Continuing revelation in action.


riverogue
 Share

Recommended Posts

Awesome point. Another problem removing Prop. 8 could have is having a

reverse-separation of church and state. People want to yell "separation with church and state" when it comes to voting yet they'll try to use the law to force a church to marry a gay couple. They also cannot reproduce. And nobody go on about how they can adopt. That would hurt the child tremendously. A child is to have a mother & father, not 2 of one or the other. A want isn't a right. Homosexuals want gay marriage, that doesn't make it a right.

Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Jude 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Except again there was legislation in the works to protect religious organizations from ever having to include homosexual marriages in California. This was backed by homosexual and democratic groups. The issue was based on a secular grounding and was not aimed at religious groups, the religious groups made it about them. As for gay parents harming the children this has yet to be proved. You can possibly make an argument that the ideal for a child is a loving home made up of a mother and father, but as society shows the ideal is not nearly the majority, you have to accept a certain degree of compromise. Being 50% or more of families break up that right there destroys the ideal family idea because there are then single parents and mixed families which do create stress and hardship on the children. Being this it's self is becoming the norm when it comes to raising children claiming homosexual parents will harm their children is rather baseless on the grounds of " only a mother and father" can do it right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

And yet through every conversation you bring this up in, you haven't provided the legal wording that requires procreation for marriage to be legal. Many couples unable to produce children are legally married with out having to explain. Fertility exams are not required for a marriage license, so outside of people trying to find silly reasons to block it and claiming that no one marries for love (passion and desire), just a intent to produce children and only this intent, this really holds as much water as the judge in California said it did.

This is a straw man argument. Scientifically we know that a sperm and an egg are required for human reproduction and that without human reproduction humanity is domed. Sperm come from men and eggs from the woman. I stated before what a person does in private is no one's concern. The other side of that argument is that to demand recognition by force of law as being "equal" should come with some resemblance or demonstration a like benefit. Homosexuals have made every excuse but refuse to consider any possibility that they are responsible to demonstrate to show any benefit what-so-ever that homosexual marriage provides all that a heterosexual marriage does. It is a simple matter of what they want and nothing to do with what they will provide for society by recognizing their marriage as equal - which it is not and cannot be argued with any intelligence that it is.

If I am wrong - simple logic that speaks to any benefit would be most welcome.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Prop 8 Argument. You all are missing the point. Prop 8 is not a moral, religious argument, it's a legal argument. If marriage is allowed beyond one male and one female, then the whole world is opened up for marriage. In France there was a guy who married his dead girlfriend. One who married his favorite table. Polygamy would be legal and there would not be a thing anyone could do about it.

So the argument being framed solely as a religious issue is factually and legally incorrect. It's bigger than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a straw man argument. Scientifically we know that a sperm and an egg are required for human reproduction and that without human reproduction humanity is domed. Sperm come from men and eggs from the woman. I stated before what a person does in private is no one's concern. The other side of that argument is that to demand recognition by force of law as being "equal" should come with some resemblance or demonstration a like benefit. Homosexuals have made every excuse but refuse to consider any possibility that they are responsible to demonstrate to show any benefit what-so-ever that homosexual marriage provides all that a heterosexual marriage does. It is a simple matter of what they want and nothing to do with what they will provide for society by recognizing their marriage as equal - which it is not and cannot be argued with any intelligence that it is.

If I am wrong - simple logic that speaks to any benefit would be most welcome.

The Traveler

The simple logic that not all heterosexual marriages are required to contribute to society before they are given the marriage license. The license is given in good faith of what they may or may not contribute. The couple may or may not produce offspring but they are still given a marriage license. You have the possibility to produce children so we trust that you will and that's the only reason you are allowed to marry seems to be your justification. The fact that you allow marriages to sterile couples or couples past the age of reproducing seems to show that contributing offspring is not a valid requirement. Those couples are marrying for the exact same reason homosexual couples are marrying, so you must have the same issue with those marriages as well, are you as willing to put forth legislation to halt those marriages?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Prop 8 Argument. You all are missing the point. Prop 8 is not a moral, religious argument, it's a legal argument. If marriage is allowed beyond one male and one female, then the whole world is opened up for marriage. In France there was a guy who married his dead girlfriend. One who married his favorite table. Polygamy would be legal and there would not be a thing anyone could do about it.

