This Site's View on Same-Sex Marriage

[ijohn57s]

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.

[nclib]

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

I'll add a question to that. What if a 40-year-old man decides he feels that way about a 5-year-old girl? Should they get married?

Nobody is allowed to marry a child.  Laws against marrying women only affect women and likewise for men, and are therefore gender discrimination.

[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.

[Brambila]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's quite simple. Throughout nature and in the history of humanity, children have needed two parents of both sexes. Children need a balance between both parents; and gay parents cannot provide this. This is why children with single parents have such difficult problems in thier future life. My friend's father, for instance, grew up without a father figure. He went through a lot of serious struggles later in life because of this, and it is most likely the reason for his bipolarism, which although is mostly a chemical imbalance, is also caused on account of post-traumatic stress. Imagine what it would be like, as a child, to be fatherless or motherless; to see your friend hug or kiss their mothers or fathers you do not have. It's morally wrong to put a child in such a bad situation.

Nonetheless, perhaps some statistics would help. According to a January 1996 Developmental Psychology issue, children raised by homosexual couples are four times more likely to become gay themselves. In an Australian study done last year, children raised by both homosexuals and heteroseuxlas found that in nine out of thirteen of the categories (social additude and academics), heterosexuals did much better than homosexual-raised children. According to Journal of Social Service Research, 15% of new criminal problems today are caused by children raised by homosexual parenting. Finally, According to a University of Southern California study:

1. Compared to the daughters of heterosexual mothers, the daughters of lesbians more frequently dress, play and behave in ways that do not conform to sex-typed cultural norms. They show greater interest in activities with both masculine and feminine qualities. They have higher aspirations to occupations that are not traditionally female.


2. In terms of aggression and play, sons of lesbians behave in less traditionally masculine ways. They are likely to be more nurturing and affectionate than their counterparts in heterosexual families.


3. One study examined by the researchers indicated that a significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbians had engaged in a same-sex relationship (six of 25 interviewed) than those raised by a heterosexual mother (none of 20 interviewed).


4. Those raised by lesbian mothers were also more likely to consider a homosexual relationship.


5. Teen-age and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to be more sexually adventurous and less chaste than girls raised by heterosexual mothers. Sons, on the other hand, were somewhat less sexually adventurous and more chaste than boys raised by heterosexuals.


6. The studies indicate that sexual orientation has no measurable effect on the quality of parent-child relationships or on the mental health of children.



Clearly, it is damaging for the child to grow up with a missing parent.

But if we look at this more logically, we can understand how these problems are created. What is the main purpose of homosexual's lievs? Sexuality. In heterosexual relationships, the goal for sex is producing a family. However, homosexuals use sex for merely pleasure. How are children to react to this? They end up growing up with the idea that sex is for pleasure only. In addition, there are numerous health problems in homosexual relationships since homosexuals use body parts for reasons other than their purpose. It is a very unhealthy lifestyle for children to be apart of. Gay adoption is threatening children's psychological development.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's quite simple. Throughout nature and in the history of humanity, children have needed two parents of both sexes. Children need a balance between both parents; and gay parents cannot provide this. This is why children with single parents have such difficult problems in thier future life. My friend's father, for instance, grew up without a father figure. He went through a lot of serious struggles later in life because of this, and it is most likely the reason for his bipolarism, which although is mostly a chemical imbalance, is also caused on account of post-traumatic stress. Imagine what it would be like, as a child, to be fatherless or motherless; to see your friend hug or kiss their mothers or fathers you do not have. It's morally wrong to put a child in such a bad situation.

Nonetheless, perhaps some statistics would help. According to a January 1996 Developmental Psychology issue, children raised by homosexual couples are four times more likely to become gay themselves. In an Australian study done last year, children raised by both homosexuals and heteroseuxlas found that in nine out of thirteen of the categories (social additude and academics), heterosexuals did much better than homosexual-raised children. According to Journal of Social Service Research, 15% of new criminal problems today are caused by children raised by homosexual parenting. Finally, According to a University of Southern California study:

1. Compared to the daughters of heterosexual mothers, the daughters of lesbians more frequently dress, play and behave in ways that do not conform to sex-typed cultural norms. They show greater interest in activities with both masculine and feminine qualities. They have higher aspirations to occupations that are not traditionally female.


