Marriage Equality

[premio53]

Abraham Lincoln once said, "If you called a dog's tail a leg, how many legs would it have?" It would still only have four legs no matter what you call its tail. Homosexuals can call their "unions" anything they wish but it still isn't a marriage.

[Metsfanmax]

Homosexuals can call their "unions" anything they wish but it still isn't a marriage.

You are wrong in nine states (and growing!).

[premio53]

Homosexuals can call their "unions" anything they wish but it still isn't a marriage.

You are wrong in nine states (and growing!).

You will be judged just like I will one day Mets. You are "treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to every man according to his deeds." - Romans 2:5,6

[Metsfanmax]

Homosexuals can call their "unions" anything they wish but it still isn't a marriage.

You are wrong in nine states (and growing!).

You will be judged just like I will one day Mets. You are "treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to every man according to his deeds." - Romans 2:5,6

I remain confident that any god competent enough to create the universe will not judge me based on a lack of blind obedience to dogma.

[premio53]

Homosexuals can call their "unions" anything they wish but it still isn't a marriage.

You are wrong in nine states (and growing!).

You will be judged just like I will one day Mets. You are "treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to every man according to his deeds." - Romans 2:5,6

I remain confident that any god competent enough to create the universe will not judge me based on a lack of blind obedience to dogma.

Mets, those who say they are born with homosexual desires may be telling the truth or not. I too was born with the capacity to be a homosexual, a fornicator, adulterer, liar, and thief. That is called "sin" and we all have it in our nature. Giving in to dark desires will not be an excuse on judgment day.

[Metsfanmax]

Homosexuals can call their "unions" anything they wish but it still isn't a marriage.

You are wrong in nine states (and growing!).

You will be judged just like I will one day Mets. You are "treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to every man according to his deeds." - Romans 2:5,6

I remain confident that any god competent enough to create the universe will not judge me based on a lack of blind obedience to dogma.

Mets, those who say they are born with homosexual desires may be telling the truth or not. I too was born with the capacity to be a homosexual, a fornicator, adulterer, liar, and thief. That is called "sin" and we all have it in our nature. Giving in to dark desires will not be an excuse on judgment day.

You were also born with the capacity to be tolerant and respectful, and instead you gave in to the dark desire of hate and intolerance.

[premio53]

Homosexuals can call their "unions" anything they wish but it still isn't a marriage.

You are wrong in nine states (and growing!).

You will be judged just like I will one day Mets. You are "treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to every man according to his deeds." - Romans 2:5,6

I remain confident that any god competent enough to create the universe will not judge me based on a lack of blind obedience to dogma.

Mets, those who say they are born with homosexual desires may be telling the truth or not. I too was born with the capacity to be a homosexual, a fornicator, adulterer, liar, and thief. That is called "sin" and we all have it in our nature. Giving in to dark desires will not be an excuse on judgment day.

You were also born with the capacity to be tolerant and respectful, and instead you gave in to the dark desire of hate and intolerance.

President Obama also believed "homosexual marriage" was a perversion of traditional marriage before the election but showed he was nothing more than another dishonest politician after he won re-election. Why do you hate traditional marriage?

[Metsfanmax]

President Obama also believed "homosexual marriage" was a perversion of traditional marriage before the election but showed he was nothing more than another dishonest politician after he won re-election. Why do you hate traditional marriage?

I don't hate the institution of traditional marriage. I think that stable, committed, long-term relationships between people are a very good thing, and I also think that, all other things being equal, gay and lesbian parents are just as capable of having these relationships as those in male-female unions. However, I also see that marriage as a civil institution isn't going anywhere anytime soon, so on balance, for me the best thing is to extend it to all relationships between two people. Separate but equal sounds nice on paper but hasn't worked well in the past in practice.

Now, if you agree that gay and lesbian civil unions can be functionally identical to marriage in everything except name, why are you so concerned about changing the definition of marriage anyway?

If you really want to protect the institution of traditional marriage, start with making divorce illegal. Then we'll talk.

