Anti-Gay Marriage Constitutional Amendments?

[Stone]

A black man can do everything that a white man can. They are functionally identical. They should have equal rights.

A gay couple can not do everything that a heterosexual couple can. They can't have babies on their own, or provide the best, most traditional family structure to the child. They are not functionally identical, and because of that, there is absolutely nothing wrong with denying them access to an institution (marriage) which exists to promote the exact things those gay couples are not capable of. Equal protection guarantees equal rights to equal people, correct?

The comparison between the struggle for black civil rights and the homosexual desire to push mass acceptance of homosexuality on the country by breaking and entering their way into historical traditions is bullshit.

I have no problem with gay people. And, I would have little problem with gay marriage if a majority of the country believed gays ought to be able to get married. A majority doesn't, and it's not even particularly close.

Because gay marriage is in no way a civil rights' issue, I believe forcing the topic on the country is undemocratic.

Although I don't want to see the constitution amended, that constitutional amendment protects the views of more of the country than the snowballing effect of state gay marriage legalization would.

[g0zen]

A black man can do everything that a white man can. They are functionally identical. They should have equal rights.

Agreed.

A gay couple can not do everything that a heterosexual couple can. They can't have babies on their own

Neither can some heterosexual families, so that's an invalid point.

or provide the best, most traditional family structure to the child.

Contrary to what you may have heard the "best" and "most traditional" are not necessarily the same thing. There have been no conclusive studies that a child raised by a gay couple are in any way more prone to any sort of psychological or physical malady than one raised by a straight couple. The dedication and love of the parents for a child is what raises a healthy and productive member of society, not thier sexuality.

They are not functionally identical, and because of that, there is absolutely nothing wrong with denying them access to an institution (marriage) which exists to promote something those gay couples are not involved with.

The institution of marriage shouldn't be within the government's jurisdiction in the first place, so yes there is something wrong with denying them the same rights as any other American.

The comparison between black civil rights and the desire to push mass acceptance of homosexuality on the country by forcing their way into traditions (and therefore history) is bullshit. Even comparing the two is somewhat ignorant.

It's not like they're forcing you to be there at the marriage, watching them kiss. This has NOTHING to do with forcing homosexuality on you or your family. The 'traditions' (and therefore history) of this country is NOT the furtherment of one religious or moral standpoint over the rights guaranteed to the citizens therein.

I find it ironic you asserting people are ignorant when none of your argument is supportable by facts.

[Stone]

Neither can some heterosexual families, so that's an invalid point.

A black man with no legs is unable to play soccer like a white man with legs. The vast majority of black men can do the exact same things the vast majority of white men can. The vast majority of gay couples (in fact all of them), are incapable of a number of things that the vast majority of heterosexual couples can do. It is not an invalid point.

Originally Posted by Stone
They are not functionally identical, and because of that, there is absolutely nothing wrong with denying them access to an institution (marriage) which exists to promote something those gay couples are not involved with.

The institution of marriage shouldn't be within the government's jurisdiction in the first place, so yes there is something wrong with denying them the same rights as any other American.

If you're arguing that marriage should no longer provide any special status to any American, then that's a worthwhile point. There's no connection between "the government shouldn't be involved with marriage" and "marriage is a civil right."

Contrary to what you may have heard the "best" and "most traditional" are not necessarily the same thing. There have been no conclusive studies that a child raised by a gay couple are in any way more prone to any sort of psychological or physical malady than one raised by a straight couple. The dedication and love of the parents for a child is what raises a healthy and productive member of society, not thier sexuality.

There haven't been enough examples to perform a comprehensive study. It's simple common sense to infer that a child with parents of different sexes, or multiple parents (rather than one) will be exposed to a wider range of viewpoints, people, and personal histories, and as a result of that will have a more well-rounded personality when he grows up.

Physical malady? Hah.

Outside of all that, if the traditional family structure was not the best environment in which to raise children, then it couldn't have remained the predominant method in which to raise human children in all of western civilization.

[g0zen]

A black man with no legs is unable to play soccer like a white man with legs. The vast majority of black men can do the exact same things the vast majority of white men can. The vast majority of gay couples (in fact all of them), are incapable of a number of things that the vast majority of heterosexual couples can do. It is not an invalid point.

I don't see how being able to reproduce is a basis for greater privilages under the law. Don't the Chinese do that for their citizens? Promoting those who reproduce, while punishing childless families? They used to only favor male offspring and one a pop, but now that's led to massive depopulation of some of their major metropolitan areas so they've completely reversed their policy.

The above facts about China can be found here and in related websites.

If you're arguing that marriage should no longer provide any special status to any American, then that's a worthwhile point. There's no connection between "the government shouldn't be involved with marriage" and "marriage is a civil right."

No, but because one isn't followed the other must be. Since government IS involved in marriage, then under the freedoms guaranteed all American citizens by the Constitution, there is no credible reason to deny it to anyone.

