The homosexual threat to marriage

Are homosexuals not biological creatures? Is heterosexual oral sex natural as it is practices by two biological creatures? I argue homosexuality and heterosexual oral sex is natural. If we are not creatures of nature then what are we?

 

Best way to raise a child is by the mother and father in the home, working together to provide and care for their own children. BECAUSE, the most frequent alternative, is a single mother, on her own with an absent or unknown father and because if the biological parents do not do so, the child has only the hope that some other adult voluntarily steps forward and assumes those obligations. Frequently no other adult does so.
And its absurd to insist that only two people of the same sex, in a sexual relation, is somehow equally beneficial to the child as biological parents. Especially with the many more children being raised by a biological parent and another closely related adult, than are being raised by homosexual parents.

 

In a perfect world I would agree with you, but this is not a perfect world... this is a world where some parents will die before their child is grown, a world where there are a lot of horrible parents... this is a world where even Christian families have a shockingly high divorce rate... this is not nirvana. If you have some idyllic view of the perfect American family... good... but also good luck getting all parents to conform to your views of what is best.

A moot point as I have never made that claim. Traditional families in America are rife with problems to the point that it is silly to place them over gay homes. Each home should be evaluated individually based upon its own merits or lack thereof. Gays can be great parents, and heterosexuals can be horrible parents... and vice versa. There is no overarching equality of any group of parents as the measure of a parent has to be done on a case by case basis.

 

Adam and Eve raised a murderer. How many single parents do that?

 

This argument anti-gay people use is so stupid. It's the same people who claim America was born from some Christian Mandate- they deify things that are just plain ordinary. I mean what they hell is marriage anyway. It's nothing but social acknowledgement of two people deciding to be together. That's it. It's not holy. It's not sacrosanct. There's nothing pure about it because people get married for all sorts of reasons.

I honestly think this is just another example of people needing something to attack for a sense of self-validation. Let's ban dance clubs to protect our youths from the negative influences of fun. Nothing more evil than bare-leged ladies, right?

 

??? Yes they are biological creatures and there certainly isn't anything un natural about oral sex, but still, homosexual sex nor oral sex leads to the creation of a "traditional family". So not sure what you are getting at here. The "traditional family" made up of a man and a woman, a father and mother to their children, hasn't evolved from bigotry towards homosexuals. It is because only couples made up of a man and a woman produced children. Its biology, nothing more. And now that in modern society, ANY two consenting adults can adopt or use a third person for artificial insemination or surrogacy to create a child, doesn't transform the "traditional family" or any preference for biological parent raising their own children together, into bigotry against homosexuals. Biology created the "traditional family".

We humans don't take after bonobo chimps where sex is frequent, with many different partners of both sexes, and the upbringing of offspring is purely the domain of females. And the only "traditional family" structure is groups of related women and their offspring. We more closely follow mountain gorillas where females are monogamous with one male and the upbringing of offspring is the role of both the mother and father. A male mountain gorilla will fight to the death with any predator that threatens its offspring. A male bonobo will run because he doesn't have a clue as to who is his offspring. Mountain gorillas and their "traditional family" structure isn't the result of bigotry towards homosexuality, and neither is humans "traditional family" structure. Nobody "decides" this is the structure, it is simply what evolved because of the biology of procreation.

 

????? Im an atheist so really has no relevance in my mind. But, had Adam knocked up Eve and then left, there is a good chance the kid wouldn't have survived.

 

Sheesh. Try this then: Because some fail the standard, then to hell with the standard as well as those who meet it. That's your rationale.

 

Who gets to decide adults can't bugger children?

The answer to both questions is the same. You're welcome.

This is all mindless gobbledygook.

Doesn't matter how many there are, it only matters that homosexuals can't practice any of them.

Of course you do, because confusion is your comfort zone, wherein it's perfectly acceptable to stand for nothing - or worse.

So why don't we just go ahead and legalize parent/child sex? Hmmmm?

You haven't understood anything I've said, so you're not the least bit welcome.

 

This is not about "the standard". You and I most likely agree on "the standard". This is not even about the state's sanction of "the standard".
This is about the exclusivity of the state's sanction of "the standard".

To focus of preserving the exclusivity of the state's sanction at this time in the history of "the standard" marriage is, at best, misplaced effort or, at worst, displaced frustration.

 

???? Like I said, "if the biological parents do not do so, the child has only the hope that some other adult voluntarily steps forward and assumes those obligations."