[premio53]

President Obama also believed "homosexual marriage" was a perversion of traditional marriage before the election but showed he was nothing more than another dishonest politician after he won re-election. Why do you hate traditional marriage?

I don't hate the institution of traditional marriage. I think that stable, committed, long-term relationships between people are a very good thing, and I also think that, all other things being equal, gay and lesbian parents are just as capable of having these relationships as those in male-female unions. However, I also see that marriage as a civil institution isn't going anywhere anytime soon, so on balance, for me the best thing is to extend it to all relationships between two people. Separate but equal sounds nice on paper but hasn't worked well in the past in practice.

Now, if you agree that gay and lesbian civil unions can be functionally identical to marriage in everything except name, why are you so concerned about changing the definition of marriage anyway?

Marriage is a covenant relationship between a man and a woman (Malachi 2:14). I will leave you with this.

Malachi 2:17 - "You have wearied the LORD with your words. But you say, “How have we wearied him?” By saying, “Everyone who does evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and he delights in them.” Or by asking, “Where is the God of justice?”

This is what we see in this generation. Evildoers think they are good people, while advocating the killing of children in the womb, homosexual marriages, and other things offensive to God. All the while they think their behavior is fine in God's eyes. Please think about these things.

[Metsfanmax]

President Obama also believed "homosexual marriage" was a perversion of traditional marriage before the election but showed he was nothing more than another dishonest politician after he won re-election. Why do you hate traditional marriage?

I don't hate the institution of traditional marriage. I think that stable, committed, long-term relationships between people are a very good thing, and I also think that, all other things being equal, gay and lesbian parents are just as capable of having these relationships as those in male-female unions. However, I also see that marriage as a civil institution isn't going anywhere anytime soon, so on balance, for me the best thing is to extend it to all relationships between two people. Separate but equal sounds nice on paper but hasn't worked well in the past in practice.

Now, if you agree that gay and lesbian civil unions can be functionally identical to marriage in everything except name, why are you so concerned about changing the definition of marriage anyway?

Marriage is a covenant relationship between a man and a woman (Malachi 2:14). I will leave you with this.

Malachi 2:17 - "You have wearied the LORD with your words. But you say, “How have we wearied him?” By saying, “Everyone who does evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and he delights in them.” Or by asking, “Where is the God of justice?”

This is what we see in this generation. Evildoers think they are good people, while advocating the killing of children in the womb, homosexual marriages, and other things offensive to God. All the while they think their behavior is fine in God's eyes. Please think about these things.

I recognize that I do many things your God is alleged to disapprove of, such as cutting my hair. My morality is not defined by your book, so I can seriously think that what I advocate are good things by my own standards even if I don't live up to what the Bible expects of me. I also don't live up to what the Koran expects of me, or the Book of Mormon. None of these things bothers me because it's literally impossible to comport oneself in such a way as to satisfy all the possible gods.

[Maugena]

I agree with TGD. On one hand he wants to get an invite to Ellen and Portio's anniversary bash, on the other he doesn't want to alienate the generally gay skeptic hip hop crowd who are paying the lease on his Tesla. So he had to throw in a musical disclaimer, kinda throwing his gay friends under the bus in the process.

I agree with saxitoxin, too.
But I also agree with Mets.

Though I question whether Macklemore's light, airy pop rap really attracts the typical hip hop crowd or more white guys having a midlife crisis.

This made me lol and was the reason I decided to post.

[BigBallinStalin]

You are wrong in nine states (and growing!).

You will be judged just like I will one day Mets. You are "treasuring up for yourself [bwrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to every man according to his deeds." [/b]- Romans 2:5,6

I remain confident that any god competent enough to create the universe will not judge me based on a lack of blind obedience to dogma.

Mets, those who say they are born with homosexual desires may be telling the truth or not. I too was born with the capacity to be a homosexual, a fornicator, adulterer, liar, and thief. That is called "sin" and we all have it in our nature. Giving in to dark desires will not be an excuse on judgment day.

