Why can't we have a childless gay marriage?

Gay people can legally be married according to the government in some states and not the bible. Those states also forced gay marriage on the people without a vote or in the case of California even with a vote "no" they still forced it on the people. The bible does speak about marriage being between one man and one woman. You can't change facts to fit your agenda.

 

I don't care what you buy. Your articles are opinion pieces, by Christian organizations. Actually studies show they do as well or better than straight parents.

 

Actually they can be legally married in every single state.

Because civil rights aren't based on popular vote.

It actually doesn't. But it's irrelevant. The Bible has no relevance to US law.

 

LOL another one claiming they are from christian organizations. I did not know the Washington times was a religious site? Fail.

 

This is factually and demonstrably false. Many people get married and have no children. While some occur outside of the couple's choice, such if one of both were involuntarily sterile, there are also many who consciously make the decision to not have children. On the other side of the coin, there are people, both as couples and individuals, who decide to have children without the benefits of legal marriage. Some will be married religiously or socially, but not bother or desire to obtain the legal paperwork, while others are deliberate single parents. This is above and beyond those who are unplanned single parents.

Marriage is not required to have children, nor are children require to make a marriage valid in any sense of the institution.

Christians do not originate nor own the word nor the institution of marriage. No one, individual or collectively, does. Marriage has had different meanings and combinations throughout history, many coexisting across various cultures simultaneously. It is not a matter of liberals and others are not able to stretch its meaning, it's that Christians do not get to limit its meaning. There is no compromise needed. Within the framework of their own Christian sect, Christians get to determine the limits of who can and cannot get married. This does not mean that they get to impose this upon others. When a government allows marriage other than what Christians believe marriage should be, those other marriages are not imposed upon Christians, because they are not forced to engage in them. No one makes a Christian enter into a same sex marriage at any level.

Your false premise is most clear here. As noted, marriage is not owned by any one institution, religious or secular. The qualifications for marriage do not necessarily have to match between France and the US, yet alone between Christians and the rest of the world. The legal institution is a separate entity from the religious one, and thus not required to be the same. Answer honestly, if you get married within the church, but the government refuses to recognize said marriage, is that other person still your spouse?[/QUOTE]

 

The Bible is irrelavant to civil law, especially in a country where religious freedom is key and laws are not supposed to be based upon a solely religious tenant. You might as well complain that the government forced upon the people for business to be open on Sundays. The reality is not that these things were forced upon the people, but that restrictions previously and improperly forced upon the people were removed.

 

Any argument based on secularism to defend progressivism against Christianity is completely moot, because you're just defending the theocracy of one religion against the theocracy of another religion.

 

If you're referring to secularism, you're wrong. It's not a religion. That's just a canard alluding to a false eqivalence often employed by social conservatives.

In fact, it's quite possible to be deeply religious and to still believe in a secular form of government to protect all people's freedom of and from religion.

 

The inverse applies as well. Any argument based upon Christianity to defend it against any other religion, philosophy, or secularism is completely moot, as it too would just be defending the theocracy of one religion against that of any other. Which is exactly why no single religion or religious set should be used as the basis of law, especially in a country that is based on freedom of religion and allowing all religions to practice as they wish, sans at the violation of the rights of others. And no, allowing SSM in no way violates any of your rights. You are welcome to try and provide an example though.

 

Are you sure about that? Who makes the rules about adoption? Are there any?

Or its when its their child. You said gay people can't have children. I know several that do habe their own children.

 

My guess is very few people share your beliefs.

 

This really just says that single-parent homes are not as good as homes with both parents.

The Source only sites of the opinion of one doctor. Dr. Kyle Pruett MD. And though I most certainly won't say he's discredited because he isn't. But it's just one man's opinion. There are plenty of other psychiatrists that may disagree with him. I noticed the Cornerstone Family Council has a political lean toward Christian neo-conservativism. Not that that's bad either. But they're clearly pushing an agenda so they're not going to site anybody who disagrees with them.

I wouldn't use it as a source frankly one man's opinion even if he is a doctor doesn't prove anything.

So I partially disagree with the following statement.

I don't know how it's proven the New York Times article really just was comparing single to not single parents and you found a website with an agenda that cites one person's work.

That is far from proof.

 

I wouldn't say bigotry per se they're just largely from religious viewpoints not that there's anything wrong with that. To be honest I never seen A compelling argument against it.

you won't see me accuse you of bigotry unless you just absolutely deny facts.

I will state this as an opposing viewpoint. It hasn't been proven the children of gay parents that remain together are at any disadvantage. I will honestly evaluate the information but I am biased.

Further it doesn't matter what your spiritual belief is. Most arguments against same-sex parents are based on beliefs. Be they beliefs in what's natural or what's good or right, and so on.

sources shouldn't be biased. I am skeptical of pretty much all sources. But particularly ones that have a political prism which they viewed science through.

You'll never eliminate all bias from science. But opening up by saying that conservative sources need to be viewed as just as valid as academic sources, I only agree if there are academic sources as well.

yes it has gotten quite out of hand. A person isn't a bigot simply for disagreeing. However it has never been against the wall or rules anywhere in the US for a gay person to adopt a child. Except for in Utah. So I don't see any need to jump up and make a law. Adoption agencies choose the parents they want to adopt the children out to and I think that's a good system. I really think if they would know better of who is fit to raise a child then the courts or the government.

