Jump to content


Photo

County Clerk Jailed For Refusing To Issue Marriage Licenses

homosexualmarriage rights freedom

  • Please log in to reply
85 replies to this topic

#81 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,114 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 18 September 2015 - 06:22 AM

I understand why the federal government incentivized marriage, as it has a positive effect on society, regardless and outside of any religious moral structure. The same cannot be said of H*mos*xual "marriage". It offers no benefit to society, and in most cases, now will have a detrimental effect.

 

How does H*mos*xual marriage not benefit society while heterosexual marriage does? Once we get past personal opinions the only real difference is that H*mos*xual couples cannot get pregnant. While many heterosexual couples suffer from infertility, the point is that adoption is still on the table. So H*mos*xual couples can raise children, and they do it better than single (straight) parents and better than the foster care (orphanage) system. So I contend that there is no meaningful benefit that you can confer to heterosexual couples and not H*mos*xual couples. 



#82 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,297 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 18 September 2015 - 10:38 AM

How does H*mos*xual marriage not benefit society while heterosexual marriage does? Once we get past personal opinions the only real difference is that H*mos*xual couples cannot get pregnant. While many heterosexual couples suffer from infertility, the point is that adoption is still on the table. So H*mos*xual couples can raise children, and they do it better than single (straight) parents and better than the foster care (orphanage) system. So I contend that there is no meaningful benefit that you can confer to heterosexual couples and not H*mos*xual couples. 

Again it's not marriage, even if it is some sort of couplement. 
There is zero benefit from "H*mos*xual marriage" or rather couplement to society. The arguments should surround what the actual burdens are. 

The benefit from real marriage are clear. It's designed that people can conceive and raise children, which is a necessity for the further existence of society. If husband or wife are infertile, then that's unfortunate. The theoretical potential is still there. A H*mos*xual couplement is infertile by design. There isn't even a theoretical potential for this. They somehow require an intervention from outside to get children.

 

That H*mos*xual couplements generally would be or are better parents then married couples, or even single parents is in dispute *) even if that is a frequent talking point by the queer lobby. And as for foster children even normal couples that want to adopt have some hurdles in doing so. Why make that more difficult by extending those eligible to do so?

 *) http://www.dawnstefa...rg/dawntest.htm



#83 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,114 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 18 September 2015 - 01:08 PM

Again it's not marriage, even if it is some sort of couplement. 
There is zero benefit from "H*mos*xual marriage" or rather couplement to society. The arguments should surround what the actual burdens are. 

The benefit from real marriage are clear. It's designed that people can conceive and raise children, which is a necessity for the further existence of society. If husband or wife are infertile, then that's unfortunate. The theoretical potential is still there. A H*mos*xual couplement is infertile by design. There isn't even a theoretical potential for this. They somehow require an intervention from outside to get children.

 

That H*mos*xual couplements generally would be or are better parents then married couples, or even single parents is in dispute *) even if that is a frequent talking point by the queer lobby. And as for foster children even normal couples that want to adopt have some hurdles in doing so. Why make that more difficult by extending those eligible to do so?

 *) http://www.dawnstefa...rg/dawntest.htm

 

What is the benefit of straight marriage if there is no children involved? 

 

The point is that raising children is not the sole purpose of marriage; the government doesn't ask if you plan to have children when you go to get married. When an old couple gets married such a union is obviously not designed to have children, if anything it would be unethical for an old couple to conceive and raise children. Yet we do not shame old people for getting married because the union will not result in babies. When a young straight couple wants to get married but chooses not to have kids we don't say their marriage should be null and void. But when G*y people want to get married all of a sudden people say marriage is all about kids and if you can't make your own you have no business being married, I don't buy it. 

 

If G*y couples can overcome the hurdles of adoption just like straight couples what is the argument to keep them from doing so beyond the fact that it will increase the queue length? That is not a good argument IMO; it is like saying blacks and women shouldn't be allowed to vote because it will inconvenience the white males trying to vote. 

 

Fact is in America hundreds of thousands of kids are waiting to be adopted, and there are long waiting periods for couples looking for kids because they are very picky about what kind of child they want; specifically a baby that is healthy, white, and male. 

 

Any individual can have a bad experience; lots of kids with straight parents that get abused too. However, when you look at the actual literature on the subject they do not find that G*y couples are ill-equipped to be parents. Here is a recent (2015) meta study of H*mos*xual parenting: http://www.sciencedi...049089X15001209

 

"We find that the literature on outcomes for children of same-s@x parents is marked by scientific consensus that they experience “no differences” compared to children from other parental configurations."

 

Here is another study from a few years ago that looked at childhood educational progress: http://www.scienceda...00831091240.htm

 

Rosenfeld's study shows that children of G*y and married couples had lower grade-repetition rates than their peers raised by opposite-s@x unmarried couples and single parents. And all children living in some type of family environment did much better than those living in group housing. Those who were awaiting adoption or placement in a foster home were held back about 34 percent of the time.

"One of the fundamental issues in modern family law that differs from state to state is whether same-s@x couples can adopt," Rosenfeld said. "My research makes clear that there's a huge advantage to kids to be out of the care of the state and into the care of any family, even if the family is not perfectly optimal."



#84 perry_eh

perry_eh

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Ontario, Canada

Posted 20 September 2015 - 02:45 PM

ENOCH2021

Well I for one feel blessed that Christ gave us the ritual of offering himself up through his body and blood in a daily ceremony.



#85 FaithfulCenturion

FaithfulCenturion

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 883 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New York

Posted 21 September 2015 - 01:04 PM

You know what, I just can't do this justice with a synopsis. You'll have to read it for yourself:

http://www.thedailyb...e-is-right.html

#86 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 21 September 2015 - 07:43 PM

You know what, I just can't do this justice with a synopsis. You'll have to read it for yourself:

http://www.thedailyb...e-is-right.html

It looks like the judge did everything right.

1)  He refused to marry anyone at all so he wasn't discriminating against any particular group.

2)  He had the power to perform marriages but, unlike Davis, he was not required to do so as part of his duties.

 

Of course, that doesn't mean he won't become the target of a witch hunt.... as seems to be happening to him.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: homosexualmarriage, rights, freedom

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users