In Defense of the Marriage

[Jerrek]

But this is just discrimnation ? Leagl rights are being denied to these people because of there sexual orientation.

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.

Are they saying that if you are in a same sex marrage then you suddenly stop being married when step into Ohio (and suddenly become married as soon as the step out ?)

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."

So basically they are saying you are going to be trated as if you are hetrosexual regardless of your personal preference's.

No? How is that treating you like a heterosexual?

IMHO Same sex relationships are here to stay, there is nothing that can be done to change that fact. The sooner governments/people accept that the better.

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.

p.s. they don't have to like it, just accept that people will love people of the same sex and stop discrimination.

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

I just don't get it, why is it that people don't want gay couples and unmarried couples to have the same rights as a heterosexual marrid couple? What does it possibly achieve to deny these rights? Could anyone explain it for me?

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.

My view is that if two people love each other, and want to make a long term commitment to each other then it should not matter about gender or whether there is an actual marriage ceremony.

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

In the governments eyes, marriage is an economic union, i.e two people get married and in return the government gives certain privilidges to that couple. Fine in theory, but IMO is made a mockery of in practise. Why should a couple who have been together a short time and got married quickly be more deserving than an unmarried couple who have been together for years? Why should a heterosexual couple, who only got married for the economic benefits and basically live seperate lives be afforded more rights than a homosexual couple who love each other very much?

This isn't that it is like this in all situations, it's just meant to highlight the dispaity that can exist and why I think it's wrong.

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.

One word Religion The main religions of the world do not approve of the union of 2 people of the same sex and since marriage is a religious ceremony...

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?

A thought, in the US there is supposed to be a separation of church and state

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!

[philip.j.fry]

Originally Posted by bexy

exaplin

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

[Bex]

Originally Posted by philip.j.fry

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

ok with you now

[downquark1]

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."

evidence?

No one loves a child more than his genetic parents

Do this include adoptions and test tube babies?

[Bex]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

No one loves a child more than his genetic parents (ignoring the few cases of parents killing their children).

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?
a child can be loved by anyone, biology does not determine this at all

[Jerrek]

evidence?

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.

Do this include adoptions and test tube babies?

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

Originally Posted by Jerrek

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......

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

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.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

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

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

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by bexy

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?
a child can be loved by anyone, biology does not determine this at all

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.

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

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

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

[Bex]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

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.

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?

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

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".

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.

[philip.j.fry]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

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

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.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

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).

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.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

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

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.

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by bexy

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?

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.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

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

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?