So the argument being framed solely as a religious issue is factually and legally incorrect. It's bigger than that.

to quote wingnut from a previous thread and knowing where she got the quote

post hoc ergo propter hoc

I've heard the arguments before. Gay marriage will lead to people marrying animals, family, children ect ect... The fact is that being gay marriage is legal in many places and for the most part none of this has come to pass. France outlawed gay marriage, so i'm not overly sure using France as an example it the best of examples. Looking at the places that do have gay marriage in place and seeing that as of yet none of these things have come to pass makes one question. There are a lot of "well this could lead to this"

We tend to only not roll our eyes when it's something we are not in favor of, but mock and laugh when it's said about things we support. If the same protections can be provided nation wide in another way, great, but until that is achieved right now marriage is the only way. Possibly instead of fighting so hard in a negative way why not fight with the same drive to create the alternative that gives both sides exactly what they want and could possibly come closer to closing gaps and creating possible peace? Yes there would still be extremists on both sides, but with the majority satisfied a lot of the driving force behind the movements the minority will be drowned out.

Also i agree. It never should have been framed as a religious issue, it was secular, it's a law. I'm not christian but many said "we are christian, suck it up it's our way no matter what, we will impose our morals on you cause there are more of us!!" That line of thinking has gone very dangerous places in the past. Everyone has said "well it might lead to this or this, but no one has shown a clear and 100% sure thing that it will do to cause harm. The LDS sure opposed and were bitter when it was done to them. The majority had a moral disagreement and forced it on the LDS and they did not like it one bit and they fought it. There was a compromise and both sides found a way to find a sometimes uneasy peace. Gay marriage isn't going to create more gays, it's not going to harm existing families, the people who want to marry a same sex partner now are the same people who will want to marry a same sex partner if it's legal. The population rate won't fall cause these people were never going to have kids any way. Right now the non-religious arguments all are based on a worst cast what might possibly happen scenario, but no cold hard facts. How about the possible upsides? Possible decline in spread of disease. A change in culture. Possible boost in economy. Couples purchasing homes because they now have a recognized union. I'm not saying it's wrong to look ahead at what might possibly come, but to judge based on the worst possible outcome with 0 facts is not something most people would accept if applied to them. Well I'm sorry there's a good chance your son will be a criminal when he grows up, i think it's best if we abort him now because the chance is there. I'm sorry, you see the divorce rate is over 50% so i really can't issue a marriage license cause with the high possibility of divorce it's just to big a risk. You'd never consider those as serious options, and yet you are using the same gauge for gay marriage. Also again i say provide national protections similar to marriage and you'll find many drop the fight right then and there. A great many fighting for this are fighting to make sure their wishes on certain things can't be over ruled. I'm not sure many of you would like your spouse ignored just cause your family doesn't like them in times when you are unable to speak, or your will over ruled cause your relationship doesn't really mesh with society's view. People take a lot for granted with out seeing what happens to those they don't like or agree with. Right now a couple married for 1 hour has more legal standing than a gay couple together for 25 years. One of the spouses in the straight marriage of one hour is granted more value than someone who spent their entire life with one person. I'm not sure how anyone can see that as fair and just?

Also just as an after thought the wording of such definition could close a few possible loopholes. " marriage is defined as two of age consenting human adults of different bloodlines." closes a few of the loopholes.

Edited by Soulsearcher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also just as an after thought the wording of such definition could close a few possible loopholes. " marriage is defined as two of age consenting human adults of different bloodlines." closes a few of the loopholes.

Why is that closing loophole

But to add

marriage is defined as two of age opposite gender consenting human adults of different bloodlines.