??? First, biological parents are preferred over any and all possible alternatives of two people, of which a homosexual couple is just one of several possible alternatives. YOU want to expand the preference for biological parents to be extended exclusively to gay couples while continuing to exclude other couples. In essence, insisting that biological parents cant be preferred, and yet, insist that we give preference to sexual parents????? Makes no sense. Biological parents aren't preferred because they are sexual, and are instead preferred because they are the only two people obligated, morally and legally to provide and care for the child. And that was my point, two gay people in a sexual relationship are no more suited to providing and caring for children any more so that ANY other two consenting adults who could provide and care for a child together. Like Ive mentioned, there are many more couples made up of two consenting adults who are closely related, raising children, than there are gay couples raising children

Noooo, because the most common alternative to the mother and father joining together to provide and care for their child together, is a single mother on her own with absent or even unknown fathers. While the most common alternative to a homosexual couple joining together to provide and care for a child, is the biological parents doing so. Being gay provides no benefit to the well being of the child. Being the biological parents does so.

 

Every court case creating a right to gay marriage has. Every state with gay marriage, continues to prohibit closely related couples from marrying. Couple of states had to enact new laws prohibiting closely related couples of the same sex from marrying as their laws that had been on the books for centuries, only prohibited closely related couples of the opposite sex from marrying. Rhode island with gay marriage, doesn't even prohibit a man from having sex with his 17 year old daughter, but they prohibit a single mother and grandmother raising their children/grandchildren together from marrying.
The absurd view that marriage has nothing to do with procreation because some couples don't procreate, because we allow couples who are unwilling or unable to procreate to marry. And yet, we exclude a mother and grandmother (and any and all closely related couples) from marrying, because if instead it was a father and grandmother, and the grandmother hadn't gone through menopause 10 years earlier, there would be the potential of procreation and possible genetic defects.

 

Sweden has had gay marriage for several years and see one half of one % of all new marriages are gay marriage. The exclusivity is maintained with the tiniest of expansion, purely for the benefit of gays.
City of Austin took a rational approach recently. The gays and their supporters insisted that the city make any benefit provided to city employee spouses, be made available to gay couples. The city instead made benefits available to any two consenting adults, prohibited from marrying by law, who form a home together with financial interdependence. And there is now more couples made up of an employee and a closely related adult, or an employee and a platonic friend of the same sex, receiving spousal benefits, than there are gay couples receiving the benefits. Nothing special about those couples who happen to be gay, that could warrant such preferential treatment.

 

There are things involved with the issue of gay marriage I find more disturbing than gay marriage itself. Nice post and well put.

 

The elusive "traditional family" is kind of like Bigfoot... you hear of brief sightings but have little evidence of it. Out of all the families I have ever been allowed inside access to, only one in my 50 years on this earth fit my idea of a "traditional family". I come from a large Christian conservative family that does not even come close to my vision as to what is a "traditional family". The term "traditional family" is an ideal that few families measure up to IMO.

Like Christmas, traditions often evolve over time.

We do evolve though such evolution is not synonymous with procreation... not in humans anyway. According to the following link the "traditional family" is changing and I say it is us heterosexuals who are most to blame for its downhill trajectory.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...-u-s-kids-today-live-in-a-traditional-family/

 

More like lets not license and regulate dance clubs. Not provide tax breaks and governmental entitlements to encourage their formation, because doing so doesn't provide any benefit to society. Even if it does help people who hang out at dance clubs feel better about their habits.

 

And won't be happening anytime soon. Churches can pick and choose to marry ANY couple they want.

 

Only if you ignore the present and thousands of years of history of human civilization.

 

Of course there is a duty (not a law) to "be there" in marriage.

A divorced father CAN BE preferable to an absent or unknown father. Most often, a divorced father is also absent and unknown.

 

Nonsense. Married couples are healthier and less likely to engage in risky behavior due to the support and influence of a committed partner. Married couples are more stable financially. Married couples are less likely to suffer from mental health issues like depression. The idea that happier, healthier, more stable households are not a benefit to society is ludicrous.

 

Roll your eyes upward and notice the complete absence of even a mention of "married couples". Sooooo don't know what you think is nonsense. And, all the benefits of marriage mentioned above are for marriages between two people of the opposite sex. So not sure of your point there, either.

 

Or if you keep up on the news about the decline of the ‘traditional’ family". Like I said, we heterosexuals need to get our own house in order before we start lecturing homosexuals.

"Less than half of U.S. kids today live in a ‘traditional’ family"
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...-u-s-kids-today-live-in-a-traditional-family/

 

More nonsense. None of those benefits are reliant on the married couple being opposite sex. The point is, the idea that same sex marriage provides no benefit to society is false.

 

??? No, there is a record at the courthouse that identifies the name of the father so he is known. I used to date an attorney whose only job was trying to identify who is the father of children of unmarried mothers claiming government assistance for their children. When they were married when the child was born, the father isn't unknown. The state sues for support from the husband identified in the marriage record.

 

I wonder what would be the lifespan of a homosexual society? Lesbian society? Heterosexual society?