You were also born with the capacity to be tolerant and respectful, and instead you gave in to the dark desire of hate and intolerance.

President Obama also believed "homosexual marriage" was a perversion of traditional marriage before the election but showed he was nothing more than another dishonest politician [b]after/b] he won re-election. Why do you hate traditional marriage?

Nice dodge, premio! You'll still be judged for your "dark desire of hate and intolerance." Jesus Christ is disappoint.

[PLAYER57832]

Homosexuals can call their "unions" anything they wish but it still isn't a marriage.

You are wrong in nine states (and growing!).

You will be judged just like I will one day Mets. You are "treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to every man according to his deeds." - Romans 2:5,6

And yet, what was Christ's message. "go out all ye Christians and proclaim everyone who doesn't agree with you to be sinners who shall go to Hell" or was it more like "love thy neighbor as thyself".

God is the appointed judge, not any of us. We can discuss, share, but each person has to make their own decisions in belief. We allow Buddhists to have their Temples, Jews to abhore Christ, Pagans to practice their rituals as long as they don't extend to harming others. Why, then are we suddenly tasked with deciding that 2 homosexuals who want to have the stability for their children, the financial security that comes with marital unions, why should they be denied these based on the ideas of some churches. A civil marriage is not recognized by most churches, so that argument is bogus. Why set this union, alone, apart?

Prove the harm it does to you or me.

[premio53]

Homosexuals can call their "unions" anything they wish but it still isn't a marriage.

You are wrong in nine states (and growing!).

You will be judged just like I will one day Mets. You are "treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to every man according to his deeds." - Romans 2:5,6

And yet, what was Christ's message. "go out all ye Christians and proclaim everyone who doesn't agree with you to be sinners who shall go to Hell" or was it more like "love thy neighbor as thyself".

God is the appointed judge, not any of us. We can discuss, share, but each person has to make their own decisions in belief. We allow Buddhists to have their Temples, Jews to abhore Christ, Pagans to practice their rituals as long as they don't extend to harming others. Why, then are we suddenly tasked with deciding that 2 homosexuals who want to have the stability for their children, the financial security that comes with marital unions, why should they be denied these based on the ideas of some churches. A civil marriage is not recognized by most churches, so that argument is bogus. Why set this union, alone, apart?

Prove the harm it does to you or me.

Homosexuals argue that they did not make a conscious decision to be that way so it must be "natural." They are born that way - just as all of us are born with a sin nature and sinful desires (Ephesians 2:1-3). It is natural for them and all of us to be tempted to do things that are wrong. In the same way, pedophiles, and adulterers (alcoholics, drug addicts, etc) don't make a conscious decision to "choose" that self-destructive lifestyle, they simply give in to their sinful desires. Jesus told the woman caught in adultery to "go and sin no more."

It is impossible for anyone to keep the Law that is why there had to be a substitute (Jesus) to die in our place. It is only through repentance and faith in that perfect sacrifice that one can find peace with God and a refuge in the day of judgment.

[Metsfanmax]

Homosexuals can call their "unions" anything they wish but it still isn't a marriage.

You are wrong in nine states (and growing!).

You will be judged just like I will one day Mets. You are "treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to every man according to his deeds." - Romans 2:5,6

And yet, what was Christ's message. "go out all ye Christians and proclaim everyone who doesn't agree with you to be sinners who shall go to Hell" or was it more like "love thy neighbor as thyself".

God is the appointed judge, not any of us. We can discuss, share, but each person has to make their own decisions in belief. We allow Buddhists to have their Temples, Jews to abhore Christ, Pagans to practice their rituals as long as they don't extend to harming others. Why, then are we suddenly tasked with deciding that 2 homosexuals who want to have the stability for their children, the financial security that comes with marital unions, why should they be denied these based on the ideas of some churches. A civil marriage is not recognized by most churches, so that argument is bogus. Why set this union, alone, apart?

Prove the harm it does to you or me.

