What is the standard that will need to be met for "Gay" marriage?

[EMAWmeister]

In all seriousness, it's pathetic that a nation founded on freedom and equality hasn't gotten past this issue yet.

[bubbles4ksu]

Ok then,  why shouldn't gay people get Tax breaks that every body else get?

Nobody should get tax breaks for being married or having kids.

there is an economic benefit to society when people reproduce in an environment where the children will be looked after.

[bubbles4ksu]

In all seriousness, it's pathetic that a nation founded on freedom and equality hasn't gotten past this issue yet.

nation was founded for the freedom of land owning white dudes. it's a work in progress.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Ok then,  why shouldn't gay people get Tax breaks that every body else get?

Nobody should get tax breaks for being married or having kids.

there is an economic benefit to society when people reproduce in an environment where the children will be looked after.

Thanks, Hillary, but free abortions and birth control are available if you can't afford a baby right now.

[Cire]

In all seriousness, it's pathetic that a nation founded on freedom and equality hasn't gotten past this issue yet.

nation was founded for the freedom of land owning white dudes. it's a work in progress.

Then why do old balls people, and infertile people and people never have kids get those benefits automatically?   

That is a pretty rediculous reason, and isn't much better than the cat example.   I mean Christ,  it's not like they ask if you are planning on reproducing?   Married?  Boom tax advantage.

[steve dave]

stormnut, do you believe gays burn in eternal hellfire if they aren't sorry for being gay?

[steve dave]

I was married in the Catholic Church next to campus by Keith and I'm not Catholic.

[8manpick]

I was married in the Catholic Church next to campus by Keith and I'm not Catholic.

Hell for you

[GCJayhawker]

I don't understand why this is so complicated.  The law should be that federal, state and municipal governments cannot deny a marriage license to two people based on their orientation, but religious organizations and/or people presiding over the ceremony do not have to perform same sex marriages if they do not wish to do so.  You would get some churches and pastors who perform same sex marriages and some that do not.  Seems pretty simple.

Part of the reason you don't understand why the actual issue before the scotus is complicated is because you think there are federal marriage licenses.

Thanks FSD, obviously there are no federal marriage licenses.  I should have left that out, but the point of the post still remains the same.  It really is not that complicated of an issue and some solution like what I put forward should solve the problem while still allowing religious organizations to make choices as a congregation on the issue.    for being a total douche though and thinking that you are the smartest person in the planet every time you make a post relating to some political issue.  We get it man, you have all the answers and the rest of us are just too stupid to comprehend the complexity of anything.

[Unruly]

Really debating which thread to put this in.

Came off Facebook.

I have the same right to voice my opinion about gay rights as they do.

1. It is not marriage.

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

2. It Violates Natural Law

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.

Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.

Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)

3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother

It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.

The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.

Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.

4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle

In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.

Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.

Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.

5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right

Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.

This is false.

First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.

Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union

Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.

On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.
Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.

7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage

One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.

Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.

8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society

By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.

In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.

In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.

9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution

In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex “marriage.”

If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such aberrations.

The railroading of same-sex “marriage” on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press:

"The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality."

10. It Offends God

This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex “marriage” does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.

Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis: “God created man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: ‘Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.’” (Gen. 1:28-29)

The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: “From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.” (Mark 10:6-7).

Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: “The Lord rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil.” (Gen. 19:24-25)

If God had intended the human race to be fulfilled through both heterosexual and homosexual marriage, He would have designed our bodies to allow reproduction through both means and made both means of sexual intercourse healthy and natural. Homosexual anal intercourse carries a high risk of disease, this is recognized in Scripture where gay men are said to receive in their bodies the due penalty for their error (Romans 1:27).

Old Testament- Leviticus 20:13
King James Version (KJV)
13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Gigantic brick of text.

[CNS]

"Natural Law" is fantastic.

[EMAWmeister]

I think it's hilarious how people are like "A CIVIL UNION IS THE SAME THING, WE JUST DON'T CALL IT MARRIQGE! IT'S SEMANTICS!" as if they're fighting for the word marriage rather than to be looked at in the same light as husband and wife.

