Gay Marriage Paradox - Page 4

On February 11 2011 23:38 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Well it sounds like something a crazy liberal would legislate.
2 Gay people cannot theoretically procreate therefore it isn't marriage , two men cannot provide a balanced upbringing for potential children (even if they could have any).
Lack of morals = one of the big reasons the west is in decline.
As long as stuff is CHEAP who cares if it's made by slaves in China working 16 hours a day for a bowl of rice.One example of many.

On February 11 2011 17:54 gork84 wrote:
Some food for thought. What about atheist couples who become married via a courthouse, with no religious involvement? That shouldn't be labeled a marriage either considering that there was no ceremony with no priest/pastor etc. You can't pick and choose the parts of the bible/religion you want to follow and ignore the rest.

Strike the term marriage from all legal terminology and replace it with civil union. Leave the term marriage in the churches where it belongs. If you are truly a christian, whether your government labels it marriage or civil union or whatever, their name for it shouldn't matter because you went through the steps of your religion to be married.

The argument isn't about the name, its about equal treatment of people. Its ridiculous how blind people can be.

On February 12 2011 02:47 D10 wrote:
Why are straight people so interested in what gay people can and cant do?!

I guess its a defense mechanism, so those closet gays dont feel like they are losing by staying in the closet, so they bash em homos to no end, until they are forced into the same closet those guys are in.

On February 11 2011 23:50 Romantic wrote:

Should sterile men or women be banned from marriage?

On February 13 2011 13:26 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:

Well they did ban a guy with low IQ from having sex last week so who knows what is in the pipeline.

If they did choose to adopt children though (the sterile couple) then that environment would be better for raising kids.Kids brought up by two gay partners would be teased at school for that reason.

A man with a low IQ has been banned from having sexual intercourse by a High Court judge who admitted the case raised questions about "civil liberties and personal autonomy".

The 41 year-old had been in a relationship with a man with whom he lived and told officials "it would make me feel happy" for it to continue.

But his local council, which provides his accommodation, decided his "vigorous sex drive" was inappropriate and that with an IQ of 48 and a "moderate" learning disability, he did not understand what he was doing. It started legal proceedings to restrict the relationship.

A number of professional medical organizations -- including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychiatric Association -- have issued statements claiming that a parent's sexual orientation is irrelevant to his or her ability to raise a child.

For the most part, the organizations are relying on a relatively small but conclusive body of research -- approximately 67 studies -- looking at children of gay parents and compiled by the American Psychological Association. In study after study, children in same-sex parent families turned out the same, for better or for worse, as children in heterosexual families.

"With all due respect to Cheney and her partner," Dr. James Dobson of the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, wrote in Time magazine in December, "the majority of more than 30 years of social-science evidence indicates that children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father."

Some liberals chimed in too, notably Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Leonard Pitts, who cited "a growing body of research that tells us the child raised without his or her biological father is significantly more likely to live in poverty, do poorly in school, drop out altogether, become a teen parent, exhibit behavioral problems, smoke, drink, use drugs or wind up in jail."

The problem with the research cited by both Dr. Dobson and Mr. Pitts is that it compares children of heterosexual couples only with those of single parents and not with children of same-sex parent families, said Gary Gates, a senior research fellow at the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law and an expert on census data involving gay and lesbian households.

The problem with these studies, Dr. Gates says, is that most of the children are from "intentional" same-sex parent families, where the parents tend to be better educated, more affluent and more open about their sexual orientation, and who deliberately conceive or adopt children with the intention of raising them in a same-sex parent family.

"My research suggests that's not the typical gay parent household," Dr. Gates said.

The problem with the research cited by both Dr. Dobson and Mr. Pitts is that it compares children of heterosexual couples only with those of single parents and not with children of same-sex parent families

While based on your beliefs, you may think gay couples aren't as suitable parents as hetero couples are, going around and spouting that opinion as fact annoys the hell out of me.

On February 14 2011 00:07 lone_hydra wrote:
Gay parents can love/fail children just as much as straight parents can. Only difference is how the outside world is going to treat the children based on parents/family status. If you honestly don't think so, consider how kids are treated on parental wealth, single parenthood or not, parental occupation, cultural/ethic background, the cars they are picked up in if any... the fact that your parents are gay is gonna do a lot.

On February 14 2011 03:48 Adila wrote:


I'm pretty sure the same argument was made when inter-racial marriage was allowed. Now, the majority of people don't even care.

Years from now, the majority of the population will feel the exact same way about kids from gay parents.

On February 13 2011 22:22 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:



Why on earth did you post this?

On February 13 2011 22:22 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:

Thousands of years of human evolution says otherwise.

On February 14 2011 04:43 lone_hydra wrote:


Whatever, we'll see, arguing about it won't change much. But your argument has weak correlation. Although both are fighting for human rights, inter-racials it is biologically natural for them to procreate and have kids who will know their father and mother. Children of homosexuals will at best have the feeling of a divorced kid who has a gay-step parent, and at worst never know who their other true father/mother are.

On February 14 2011 05:12 holynorth wrote:
Marriage is a Christian concept, correct? So, the only reason homosexual couples want to be married is because of the government benefits?

Why can't we just create an equal concept of marriage or give the same incentives to civil unions?

And if anyone complains, that would be an equal institution. Having different names does not imply different institutions in the legal system and therefore would be constitutional. It would hold hold a different demeanor because the public does not support one of them, not the government.

On February 11 2011 07:12 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:

Slavery is between 1 master and 1 slave.

As long as niggers sit at the back of the bus then i don't care.

On February 14 2011 06:14 SlyinZ wrote:
I'm okay with gay marriage, but they shouldnt be capable of adopt a child, i dont think it will be good for the child to have gay parents, not good example etc.