Is Discrimination:huh:

defining marriage between 2 people, because you don't think it's natural to have more is no different then those who define it as man and woman because they see ssm as unnatural

Link to comment
Share on other sites

defining marriage between 2 people, because you don't think it's natural to have more is no different then those who define it as man and woman because they see ssm as unnatural

I would hesitate to say that the Brethren see it as unnatural. It as if you're saying they see it as a made-up condition. Being part of the ARP group locally, I can tell you that the Church see's it as a "congenital" condition, if you will. Another way that we are tested in this life. They are trying very hard to figure out how to go about addressing this issue. They really are sympathetic to those who suffer from this. But like every one of us who have some shortcoming that we have to fight against, those with SSA are required to live by the Gospel standards. I know people with SSA and they personally have a battle on their hands. But they accept this and are truly trying very hard to live by the standards set by Christ and the Gospel. I can't say they're happy about it, nor that it's any easier. But they're content in knowing that striving is what is required because they are able to frame it in the Gospel context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would hesitate to say that the Brethren see it as unnatural. It as if you're saying they see it as a made-up condition. Being part of the ARP group locally, I can tell you that the Church see's it as a "congenital" condition, if you will. Another way that we are tested in this life. They are trying very hard to figure out how to go about addressing this issue. They really are sympathetic to those who suffer from this. But like every one of us who have some shortcoming that we have to fight against, those with SSA are required to live by the Gospel standards. I know people with SSA and they personally have a battle on their hands. But they accept this and are truly trying very hard to live by the standards set by Christ and the Gospel. I can't say they're happy about it, nor that it's any easier. But they're content in knowing that striving is what is required because they are able to frame it in the Gospel context.

I'm saying from a secular stand point it's hypocritical to accuse those who want to keep marriage between a man and a women, as discriminatory, while being perfectly fine with discriminating against polygamist/ polyandry because it's seen as unnatural.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm saying from a secular stand point it's hypocritical to accuse those who want to keep marriage between a man and a women, as discriminatory, while being perfectly fine with discriminating against polygamist/ polyandry because it's seen as unnatural.

In a religious sense, I'm not sure "unnatural" is the right word for it. Forbidden would be more accurate, although most likely not a whole lot better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm saying from a secular stand point it's hypocritical to accuse those who want to keep marriage between a man and a women, as discriminatory, while being perfectly fine with discriminating against polygamist/ polyandry because it's seen as unnatural.

I'm more responding to the people who insist gay marriage must lead to other things. Again it's flawed logic but the tongue in cheek line i posted dealt with the things people swear will happen if gays marry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would hesitate to say that the Brethren see it as unnatural. It as if you're saying they see it as a made-up condition. Being part of the ARP group locally, I can tell you that the Church see's it as a "congenital" condition, if you will. Another way that we are tested in this life. They are trying very hard to figure out how to go about addressing this issue. They really are sympathetic to those who suffer from this. But like every one of us who have some shortcoming that we have to fight against, those with SSA are required to live by the Gospel standards. I know people with SSA and they personally have a battle on their hands. But they accept this and are truly trying very hard to live by the standards set by Christ and the Gospel. I can't say they're happy about it, nor that it's any easier. But they're content in knowing that striving is what is required because they are able to frame it in the Gospel context.

Yet again this is no reason for a law to be passed. They can say it to their wards and branches, they can teach it to their members, but they sought to apply it to those that did not believe the same way, to force their morality on others. The difference between that gay side of prop 8 and the church side. Gay marriage did not directly affect members of the church in any way, it was already legal. Church groups campaigned and and got prop 8 on the ballot and then fought to apply their morals to non-believers and take away something they had. While the churches might not like SSA and SSM it did not directly affect them in any comparable way as the way they fought to apply their moral standard on others. LDS in the past screamed and fought when this was done to them and yet were one of the instigators this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The simple logic that not all heterosexual marriages are required to contribute to society before they are given the marriage license. The license is given in good faith of what they may or may not contribute. The couple may or may not produce offspring but they are still given a marriage license. You have the possibility to produce children so we trust that you will and that's the only reason you are allowed to marry seems to be your justification. The fact that you allow marriages to sterile couples or couples past the age of reproducing seems to show that contributing offspring is not a valid requirement. Those couples are marrying for the exact same reason homosexual couples are marrying, so you must have the same issue with those marriages as well, are you as willing to put forth legislation to halt those marriages?

