Whether Or Not Homosexuality Is A Choice Is Irrelevant

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: mOjOm

Starred your post for civility.

Well, here we are back around to the legal side. The solution has been presented many times: take the government out of marriage altogether.

One way would be to call everything a civil union from a legal standpoint, and make marriage a purely private matter. People already have to get a marrige license. It could be as simple as changing that to 'civil union license.' State vs. federal authority is part of this, too...

Or, we can leave it as it is and have marriage equality.

Simple.

a reply to: Annee

You can stick with simple if you like. I tend to miss things when I oversimplify.

a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

Calling them all "Civil Unions" and treating them all the same would work in m opinion also. In fact calling them anything at all is really not an issue IMO as long as they are Legally treated the same. That is the crux of the issue after all. Equal under the Law. Regardless of what you name it as long as each "Partnership" is legally the same as all the rest is what is important.

In fact had "Civil Unions" and "Marriages" been legally equal from the start I don't think a problem would have happened. If it did and people were still complaining about it based on just terminology alone I personally would find that argument to be silly and worthless. As long as they are all treated as the same legally who cares what name anyone gives it??? At that point it just becomes an issue of language appropriation and usage.

It doesn't seem possible to remove Gov. completely however because there would be no protections afforded or established from one state to another or from one moment to the next for anyone involved, gay or straight. If you went on vacation only to find out that your insurance was no longer valid because you aren't in your home state anymore would cause some problems. That would go both ways too. A state could only validate Same Sex marriage if they wanted while another state could choose to not validate any Unions at all or any mixture of the two.

a reply to: mOjOm

100% agreed. First time I have been able to say that to you mOjOm. Hopefully it's not the last.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: Annee

You can stick with simple if you like. I tend to miss things when I oversimplify.

Miss what in this case? There is no OVER simplification.

US is a secular government. The Marriage License is a government contract. Therefore it belongs to everyone.

The religious think they own a word ---- they don't.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

Calling them all "Civil Unions" and treating them all the same would work in m opinion also. In fact calling them anything at all is really not an issue IMO as long as they are Legally treated the same. That is the crux of the issue after all. Equal under the Law. Regardless of what you name it as long as each "Partnership" is legally the same as all the rest is what is important.

In fact had "Civil Unions" and "Marriages" been legally equal from the start I don't think a problem would have happened. If it did and people were still complaining about it based on just terminology alone I personally would find that argument to be silly and worthless.

I think that was tried in England. Didn't work. It is not Equal. They now have full marriage Equality.

How about this? The religious give up the word marriage and call their unions Civil.

a reply to: Annee

Why must the institution of marriage be done away with for you to be happy?

Should teacher take away the ball because not everyone wins when the game is over?

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: Annee

Why must the institution of marriage be done away with for you to be happy?

Should teacher take away the ball because not everyone wins when the game is over?

Aren't you the one who said do away with marriage?

Oh wait, you said remove government from marriage, let the religious keep the word and give gays the word civil union.

I believe my point has always been about Equality.

So, your way, the kids of the religious can bully the kids of gays that their parents aren't really married, because civil unions don't count.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
But there are real dangers and consequences as a result of the choice made by homosexuals to parent children.

The danger comes from outside sources. From judgmental, prejudice, bigoted, hateful, religiously intolerant, ignorant people that don't mind their own business.

The same kind of people who are hateful of interracial marriage, or inter-faith marriage, or mixed ethnicity.

That is where you are wrong, I have stated a few posts ago that ethnicity/race, religion cannot be grouped in the same category as homosexuality when it comes to PARENTING. Pay attention!!

The skim reading prevalent in this thread is atrocious.

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
But there are real dangers and consequences as a result of the choice made by homosexuals to parent children.

The danger comes from outside sources. From judgmental, prejudice, bigoted, hateful, religiously intolerant, ignorant people that don't mind their own business.

The same kind of people who are hateful of interracial marriage, or inter-faith marriage, or mixed ethnicity.

That is where you are wrong, I have stated a few posts ago that ethnicity/race, religion cannot be grouped in the same category as homosexuality when it comes to PARENTING. Pay attention!!

The skim reading prevalent in this thread is atrocious.

Why? Because you say so?

