Can Anyone Give a Legitimate Non-Religious Reasons Against Gay Marriage

[Autodidact]

What I object to is the disbelief that the optimum is possible. I guess you could say, as Dallas said, "dreamy wonderful" parents. They ARE possible. I know many. This doesn't mean economic level, race or even religion. It means a man and a woman who delay sex until after their marriage, commit to stay together at least till death, and are completely faithful. Their children are welcome into their family and are raised in love and security. Their children learn to honor/trust men because they lived with and were loved by a father who taught them what a real man is. They learn to honor/respect womanhood through the example of their mother. They learn, by example, that loving the other gender is challenging, but beautiful at the same time. They learn to respect the other gender by the way their parents treat each other.

At the same time, it's possible for parents to teach honesty, kindness, integrity, honor, responsibility, and forgiveness, through example. It's possible to teach that hate is wrong. To teach that you can disagree with someone without hating them. And sometimes the hard road is the right road.

When it's possible, shouldn't we strive for it? For the sake of children? Don't they deserve the best we can give them? Or do we put our own wants first?

Optimum is possible, of course. And optimum has nothing to do with the gender of the parents. To say it does is false.

Starfish: You said that all the legitimate studies support your assertion that straight parents do better than gay. I'm sure before making a slur like that against a whole group of people, you first familiarized yourself with all those studies, so it shouldn't be a problem for you to produce them now--if they exist. Because you wouldn't just carelessly slander a whole group of caring, responsible parents without doing your research first, would you?

 

[Autodidact]

Starfish: You're assuming that a heterosexual family is optimum. It isn't. And your rosy-tinted stereotype about what some straight families look like doesn't make it so. That "legitimate" research you were claiming again?

 

[DallasApple]

[QUOTEOr do we put our own wants first?][/quote]

Oh and also..are you trying to say that you didnt "want" to get married?(to a man)..Or that your husband didnt "want" to marry (a woman).That it was a completely selfess act on both ya'lls part?..That you did it for the sake of future children?

I would hope..you did exactly what you "wanted" to do...If not?..Im sorry that you didnt get to live the life you "wanted"...

Love

Dallas

 

[DallasApple]

Starfish: You're assuming that a heterosexual family is optimum. It isn't. And your rosy-tinted stereotype about what some straight families look like doesn't make it so. That "legitimate" research you were claiming again?

I dont know..Cane and Abel had the "original real man" and the "original real woman"(for parents)..and one of the children turned out to be a murderer...

Go figure..You can do everything "right" and they can still turn out messed up in the head ....(or maybe its the parents fault..)

Love

Dallas

 

[Autodidact]

At the same time, it's possible for parents to teach honesty, kindness, integrity, honor, responsibility, and forgiveness, through example. It's possible to teach that hate is wrong. To teach that you can disagree with someone without hating them. And sometimes the hard road is the right road.

For example, their parents should probably not go around slandering other people by saying they're not as good parents, unless they have facts to support that assertion. That would be bad role modeling. Similarly, they can model respecting all kinds of people and all kinds of families, including gay families. All of those things would be good parenting.

When it's possible, shouldn't we strive for it? For the sake of children? Don't they deserve the best we can give them? Or do we put our own wants first?

How are you doing on that, Starfish? I think my kids deserve the best we can give them--which is me. I deserve society's support in my efforts, just like you.

 

[DallasApple]

Or do we put our own wants first?

Exactly..besides putting your own "wants" first by marrying who you wanted(Im assuming)..and having as many kids as you pleased...(wanted)

You are putting your "wants" into other peoples lives..Regardless of the outcome of the children and OTHER PEOPLES FAMILIES...

So YOU have lived a life or YOUR WANTS..Now you are pushing "YOUR WANTS" onto others...

So don't lecture to people about them putting their wants "first"..Look in the mirror...and tell your self that...

Love

Dallas

 

[DallasApple]

btw, Starfish, research does indicate that there is a negative correlation between family size and childhood outcome. Should society try to control how many children people have?

Oh and ALSO...There is a corelation between "age at which married" and the divorce rate..The "younger" at married the higher risk for divorce...(which is BAD for the children)...

So while you are pushing abstinence before marraige..Should'nt you push for laws to raise the legal age of consent to marry?

The younger you marry...the more likely you are to end up in divorce..(fact)...

I actually feel triumphant..That I am "still married" because I married at 20 and I am 40...Not only that I was "engaged" by 17...

Even though I ran around trying to fight it..(I felt like I was being lassowed and trapped like an animal) I had already had a baby at 14...

Nevermind..my point is ...raise the legal age for marriage..That will help the "children"..Including the children getting married...

Love

Dallas

 

[DallasApple]

Thats another thing I have to say...

It makes me ashamed...That what I fought against (a little for myself) because I really wasnt ready. but I was "pushed" towards it by "others"..Others have to fight for..because they are...ready...and others wish to stop it...

Love

Dallas

 

[DallasApple]

I guess we will have another problem on our hands..If gays are allowed to marry?...

The youngster gays..It will be the same thing..except they are gay...

The wise ones will have to warn them and teach them..And hope the rascals listen..