2. In terms of aggression and play, sons of lesbians behave in less traditionally masculine ways. They are likely to be more nurturing and affectionate than their counterparts in heterosexual families.


3. One study examined by the researchers indicated that a significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbians had engaged in a same-sex relationship (six of 25 interviewed) than those raised by a heterosexual mother (none of 20 interviewed).


4. Those raised by lesbian mothers were also more likely to consider a homosexual relationship.


5. Teen-age and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to be more sexually adventurous and less chaste than girls raised by heterosexual mothers. Sons, on the other hand, were somewhat less sexually adventurous and more chaste than boys raised by heterosexuals.


6. The studies indicate that sexual orientation has no measurable effect on the quality of parent-child relationships or on the mental health of children.



Clearly, it is damaging for the child to grow up with a missing parent.

But if we look at this more logically, we can understand how these problems are created. What is the main purpose of homosexual's lievs? Sexuality. In heterosexual relationships, the goal for sex is producing a family. However, homosexuals use sex for merely pleasure. How are children to react to this? They end up growing up with the idea that sex is for pleasure only. In addition, there are numerous health problems in homosexual relationships since homosexuals use body parts for reasons other than their purpose. It is a very unhealthy lifestyle for children to be apart of. Gay adoption is threatening children's psychological development.

Listen to some of the words you used.  CONFORM.  TRADITIONAL.  Oh!  So we have to go by their standards.  More sex is bad.  Having tradition male jobs is bad.  What do those reasons say to me?  Be the traditional woman, or there is something wrong with you.  And more sexually active?!  So what!  Sex is NOT a bad thing!  

Sounds like whoever wrote this is the same as a conserative.  Conform, conform, conform.  Don't be your own person.  Be who we say you should be.  

[ijohn57s]

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.

[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.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

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.

Exactly.  It's embedded in the American psyche.  It's not going to go away.  I can't support any measure that says (to 2 couples of the same age) to one couple "You can" and to the other "You can't".  Sorry.  It's wrong.  By legalizing gay marriage, you make millions feel accpeted and better about themselves as a whole.  The conseratives get their panties in a knot?  Who cares.  

[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.

[ijohn57s]

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.

By no means am I a libertarian, but, I do agree with you all that government has badly overstepped its bounds, and this is only one instance.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

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.

I also agree.  But as long as there are legal marriages, gays should not be excluded.  

[nclib]

1. Compared to the daughters of heterosexual mothers, the daughters of lesbians more frequently dress, play and behave in ways that do not conform to sex-typed cultural norms. They show greater interest in activities with both masculine and feminine qualities. They have higher aspirations to occupations that are not traditionally female.


2. In terms of aggression and play, sons of lesbians behave in less traditionally masculine ways. They are likely to be more nurturing and affectionate than their counterparts in heterosexual families.


3. One study examined by the researchers indicated that a significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbians had engaged in a same-sex relationship (six of 25 interviewed) than those raised by a heterosexual mother (none of 20 interviewed).


4. Those raised by lesbian mothers were also more likely to consider a homosexual relationship.

Even if these are true, these are hardly "problems."

[Josh/Devilman88]

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.

[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.

[Josh/Devilman88]

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

[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.

[Josh/Devilman88]

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.

[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.

[Josh/Devilman88]

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.

[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.

[Josh/Devilman88]

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.

Haha, you are 10 times smarter then me. And plus I suck at grammer, and spelling.

[John Dibble]

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

[Josh/Devilman88]

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

Another thing I don't have

[cwelsch]

I said marriage but I disagree with the assumption that the government should have anything to do with sanctifying or licensing marriage.  I'm with Badnarik and the Libertarians on this one.

Licensing marriage suggests implicitly that some people should be denied marriage.