Originally posted by Conrau KIndividual examples can't possibly bear on the question of whether the institution is the best environment.
I knew a kid brought up by lesbians. Nice person. And intelligent too.
I also knew a person brought up in a loving nuclear family. Shame she wasn't the same.
Oh, and if we recognize de facto couples - who dont even have children - there is no reason to not recognize gays. Whether in marriage or civil unions.
Oh, and if you'd actually read my post, you'd understand that I actually agree with your last paragraph.
Originally posted by aging blitzerGood idea, but carry it further. Don't let virgins get married. Require a couple to prove they've become pregnant before issuing the marriage license.
If the benefits of marriage are supposed to be about raising families, then childless married couples should not get the benefits of marriage.
The resulting improvement in a couple's knowledge of one another might reduce the divorce rate, too.
Originally posted by sasquatch672why do you have a problem thinking? I'm not judging anything to be morally wrong. You simply have to have standards.....that's the point. In your world of NO STANDARDS the inevitable product is chaos. A married person who has a child and goes to work every day to support the family produces a stable society. They won't rob a bank or do drugs because the are supporting their family. All experts agree marriage stabializes a society. I can't believe you don't already understand this. Studies show there is less child molestation from these families, lower drug use, unemployment, etc in this intact family situation. It's simply a fact. Your idea of no standards leads to a breakdown in society with increased instances of the aforemetioned things. I do care if someone has 10 wives and it has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with starting a family that the man won't be able to support and will depend on state aide and my taxes to pay for it. That is a DRAIN on society.
No. I wouldn't let you marry your oak tree. Or your horse. In the first case, I'm not at all sure that a tree would want to marry the likes of you. In the second case, I'd be very concerned about your ability to - ahem - meet the horse's "needs". In both cases, your reproductive systems are incompatible, but I can at least offer you a little advice ...[text shortened]... rrypick the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality and ignore other Biblical mandates?
It points out alot about you that you cannot see this, or think about issues, without making childish comments.
Originally posted by bbarrEr... no:
Homosexual marriage doesn't constitute a threat to heterosexual marriage. There is no evidence, absolutely none, that allowing homosexuals to marry is causally responsible for declining rates of heterosexual marriage. Please refer to the following:
http://www.slate.com/id/2100884/
http://nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200405250927.asp
1 edit
Originally posted by newdad27Utter nonsense. Most child molesters are married, male, white Christians. Every expert knows this.
why do you have a problem thinking? I'm not judging anything to be morally wrong. You simply have to have standards.....that's the point. In your world of NO STANDARDS the inevitable product is chaos. A married person who has a child and goes to work every day to support the family produces a stable society. They won't rob a bank or do drugs because th ut you that you cannot see this, or think about issues, without making childish comments.
As for not robbing a bank when you're supporting a family. That's absurd. Lots of bank robbers are parents; that's why they need the money: kids to feed and a job that doesn't pay the bills.
Originally posted by wibSince Wulebgr seems to be implying a correlation between child molestation and being married, male, white and Christian, I see no reason to exclude sexual orientation from the list.What is the incidence of child molesters within the male homosexual and heterosexual populations?
Irrelevant. Child molesting has a much to do with sexual orientation as rape does with sex. Nada.