give Ms. Cali credit.....whether you agree or not at least she didn't lie her ass off

You're not alone, it is done ad nauseam and it is an invalid argument.

 

Marriage is our benchmark for how stable and long term a marriage is. That's why married parents have an easier time adopting. What possible benefit is marriage to society except for the stability it adds to parenting? Why wouldn't that apply to gay couples raising children?

Are three people allowed to adopt together, anywhere?

 

I have yet to see any valid argument against it that could possibly invalidate it. Were you planning on raising one?

I will say again: I have never heard any argument against gay marriage that was not at one time used against interracial marriage. Do you have an argument against gay marriage that has never been used against interracial marriage? It would be interesting to hear.

 

Sure CBQ. Marriage is the preferred means by which society reproduces itself. A gay union is not capable of producing children. That argument does not in any way apply to interracial marriage.

Interestingly, 70% of black voters in California voted for prop 8, supporting the ban on gay marriage. Why do you suppose that occurred?

 

Hmmm. Answering a question with a question is a sign that you don't have a good answer.

If two of the same-sex are allowed to adopt, why not three? Four? It is better than having orphans, right?

 

This is a faulty argument. We are an overpopulated planet. We are over reproducing.

Thanks for something new, albeit something that doesn't work.

If you look closely at the numbers, the 70% is disproportionately female. A HUGE number of African American women voted for prop 8, versus a far smaller margin (similar to that of Hispanics, for instance) of African American men. I'd say the following factors were at play:

• In the lead-up to the vote, gay rights activists fumbled terribly in neglecting to target minority communities with a message of tolerance. Instead, they focused primarily on white communities.
  
  
• The majority of money for the yes on prop 8 campaign came from the Church of Later Day Saints, a church that is deeply familiar with targeting & persuading minorities.
  
• The bond between the African American community and the Christian church
  
• The strength of support for traditional family values within the African American community
  
• The lack of African American gay celebrities or fictional characters in the limelight, in stark contrast to, for instance, white gay celebrities or fictional characters. Studies show that teens who watch shows that have gay or lesbian characters or actors show a similar level of gay tolerance to those teens with actual gay friends. There are almost no Black gay characters or celebrities to create a similar effect among African Americans teens.
  
• The years of encouragement for certain outspoken African American women who oppose interracial couples which has mislead those certain outspoken individuals into becoming comfortable in judging other people's love lives.
  

 

I know you're trying to get at a slippery slope argument, that gay marriage will lead to poly marriages, but try as I might, I can't bring myself to care about that possibility. If it did, so what? The biggest, obvious problem with poly marriages is the chances that one person is getting shafted, to the point of their rights being infringed upon. But when you equate them with gay marriages, as if the people involved really do have exactly the same level of contentedness and equality within the relationship...then I can't bring myself to think why such unions would bother me. So, hey, if three men in a committed stable relationship raising a young man is exactly the same as two men in a committed stable relationship raising a young man then no, I don't see a problem with either.

 

I respect, but don't accept, you assessment that my argument is faulty. Nor is this planet overpopulated. You state that as if it were a scientific fact but I think it is your opinion.

Your list of "excuses" about the vote is a bit of Monday Morning Quarterbacking and full of invalidated assumptions, but buried in there I think you acknowledge that America is still basically a nation with a strong Judeo-Christian tradition.

 

The history of known civilisation contains only one constant - change...So, using what people have done in a certain circumstance is not a valid reason for assuming something should remain unchanged. If that were the case, nothing would ever get done. It's about the evolution of values. Things will change, it's a matter of when not if.

Personally, I believe, the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. It has religious implications and has come from the requirements of each culture in which it is supported. In our society, this has become law and now is entrenched within the social fabric we live within. The legal benefits of being in a recognised union, however, should not be removed from homosexual couples. As such, I believe a legally recognised definition, such as a civil union, which grants exactly the same rights as a "marriage" should be given to all couples who so desire it. Marriage is a matter for the church. Legally recognised unions are a matter for state.

In terms of polygamous marriages/unions...our society is yet to move to a point whereby this is a regular part of life. As such, I doubt we will be seeing legally recognised polygamous unions within our life times. Our culture and current society does not require polygamous marriage, unlike other countries where the practice is traditionally part of the community.

 

Okay, we have agreement here. Yes, it would lead to poly "marriages", which would be a disaster. The institution of marriage would be ruined and the family unit would be nearly impossible to identify in America. Not to mention all of the claims and counter claims of benefits, and the resulting law suits, etc. It would be a complete mess.

By the way, who says marriage has to be between two humans? I could be in love with my dog.

 

Why stop at couples? This is an arbitrary distinction and unfair to those who freely choose to live as threesomes.

 

I added one in there about the impact of popular culture that I think is very relevant.

You may think I'm just speculating, but it is something I have thought and talked about a great deal since the vote. You asked for my opinion, that's it.

I think there are plenty of gay and lesbian people who adhere to a strong Judeo-Christian as well. A month or so ago, Rev Phelps' anti gay protestors went to U of C to be loud & obnoxious. One of the frats on their way came out in boxers & danced to "I'm coming out" and various other similar songs to protest the protest. The nearby theological school came out and joined in, dancing with the frat boys.

 

Dogs can't give legal consent.

 

Clever. Funny too. :smt005

 

A complete mess still sounds much better than maintaining institutionalized discrimination against gay and lesbian people. I vote mess.

 

I'm sure most divorce attorneys would wholeheartedly agree.

Touche'

 

I answered that in the remainder of my post. Because the legal system is generally playing catch up with the changes in society...It is reactionary. Hence, why we have debate. What government was saying 100 years ago "hang on, I think we have homosexual couples becoming more prevelant, we should recognise that legally to give them rights"? :smt102

In our society (western), polygamous relationships (I'm talking longer-term...not a 3some for one night) are not yet prolific enough nor have the interest of the majority of people to make it necessary for debate to occur, or legal changes to be made. I don't doubt that it will come. And, it will just be a further evolution of the human race.

 

More like you dismissed the argument, but it is a valid concern. There are a lot of polygamists doing hard time in Utah.

 

I dismissed nothing. I answered it twice. It's not currently a major issue of thought or debate within our society. As such, there's no push to change the law. The law represents the majority thought, albeit a little slowly. It doesn't need to be said that to cater to every single person's individual circumstances is impossible. I say that's why polygamous marriage won't be looked at soon...However, when it does become a point of concern, the law should respond accordingly - that's a more important point.

Yes. There is one minor community in the USA which has yet to find country-wide or world-wide sympathy and support for their cause...when they do, perhaps things will start to change.

I'm just calling it how I see it.

 

Thank you FEHG and CBQ for your intelligent and well-articulated thoughts on this issue.