[Unruly]

I really like how they demonize sodomy.

Sodomy is actually pretty rough ridin' sweet.  Who doesn't like a BJ every once in a while. Or even an old fashioned.

[p1k3]

haha an old fashioned

[bubbles4ksu]

Ok then,  why shouldn't gay people get Tax breaks that every body else get?

Nobody should get tax breaks for being married or having kids.

there is an economic benefit to society when people reproduce in an environment where the children will be looked after.

Thanks, Hillary, but free abortions and birth control are available if you can't afford a baby right now.

my point is that there needs to be a future generation for the economy to grow(this is a big part of europe's problems) and that the next generation will be better off if it is raised by two parents rather than one. tax incentives for being married and/or having kids help make this happen.

[Willesgirl]

I haven't said anything about this topic anywhere and the only reason I feel comfortable doing so here is that it is anonymous. So yeah, I'm a wuss.

That said, I do not care about SSM. I don't care what anyone does in the privacy of their own homes. I think it is backwards to try to get government to acknowledge our relationships in any way, shape or form. We should all be rallying to get government out of almost everything. I don't want them in my bedroom. I don't want them in my checkbook. I don't want them in my soda pop. Just get the hell out.

That means divorcing tax incentives of all kind from behavior.

I think it is patently dishonest to suggest that two male parents or two female parents are as good for a child as having a father and a mother. Yes, having two loving male parents is better than having a crack whore for a mom and a rapist for a dad, but let's be honest: That's rarely the choice and that's not what we're talking about. I would feel a whole lot better if we could concede that fact while we're having this conversation.

That said, fine. Life isn't always fair. Not all children get to have the best possible situation. Let's be honest and move on down the road. But let's not lie and say two loving parents of the same sex are as good as two loving parents of the opposite sex. It's so disingenuous.

Whew. I feel better. Feel free to DNR me. I just feel better putting it out into the world somewhere. So, thanks, gE.

[puniraptor]

I don't think its dishonest to think that two dude dads could be as good or better parents compared with a hetero mom dad situation.

[ChiComCat]

I haven't said anything about this topic anywhere and the only reason I feel comfortable doing so here is that it is anonymous. So yeah, I'm a wuss.

That said, I do not care about SSM. I don't care what anyone does in the privacy of their own homes. I think it is backwards to try to get government to acknowledge our relationships in any way, shape or form. We should all be rallying to get government out of almost everything. I don't want them in my bedroom. I don't want them in my checkbook. I don't want them in my soda pop. Just get the hell out.

That means divorcing tax incentives of all kind from behavior.

I think it is patently dishonest to suggest that two male parents or two female parents are as good for a child as having a father and a mother. Yes, having two loving male parents is better than having a crack whore for a mom and a rapist for a dad, but let's be honest: That's rarely the choice and that's not what we're talking about. I would feel a whole lot better if we could concede that fact while we're having this conversation.

That said, fine. Life isn't always fair. Not all children get to have the best possible situation. Let's be honest and move on down the road. But let's not lie and say two loving parents of the same sex are as good as two loving parents of the opposite sex. It's so disingenuous.

Whew. I feel better. Feel free to DNR me. I just feel better putting it out into the world somewhere. So, thanks, gE.

Why is it disingenuous to think that same sex parents aren't as good for children as hetero parents? 

I think, in general, adoptive parents are better for kids than non-adoptive.  In a higher percentage of adoptive situations, parents have been screened and have thought about the decision for a long time.  In biological parenting, theres a higher chance of crackhead parents or accidents to enormously unprepared parents.  There aren't crackheads or enormously unprepared parents lining up to adopt (albeit there are probably some).

I don't think the gender effects the raising of a child.  I think the preparedness of the parents does.  I think same-sex couples, because they are put through a more rigorous process to have a child than just rough ridin', are in general better parents a higher percentage of the time.

[EMAWmeister]

But let's not lie and say two loving parents of the same sex are as good as two loving parents of the opposite sex. It's so disingenuous.

