Why Are You Against Same Sex Marriage?

you just did it.

 

Same type argument that racist *******s used when the concept of mixed race marriages were legalized, " ... but what about the children ...?". Bunch of crap then, same as it is now.

 

The problem being, there is no conflct between the traditional definition and anything in the Constitution, the opinions of five imbeciles in black robes notwithstanding.

Article VII

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.​

They're smarter than you think too.

If they have parents worthy of the name they'll never have to, because they'll be born in the custody of exactly one of each.

 

No problem with mixed races.....they were made that way. You make the argument that a "behavioral deviation" is how they were made. I'm not buying it. No comparison. Just a tired old liberal race baiting tactic. As you said "bunch of crap". Daniel you can do whatever you want to do....none of my concern. A good many of us will never consider marriage a negative and a negative or a positive and a positive. It is a negative and a positive. Who wired your house anyway?

 

so how does that change if they're in the care of two people of the same sex

alright you mentioned this before and I told you that has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.

That was a little rash on my part, so I'm going to ask you what does this have to do with same-sex marriage?

again with this confusing the children point how is it confusing to children which children are confused explain please.

 

You like I've been a little bit combative on this point you're making and I want to apologize for that because I really want to understand your thoughts here.

So let me ask,

Are you suggesting that a child growing up with two same-sex people acting as parents in the most likely situation they will become heterosexual that they won't know how to interact with a spouse of the opposite sex because they were not exposed to an example?

If this is what you mean by confusing kids that's a legitimate point.

 

my opinion is that good behavior relating to someone of the same sex in a sexual way is informed by something not related to behavior.

Meaning a person doesn't sleep with someone of the same sex and therefore become gay, they were gay before so therefore they pick someone of the same sex to have a romantic relationship with. And I absolutely can rationalize that position. I'm not going to bombard you with it if you're interested in the discussion then I will continue.

 

That is a pretty good honest observation you make. Learn by example.....we do that a lot. Becoming heterosexual" is a natural process just like you are an adolescent that becomes an adult. It is not an accident. The culture wants to now present there are options that "need" exploring. I think that children coming from broken, heterosexual homes can learn by example when they see a husband that loves his wife and a wife that respects her husband. There is a kind of magic that takes place there. I do believe that many site all the broken marriage vows and unwedded mothers as a reason to look for other options. That is not the answer. The answer is for the culture to strengthen marriage, not dilute it with a new definition.
Thank-you Polydectes for being civil in our discussion. It sets a very good precedence.

 

People are all different. We have different inclinations....strengths and weaknesses to foods, as well as behavioral habits. Sometimes those inclinations are greatly exaggerated by environmental conditions. Say a domineering Mother for a boy who sees his father as little more than a dishrag. A girl longing to feel loved by her father that doesn't even notice her.. Or what about a child that was exposed to a "sexual experience" at an age where he/she couldn't begin to comprehend what was going on. I have a niece that I helped care for as a young child. Her mother had a short affair with a married man that left her high and dry. Scum of the earth. (Not making excuses for her mother) Her Mother is very bitter toward men. Her Grandmother cared for her most of the time, and bought her a bag of chips every day. Eating became her solace. She is extremely overweight to this day in middle age. She found a same sex lover and I could not begin to speculate this persons background. She behaves very very butch.They are about to have a Foster Child. Foster children desperately need a place to live other than an orphanage, but with all the bitterness going on and identity crisis, I ask myself does he need this? There are a lot of mitigating circumstances involved in same sex relationship I believe. I do believe the culture does itself a service by lifting up marriage in light of what it is meant to be.
I do like to hear more of your perspective.

 

Like I said I'm trying to understand your position.

However I must question what you mean by become heterosexual? at what point and by what means does a person become heterosexual?

with regard strictly to sexual orientation, that doesn't seem like what is being presented.

How it appears to me is that some people are only able to be attracted to the same sex, this follows logic because if this wasn't true I would imagine that would probably be a lot more homosexuals.

