 2 men and a women could or a man and his dog.

A. Why do you care? It doesn't affect you if a man wants relations with his dog. As for marriages with more than two people, once again it doesn't affect me or you, but I don't think it would ever happen because the tax code for it would be so complicated.

B. A dog is not a citizen, does not and can not pay taxes. A dog is in reality a piece of property that society has given some 'rights'(in the form of animal cruelty laws). As I said, government marriage in reality is a civil union, which is a civil contract - non-humans are not able to enter into contracts.

[John Dibble]

I'm not in "favor" of any of these options. we will either have marriage or civil unions, unions are better. The only reason gays want to be married is to force society as a whole to accept thier actions, making them feel better about themselves.

So, the various benefits bestowed by marriage, like being able to go into the hospital emergency room in the event of such an emergency, has no bearing on the issue whatsoever?

I can't go see my best friend in the hospital emergency room, and me and him are like brothers... But you don't see me trying to change the law so it will fit how I like it.

That's not the point. He said the idea is that gays ONLY want to marry to feel better and force society to accept them, I say that that is not the case. Some homosexuals may want SSM for that reason, but many want the same benefits that is given to straight marriages recognized by law.

Oh ok, but like I said, they don't need to get married. Because it is wrong.. And I can prove it... Can two guy makes kids? No.

Now you might say so if the women can have kids she can't get married... No that is not the case, she could if she did not have problems. But two guy and two girls can't make kids..

Once again the argument that marriage is for the purpose of having children - please stop defining the purpose and meaning of marriage for the rest of us. In many areas(not all though) homosexual couples can adopt(and in reality, only one has actual custody, so in the event of a breakup there is no visitation rights, though I find myself wondering if you would care about it in this kind of case) and those children normally end up fine. And yes, a lesbian couple can produce a child, though a little outside help is required, usually in the form of a sperm bank.

You get my point. What is marriage to you?

To me? Well, while I don't care if anyone else follows how I think a marriage should be(how mine will be one day I hope), here goes:

It is the ultimate bond of trust, sacrifice, and commitment between two people, and it should be considered sacred. Trust because they share their lives and safety, sacrifice because when you live with someone, are dedicated to them, you love them and you want to make them happy and thusly put their happiness first sometimes(generally, you should give as much as you receive), and commitment should be obvious. It also involves acceptance, you have to accept and love the person you marry for who he/she is, not try to make them something they are not. I don't think I can explain it better than that with text.

[John Dibble]

I'm not in "favor" of any of these options. we will either have marriage or civil unions, unions are better. The only reason gays want to be married is to force society as a whole to accept thier actions, making them feel better about themselves.

So, the various benefits bestowed by marriage, like being able to go into the hospital emergency room in the event of such an emergency, has no bearing on the issue whatsoever?

I can't go see my best friend in the hospital emergency room, and me and him are like brothers... But you don't see me trying to change the law so it will fit how I like it.

That's not the point. He said the idea is that gays ONLY want to marry to feel better and force society to accept them, I say that that is not the case. Some homosexuals may want SSM for that reason, but many want the same benefits that is given to straight marriages recognized by law.

Oh ok, but like I said, they don't need to get married. Because it is wrong.. And I can prove it... Can two guy makes kids? No.

Now you might say so if the women can have kids she can't get married... No that is not the case, she could if she did not have problems. But two guy and two girls can't make kids..

Once again the argument that marriage is for the purpose of having children - please stop defining the purpose and meaning of marriage for the rest of us. In many areas(not all though) homosexual couples can adopt(and in reality, only one has actual custody, so in the event of a breakup there is no visitation rights, though I find myself wondering if you would care about it in this kind of case) and those children normally end up fine. And yes, a lesbian couple can produce a child, though a little outside help is required, usually in the form of a sperm bank.

You get my point. What is marriage to you?

To me? Well, while I don't care if anyone else follows how I think a marriage should be(how mine will be one day I hope), here goes:

It is the ultimate bond of trust, sacrifice, and commitment between two people, and it should be considered sacred. Trust because they share their lives and safety, sacrifice because when you live with someone, are dedicated to them, you love them and you want to make them happy and thusly put their happiness first sometimes(generally, you should give as much as you receive), and commitment should be obvious. It also involves acceptance, you have to accept and love the person you marry for who he/she is, not try to make them something they are not. I don't think I can explain it better than that with text.

Thats a good way to say it, but what if someone felt that way about her mother or his father. Should they get married?