Homosexuals argue that they did not make a conscious decision to be that way so it must be "natural." They are born that way - just as all of us are born with a sin nature and sinful desires (Ephesians 2:1-3). It is natural for them and all of us to be tempted to do things that are wrong. In the same way, pedophiles, and adulterers (alcoholics, drug addicts, etc) don't make a conscious decision to "choose" that self-destructive lifestyle, they simply give in to their sinful desires. Jesus told the woman caught in adultery to "go and sin no more."

You are simply asserting it is a sin without demonstrating the harm it does, so why should we agree with you that it is a sin? If your answer is simply that the Bible says it is sinful and we must obey everything it says, why do you do so many of the other things it describes as sinful?

[daddy1gringo]

Interesting article:

http://www.gospelherald.com/article/opi ... VYRU1fz4Ug

I'm Gay and I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage
Doug Mainwaring



“I know in my heart that man is good, that what is right will always eventually triumph, and there is purpose and worth to each and every life.” These words, spoken by Ronald Reagan in 1991, are framed on the wall above my desk. As a gay man, I’ve adopted them as my own, as I’ve entered the national discussion on same-sex marriage.

I wholeheartedly support civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, but I am opposed to same-sex marriage. Because activists have made marriage, rather than civil unions, their goal, I am viewed by many as a self-loathing, traitorous gay. So be it. I prefer to think of myself as a reasoning, intellectually honest human being.

The notion of same-sex marriage is implausible, yet political correctness has made stating the obvious a risky business. Genderless marriage is not marriage at all. It is something else entirely.

Opposition to same-sex marriage is characterized in the media, at best, as clinging to “old-fashioned” religious beliefs and traditions, and at worst, as homophobia and hatred.

I’ve always been careful to avoid using religion or appeals to tradition as I’ve approached this topic. And with good reason: Neither religion nor tradition has played a significant role in forming my stance. But reason and experience certainly have.

Learning from Experience

As a young man, I wasn’t strongly inclined toward marriage or fatherhood, because I knew only homosexual desire.

I first recognized my strong yearning for men at age eight, when my parents took me to see The Sound of Music. While others marveled at the splendor of the Swiss Alps displayed on the huge Cinerama screen, I marveled at the uniformed, blond-haired Rolfe, who was seventeen going on eighteen. That proclivity, once awakened, never faded.

During college and throughout my twenties, I had many close friends who were handsome, athletic, and intelligent, with terrific personalities. I longed to have an intimate relationship with any and all of them. However, I enjoyed something far greater, something which surpassed carnality in every way: philia (the love between true friends)—a love unappreciated by so many because eros is promoted in its stead.

I wouldn’t have traded the quality of my relationships with any of these guys for an opportunity to engage in sex. No regrets. In fact, I always felt like the luckiest man on the planet. Denial didn't diminish or impoverish my life. It made my life experience richer.

Philia love between men is far better, far stronger, and far more fulfilling than erotic love can ever be. But society now promotes the lowest form of love between men while sabotaging the higher forms. Gay culture continues to promote the sexualization of all (viewing one’s self and other males primarily as sexual beings), while proving itself nearly bankrupt when it comes to fostering any other aspect of male/male relationships.

When all my friends began to marry, I began to seriously consider marriage for the first time. The motive of avoiding social isolation may not have been the best, but it was the catalyst that changed the trajectory of my life. Even though I had to repress certain sexual desires, I found marriage to be extremely rewarding.

My future bride and I first met while singing in a youth choir. By the time I popped the question, we had become the very best of friends. “Soul mates” is the term we used to describe each other.

After a couple of years of diligently trying to conceive, doctors informed us we were infertile, so we sought to adopt. That became a long, arduous, heartbreaking process. We ultimately gave up. I had mixed emotions—disappointment tempered by relief.

Out of the blue, a couple of years after we resigned ourselves to childlessness, we were given the opportunity to adopt.