Again yours is a straw man argument. You are assuming that society can always determine with 100% accuracy in all circumstances who is and who is not a sterile. You argument is misleading and actually contrary to what actually is viable and real. There is no possibility same sex can produce offspring - none - ever - zero. We can always determine with 100% accuracy that same gender will never under any circumstance produce offspring . To say there is any similarity and actual likeness is a spin and stretch of the truth that has we wondering why you would even suggest such a palpably absurd argument. It is not simple logic.

In fact, that it is called sex has me scratching my head - where does the logic for that come from? How can individuals of the same sex have reproductive behaviors with each other? The reason is because there has been a rather successful and I might add shameful and untruthful effort to change the definition of sex from reproductive behavior to any behavior that allows a person to enjoy the biological rewards that evolved to encourage reproductive behaviors and thus guarantee a species another generation.

Same gender sex is not real or authentic reproductive behavior, but it is artificial, a counterfeit, a substitution for the real thing, a lie, a forgery and in essence a behavior based 100% on complete seeking of personal pleasures, wants and desires with no other possible motivation. I stated before that it appears to me that whenever a society focuses on personal pleasures, wants and desires the results have been disastrous. I cannot think of one bad human introduced catastrophe that was not so engineered. One a single one. I would be interested if any benefit has ever been brought about by mass selfishness. The religious term for an artificial, counterfeit, forgery of something worthwhile and real is an abomination and perversion.

Regardless of how one colors or spins same sex reproductive behaviors, regardless of how they were obtained it is not logical or intelligent nor can it be. I may be wrong but I have not seen it.

What a person does in private is their individual affair and their right to privacy. But when they want to bring what they do in private before the public - demanding respect for whatever it is - they are open to scrutiny and criticism. If their behaviors cannot stand the light of day then they should not introduce it to the light of day but keep it private.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet again this is no reason for a law to be passed. They can say it to their wards and branches, they can teach it to their members, but they sought to apply it to those that did not believe the same way, to force their morality on others.

....

Again yours is a straw man argument. All laws are nothing more or less that one segment of the population forcing their morality on another segment. We do not have to power to legislate anything but morality - we will not change the universal gravitational constant or pi with legislation thus man's laws can only legislate man's morality and nothing else.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again yours is a straw man argument. You are assuming that society can always determine with 100% accuracy in all circumstances who is and who is not a sterile. You argument is misleading and actually contrary to what actually is viable and real. There is no possibility same sex can produce offspring - none - ever - zero. We can always determine with 100% accuracy that same gender will never under any circumstance produce offspring . To say there is any similarity and actual likeness is a spin and stretch of the truth that has we wondering why you would even suggest such a palpably absurd argument. It is not simple logic.

In fact, that it is called sex has me scratching my head - where does the logic for that come from? How can individuals of the same sex have reproductive behaviors with each other? The reason is because there has been a rather successful and I might add shameful and untruthful effort to change the definition of sex from reproductive behavior to any behavior that allows a person to enjoy the biological rewards that evolved to encourage reproductive behaviors and thus guarantee a species another generation.

Same gender sex is not real or authentic reproductive behavior, but it is artificial, a counterfeit, a substitution for the real thing, a lie, a forgery and in essence a behavior based 100% on complete seeking of personal pleasures, wants and desires with no other possible motivation. I stated before that it appears to me that whenever a society focuses on personal pleasures, wants and desires the results have been disastrous. I cannot think of one bad human introduced catastrophe that was not so engineered. One a single one. I would be interested if any benefit has ever been brought about by mass selfishness. The religious term for an artificial, counterfeit, forgery of something worthwhile and real is an abomination and perversion.