Well, first off, the parent would have to return that sentiment. Second, I don't think so, for a multitude of reasons. I don't think it would be possible to stop them from having a relationship of that nature, but government would likely not allow it. Inbreeding would be an issue, as it is detrimental(yes, I know this goes back to children being the purpose of marriage, but this isn't the only reason I don't think it should be allowed), and a multitude of wierd tax reasons could also be an issue. Let's also not forget that someone who falls in love with their parent is not likely psychologically stable, so it could be construed that they do not have the mental capacity to give consent for such a relationship.

[John Dibble]

On the 5-year old girl - this once again goes to consent. First off, the man is obviously a pedophile - so he has a psychological instability, calling his consent into question. Second, the little girl is obviously too young to understand the implications of marriage, or even sex, and does not have the mental capacity to consent to either.

[John Dibble]

But you said, if they love each other they can get married. I'm just messing with you. But you see, If we let Gay people get married. Then people like that would wont it too. And before you know it there will be no marriage.

And, as I said, I don't think marriage is the government's business, so is this supposed to scare me?

But seriously, as I said, there is a much greater multitude of reasons(many of which are more logical and harder to argue against) to block incestuous relationships. I have serious doubts it will be a problem, and I doubt any judge would rule in favor of such a thing(especially at state supreme court and federal levels), and clearly no legislature would either.

[John Dibble]

On the 5-year old girl - this once again goes to consent. First off, the man is obviously a pedophile - so he has a psychological instability, calling his consent into question. Second, the little girl is obviously too young to understand the implications of marriage, or even sex, and does not have the mental capacity to consent to either.

I'm not arguing that. In fact, that in some ways makes my point. Marriage isn't just whatever you want it to be. It is what it is. One man-one woman.

Well, in a religious sense it could easily be defined as anything. However, to think of this issue as far as government is concerned(which is what we currently are doing), we need to consider factors such as harm relationships can cause(and I don't think SSM would cause harm) and other factors(like ability to consent, which may tie into the psychological stability of the participants as I said). I have yet to hear a compelling enough argument to convince me that SSM would cause anyone harm or that homosexuals are somehow too unstable to consent to such a relationship(if Brambilia reads this no doubt he'll go on a rant), so I can see no reason not to allow it.

[John Dibble]

Bram - link your evidence please. Also, none of your information shows evidence of true psychological imbalance. You also seem to COMPLETELY ignore your sixth argument, which was, to reiterate:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also, would it not be superior for a child to be adopted by a homosexual couple rather than be raised in an orphanage with NO loving parents, or be sent from foster home to foster home, even if same-sex parents may not be as good as opposite-sex ones?

And, I won't get into an argument over you with this again, but I still think your views on homosexuality is off.

[John Dibble]

On the 5-year old girl - this once again goes to consent. First off, the man is obviously a pedophile - so he has a psychological instability, calling his consent into question. Second, the little girl is obviously too young to understand the implications of marriage, or even sex, and does not have the mental capacity to consent to either.

I'm not arguing that. In fact, that in some ways makes my point. Marriage isn't just whatever you want it to be. It is what it is. One man-one woman.

Well, in a religious sense it could easily be defined as anything. However, to think of this issue as far as government is concerned(which is what we currently are doing), we need to consider factors such as harm relationships can cause(and I don't think SSM would cause harm) and other factors(like ability to consent, which may tie into the psychological stability of the participants as I said). I have yet to hear a compelling enough argument to convince me that SSM would cause anyone harm or that homosexuals are somehow too unstable to consent to such a relationship(if Brambilia reads this no doubt he'll go on a rant), so I can see no reason not to allow it.

I'm just expressing my personal view, and that's the way I see it. But, if you want to know the truth, I don't necesarilly think that the government should be in charge of marriage in the first place. The institution was much better off when it was under the control of churches.

Agreed.

[John Dibble]

But you said, if they love each other they can get married. I'm just messing with you. But you see, If we let Gay people get married. Then people like that would wont it too. And before you know it there will be no marriage.

And, as I said, I don't think marriage is the government's business, so is this supposed to scare me?

But seriously, as I said, there is a much greater multitude of reasons(many of which are more logical and harder to argue against) to block incestuous relationships. I have serious doubts it will be a problem, and I doubt any judge would rule in favor of such a thing(especially at state supreme court and federal levels), and clearly no legislature would either.

Many years ago they thought the same thing with Gay marriages.

True. But incest is an entirely different animal.

[John Dibble]

But you said, if they love each other they can get married. I'm just messing with you. But you see, If we let Gay people get married. Then people like that would wont it too. And before you know it there will be no marriage.

And, as I said, I don't think marriage is the government's business, so is this supposed to scare me?

But seriously, as I said, there is a much greater multitude of reasons(many of which are more logical and harder to argue against) to block incestuous relationships. I have serious doubts it will be a problem, and I doubt any judge would rule in favor of such a thing(especially at state supreme court and federal levels), and clearly no legislature would either.