Love

Dallas

 

[The Voice of Reason]

It means a man and a woman who delay sex until after their marriage, commit to stay together at least till death, and are completely faithful. Their children are welcome into their family and are raised in love and security. Their children learn to honor/trust men because they lived with and were loved by a father who taught them what a real man is. They learn to honor/respect womanhood through the example of their mother. They learn, by example, that loving the other gender is challenging, but beautiful at the same time. They learn to respect the other gender by the way their parents treat each other.

At the same time, it's possible for parents to teach honesty, kindness, integrity, honor, responsibility, and forgiveness, through example. It's possible to teach that hate is wrong. To teach that you can disagree with someone without hating them. And sometimes the hard road is the right road.

When it's possible, shouldn't we strive for it? For the sake of children? Don't they deserve the best we can give them? Or do we put our own wants first?

Your entire post begs the question of providing a legitimate, non-religious reason against gay marriage. You spent three paragraphs assuming that your view is correct, without providing any supporting evidence (as Autodidact has pointed out).

 

[Riverwolf]

It means a man and a woman who delay sex until after their marriage...

What does delaying sex have to do with anything?

And BTW, you've often used "the stern hand of the father and the nurturing hand of the mother" argument before...

Have you ever considered the stern hand of the mother and the nurturing hand of the father? Ever hear of tomboys? Or feminine men such as myself? (the only things that make me a man is my sexual organ; otherwise I'm a woman) Do you shun me for that? Should I not be allowed to have children? But what if my wife is a tomboy? It equals out then.

The basis for your arguments are gender roles that don't exist anymore.

I think you forget that nothing in this world lasts forever. As hard as change is, it is inevitable, and if we don't adapt, we die. Even tradition is subject to inevitable change. And there's NO REASON to try to hang on to values that no longer exist in reality.

Pride has no place in this ever-changing world.

 

[Riverwolf]

I dont know..Cane and Abel had the "original real man" and the "original real woman"(for parents)..and one of the children turned out to be a murderer...

Eve was a wimp. Hail Lilith! Oh, wait. she ran off... poor Adam... his first wife ditched him(don't blame her) and his second wife was little more than a sex toy... then again, Adam was kind of a dolt himself.

 

[Riverwolf]

Your entire post begs the question of providing a legitimate, non-religious reason against gay marriage. You spent three paragraphs assuming that your view is correct, without providing any supporting evidence (as Autodidact has pointed out).

Give her a chance to get back to us. Yeesh.

 

[Autodidact]

Another question for Starfish: If it turns out that you're mistaken, and all the legitimate research supports the conclusion that gay parents serve just as well as straight, would that cause you to change your mind?

 

[lilithu]

This would be an excellent question for Barrack Obama. He supports Civil Unions for Gays and Lesbians. Could it be the fact that being raised by a white grandparent and being half white himself, would be a possible explanation for this obvious oversight on his part? I may have to change my opinion of him being a member of Reverend Wright's church. Being a member of a black church did very little to shape his understanding of the black struggle. Could he really be telling the truth about not having any knowledge about Wright? What did he do for all those years in the church, sleep?

Right, and you would be in the position to judge whether or not Obama understands the black struggle. :areyoucra (You probably have no idea why that statement is so offensive, do you?)

Many people think Obama has stated that he favors civil unions over same-sex marriages for political expediency. I don't think so. I think he genuinely believes this is the best compromise position that will give full legal rights to BGLT folks while at the same time honoring the fact that marriage is a religious sacrament for many people. He's trying to take the middle ground, not because it's what will get him elected, but because he thinks that's what's most fair. I think this because I also used to be against same-sex marriage, favoring civil unions, for the same reason - as an attempt to honor the beliefs of certain religious folks in our society. It wasn't until I came to see that religious folks already make the distinction between religous and civil marriage that I realized that this is not about protecting the religious sacrament of marriage. Obama will see the light as well.

You don't support atheists marrying?!? Why on earth not? *can't wait to hear this one*

The next major social movement coming to your neighborhood: Atheist Marriage.

I think Rev. Rick is arguing that marriage is a religious sacrament and should only be done in a religious context. Therefore, civil unions for everyone, and marriage only in those religious institutions that recognize marriages. It has to do with how one defines the term "marriage."

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Give her a chance to get back to us. Yeesh.

The gist of my post was to point out that she begs the question.

To be honest, I don't really care how long it takes for her to "get back to us".

 

[Riverwolf]

To be honest, I don't really care how long it takes for her to "get back to us".

I, for one, would like to know the sources she's taken her obvious misinformation from, and why she clings to blinding pride and dead (or at least dying) ideals.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I, for one, would like to know the sources she's taken her obvious misinformation from, and why she clings to blinding pride and dead (or at least dying) ideals.

I understand, Riverwolf. I would only caution you to prepare yourself to be underwhelmed.

 

[Sunstone]

If you allow gay marriage, you will put the multi-million dollar gay bashing industry out of work in the middle of a recession. Please! This holiday season, think of the bigots. :tree:

 

[The Voice of Reason]

If you allow gay marriage, you will put the multi-million dollar gay bashing industry out of work in the middle of a recession. Please! This holiday season, think of the bigots. :tree:

I agree, Sunstone. It's bad enough that the gays have initiated the War on Christmas, but now they want to force the true patriots to their knees.

Disgusting.