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
It is not feelings, it is a logical concept that clearly you cannot comprehend. If you can prove to me that it is not logical then go for it, because I presented the logical reasoning behind it.

You have made a claim with nothing but that you 'think' or 'feel' as evidence.

The burden of proof is on you to show that your claims are correct and true, but if you're just using mere opinions and emotions as evidence then no-one has any business taking you seriously (ignoring your homophobia ofc).

And you know what they say about people having to resort to ad hom attacks right?

lol right...

Well the only burden I carry is replying to your posts, simply because I am curious as to how your brain works. If you do not want to take me seriously then why are you replying to me? It is very easy to ignore me, the fact that you continue to do so means I must have struck a nerve with you, especially for you to personally attack me by calling me homophobic despite the fact that I have stated within this thread (if you care to use your eyes to go back and find the post) that we do no have to resort to attacking homosexuality, or going into whether it is right or wrong.

I am merely discussing the idea of same-sex parenting, with regards to homosexuality. If you think what i said is based on opinion and feelings despite my reasoning, than it is you who is clearly responding with feelings and opinions not me.

I presented logic, you presented god knows what. The evidence? It exists, part of it is called common sense. Mankind has always gone through life with a mother (mommy) and father (daddy) in life, for thousands upon thousands of years. across billions of generations. BILLIONS!!!

Yet homosexual parenting is absolutely perfectly okay in your universe - let's call your universe 2015, because change is happening, and common sense is being thrown out of the window along with critical thinking, history, the nuclear family, and even psychology and it's concepts.

Imagine this thread or this conversation existed...20 years ago... 40 years ago... 50 years ago... how would people or the general public or critical thinkers or society in general respond?

Would they be pro or against homosexual parenting??

What has changed??? since then? Please tell me - is it the human condition? Are we less needing of father like figures in life because we don't require any of the qualities often attributed with male, breadwinner, strong father like rolemodels? What if the world plunged into chaos tomorrow and we needed to go back to the hunter gatherer types as 2015 society is no more.

Good luck.

originally posted by: HUMBLEONE

We are not seperate, we are ONE.

Yes and Yes.

Diversity make the world interesting,

We would be so lonely looking in a mirror.

our job is to love each of our sisters and brothers for who they are

Thank You Humbleone this is our mission our only reason to live.
WIS

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: and14263

You are obviously too young to have your own children, I'm sorry if I'm wrong but you come across that way. If you have children you understand the fact that each child is treated differently... The first born (miracle), the baby of the family (always will be molly coddled), the second born (a feral upbringing by experienced parents 2nd time round). This undoubtabley effects the resulting behaviour of the child/grown up child.

It's not an insult, it's not a dig - it's fact.

It is an insult. I have a son.


And yes different kids are different. What is your point? Are you saying that kids become straight or gay because of their parents?

Because no one is effected by their environment right ??

I would wonder what could happen when medical science identifies the errors in genomes and decides to "fix" people.

Will that be a choice ?? Or do you think the SOUL is the part making the choosing ??

It is strange that you believe only religious people have these feelings,

Sorry, but most of us are BORN that way, and we will never feel perfectly ok with this, at all times.

This is something that should be understood, we cannot help how we feel anymore than YOU DO.

originally posted by: Annee

I think that was tried in England. Didn't work. It is not Equal. They now have full marriage Equality.

How about this? The religious give up the word marriage and call their unions Civil.

I don't know about how things work in England but I don't see why it wouldn't work. Nobody has to give anything up either. Nobody has to give up or accept any new words or terms because the Usage of a certain word doesn't matter. As long as anything which deals with the Legal aspects of it are in place that's all that would matter. For example:

Regardless of whether I called my "Partnership" a Civil Union or Marriage or a Two Party Union of Pleasure and Respect as long as it's understood what were talking about, whatever legal policies are in place would still apply.

Basically, at that point you can still argue over the terminology being used and it might be confusing with people using different names for the same thing but in the end as long as the law is applied the same to each of them regardless of what someone chooses to call it then things would work out fine.

So if a Church wants to call it a marriage fine and if the state wants to call it a Union fine. As long as it's understood from a legal standpoint that whatever the term being used may be they are all legally considered the same thing then it's functionality will be stable.

