Quote:Traditional western marriage: one man, one woman for life
Progressive western marriage: one man, one woman until one decides it's over
Today's western marriage: Two Xs until one decides it's over
Tomorrow? Who knows, but whatever it is will contribute to an ever declining emphasis on the primacy of marriage and the nuclear family to western civilization.
In the meantime, 70% of African American children are born out of wedlock and the incarceration rates from a lack of fathers is a direct result. This is a natural downstream effect of the push to end the sanctity of the marriage institution and replace it with a mere legal relationship. The results we see all around us, and even the liberal Democrats told us it would be this way. There's a price to pay for destroying the institution that made your society great, and now we get to reap the harvest.
But, "Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Western Civ has got to go!"
Correlation does not imply causation.
Quote:I said Gay/Lesbian couple mostly adopt kids, that's how they get their children. You tried to claim I said they have most of the adoptions as a whole.
You are either intentional being dense or simply lack basic comprehension skills. I can't help you with that.
Again, for about the third time can you provide a link?
Quote:Again, for about the third time can you provide a link?
I will just assume you are being incredibly obtuse for no reason other than you backwards beliefs force you to be. Adoption by gay couples is not a new thing.
Quote:But often times it does.
It never does. But I doubt you have the discreet mathematics understanding to even understand what is meant by the saying.
Quote:It never does. But I doubt you have the discreet mathematics understanding to even understand what is meant by the saying.
Actually it sometimes does. It's just not a guarantee.
Quote:Actually it sometimes does. It's just not a guarantee.
Correlation doesn't imply anything. It's an undefined relationship. At least that's the way I recall it. Excuse me if I'm too many years past my logic class.
Quote:I will just assume you are being incredibly obtuse for no reason other than you backwards beliefs force you to be. Adoption by gay couples is not a new thing.
I always knew some Gay couples adopt, but the point was in the beginning you said the majority of Gay couples adopt, and I simply asked you for a link. You couldn't provide it.
Quote:Do you have data or a link showing the majority of adopted children are raised by Gay and Lesbian spouses?
So it wouldn't be the end of a natural family huh? Can a man get pregnant by another man? what about the same for a woman?
Again for the record, I support Gay and Lesbian couples having benefits, just dont change the definition or modify the word Marriage and its official definition or meaning.
Union would be a better fit.
Anything else?
Quote:I always knew some Gay couples adopt, but the point was in the beginning you said the majority of Gay couples adopt, and I simply asked you for a link. You couldn't provide it.
Cute. You tried to twist my words to suit your backwoods agenda. Initially you tried to say I said the majority of adopted children are raised by gay parents which is so clearly not what I said. Now you try to imply something else. Obviously what I meant was the majority that want children adopt them and don't go through surrogates or other scientific means to have their own. Just in fewer words. This is common knowledge available with just a simple Google search. That, however doesn't sit with your desire to vilify them.
It's ok to admit you just interpreted what I wrote incorrectly you know.
Quote:Especially if you're not the one getting married.
You wanna solve the problem of "gay marriage?" Make healthcare affordable and make it easier to name someone to get benefits that would be due to a spouse.
In a rarity, I'm with Eric: There should be no legal benefit to being married. Only a religious one.
I think anonymous' post, which was largely ignored, needs to be reiterated.
It seems to me that this "battle" over marriage equality is rooted largely in the socioeconomic benefits (or lack thereof) associated with being married. Access to health care, property rights, tax breaks, etc. It isn't really the name that's the issue, its the rights and privileges associated with that name under the law that is. Once everyone figures this out on both sides, and gets out of their own way, this will quickly become a non-issue.
Quote:I think anonymous' post, which was largely ignored, needs to be reiterated.
It seems to me that this "battle" over marriage equality is rooted largely in the socioeconomic benefits (or lack thereof) associated with being married. Access to health care, property rights, tax breaks, etc. It isn't really the name that's the issue, its the rights and privileges associated with that name under the law that is. Once everyone figures this out on both sides, and gets out of their own way, this will quickly become a non-issue.
No, I think you are incorrect in thinking the opposition is based on economics. It's social/religious in nature.
The people in opposition I've talked with (I'm ok with same-sex marriage) don't much care about the "benefits" of being married. They just don't think it's
right.
I also differ from the viewpoint of - there should be no benefits to being married. You might want to think about that, especially if you are conservative. Tax policy doesn't live in a vacuum. It's used to promote values that society sees as beneficial - i.e., two parent homes that provide stability for children, home ownership that help create stable middle-class neighborhoods and give people a stake in the game, etc.
I don't know what "getting out of their own way" means, but some thought needs to be given as to what we want out of our tax policy and out of our society. It's never been neutral and I doubt it ever will be. Should it be?
Quote:Cute. You tried to twist my words to suit your backwoods agenda. Initially you tried to say I said the majority of adopted children are raised by gay parents which is so clearly not what I said. Now you try to imply something else. Obviously what I meant was the majority that want children adopt them and don't go through surrogates or other scientific means to have their own. Just in fewer words. This is common knowledge available with just a simple Google search. That, however doesn't sit with your desire to vilify them.
It's ok to admit you just interpreted what I wrote incorrectly you know.
There is nothing for me to twist since you have already recognized the over generalization of your opinion, hence the re-clarification on the underlined part.
Quote:It's ok to admit you just interpreted what I wrote incorrectly you know.
Again, what is there for me to admit to when you corrected yourself?
Quote:Again, what is there for me to admit to when you corrected yourself?
Initially you tried to say I said the majority of adopted children are raised by gay parents which is so clearly not what I said.
I posted it again for you to ignore again. Again, you either misinterpreted what I said or willfully chose to try and twist the obvious meaning that every other person got quite clearly.
Quote:There is nothing for me to twist since you have already recognized the over generalization of your opinion, hence the re-clarification on the underlined part.
It's not an opinion. It's an easily verifiable fact. You could find out for yourself and learn something but why would you do something that could possibly hinder your desire to vilify people with your backwoods beliefs?
Quote:No, I think you are incorrect in thinking the opposition is based on economics. It's social/religious in nature.
The people in opposition I've talked with (I'm ok with same-sex marriage) don't much care about the "benefits" of being married. They just don't think it's right.
I also differ from the viewpoint of - there should be no benefits to being married. You might want to think about that, especially if you are conservative. Tax policy doesn't live in a vacuum. It's used to promote values that society sees as beneficial - i.e., two parent homes that provide stability for children, home ownership that help create stable middle-class neighborhoods and give people a stake in the game, etc.
I don't know what "getting out of their own way" means, but some thought needs to be given as to what we want out of our tax policy and out of our society. It's never been neutral and I doubt it ever will be. Should it be?
Who said anything about me talking about the opposition?
weat:
The tax policy is a hot tranny mess and we all know it. As for what I want out of our society? I personally want one in which every decent, law abiding citizen is afforded the same rights, privileges and opportunities as everyone else. I am something of an idealist, I fully acknowledge that. I think a lot of things aren't right, but if it doesn't directly affect me, why should I care again?
If two women who've been in a committed relationship for decades want to enter into a legal union why should I care again? Why should anyone other than them and their family and friends care? What bearing does that possibly have on my existence? Absolutely none. Congrats, ladies..y'all do you! Hence, why I think this whole thing is silly. That's just me though.
Quote:Again, for about the third time can you provide a link?
why do you need a link? how do you think gay couples get children?