A great shock came the day after we brought our son home from the adoption agency. While driving home for lunch, I was suddenly overcome with such emotion that I had to pull the car off to the side of the road. Never in my life had I experienced such pure, distilled joy and sense of purpose. I kept repeating, “I’m a dad,” over and over again. Nothing else mattered. I knew exactly where I fit in within this huge universe. When we brought home his brother nearly two years later, I was prepared: I could not wait to take him up in my arms and declare our kinship and my unconditional love and irrevocable responsibility for him.

Neither religion nor tradition turned me into a dedicated father. It was something wonderful from within—a great strength that has only grown with time. A complete surprise of the human spirit. In this way and many others, marriage—my bond with the mother of my children—has made me a much better person, a person I had no idea I had the capacity to become.

Intellectual Honesty and Surprise Conclusions

Unfortunately, a few years later my marriage ended—a pain known too easily by too many. At this point, the divorce allowed me to explore my homosexuality for the first time in my life.

At first, I felt liberated. I dated some great guys, and was in a couple of long-term relationships. Over several years, intellectual honesty led me to some unexpected conclusions: (1) Creating a family with another man is not completely equal to creating a family with a woman, and (2) denying children parents of both genders at home is an objective evil. Kids need and yearn for both.

It took some doing, but after ten years of divorce, we began to pull our family back together. We have been under one roof for over two years now. Our kids are happier and better off in so many ways. My ex-wife, our kids, and I recently celebrated Thanksgiving and Christmas together and agreed these were the best holidays ever.

Because of my predilections, we deny our own sexual impulses. Has this led to depressing, claustrophobic repression? No. We enjoy each other’s company immensely. It has actually led to psychological health and a flourishing of our family. Did we do this for the sake of tradition? For the sake of religion? No. We did it because reason led us to resist selfish impulses and to seek the best for our children.

And wonderfully, she and I continue to regard each other as “soul mates” now, more than ever.

Over the last couple of years, I’ve found our decision to rebuild our family ratified time after time. One day as I turned to climb the stairs I saw my sixteen-year-old son walk past his mom as she sat reading in the living room. As he did, he paused and stooped down to kiss her and give her a hug, and then continued on. With two dads in the house, this little moment of warmth and tenderness would never have occurred. My varsity-track-and-football-playing son and I can give each other a bear hug or a pat on the back, but the kiss thing is never going to happen. To be fully formed, children need to be free to generously receive from and express affection to parents of both genders. Genderless marriages deny this fullness.

There are perhaps a hundred different things, small and large, that are negotiated between parents and kids every week. Moms and dads interact differently with their children. To give kids two moms or two dads is to withhold from them someone whom they desperately need and deserve in order to be whole and happy. It is to permanently etch “deprivation” on their hearts.

Rich Versus Diminished Lives

Sexuality is fluid for many, and much more complex than many want to acknowledge. Gay and straight activists alike pretend this isn’t true in order to fortify their positions. If they fail to maintain that mirage, fundraising for their organizations might dry up, as would the requests for television and radio interviews. Yet the “B” in the middle of “LGBT” acknowledges an important reality concerning our human sexuality.
Follow us
Here’s a very sad fact of life that never gets portrayed on Glee or Modern Family: I find that men I know who have left their wives as they’ve come out of the closet often lead diminished, and in some cases nearly bankrupt, lives—socially, familially, emotionally, and intellectually. They adjust their entire view of the world and their role within it in order to accommodate what has become the dominant aspect of their lives: their homosexuality. In doing so, they trade rich lives for one-dimensional lives. Yet this is what our post-modern world has taught us to do. I went along with it for a long while, but slowly turned back when I witnessed my life shrinking and not growing.

What Now?

In our day, prejudice against gays is just a very faint shadow of what it once was. But the abolition of prejudice against gays does not necessarily mean that same-sex marriage is inevitable or optimal. There are other avenues available, none of which demands immediate, sweeping, transformational legislation or court judgments.

We are in the middle of a fierce battle that is no longer about rights. It is about a single word, “marriage.”