Someone can call my Marriage a "Cheesetastic Unionization Agreement" if they want as long as the Legal Benefits that come with it remain intact.

Some in this thread will take my posts personally, I get that. I understand you might be homosexual yourself, or even have close friends that are part of a homosexual couple or family.

I understand why many of you are getting heated, and upset. But it doesn't mean homosexual parenting doesn't have its serious flaws. You can't deny this, it is not part of the natural human cycle of development. It is something that is very rare, and only seems to be getting more and more prevalent in this day and age due to confusion, and it will have it's consequences. We have done fine without it in the past, and the human condition has not changed, we remain human both emotionally and physically, and still need to adhere to the norm when it comes to forming families. Every race, religion and culture understands the need for a daddy and a mommy role in raising a child. Why do you all deny this?

a reply to: ISeekTruth101

How my brain works.

Children care about love & security. They don't care if their parents are same sex or opposite sex.

Any harm to the children is going to come from judgement of those outside the immediate family --- not within it.

This also applies to children of mixed race and/or mixed religion.

The U.S. is a secular government. A Republic, not a democracy. Majority can not rule over a minority.

A minority has the same Equal Rights as the majority. That is how our constitution works.

What we have today is called Marriage --- "you don't change the game rules in the middle of the game".

The Marriage License is a secular government contact. It is not in any way a religious license/contract.

I expect there will be an Equal Rights Federal Marriage act soon guaranteeing all genders the same right ---- as should be.

Removing government from marriage or changing it to civil union is a completely different issue. There can only be Equality by using the terminology that is in place now during this civil right fight for equality. And that terminology is Marriage.

Religious belief is personal. It has no right to govern those who do not choose it.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Annee

I think that was tried in England. Didn't work. It is not Equal. They now have full marriage Equality.

How about this? The religious give up the word marriage and call their unions Civil.

I don't know about how things work in England but I don't see why it wouldn't work.

You don't change the rules in the middle of the game.

Marriage is what we have. Changing it to anything else will create inequality.

There is Covenant Marriage. Marriage without government.

NO ONE is required to have a government marriage. That is a choice.

a reply to: ISeekTruth101

But it doesn't mean homosexual parenting doesn't have its serious flaws. You can't deny this, it is not part of the natural human cycle of development.

I've read every one of your posts in this thread and, so far, you've failed to prove that same sex parenting has any obvious serious flaws, in my opinion.

You've continually used "single parenting" models, even though same sex families have 2 parents. You seem to be hung up on the exactness of gender role models.

Family dysfunction knows no boundaries. I've seen all kinds of families, and from my experience, any child that is reared in an environment that is supportive and loving thrives, regardless of the gender or type of relationships that exist between adults who are charged with child's well being.

originally posted by: Annee
You don't change the rules in the middle of the game.

Marriage is what we have. Changing it to anything else will create inequality.

There is Covenant Marriage. Marriage without government.

NO ONE is required to have a government marriage. That is a choice.

I'm confused. I actually think we are in agreement 100% but are just coming at it from a different way.

As far as changing rules mid game. I'm not trying to change the rules. Right now different people are trying to play by different rules and all I want is to get everyone playing by the same rules. If that can be done without changing them fine. As long as the rules are the same for everyone.

What do you mean by "Covenant Marriage without Government" is what we have???

Do you mean it's just a contract between the Two People???

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Annee
You don't change the rules in the middle of the game.

Marriage is what we have. Changing it to anything else will create inequality.

There is Covenant Marriage. Marriage without government.

NO ONE is required to have a government marriage. That is a choice.

I'm confused. I actually think we are in agreement 100% but are just coming at it from a different way.

As far as changing rules mid game. I'm not trying to change the rules. Right now different people are trying to play by different rules and all I want is to get everyone playing by the same rules. If that can be done without changing them fine. As long as the rules are the same for everyone.

What do you mean by "Covenant Marriage without Government" is what we have???

Do you mean it's just a contract between the Two People???

Pretty sure we're in agreement.

It has to be called Marriage ---- because it's the only way it can be fully Equal. Any other terminology would not be Equal.

Google Covenant Marriage. Kid bedtime. Gotta go.