Marriage is a civil right in the US

Well, you can marry children, with their parents consent. That's been legal in every state since the formation of the country, as I recall, and it was a tradition handed down from centuries of Christianity.You can't marry an animal because an animal can't consent and can't enter into a contract. Moreover, why would you want to marry an animal?Homosexual couples want to marry because marriage comes with benefits that would help them live their lives and raise their children. Opponents of gay marriage need a compelling argument that the rest of us would be so much worse off as a result that it offsets the benefit to gay families. I don't see that you've done that. I don't see that anybody ever has, in fact. You've offered the argument that it's against God's intention for marriage, but since there is no God, that's not a compelling argument.Let's be absolutely clear on that point. By opposing gay marriage you're taking the position that it should be very, very hard for a gay couple to work in a partnership and maintain a family. That it should be very, very hard for them to provide for and protect their children, especially during hard times. Why should we take these actions?

Your judgement is flat-out wrong.Sorry, but that's all there is to it. I mean, I don't know how else we can prove that to you than what we've done in the past. We can show you the sociographic data that proves that gay marriage is good for society. We can make the argument from what's best for a hypothetical gay family. We can try to show you that gay people do exist, gay couples are raising kids and doing it completely successfully, and that hobbling their ability to do that only harms children.At this point, if none of those things sway you, your judgement is faulty. Some things are wrong, Faith - just plain wrong, and your judgement on this issue is one of those wrong things. And it comes out in the way you argue - the fact that you have no recourse but to call us names and tell us how disgusting you find gay people is proof that your judgement is just plain wrong. ..and their kids. See, that's what you keep forgetting. This isn't hypothetical. Gay parents are raising kids. Kids who are now adults. They've been doing it for decades, you see, in every state.I get that you havea problem with that. You think their kids should be taken away. Again your judgement is wrong on this issue. What you propose would harm children. Gay parenting does not harm children. Your judgement that it does is just plain wrong. Because you're talking about real people, Faith. This isn't a hypothetical issue. When you advocate taking away the children of gay couples, you're not talking about hypothetical people. You're talking about breaking up real families.Why wouldn't that be personal, Faith? Do you really think that nobody here is a gay parent? Nobody who reads this site is the child of gay parents? Is it just that you don't get how the internet works, or something? And, yet, different in every culture.

You did refer to it as an "abberation", did you not?

quote:

---

And homosexuals have no business raising families

---

Well, if they have no business raising families, Faith, what do you propose we do about it? Because a lot of gay couples are doing exactly what you say they have no buisness doing. If you don't support the removal of their children, then you don't take your own beliefs very seriously, now do you? Not as well as couples do. That's the conclusion of all those studies folks like you try to beat us over the head with. It's worse for a child to be raised by a single parent than to be raised by two gay parents. Now you're just making things up. Luckily for our future children aren't as homophobic as you.

quote:

---

The point is, ladies and gentlemen: Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right; greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms, greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge ” has marked the upward surge of mankind and greed, you mark my words ” will save not only Teldar Paper but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA.

---

The problem with C.S. Lewis as a source is, he's not usually right about things. I realize that he constitutes the Holy Grail for internet forum Christian apologetics, but the sooner you realize the intellectual vapidity of Mere Christianity and other such materials, the smarter you'll be.

Nobody's like this.Seriously, Rob. The people you describe here do not exist. I realize that's a hard thing for you to accept - you've been lied to.Nobody wants the terrorists to win, because what they have in mind is even worse than what the Christianists want. Do you think we're idiots?

Then could you please step aside? The rest of us are having a conversation about the rights of real human beings. Anytime you care to join us here in the reality-based community, and not your made-up fantasy-land where homosexuals are conviniently non-existent, you're free to return.But your ridiculous beliefs essentially disqualify you from the discussion. If you're unwilling to even admit that the persons under discussion are real, your input has no value whatsoever.

The fact that mine is right and yours is wrong. Homosexuals exist. They are people who are sexually attracted only to members of their same sex. To assert that such people are non-existent is counterfactual. You don't believe that it's insulting to tell gay people that they don't exist, and that their concerns and needs are therefore irrelevant? Interesting. Why do you think it wouldn't be insulting to dehumanize someone?

Oh, really? Tell me - is that like the difference between telling this guy "you have to stay out" and telling that guy "you can't come in"?There is no difference, as is obvious.

You don't know where children come from? How old are you, Faith? You've never heard of "adoption"? What makes you think you have to be a birth parent in order to be a parent? Kind of a bigot, aren't you?

Why not? And what about the homosexuals who have already adopted?You really do hate children, don't you? Who else shouldn't get to adopt? Atheists? Blacks?Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

That's never been absolutely true. Single people - and gays, actually - have been adopting for a very long time.You really do just make it up as you go, don't you?

So, adoptive parents are worse parents? Huh, that's funny - I was under the impression that it makes no sense to choose the circumstances when they aren't your kids.I'm pretty sure that raising a kid steeped in the bigotry and intolerance and hatred you exude is a lot worse for kids. We'll be sending somebody around shortly to pick up yours. You just make this stuff up, don't you? Like you don't even bother to check. You're so sure that it's so reasonable and common to hate gay people that you just assume that everybody else always has.People aren't like you, Faith. Thank goodness. Ah. So, when you said you didn't support taking away the kids of gay people, you were lying. When you told me I was making that up, you knew I was actually right. Gotcha. Do they even deserve to live? You know, maybe we should castrate gays, so there's no possibility at all of them having children.

And you read that as "they're rather be visited by nobody than be visited by their family?"

Because all men know how to fight? Because all men have no need for protection? Like, I'm sure these statements make sense to you, but do you give them any thought before you type them?The idea that no man needs, or desires, protection is what is ridiculous. They can, if one is a man and the other is a woman and neither one of them is already married. Or, had you never heard of the "marriage of convienience?" Sure they do. They are, after all, part of the culture. We could start with the civil laws regarding marriage, for instance.Faith, tell me this - even if your state recognizes the legality of a same-sex marriage union, why does that mean that you have to?

Sure. If a man and a woman can have a marriage of convenience, why not allow two men or two women to do the same thing?Clearly, there's little societal interest in weeding out marriages of convinience, so it's hardly right to deny same-sex pairs the same avenue.And it isn't right at all to exlude all gay couples from marrying simply because two men or two women might do so for convenience when we don't exclude straight marriages for the same reason.Honestly, though, your ideas about who needs protection are backwards and archaic, and it's ludicrous that you think they have any relevance in a modern time. In an age of profligate handguns, what protection do you think you have to be a man to provide? Did you miss the fact that we have women soldiers and police officers?