Two men or two women together is, in truth, nothing like a man and a woman creating a life and a family together. Same-sex relationships are certainly very legitimate, rewarding pursuits, leading to happiness for many, but they are wholly different in experience and nature.

Gay and lesbian activists, and more importantly, the progressives urging them on, seek to redefine marriage in order to achieve an ideological agenda that ultimately seeks to undefine families as nothing more than one of an array of equally desirable “social units,” and thus open the door to the increase of government’s role in our lives.

And while same-sex marriage proponents suggest that the government should perhaps just stay out of their private lives, the fact is, now that children are being engineered for gay and lesbian couples, a process that involves multiple other adults who have potential legal custody claims on these children, the potential for government’s involvement in these same-sex marriage households is staggering.

Solomon only had to split the baby in two. In the future, judges may have to decide how to split children into three, four, or five equal pieces. In Florida, a judge recently ordered that the birth certificate of a child must show a total of three parents—a lesbian couple and a gay man (the sperm-providing hairdresser of one of the lesbian moms). Expect much more of this to come.

Statists see great value in slowly chipping away at the bedrock of American culture: faith and family life. The more that traditional families are weakened in our daily experience by our laws, the more that government is able to freely insert itself into our lives in an authoritarian way. And it will.

Mark Regnerus, a sociologist at the University of Texas at Austin, recently said, “I think you can have social stability without many intact families, but it’s going to be really expensive and it's going to look very ‘Huxley-Brave New World-ish.’ So [the intact family is] not only the optimal scenario … but it’s the cheapest. How often in life do you get the best and the cheapest in the same package?”

Marriage is not an elastic term. It is immutable. It offers the very best for children and society. We should not adulterate nor mutilate its definition, thereby denying its riches to current and future generations.

This article originally appeared in Public Discourse: Ethics, Law, and the Common Good, the online journal of the Witherspoon Institute of Princeton, NJ. Thepublicdiscourse.com. Reprinted with permission.

Yeah, he's just another of those ignorant homophobic bigots.

[BigBallinStalin]

Sounds pretty bigoted to me.

Instead of "same-sex," insert "interracial" and tell me if his post is not at all bigoted.

[daddy1gringo]

Sounds pretty bigoted to me.

Instead of "same-sex," insert "interracial" and tell me if his post is not at all bigoted.

A. You make the unsupported and false assumption that it is valid to make that substitution.

B. You're right. Don't you wish this guy knew as much as you do about what being gay is really like? Oh, wait...

[BigBallinStalin]

Sounds pretty bigoted to me.

Instead of "same-sex," insert "interracial" and tell me if his post is not at all bigoted.

A. You make the unsupported and false assumption that it is valid to make that substitution.

B. You're right. Don't you wish this guy knew as much as you do about what being gay is really like? Oh, wait...

A. It's a good enough analogy. Pretty much his entire defense can be used against interracial marriage, so if you find yourself supporting his defense, then you should be asking yourself, "what kind of person am I really?"

B. Being gay doesn't excuse him from making bigoted arguments against gays. It reminds me of the master-slave scenario, where some of the slaves actually force the other slaves to remain manageable. Perhaps his religious beliefs or adherence to an odd tradition constrain him--and the civil liberties of others. Either way, his stance isn't praiseworthy.

[daddy1gringo]

Sounds pretty bigoted to me.

Instead of "same-sex," insert "interracial" and tell me if his post is not at all bigoted.

A. You make the unsupported and false assumption that it is valid to make that substitution.

B. You're right. Don't you wish this guy knew as much as you do about what being gay is really like? Oh, wait...

A. It's a good enough analogy. Pretty much his entire defense can be used against interracial marriage, so if you find yourself supporting his defense, then you should be asking yourself, "what kind of person am I really?"