Regardless of how one colors or spins same sex reproductive behaviors, regardless of how they were obtained it is not logical or intelligent nor can it be. I may be wrong but I have not seen it.

What a person does in private is their individual affair and their right to privacy. But when they want to bring what they do in private before the public - demanding respect for whatever it is - they are open to scrutiny and criticism. If their behaviors cannot stand the light of day then they should not introduce it to the light of day but keep it private.

The Traveler

Not sure how equal application of standard is a straw man. You say it must provide a benefit. not should, must provide. There are many cases of couple knowing they can not have children before marriage and they are allowed marriage licenses. So why Are they allowed? Again you are letting your moral bias show. They might, they could there is a chance. You are speaking in absolutes on one side and letting the maybe in on the other. Gays can have children in many the same ways as straights, just not the traditional way. If you hold the idea that we must prove a contribution then it must be applied to each couple getting married. If it's applied 100% equally across the board I'm right with you. No couple that can't contribute gets a marriage license, perfectly valid, equal and fair. The second you make an exception for one, you've lost your footing cause you've admitted you don't hold it to be true, you have let your moral bias in and no longer can really legally hold to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again yours is a straw man argument. All laws are nothing more or less that one segment of the population forcing their morality on another segment. We do not have to power to legislate anything but morality - we will not change the universal gravitational constant or pi with legislation thus man's laws can only legislate man's morality and nothing else.

The Traveler

Not quite true. Many laws are in general protections from harm. Yes one can see a moral undertone, but in general they provide a protection even sometimes from others morals being forced on them. Again we know the LDS stance on this from their past. They fought this exact idea in many ways at one point. As long as it's applied to them it's ok to use these arguments, but if they apply it to others people should sit down and be thankful for it. Now there's logic for someone to really question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure how equal application of standard is a straw man. You say it must provide a benefit. not should, must provide. There are many cases of couple knowing they can not have children before marriage and they are allowed marriage licenses. So why Are they allowed? Again you are letting your moral bias show. They might, they could there is a chance. You are speaking in absolutes on one side and letting the maybe in on the other. Gays can have children in many the same ways as straights, just not the traditional way. If you hold the idea that we must prove a contribution then it must be applied to each couple getting married. If it's applied 100% equally across the board I'm right with you. No couple that can't contribute gets a marriage license, perfectly valid, equal and fair. The second you make an exception for one, you've lost your footing cause you've admitted you don't hold it to be true, you have let your moral bias in and no longer can really legally hold to it.

Many couples that you refer to that “know” they cannot have children have turned out to not be 100% accurate. I personally know of a couple that knew they could not have children and so they adopted - then 20 years later - despite all the science that said they were sterile - they had a child. And in all such cases I know of the idea that they were sterile and could not have children came after and not before they were married. We know for a fact with 100% accuracy in all circumstances and conditions that same gender cannot have offspring - period. Marriage has nothing to do with the possibility - pretending a situation without exceptions or any possibility of exception to one with exceptions as the same is 100% stupidity and contrary to logic.

The point is that we cannot always determine with 100% accuracy when a couple is sterile. You know that to be true, yet you argue as though we do know - as though it was a fact. Why do you argue in such a manner? If we could and there were no exceptions, ever, you would have an argument - but we cannot, so your argument is not valid - it is false and a straw man. It is made, assuming we can do something we cannot. It is not an application of a standard - but an application of a straw man. Pretending we can do something that is proven we cannot.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not quite true. Many laws are in general protections from harm. Yes one can see a moral undertone, but in general they provide a protection even sometimes from others morals being forced on them. Again we know the LDS stance on this from their past. They fought this exact idea in many ways at one point. As long as it's applied to them it's ok to use these arguments, but if they apply it to others people should sit down and be thankful for it. Now there's logic for someone to really question.

Give me one example of a law that does not in essence enforce morals. One may say murder. But the very essence of the law is because one segment (most) of the population believes the murder is morally wrong and someone justified in their own morals to allow it.