There haven't been enough examples to perform a comprehensive study. It's simple common sense to infer that a child with parents of different sexes, or multiple parents (rather than one) will be exposed to a wider range of viewpoints, people, and personal histories, and as a result of that will have a more well-rounded personality when he grows up.."

Exactly, so there isn't any proof that parents being heterosexual has anything to do with their child being brought up better. It is NOT common sense to infer that just because a parent is heterosexual that alone will impart some wealth of information onto thier offspring. Such diffusion of knowledge has everything to do with the dedication of the parent, NOT their sexuality.

Outside of all that, if the traditional family structure was not the best environment in which to raise children, then it couldn't have remained the predominant method in which to raise human children in all of western civilization.

Well, if we go by the studies done, there are endless amounts of information that children raised in a 'traditional family' have been beaten, molested, tortured, neglected, psycholocially abused, and generally treated like shit. On the other hand, there is no evidence of any of this in a homosexual or 'non-traditional family'. Why? Because theres been no chances to allow such a thing. Even so, it would have everything to do with the people who raised the child and NOTHING to do with their sexuality.

[Master of 7s]

(to Master of 7s) You have a point about that last line. That said, you haven't explained just why the two struggles are so different as to be incomparable.

The pain is the same, the heartache is the same, the bullshit suffered at the hands of the ignorant is the same, but the reasons for all this pain are worlds apart.

Blacks were considered to be no different or better than animals. We were livestock and property as far as the government was concerned. Hell, even Abraham Lincon said that the Civil War had nothing to do with black people. His only concern was keeping his country from tearing itself apart over the issue.

Black people had to overcome hatred based on skin color, hatred based on sexual jealously, hatred based on stereotypes and faulty character assumptions based in ignorance. People still have similar jealously, believe certain stereotypes, and make similar assumptions today, but at least it won't get you lynched these days (at least not often).

Aside from the skin color aspect, gays suffer the exact same thing with one exception.
Nobody made slaves out of them, robbed them of their language, culture, religion and most basic of human dignity.
Nobody made them to be less than animals and approved of their toture, rape, and general mistreatment.
They aren't viewed as barbarians and savages the way we once were.
No one is trying to intimidate them away from voting booths or making their votes worth less.

And they definately don't have to live in fear of a bunch of ignorant, sadistic, doufusses in white bed sheets breaking down their door in the middle of the night, raping the women (and children) and hanging the men from a tree they way we used to.

The pain is the same, the struggle is not.

The movement for racial equality is about as much of a "fucking political agenda" as the movement for sexual orientation equality.

There are no politics involved in wanting be seen as a human being rather than as an animal. We are talking about the right to be able to live life as safely and securely as any other human being without the threat of hatred burning a cross on your lawn or raping your daughter on her way home from school because some asshole wanted some "nigger pussy" to prove his manhood. The civil rights movement was about making sure that generations to come would never have to go through the same pain and suffering that its pioneers did in this country.

Politics had nothing do with what my grandparents fought so hard for back then and I don't appreciate it being trivialized either by gay, political activists or you.

[Stone]

Yeah, again, I think it should be reiterated that the comparison between the black civil rights struggle and the gay rights movement is bullshit.

Black people have suffered more and harder than anyone else on earth, including the Jews. We may have had a longer history of shit happening to us, but that's only because we've been around white people longer.

Well, if we go by the studies done, there are endless amounts of information that children raised in a 'traditional family' have been beaten, molested, tortured, neglected, psycholocially abused, and generally treated like shit. On the other hand, there is no evidence of any of this in a homosexual or 'non-traditional family'. Why? Because theres been no chances to allow such a thing. Even so, it would have everything to do with the people who raised the child and NOTHING to do with their sexuality.

Ah, holy crap. We could go on about this for days, but for one, how about what homosexual priests have done to Catholic children? You've got two older men raising a young man, the older guys aren't getting along that well...that kid's not really his son, is it?

The absolute only reason that there isn't "endless amounts of information" about homosexual abuse of their children is because they haven't had the chance yet, you're right. If the chance was given on a massive scale, it would spring up.

Exactly, so there isn't any proof that parents being heterosexual has anything to do with their child being brought up better. It is NOT common sense to infer that just because a parent is heterosexual that alone will impart some wealth of information onto thier offspring. Such diffusion of knowledge has everything to do with the dedication of the parent, NOT their sexuality.

I don't know if you were aware of this, but men and women are different. Physically different, socially different, and mentally different. The gap between two gay guys is far less broad than the gap between a man and a woman. That "gap" should, obviously, provide massive benefits to a child's scope when depicted over the course of a healthy childhood. It's not the parent's heterosexuality that imparts the wealth of information, it's the fact that there are parents of two sexes that imparts the wealth of information. Balance.