Let's test that:

Over the last couple of years, I’ve found our decision to rebuild our family ratified time after time. One day as I turned to climb the stairs I saw my sixteen-year-old son walk past his mom as she sat reading in the living room. As he did, he paused and stooped down to kiss her and give her a hug, and then continued on. With {two dads} < {two races} in the house, this little moment of warmth and tenderness would never have occurred. My varsity-track-and-football-playing son and I can give each other a bear hug or a pat on the back, but the kiss thing is never going to happen. To be fully formed, children need to be free to generously receive from and express affection to parents of {both genders} < {one race}. {Genderless} < {interracial} marriages deny this fullness.

Uh, nah.

Let's try another:

There are perhaps a hundred different things, small and large, that are negotiated between parents and kids every week. Moms and dads interact differently with their children. To give kids {two moms or two dads} < {interracial} is to withhold from them someone whom they desperately need and deserve in order to be whole and happy.

Uh, nah again.

OK, lets try again:

{Two men or two women together} < {interracial marriage} is, in truth, nothing like a {man and a woman creating a life and a family together} < {same race}. {Same-sex} < {interracial} relationships are certainly very legitimate, rewarding pursuits, leading to happiness for many, but they are wholly different in experience and nature.

Uh, nah X3

... children are being engineered for {gay and lesbian} < {interracial} couples, a process that involves multiple other adults who have potential legal custody claims on these children, the potential for government’s involvement in these same-sex marriage households is staggering.

To quote player###, "not even close." so for icing on the cake, try what he says next:

Solomon only had to split the baby in two. In the future, judges may have to decide how to split children into three, four, or five equal pieces. In Florida, a judge recently ordered that the birth certificate of a child must show a total of three parents—a lesbian couple and a gay man (the sperm-providing hairdresser of one of the lesbian moms). Expect much more of this to come.

It boggles the mind to even think of how you could make the substitution here. In other words, BBS, you're fullofit.

[griller]

Uh, excuse me sir, that is the WORST comparison I have ever heard. Anybody you ask anywhere will joke that men and women are more than differnet races; they are from different planets. Our reactions, feelings, and functions in a family are totally opposite in most cases. This is not about equality of men and women it is simply saying that while EQUAL, the different genders perform different roles and no matter your sexual orientation you are still the gender you were born and you brain still functions as such. Your kind of relationships with you children is, partially, dictated by your gender, which anybody who takes their head out of their butt for more than 4 seconds can see, and children need both relationships.

[Metsfanmax]

Uh, excuse me sir, that is the WORST comparison I have ever heard. Anybody you ask anywhere will joke that men and women are more than differnet races; they are from different planets. Our reactions, feelings, and functions in a family are totally opposite in most cases. This is not about equality of men and women it is simply saying that while EQUAL, the different genders perform different roles and no matter your sexual orientation you are still the gender you were born and you brain still functions as such. Your kind of relationships with you children is, partially, dictated by your gender, which anybody who takes their head out of their butt for more than 4 seconds can see, and children need both relationships.

Even if you think that it's best for children to grow up with their biological mother and father, there are hundreds of thousands of children right now who are waiting to be adopted, and I would argue that it's much more important for a child to actually have parents, even if their parental relationship is suboptimal. Orphaned children have all sorts of disadvantages compared to children growing up in stable households with parents who love them (even if the parents are not their biological mom and dad).

[AndyDufresne]

Uh, excuse me sir, that is the WORST comparison I have ever heard. Anybody you ask anywhere will joke that men and women are more than differnet races; they are from different planets. Our reactions, feelings, and functions in a family are totally opposite in most cases. This is not about equality of men and women it is simply saying that while EQUAL, the different genders perform different roles and no matter your sexual orientation you are still the gender you were born and you brain still functions as such. Your kind of relationships with you children is, partially, dictated by your gender, which anybody who takes their head out of their butt for more than 4 seconds can see, and children need both relationships.

This sounds like part a Seinfeld routine from the 80s (and I love Seinfeld )

"Seems to me the basic conflict between men and women, sexually, is that men are like firemen. To men, sex is an emergency, and no matter what we're doing we can be ready in two minutes. Women, on the other hand, are like fire. They're very exciting, but the conditions have to be exactly right for it to occur."