To say that man should not legslate morals is to say man should not have laws.

When you say that laws provide protection from other's morals what you are saying is that the segment of the population in power passes their morals as law and then passes more laws based on their morals to prevent any morals from the population with which they disagree to be passed.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Gays can have children in many the same ways as straights, just not the traditional way.

...

This is an example of logic that really bothers me. It almost assumes that Gays are a different kind of being or different race or species. Human can only have offspring or children with contributions by two different sexes. Gays are humans as are non-gays but there is no way that same sex human can have offspring.

The areument is not about having children but rather on raising children. And yes I personally believe it is very silly and contrary to logic and intellignec to raise children with the concept and idea that children really do not need a mommy and a daddy. I realize that there are bad things that happen that will leave some children without a mommy and a daddy and thus at a disavantage - but to imply in any way that a mommy and a daddy is not the desirable suitution for children appears to me to be a mistake. But this is not a gay only issue - this is a much larger social issue that we must deal with or suffer the consiquences.

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many couples that you refer to that “know” they cannot have children have turned out to not be 100% accurate. I personally know of a couple that knew they could not have children and so they adopted - then 20 years later - despite all the science that said they were sterile - they had a child. And in all such cases I know of the idea that they were sterile and could not have children came after and not before they were married. We know for a fact with 100% accuracy in all circumstances and conditions that same gender cannot have offspring - period. Marriage has nothing to do with the possibility - pretending a situation without exceptions or any possibility of exception to one with exceptions as the same is 100% stupidity and contrary to logic.

The point is that we cannot always determine with 100% accuracy when a couple is sterile. You know that to be true, yet you argue as though we do know - as though it was a fact. Why do you argue in such a manner? If we could and there were no exceptions, ever, you would have an argument - but we cannot, so your argument is not valid - it is false and a straw man. It is made, assuming we can do something we cannot. It is not an application of a standard - but an application of a straw man. Pretending we can do something that is proven we cannot.

The Traveler

A couple with a woman who has had a hysterectomy usually is pretty sure they will never have kids the traditional way. I've known a man who got married who'd had a horrible accident when younger and had no testicles. The doctors were sure he could never have kids. There are cases of 100% sure. Elderly couples where the doctors are very certain the woman in her 70's or 80's will no longer produce children. The fact you don't know there are cases where it is 100% certain worries more than the gaping bias you have. There are 100% cases and ignoring the fact they exist to push the reasoning you have for marriage shows a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an example of logic that really bothers me. It almost assumes that Gays are a different kind of being or different race or species. Human can only have offspring or children with contributions by two different sexes. Gays are humans as are non-gays but there is no way that same sex human can have offspring.

The areument is not about having children but rather on raising children. And yes I personally believe it is very silly and contrary to logic and intellignec to raise children with the concept and idea that children really do not need a mommy and a daddy. I realize that there are bad things that happen that will leave some children without a mommy and a daddy and thus at a disavantage - but to imply in any way that a mommy and a daddy is not the desirable suitution for children appears to me to be a mistake. But this is not a gay only issue - this is a much larger social issue that we must deal with or suffer the consiquences.

The Traveler

I've already given that the ideal might be a stable home with a loving mother and father. This isn't always available so we now go to the next best thing, a stable loving home with who ever can provide it and look after the well being of the child. One of my personal favorites is the people who cry how horrible it is for gays to want to adopt...and then never adopt a child. " I have 10 kids and will fight the right of gays to adopt, what's that? No of course i've never tried to adopt a child, why would I when i can keep making my own?" I'd understand the trying to keep kids out of loving gay homes if more of the people fighting it actually were taking care of the kids they are trying to protect, but that's just a personal annoyance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple with a woman who has had a hysterectomy usually is pretty sure they will never have kids the traditional way. I've known a man who got married who'd had a horrible accident when younger and had no testicles. The doctors were sure he could never have kids. There are cases of 100% sure. Elderly couples where the doctors are very certain the woman in her 70's or 80's will no longer produce children. The fact you don't know there are cases where it is 100% certain worries more than the gaping bias you have. There are 100% cases and ignoring the fact they exist to push the reasoning you have for marriage shows a lot.