And as I said in a previous post in response to you I believe that it's attraction that informs Behavior not the other way around. A heterosexual man is heterosexual not because he chose to be but because for whatever reason when he was a young boy he found himself attracted to women and girls.

children coming from broken heterosexual home are influenced by more than just the occasional married couple they see interacting. They are affected by their involved parent's (single) dating life. Meaning if they're a boy and they are being raised by a single mother, and the mother dates men who treat her badly that boy is going to grow up thinking that the proper way to treat a woman is the way the men his mom dated treated his mom. This is going to have a much greater effect on the child then friend who's parents stay together.

The example you live with is it going to have a greater effect on you then examples outside of your home life.

There is an old adage that I think has quite a bit of validity to it, The hand That rocks the cradle controls the world.

Metaphorically meaning the parent you are closest with will have the greatest impact on you.

I'm being entirely honest with you I want to know what you think and why you think what you think, the reason why I asked you that question that you responded to is because sometimes it's hard to articulate and idea and since I responded to you the first time I've been thinking about it. That's why I chose to single out that statement ask you that's what you meant.

So is that what you meant fight children being confused?

 

I tried to explain that I believe you "become heterosexual" when hormones kick in and it is just as natural as going from adolescence to adulthood.

True. However my wife work with kids on Sunday. Have for years. Probably 50% are from sound homes. The rest are dropped off and have troubled home lives. The feedback I get is that those that are lacking are astounded to see a dedicated man and women concerned with their well being. These young girls want to be loved so bad by a Dad....I can't let them sit in my lap because that would be inappropriate of course, but I can let them know I love my wife and that goes a long way.

Again you are absolutely right. But a husband and wife that dearly love eachother will have the greatest impact.

I think you understand my point of view, though you may not find it acceptable.

 

this seems to be common idea that people have with regards to male homosexuals. And I think it's flawed. If there's anything environmental with regard to how the parents raise a child that would cause the child to be more likely to be gay I would think that it would be lack of affection from a father. And this makes sense within our culture it is not considered manly for a man to give is children particularly his male children physical affection. As you said different people have different needs this goes for children as well. I would think some male children do need affection from their male perant. And lack of this would make them see get from other men.

I think the way heterosexual people think about it is that gay men are just turned off from women because of their experiences with women, I can understand how people come to that conclusion. But from the perspective of the gay man, I don't find women unbearable I didn't have a domineering mother I did have a father that has difficulty with expressing affection.

Disliking women good makeup men be more likely to be chauvinistic or misogynistic we don't see this commonly among gay men they're typically quite the opposite.

a child being exposed to a sexual experience I assume meaning some sort of sexual abuse often ends up being heterosexual, pretty close to how often a child not experiencing sexual abuse would become heterosexual, so it's unlikely such an event would have that deep of an impact on the person's sexual orientation.

this is an interesting dynamic one that I've witnessed exclusively among women. Where in otherwise heterosexual woman will try out being with another woman. In every case I've seen this the woman pics for lack of a better term Butch woman. In most cases it doesn't work out she will eventually return to men.

I however have never seen this occur among men. Boys to a degree. As a matter of fact I think it's very common that boys will question whether or not they really are gay. I'm sure this happens for girls too.

My perspective on marriage as to what it's for in a practical sense is to control male sexuality, without marraige men would be promiscuous, probably Sayre hundreds of different children all over the world if they were given the opportunity.

Marriage is a social obligation to stay monogamous and care for your child. That's why there used to be a lot of penalties for exiting marriage, or adultery.

Without getting involved into religious beliefs and things that cannot be proven.

 

I disagree,

My rationalization

If it was the case that people become heterosexual or homosexual at adolecsence, we would probably see a significant increase in homosexuals in cultures that are more permissive And we don't. If it has to do with the hormones that are produced it is nature, not environment that decides

I would put such an incident before adolecsence

I too have been a mentor to younger people. It's heart breaking that such a need for a male role model exists and that I can't fill it for a lot of people. I've never had a wife. I think of myself as a kind man, when working with children I am rather stern, encouraging, but not impossible.