If down the road we find out that yes gay parents really are bad for a child then we make a law.

You must not have children. I don't see that as a slam against you. But if you did you would know that caring for a child and trying to give them the best that you can based on their needs is really always an experiment.

No parenting method is the single right one.

 

How would someone "support gay marriage" outside of saying "yeah it's okay?" And what difference would it make to anybody that has married a person of the same sex if you were to feel it was okay or not?

Who says that children wouldn't have a male and female role model if their parents are the same sex?

 

I don't see why they should. There is no compelling evidence that gay couples shouldn't be parents.

You are free to think they shouldn't be parents but they are free to think they should.

Fair enough. Nobody will force you to marry somebody of the same sex so I dont see much issue with you having an opinion that differs from mine.

There are people that are against gun ownership. As long as laws aren't made to prohibit it I'm fine with that. They can think what they want. I can own my guns if I want.

Well same sex couples already can get married. I doubt that will be back tracked to marriage by another name. Since it was never against the law for gay people to adopt or have children I don't see what difference your "civic union" would make except to pay lip service to Christians that think they own the word.

 

I don't think there's anything in the law that says you can't have a childless gay marriage?

 

The OP's position is that married gay couples not be allowed to raise children.

 

Not really what he said though. He is just questioning whether it is healthy for a child to grow up without a female/male parent. A very reasonable question imo.

I personally think every child needs a mother and a father to have a happy childhood, but I am no expert and certainly do not support government regulation in any way at all. However, I know it is unnatural for a child to grow up with same-sex parents since this contradicts nature.

Yes, there are cultures where children have many mothers at the same time (female relatives raise children together in many parts of Africa and the woman currently looking after the child is called "mum"), but nowhere - that I know of - are there two males or two females raising a child. Something about "going against nature" makes me really uncomfortable.

 

The question becomes one of what is a "parent"? Now, naturally, as you noted, no one can have same sex parents, or even a single parent if you are talking genetics and procreation. It is against nature, and only scientific intervention will allow same sex parent, genetically. However, given that we consider foster and adoptive parents, as actual parents, then it I should obvious that the birth parents are not vital to anything other than the creation of the child. Thus we then have to question whether or not an individual's gender qualifies them as a parent or not and whether or not having two of the same gender in the raising household is an issue or not. Especially when many kids get both male and female influences throughout their lives from a variety of sources.

Well then alllow me to introduce you to the little country called the United States of America, where there are indeed children being raised by same sex parents, and their kids come out to support them quite often. And it is happening in Europe as well, particularly in the more western countries, both physically and ideologically. There are also poly families raising children with more than two parents.

 

Adopted children never really identify with their foster parents and often feel "lost". I have a Bolivian friend who was adopted and ever since he turned 18, he has constantly moved back and forth between South America and Sweden. Birth parents are very vital for everything.

I am not saying that homosexuals automatically are worse parents than heterosexuals. Surely, Jack and Jack and Jill and Jill can be just as caring and loving as Jack and Jill, but the most important thing here is the child. It would be nice if a homosexual couple could have a child in their life, but the question one should ask is how nice it would be for the child. Parenthood is not a joke.

I am not very sure where I stand on this issue.

 

It seems pretty clear to me where you stand on this issue. Children with a mother and father are typically more advantaged than children who are missing one or the other. That's s reasonable view to hold. Its one I share.

You did mention foster children and adopted children. For them and for whatever reason that option doesn't exist.

Ideals are great of you are lucky enough to have them.

 

For every story you can come up with that the child doesn't fully connect with their adoptive parent, I can come up with a countering one where the child excels with them, my own cousin being a prime example.

I agree that the child is what needs to be considered when deciding what parents they should have short of at least one of their biological parents and their chosen mate. And even then we have to look at whether or not the bio parents, together or not, are safe for the child. As to hope nice it would be for the child, there are many children who have gay parents raising them, in some cases both a set of moms and a set of dads, who feel that it is wonderful for them.

 

I am in agreement with you.....that doesn't convince the ones that wish to confuse the genders. Gays have always had the rights to have a "civil union". That wasn't enough. They want to call it marriage. They want to change the definition. Well.....it is gay marriage. We just have to live with that.

 

Going to have to call BS on that - a number of states banned gay civil unions along with gay marriage. A number of states did not recognize civil unions as legally binding - so unlike any heterosexual couple who could move from one state to another and still be married - a gay couple could not - even though they were legally married. Also, the Federal government did not recognize civil unions - a gay soldier could not will his benefits to his partner and the marriage deductions on tax forms was also denied them.

The whole, "civil unions as good as marriage" line was always BS.

 

Uh no they have not always had a right to a civil union. Regardless of what the name is, the legal institution called a "marriage" IS a civil union. The closest thing ever legally created for same sex couples, never even came close to the legal status of that civil union, if such a thing was even created in a state. Gays have had marriages as long as straights have, but they have not always had the legal recognition straights have. Of course we danced this dance before when people wanted interracial marriages to have legal recognition. There was no legitimate reason to not apply the law to those couples as there is no legitimate reason to apply the law to same sex couples.