Again this is a straw man argument because the government has no right to private and personal information. An individual's sex is not private and personal information and is part of governmental and personal information open to the public. Even a birth certificate has an individual's sex and is public information. You have created an argument contrary to current law and thus cannot be considered - That is a straw man by any argument. I only ask for an honest, truthful and enforceable response that you believe to be true.

I will admit that I have a prejudice - but I admit that I am open to actual logic.

So let me ask as question that I believe gets to the heart of your prejudice. Do you believe that "gay" marriage is as important and valuable to society as traditional marriages? If so why?

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've already given that the ideal might be a stable home with a loving mother and father. This isn't always available so we now go to the next best thing, a stable loving home with who ever can provide it and look after the well being of the child. One of my personal favorites is the people who cry how horrible it is for gays to want to adopt...and then never adopt a child. " I have 10 kids and will fight the right of gays to adopt, what's that? No of course i've never tried to adopt a child, why would I when i can keep making my own?" I'd understand the trying to keep kids out of loving gay homes if more of the people fighting it actually were taking care of the kids they are trying to protect, but that's just a personal annoyance.

I am all for the best possible for children. As long as we can agree what is best. Like you I am concerned about the manner arguments are presented. I am very concerned when some says something is okay because it is better than something else that is obviously worse. With that kind of logic we can justify doing almost anything to children because it would be better than feeding them to crocodiles.

So I ask you in all honesty - do you believe in raising children with positive role models of both males and females as the ideal family? Do you believe that sex and a balance between the sexes and their role models be part of raising children?

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again this is a straw man argument because the government has no right to private and personal information. An individual's sex is not private and personal information and is part of governmental and personal information open to the public. Even a birth certificate has an individual's sex and is public information. You have created an argument contrary to current law and thus cannot be considered - That is a straw man by any argument. I only ask for an honest, truthful and enforceable response that you believe to be true.

I will admit that I have a prejudice - but I admit that I am open to actual logic.

So let me ask as question that I believe gets to the heart of your prejudice. Do you believe that "gay" marriage is as important and valuable to society as traditional marriages? If so why?

The Traveler

I'm just commenting on the fact that we keep making it all about procreation and it being a must. If the best people can say is that procreation must happen for a marriage to be of value, and marriages that aren't of value shouldn't happen then it needs to be applied to all in a fair and even way. This is why California tossed out this line of thinking. If you apply it to one you must apply it to all, if you with hold something from one group of people on a basis you can't give it to another. You can't have kids so you can't get married would have to be applied equally and as you said to apply it wouldn't work so it can't be used against one class of people because it can't be used on all. You've explained legally why the procreation argument can't be used yourself with your last post.

To be honest i don't see a value in traditional marriage right now. I'm not trying to be obnoxious or argumentative when i say it. At one point i did see the value. My parents have been married 35 years and only one of my relatives has ever been divorced. I've seen great marriages and they serve great purpose to the people into them, but I'm not seeing the value to society this day and age. I know more single parents and divorced families than i do people like my family. Important and valuable to me is where your bias is. The world has changed, and i know it's not in a way you like and you wish you could turn back the clock to when marriage was the building block of society. Sadly those days are gone, time has evolved and new realities have developed. Can traditional marriages produce great things yes, but those great things are no longer limited to a man and a woman. I have worked with so many amazing kids from single parent families where the second parent was never there or was better off not being there. I've watched divorces decimate children after years of parents doing all they can to be the perfect traditional family at the cost of their souls.

The only good and important thing i see in marriage right now is what it means to two people who commit to it. Two people trying to commit their lives to the other for what they hope to be the rest of their lives. In this way yes i see gay marriage just as important and valuable.

I know you won't like this view but it's my honest view on things. I'm not trying to tear down the importance of marriage, but the ideal of the traditional is long over, and I'm not sure if i'm happy about that, but i've accepted it.