I think those attributes are what children without father's need.

I absolutely agree with you, that is the ideal. Not everybody gets to have the ideal. If I got to have the ideal, I would have been heterosexual, met a woman when I was 19, got married and had lots of babies.

But I don't get to have that, I was dealt a different hand of cards. I want to play them to get as close to that ideal as I possibly can.

Throwing my hands up giving up on ever getting that to me is spiritual suicide.

You can say that I can change, it's an extremely easy thing to say. But I tried, harder than you could ever longer than you've probably ever committed to a goal in your life.

It almost killed me, and if I went back it will.

I can never live up to that. So what am I to do?

Whatever it is that makes me the way I am is not movable.

Yes I do.

Do you understand my point of view?

My point of view is, this is something deeper within me that I spent most of my life trying to change. I'm coming up on half of my life trying to change it that's another 10 years.

I can either fight it and be miserable, probably dead 8 years ago from dealing with the stress and depression of never being happy, or form the guilt of tricking a woman into marrying me despite not being attracted to her, or I can accept it, find happiness and peace and try to get as close to the ideal as I can as I am.

Which would you pick?

 

Opposed to the redefining of marriage under the law? What's wrong with that?

 

Cool opinion. Any facts to back any of that up?

 

You should go let the imbeciles in black robe know. I’m sure they’d find your arguments very persuasive.

 

It's kind of amazing how many constitutional scholars there are here isn't it?

 

Yes I agree

You alluded to the spiritual. That is the realm I come from. We subtlety agreed not to discuss that, however you asked which would I pick? I sense that you are in a very tight spot. You've seen your share of struggles. So many demand physical proof for every question they can possibly entertain. It is my belief the answer is in the question.....Faith. In the Bible I find Truth to be infallible. When I read it, I do so introspectively. What is God trying to show me here. My honest conclusion is that he has loved me from the very moment I was conceived. In that, he has made me sovereign over my own decisions, yet He has provided me a way to overcome those things that are not good for me. I'll end it there because there are mockers crouching in the background that don't deserve to hear more. You asked, and I am convinced you can overcome, through faith, those things that cause you any pain. Cling to Hope. Because faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen.

 

There are always those that want proof. Any proof that the sun will not die 48 hrs. from now? If you honestly think my "opinion" is cool.....I would ask why? Are there facts to explain that? ......or just an inner prodding perhaps?

 

They already had the right to marry, but they chose not to marry because they are not attracted to the opposite sex. They chose civil unions instead, since they are attracted to the same sex. Civil unions are not marriages, and marriages are not civil unions. A ≠ B.

 

Redefinition Fallacy. (Logic <-> Algebra)

 

Noting that this is a redirection away from the fact that the child has already been taken away from its biological parents, which was the whole point that was being discussed, but I will entertain this post anyway.

Ignoring the truth that the same sex couple is NOT married, but is rather in a civil union... Neither. I think they both would be a bad set of parents for the child to live under. The biologicals obviously don't want the child (ie, just wanted sex), and the same sex couple might want it, but then that child won't have a mother and a father, and will be raised by people with mental issues.

Like I said, I don't think either options presented are good for that hypothetical child.

 

I’m sure they’ll be receiving their nominations to the SCOTUS any day now.

 

Yup, they have judicial power UNDER the US Constitution. They are not above it, however. They don't have the power to re-interpret or re-define it...

Through unconstitutional re-interpretation of the Constitution. The 14th Amendment said no such thing, and gays were not being denied any rights. They had, and still have, the same right to marry as heterosexual couples do.

They re-defined specific words within the 14th Amendment, thus re-interpreting the 14th Amendment. They rejected the history of the 14th Amendment and why it was added to the Constitution.

The legal definition at the time WAS Constitutional. Gays were not being denied the right to marry. They simply chose NOT to marry due to their not being attracted to the opposite sex.

 

Just a jab. I don’t think your opinion is cool.
There is plenty of scientific evidence backing the idea that the sun will outlast any of us.