Many years ago they thought the same thing with Gay marriages.

True. But incest is an entirely different animal.

So were Homosexuals

Arguing in circles won't do either of us any good. But you get my point - incest is not like homosexuality.

[John Dibble]

But you said, if they love each other they can get married. I'm just messing with you. But you see, If we let Gay people get married. Then people like that would wont it too. And before you know it there will be no marriage.

And, as I said, I don't think marriage is the government's business, so is this supposed to scare me?

But seriously, as I said, there is a much greater multitude of reasons(many of which are more logical and harder to argue against) to block incestuous relationships. I have serious doubts it will be a problem, and I doubt any judge would rule in favor of such a thing(especially at state supreme court and federal levels), and clearly no legislature would either.

Many years ago they thought the same thing with Gay marriages.

True. But incest is an entirely different animal.

So were Homosexuals

Arguing in circles won't do either of us any good. But you get my point - incest is not like homosexuality.

To me it is. They both are sick people. The both have problems up stairs. And they both in the eyes of God are wrong.

Well, that's a difference of opinion I suppose. Even if both are sicknesses, they are different sicknesses, and the law should treat them as such(one could argue that one is more harmful than the other). As far as God goes, got nothing against religion but law shouldn't be based on it.

[John Dibble]

But you said, if they love each other they can get married. I'm just messing with you. But you see, If we let Gay people get married. Then people like that would wont it too. And before you know it there will be no marriage.

And, as I said, I don't think marriage is the government's business, so is this supposed to scare me?

But seriously, as I said, there is a much greater multitude of reasons(many of which are more logical and harder to argue against) to block incestuous relationships. I have serious doubts it will be a problem, and I doubt any judge would rule in favor of such a thing(especially at state supreme court and federal levels), and clearly no legislature would either.

Many years ago they thought the same thing with Gay marriages.

True. But incest is an entirely different animal.

So were Homosexuals

Arguing in circles won't do either of us any good. But you get my point - incest is not like homosexuality.

To me it is. They both are sick people. The both have problems up stairs. And they both in the eyes of God are wrong.

Well, that's a difference of opinion I suppose. Even if both are sicknesses, they are different sicknesses, and the law should treat them as such(one could argue that one is more harmful than the other). As far as God goes, got nothing against religion but law shouldn't be based on it.

I love reading your posts.

Thanks, I have fun writing them. Yours are fun to read too. I just don't understand why some people don't think debate is fun.

[John Dibble]

Eh, while I value being intelligent I prefer common sense any day of the week.

[John Dibble]

Eh, while I value being intelligent I prefer common sense any day of the week.

Another thing I don't have

LOL. I'm sure you have enough to get by. Well, it's late, I'm turning in. Have a nice night.

[John Dibble]

Eh, while I value being intelligent I prefer common sense any day of the week.

Another thing I don't have

LOL. I'm sure you have enough to get by. Well, it's late, I'm turning in. Have a nice night.

One last thing before I turn in - simply by being active in the political process does show you have a lot more intelligence and common sense than most people. Half of the people in this country don't even vote. If more people were active in the political process(really digging into it, researching issues and candidates, being active, not just simply voting) I would think our government would be run a lot better than it is.

[John Dibble]

I want to thank Brambila, for changing my view on gay adoption

I'm wondering in what direction you changed it to - for or against?

[John Dibble]

Um.. I havn't mentioned anything religious or merely saying "I think it's wrong". First of all, I wouldn't say "I think", I would say, "I know", and "you all are brainwashed by the american media and public school systems".

Brainwashed? Are you so sure YOU aren't the brainwashed one? Claiming that we are brainwashed and that you 'know' are right does not give you much credibility. It makes you sound like an arrogant, howling moonbat.

By the way, that abstract you posted last didn't give squat for information. Also, never said orphanages were bad(the days of Oliver Twist are over, after all), I just think a set of loving parents, regardless of sexual orientation, is superior to living in an institution.

[John Dibble]

I did read your post. Being in an orphanage does not gaurantee both mother and father figures(child care workers are most often female, and as such there are fewer male workers in orphanages, so many orphanages may not have male workers to provide father figures).

As to providing evidence that homosexuality is not a disorder, you won't listen because most of the evidence I can find is from the APA that you so demonize, so why bother(but, to do it anyways, here you go http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html, and at the bottom there is a link to abstracts for the empiracal studies used). Also, since you mentioned that previous research you posted in a different post, I'll also mention I called into question the research methods of that study, as I do not think it was empiracal.

You also say that homosexual parents can provide love, but not provide the love required for raising a child. Can you even prove this? Can you prove that two people, merely because they are gay, are incapable of providing the love a child needs?