"Men want the same thing from their underwear that they want from women: a little bit of support, and a little bit of freedom. "

"There's very little advice in men's magazines, because men don't think there's a lot they don't know. Women do. Women want to learn. Men think, 'I know what I'm doing, just show me somebody naked.' "


--Andy

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Uh, excuse me sir, that is the WORST comparison I have ever heard. Anybody you ask anywhere will joke that men and women are more than differnet races; they are from different planets. Our reactions, feelings, and functions in a family are totally opposite in most cases. This is not about equality of men and women it is simply saying that while EQUAL, the different genders perform different roles and no matter your sexual orientation you are still the gender you were born and you brain still functions as such. Your kind of relationships with you children is, partially, dictated by your gender, which anybody who takes their head out of their butt for more than 4 seconds can see, and children need both relationships.

American Academy of Pediatrics and three decades of research say otherwise.

Your notion of marriage and child-rearing is one tiny little slice of history. There isn't one ideal way.

-TG

[BigBallinStalin]

Sounds pretty bigoted to me.

Instead of "same-sex," insert "interracial" and tell me if his post is not at all bigoted.

A. You make the unsupported and false assumption that it is valid to make that substitution.

B. You're right. Don't you wish this guy knew as much as you do about what being gay is really like? Oh, wait...

A. It's a good enough analogy. Pretty much his entire defense can be used against interracial marriage, so if you find yourself supporting his defense, then you should be asking yourself, "what kind of person am I really?"

Let's test that:

Over the last couple of years, I’ve found our decision to rebuild our family ratified time after time. One day as I turned to climb the stairs I saw my sixteen-year-old son walk past his mom as she sat reading in the living room. As he did, he paused and stooped down to kiss her and give her a hug, and then continued on. With {two dads} < {two races} in the house, this little moment of warmth and tenderness would never have occurred. My varsity-track-and-football-playing son and I can give each other a bear hug or a pat on the back, but the kiss thing is never going to happen. To be fully formed, children need to be free to generously receive from and express affection to parents of {both genders} < {one race}. {Genderless} < {interracial} marriages deny this fullness.

Uh, nah.

Let's try another:

There are perhaps a hundred different things, small and large, that are negotiated between parents and kids every week. Moms and dads interact differently with their children. To give kids {two moms or two dads} < {interracial} is to withhold from them someone whom they desperately need and deserve in order to be whole and happy.

Uh, nah again.

OK, lets try again:

{Two men or two women together} < {interracial marriage} is, in truth, nothing like a {man and a woman creating a life and a family together} < {same race}. {Same-sex} < {interracial} relationships are certainly very legitimate, rewarding pursuits, leading to happiness for many, but they are wholly different in experience and nature.

Uh, nah X3

... children are being engineered for {gay and lesbian} < {interracial} couples, a process that involves multiple other adults who have potential legal custody claims on these children, the potential for government’s involvement in these same-sex marriage households is staggering.

To quote player###, "not even close." so for icing on the cake, try what he says next:

Solomon only had to split the baby in two. In the future, judges may have to decide how to split children into three, four, or five equal pieces. In Florida, a judge recently ordered that the birth certificate of a child must show a total of three parents—a lesbian couple and a gay man (the sperm-providing hairdresser of one of the lesbian moms). Expect much more of this to come.

It boggles the mind to even think of how you could make the substitution here. In other words, BBS, you're fullofit.

Oh gee, you got me. Instead, imagine someone arguing in favor of homo-racial (get it? same-race?) marriage and against interracial marriage. That someone can bring up 'tradition', 'imagined inferior upbringing by interracial couples', 'slippery legal slopes', 'cost-no-benefit analysis', etc. etc.--just liked your beloved bigot!

It's a very similar style of arguing, and the very same positions can be taken against interracial marriage. In this case, you have to present arguments which do not bear the same stain of the interracial argument.

What could that be, I wonder? "cuz Bible"?