Edited by Soulsearcher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am all for the best possible for children. As long as we can agree what is best. Like you I am concerned about the manner arguments are presented. I am very concerned when some says something is okay because it is better than something else that is obviously worse. With that kind of logic we can justify doing almost anything to children because it would be better than feeding them to crocodiles.

So I ask you in all honesty - do you believe in raising children with positive role models of both males and females as the ideal family? Do you believe that sex and a balance between the sexes and their role models be part of raising children?

The Traveler

I believe kids should be raised by their biological loving stable parents. I have no problem admitting that. My question is what's next? What happens when that can't happen? The ideal is great, but what happens when the ideal can't be met? I believe in positive role models, and i don't believe all of those role models have to be parents. In the lds family i helped raise i was the male role model for about a decade, i wasn't their father, i was just a close friend of the family that loved the kids and worked hard to do my best for them. Yes they had a mother and a father but it was the outside role models that provided a lot of their learning and growth and their mother freely admits it as do the kids. Do kids NEED a mother and father no, it's not a need, but it is a great thing to have as long as both are invested in the child. I'm not sure fully what you mean with some of the latter part of your question so I'll take a guess based on my understanding. No i don't think the sex of those raising the child is as big a factor as some would like to say it is. I understand the basis of some of the thought, but it tends to assume all mothers are basically the same and all fathers are basically the same in what they offer the child. I've seen many families where the roles of mother and father are played by the parent of the other gender and it's worked fine. A balance between the sex's is an odd view. I assume you mean one male one female parent, but I'm not sure it's balance. I don't believe balance is needed. I look at the children raised after wars. Many were raised by mothers and female relatives after their male kin died in the war. A vast number of a generation were raised by women and with out fathers and yet that generation seems to be an amazingly strong generation. I have no problem with the ideal of the perfect family. The ideal isn't the majority it's sad but true, so then we look at what's next. How many kids are in less than ideal situations in one way or another. Can their situation be made better by those willing to do so? If we wait for every child to have the perfect family what do we tell the kids waiting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe kids should be raised by their biological loving stable parents. I have no problem admitting that. My question is what's next? What happens when that can't happen? The ideal is great, but what happens when the ideal can't be met? I believe in positive role models, and i don't believe all of those role models have to be parents. In the lds family i helped raise i was the male role model for about a decade, i wasn't their father, i was just a close friend of the family that loved the kids and worked hard to do my best for them. Yes they had a mother and a father but it was the outside role models that provided a lot of their learning and growth and their mother freely admits it as do the kids. Do kids NEED a mother and father no, it's not a need, but it is a great thing to have as long as both are invested in the child. I'm not sure fully what you mean with some of the latter part of your question so I'll take a guess based on my understanding. No i don't think the sex of those raising the child is as big a factor as some would like to say it is. I understand the basis of some of the thought, but it tends to assume all mothers are basically the same and all fathers are basically the same in what they offer the child. I've seen many families where the roles of mother and father are played by the parent of the other gender and it's worked fine. A balance between the sex's is an odd view. I assume you mean one male one female parent, but I'm not sure it's balance. I don't believe balance is needed. I look at the children raised after wars. Many were raised by mothers and female relatives after their male kin died in the war. A vast number of a generation were raised by women and with out fathers and yet that generation seems to be an amazingly strong generation. I have no problem with the ideal of the perfect family. The ideal isn't the majority it's sad but true, so then we look at what's next. How many kids are in less than ideal situations in one way or another. Can their situation be made better by those willing to do so? If we wait for every child to have the perfect family what do we tell the kids waiting?

It seems that you're giving up and giving in to that which will corrupt society in the end. While there are many who are thriving in less than ideal situations because of the host of situations that create it (my own kids, for example, live with their mom because of my actions so I'm not a saint here by any means), to say because that's what you believe is prevalent seems to say "well, since we can't have it, there's no use living for it." There are some things worth fighting for. Marriage and complete families, I believe, are one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share