Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
There is no logical argument to allow marriage between same-sex couples.

Many think there are. But now as homosexual couples are allowed to adopt, and have kids other ways, wouldn't that be considered a family. This is really the root of the "social" structure of a marriage, the basis of a family.

Since we can all agree that a family is the building block of society, then they should be entitled to the rights of other families (including being considered family).

Should we not encourage stable homes without losing our institution? Personally I think the homosexuals should take another term, make it their own instead of building on a system that does not accept them.

But the rights should be there.

SO WHAT?

Do you people realize how many special interest minority group entitlements there are already? Many of these probably have linkage to thousands of other things as well.
There is at least one for every race, creed, color, etc....
why is marriage any different of a special interest minority group?

This culture is saturated with programs that provide for some group (but not others) based on certain descriptive (distinguishing or discriminating) criteria....why would marriage be any different?

Lets assume that this as of yet unseen list is true.
This just proves my point about the gay marriage rush job ive been talking about for a while.

Those 11000 things need to be addressed BEFORE the culture tries to impliment a gay marriage into laws...

So many people have said "gay marriage wouldnt affect anyone/thing"....well with 11000 things that could be impacted, how can anyone even say there would be no effects to anyone/thing/society with a straight face?

Where are the loopholes for abuse, what changes to the legal structure would be needed, are there conflicts that arise? there are a ton of unanswered questions here...
Ones ive asked be examined on several threads but get brushed aside as bigoted ranting...

Well I REALLY want to see this list of 11000 things because i feel there will be some things on there that COULD pose some serious legal issues. (conflicts within laws) that the give me, give me, give me you bigoted bastards crowd doesnt want brought up because it could errode their position even more than perpetuating the LIE that "no one will be affected by gay marriage" LIE has done already.

[edit on 19-10-2004 by CazMedia]

I don't have a problem with believing that gay men or women can love each other as much as I love my wife.
I don't have a problem with believing gay men or women can make a lifetime commitment.
I do have a problem with calling it a marriage.
Marriage is to me and many others a sacred institution. Our views must be respected just as much as the comiitment of gays and lesbians must be respected.
I dont have a problem with creatng a social contract which would give a gay or lesbian couple the same rights and responsibiliities as marred heterosexual couples.
Call it a civil union, or a social contract, or a lifetime comittment.
But don't call it a marriage.
It may seem like semantics but I don't feel it is. I can't explan why it isn't, but it isn't.
I don't believe that gay couples should be able to adopt children, nature had a reason for creating two sexes and I believe that the influence of both a mother and a father is necessary for childrearing.
Its not that I think that a gay couple would poison a child mind or anything ike that I just think a child needs both a mother and a father. I dont believe a woman can fufill the role of father or that a man can fufill the role of mother, no matter how butch or feminine they might be.
I see no reason though why two people who love each other can not be bound in the eyes of the law.

Originally posted by mwm1331

I don't believe that gay couples should be able to adopt children, nature had a reason for creating two sexes and I believe that the influence of both a mother and a father is necessary for childrearing.
Its not that I think that a gay couple would poison a child mind or anything ike that I just think a child needs both a mother and a father. I dont believe a woman can fufill the role of father or that a man can fufill the role of mother, no matter how butch or feminine they might be.
I see no reason though why two people who love each other can not be bound in the eyes of the law.

So you would rather see the children grow up in an orphanage than a loving home? How very nice of you. As far as having both a mother and father.....yes that's probably the best scenerio. But, this world isn't all peaches and cream. You have single mothers, single fathers etc. Should the children of these people be taken away from them because they don't have a mom and dad? I think not. As far as gay people adopting.....if I was an orphan, I would much rather grow up in a gay household than in a bigoted one anyday....but that's just me. That was not directed at anyone.

Caz actually makes very good points. I would like to see this list also, but sadly like I said....I heard it on tv. The number could be 1,100 instead of 11,000......I wasn't paying too much attention when they were talking about it. But anyway 1100 is still a very high number. If I can get these same benefits at a lawyers office now, how is making it slightly easier with marriage going to affect anything?

People are saying about going to a lawyer and such to get the same benefits? How would you like to have to sit through 1100 documents signing them all? All straight people have to do is say "I do" and these benefits are automatic......that is the point of this thread.

Well Sailor.....I know alot of gay men that have children....by adoption or other ways.....so what is your point? Marriage would make it easier for these men to say have full benefits given to their partners regarding these children.

As far as the link.....it has been my understanding that alot of people (not all) already think like this pastor.