Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Well Scarlett, two issues:

One, there is no discrimination. Both heterosexuals and homosexuals have the same "rights." They can both marry a member of the opposite sex. If a straight man was able to marry a guy but not a homosexual, that would be discrimination. However, since both have the same priviledges, there is no discrimination.

Two, there is no legal right to marry. The Constitution does not guarantee you a right to marriage.


I personally do not recognize a same sex "marriage." If two guys told me they're married, I will not recognize it. The State of Ohio decided the same thing. So, irrelevant of where you are in the world, we do not recognize same sex unions. It just so happens Ohio law can only be applied on Ohio, so for pure legal reasons, yes, if you step into Ohio you are "unmarried."

No? How is that treating you like a heterosexual?

I don't particularly care about same sex relationships. I do NOT want them to rape the tradition of marriage, which has come from centuries, no, millenia, ago. If they want some variation, go ahead. But do not call it marriage.

And as I mentioned, you can love whoever you want, and there is no discrimination.





Philip, a few points. These are not "rights" as I mentioned earlier. Marriage is a priviledge. Second, we have to draw the line somewhere. Next up is polygamy, then marriage to animals, and then children is up next. I have a moral code, and no matter how much society wants to break it down, I will stand my ground.

Marriage is for the protection of the family, especially the children. You should not scar a child for life by giving him two same-sex "parents." No one loves a child more than his genetic parents (ignoring the few cases of parents killing their children). Two men cannot have a child naturally, and two women can't have a child naturally. Therefore, a same-sex union is unnatural. A child needs a mother and a father. Not two of the same. Both have roles to fulfill. (Yes, I'm aware the divore rate is high, and that is very sad too.)

By keeping marriage as a union of a man and a woman, you are protecting the family unit, and our children.

So then you do not need to allow gays to marry. Excellent point.

I am opposed giving any benefit to married couples because

a) marriages don't last these days
b) it discriminates from those that wishes to remain unmarried
c) it discriminates against those that can't get married

I do not want the government mixed up in this. But sadly, that is not the case. I would, however, support incentives from the government to build families and to REMAIN together. If you break up, say goodbye to any sort of incentive for the rest of your life. It harms children, and it breaks down society.



Yes, my choice is in part based on religion, and in part based on common sense. Breaking down pillars is not a good idea, and marriage is a pillar of today's society.

Maybe it is just me, but it sounds like you're scoffing anyone making decisions based on his religion?



That does prevent me, and others, from basing their decisions on religion.






And please, to everyone referring to there "rights," there IS NO RIGHT TO GET MARRIED!

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Don't worry, I just thought of the bit in the meaning of life with the catholic and protestant families.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

:rofl: ok with you now

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

evidence?
Do this include adoptions and test tube babies?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

i am sorry but i totally disagree with you on this point..... there is noway you can say this.....if you look at the number of cases of child abuse, child neglect and so on how can you possibly say this? :eek:
a child can be loved by anyone, biology does not determine this at all

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Notice the *should.* It is an opinion. And I take myself as an example. I do not want two same-sex "parents."

Better yet, go to an elementary school and ask the toddlers if they want two mommies or two daddies instead.

I was referring to natural born children living with the parents. I do not know about the rest.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

And earthquakes, volcanoes, lions and tigers and bears, oh my :rolleyes:

What exactly is it that you are scared of that you can`t accept any form of change? Your arguments do not strike me as being formed on any reasonable grounds, merely out of paranoia and the indoctrination you have received with regard to "right" and "wrong".

As for marriage to children, aren`t there plenty of US states where individuals that most reasonable people would consider to still be children are allowed to get married. Still, at least that is better than executing them.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Not exactly an open question when establishment drones like yourself will never present them with a fair and balanced picture of the situation.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Like I said, in general. Don't always jump to the extreme cases. And biology DOES matter. The Greeks even have a word dedicated for the love a mother has for her child. It is an almost unconditional love.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Are you afraid of what they would say? How about yourself? Would you have rather had two daddies?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

no im sorry but u can not make a general claim without at least acknowledging the other aspects of what you are talking about
and just because the greeks have a special name does that prove that a mothers love is unconditional?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

You apparently missed everything else I wrote. Go back and reread. Or maybe I will just copy it over here, so you can't get lost.



Marriage is for the protection of the family, especially the children. You should not scar a child for life by giving him two same-sex "parents." No one loves a child more than his genetic parents (ignoring the few cases of parents killing their children). Two men cannot have a child naturally, and two women can't have a child naturally. Therefore, a same-sex union is unnatural. A child needs a mother and a father. Not two of the same. Both have roles to fulfill. (Yes, I'm aware the divore rate is high, and that is very sad too.)

By keeping marriage as a union of a man and a woman, you are protecting the family unit, and our children.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

You could look at it like that, though it seems to be a very tenuous justification. What about marrying the person that you love? There is discrimination there against same-sex couples.

So what does it mean to get married? Being married grants the people certai rights, so why deny certain groups of people the rights of being married.

How is two people who love each other, forming a union called marriage, 'raping' the tradition of marriage? There is a discrimination, because those who can get married are granted certain rights and those who cannot or chose not to get married do not have the same rights.

By whom is the privilidge afforded? What justifiable reason is there for granting the privilidge to one group and not another? On polygamy, I am fine with that, so long as all of the parties understand fully what they are entering into. Animals and children, no, because they cannot be said to fully understand the implications of the marriage.

Only time will tell on that as there is currently no evidence either way. My personal opinion is that it will be difficult for the child, but will not 'scar them for life'. However, not allowing same-sex couples will not stop them from having children, it is already happening.

Not quite the point I was making. To clarify, marriage gives the couple certain rights, I was arguing that long term couples, whatever their gender, should not have to get married in order to prove their love and should automatically be given the same respect under law as married couples.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Just look at the animal kingdom. Ever tried to take an egg from an ostrich? Or a cub from a lioness?

I find it hard to swallow that you, as a woman, don't know this. Maybe you should ask someone who just had a baby. I find it even more ironic that a GUY is telling you all this. If you want to disagree, fine, disagree. You may not feel a special kind of love to your own child, but I know it is true for most other mothers.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

There was an article in the UK Times newspaper on this a few weeks ago.

In the real life examples, the biological parent was still heavily involved in the the relationship, so the child lived with two mummies or daddies, and knew their other biological parent, thus having a father / mother figure in the relationship also.

The older 5-6 year old that was ofspring of the Lesbian couple had even asked which of her mummies carried her for 9 months.

Which is better two working loving daddies or abandonment by the father and a mother on welfare?