Let's not lie and say that two loving parents of the same sex are worse than two loving parents of the opposite sex. It's just wrong.

[puniraptor]

i think willsgirl had two dads and hated her parents

[michigancat]

big shock, willesgirl is a bigot

[Headinjun]

I don't understand why this is so complicated.  The law should be that federal, state and municipal governments cannot deny a marriage license to two people based on their orientation, but religious organizations and/or people presiding over the ceremony do not have to perform same sex marriages if they do not wish to do so.  You would get some churches and pastors who perform same sex marriages and some that do not.  Seems pretty simple.

Part of the reason you don't understand why the actual issue before the scotus is complicated is because you think there are federal marriage licenses.

Thanks FSD, obviously there are no federal marriage licenses.  I should have left that out, but the point of the post still remains the same.  It really is not that complicated of an issue and some solution like what I put forward should solve the problem while still allowing religious organizations to make choices as a congregation on the issue.    for being a total douche though and thinking that you are the smartest person in the planet every time you make a post relating to some political issue.  We get it man, you have all the answers and the rest of us are just too stupid to comprehend the complexity of anything.

Bill Maher is that loud, boorish guy at a party that insults people and laughs at all his own jokes and when people tell him to chill out he's like "hey, i'm just being real.  sorry you can't handle it."

[EMAWmeister]

I don't understand why this is so complicated.  The law should be that federal, state and municipal governments cannot deny a marriage license to two people based on their orientation, but religious organizations and/or people presiding over the ceremony do not have to perform same sex marriages if they do not wish to do so.  You would get some churches and pastors who perform same sex marriages and some that do not.  Seems pretty simple.

Part of the reason you don't understand why the actual issue before the scotus is complicated is because you think there are federal marriage licenses.

Thanks FSD, obviously there are no federal marriage licenses.  I should have left that out, but the point of the post still remains the same.  It really is not that complicated of an issue and some solution like what I put forward should solve the problem while still allowing religious organizations to make choices as a congregation on the issue.    for being a total douche though and thinking that you are the smartest person in the planet every time you make a post relating to some political issue.  We get it man, you have all the answers and the rest of us are just too stupid to comprehend the complexity of anything.

Bill Maher is that loud, boorish guy at a party that insults people and laughs at all his own jokes and when people tell him to chill out he's like "hey, i'm just being real.  sorry you can't handle it."

dlewinjun

[Unruly]

I don't understand why this is so complicated.  The law should be that federal, state and municipal governments cannot deny a marriage license to two people based on their orientation, but religious organizations and/or people presiding over the ceremony do not have to perform same sex marriages if they do not wish to do so.  You would get some churches and pastors who perform same sex marriages and some that do not.  Seems pretty simple.

Part of the reason you don't understand why the actual issue before the scotus is complicated is because you think there are federal marriage licenses.

Thanks FSD, obviously there are no federal marriage licenses.  I should have left that out, but the point of the post still remains the same.  It really is not that complicated of an issue and some solution like what I put forward should solve the problem while still allowing religious organizations to make choices as a congregation on the issue.    for being a total douche though and thinking that you are the smartest person in the planet every time you make a post relating to some political issue.  We get it man, you have all the answers and the rest of us are just too stupid to comprehend the complexity of anything.

Bill Maher is that loud, boorish guy at a party that insults people and laughs at all his own jokes and when people tell him to chill out he's like "hey, i'm just being real.  sorry you can't handle it."

[Willesgirl]

This is why I don't talk politics in polite company -- most people aren't polite.  I said something not particularly controversial and within seconds, I'm called a bigot. That's not an argument. That's name-calling. And it's not true.

Though there is very limited research on the topic of same sex parenting, what research exists suggests that no, two same sex parents are not as good as two parents of the opposite sex. You'll note I never mentioned biological parents, because the statistics suggest that adopted children in two parent (of the opposite gender) homes do best of all.

Like I said, not stuff I typically talk about. I just read the research and listen. Again, I'm not suggesting we make decisions based on what the research suggests, I'm simply saying we shouldn't lie about it. And now, birther pit, I'm out. Flame away, children.