[g0zen]

Ah, holy crap. We could go on about this for days, but for one, how about what homosexual priests have done to Catholic children? You've got two older men raising a young man, the older guys aren't getting along that well...that kid's not really his son, is it?

That's a far leap in logic. The homosexual priests weren't raising those children, they weren't their legal guardians, but what about the parents who allowed (and in some cases covered up) the abuse? Your second sentence makes no sense in the context of the debate. The same could just as easily be said for foster parents or step-parents.

The absolute only reason that there isn't "endless amounts of information" about homosexual abuse of their children is because they haven't had the chance yet, you're right. If the chance was given on a massive scale, it would spring up.

They'd have a long way to go if they want to catch up with thier heterosexual counterparts. Who've been documented as abusing thier children for centuries. Again, it has everything to do with the individuals doing the parenting, nothing to do with their sexuality.

I don't know if you were aware of this, but men and women are different. Physically different, socially different, and mentally different. The gap between two gay guys is far less broad than the gap between a man and a woman. That "gap" should, obviously, provide massive benefits to a child's scope when depicted over the course of a healthy childhood. It's not the parent's heterosexuality that imparts the wealth of information, it's the fact that there are parents of two sexes that imparts the wealth of information.

I don't know if you were aware of this, but PEOPLE are different. They are all physically different, socially different, and mentally different. We aren't cast from some cookie-cutter mold. The 'gap' you're talking about seems to exist only in your mind. The sexuality of the parents has NOTHING to do with how they raise thier children. If the parents are dedicated to making sure that child has a happy, healthy childhood then it will. If they aren't, then it won't. Being 'gay' or 'straight' has nothing to do with how you raise children. There is no 'gay-way' of raising a child any more than there is a 'straight-way'. There is only good parenting, and shitty parenting.

[Aurora]

Ah, holy crap. We could go on about this for days, but for one, how about what homosexual priests have done to Catholic children? You've got two older men raising a young man, the older guys aren't getting along that well...that kid's not really his son, is it?

Yeah, because all gay people are crazy sex beasts. *rolls eyes* What a fucked up, offensive comment....

[Stone]

That's a far leap in logic. The homosexual priests weren't raising those children, they weren't their legal guardians, but what about the parents who allowed (and in some cases covered up) the abuse? Your second sentence makes no sense in the context of the debate. The same could just as easily be said for foster parents or step-parents.

Priests are often put in the position of being foster parents.

And, yes, foster/adoptive parents could be just as likely to sexually abuse their children as homosexual parents might be. However, there's the traditional distate of pedophilia, and the perception of incest in a foster/adoptive family, all working to keep something like that from happening.

What happens in a gay family, with that millenia-long connection between homosexuality and pedophilia (think greek) and no sense of tradition (who needs it, marriage is a civil right), to keep that from happening?

It's laughable if you honestly think that there are not fundamental differences between the sexes. The sexuality of a person has a large part in how they live their life - you can't honestly think that it doesn't, can you?

Yeah, because all gay people are crazy sex beasts. *rolls eyes* What a fucked up, offensive comment....

There are traditions that exist to protect children from relatives, their brothers, their sisters, older people, whatever. Remove those traditions, and what happens?

And, look, it's difficult to deal with, but there is a historical connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. That's a fact.

It's hard to even think about this stuff without sounding like some sort of Christian Crusader, but ignoring it is potentially extremely dangerous for these children, who we may be putting in harm's way.

[g0zen]

And, yes, foster/adoptive parents could be just as likely to sexually abuse their children as homosexual parents might be. However, there's the traditional distate of pedophilia, and the perception of incest in a foster/adoptive family, all working to keep something like that from happening.

The traditional distate of pedophilia is a social more, not a heterosexual bylaw.

What happens in a gay family, with that millenia-long connection between homosexuality and pedophilia (think greek) and no sense of tradition (who needs it, marriage is a civil right), to keep that from happening?

That's an insane assertion with absolutely no basis in reality. Just because the ancient greeks might have thought homosexuality and pedophilia go hand in hand, does in NO WAY mean that homosexuals of today think in the same way. Marriage is a religious institution, gays have found churches who will perform the ceremonies before, without incidient. The debate here is that they should recieve the same benefits under the law that any other married couple gets.

It's laughable if you honestly think that there are not fundamental differences between the sexes. The sexuality of a person has a large part in how they live their life - you can't honestly think that it doesn't, can you?

I've found a lot of what you've said to be laughable, but much more to just be disappointing. The sexuality of a person does play a part on how they live, but not on how they parent. If the parents are gay, and good parents, then why should they be condemned when compared to straight parents who beat, molest, and neglect thier children? This brings me back to the point I've been trying to get across to you all afternoon: Parenting depends on the PARENTS, not their sexuality.

And, look, it's difficult to deal with, but there is a historical connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. That's a fact.?

Give me sources, give me supporting information. Because I don't see how being homosexual someone means you're a pedophile by default.