Agreed.

Show me the possible harm in gay marriage.

what I find funny is that if you really learn the history of marriage, there was nothing religious about it at first. It was all arranged, the bride and groom had 0 say in it. Then christianity came along and decided marriage was theirs and it had to be done their way.

I never want to get married as I do not care for what marriage supposedly stands for. I always thought marriage was a union of souls but now I see that I am wrong, marriage is a union of genitalia with no real benefit in life. So I will thank religion for that, they showed me why i shouldn't get married even if I were heterosexual.

disassembly of the very structure of family by equating all relationships to that of a mother and father, where family starts,,,,

I think uncle dads and aunty moms would be a very confusing type of culture to promote or support bringing a child up in

I think similary about daddy and daddy or mommy and mommy being a replacement or even on equal footing with mommy and daddy

there were probably many people , when casual sex was just building up support, who thought that wasnt harmful either and look at the studies of how much worse off children have become since there have begun to be fewer and fewer DADDYS in their life to supplement the MOMMY and vice versa

look at how adopted children seek out their biological roots

look at how many STEPCHILDREN grow up feeling left out or confused

its not any one simple thing, but many things point to why its BEST for children to have a foundation which begins out of a loving commitement with two people who not only created them through love of each other, but helped them to love themself by setting that primary example,,,

this is where you come from, your mom and dad,, love
there can arguably hardly be anything as good for children and their foundation in life than that....

I am a single parent, but not by choice, and I would never recommend it or put it on similar footing with the two parent home I grew up in with the two from whence I came,,,

all the alternate things are just harming our families and our structure and it will only become apparent in the LONG LONG run, just as the consequence of all the irresponsible sex didnt become apparent right away,,,

That already happens naturally through the death of one or more of the parents.

The problems with these kinds of arguments is that they assume a 'perfect world' and then try to argue that same-gender love would somehow break down that 'perfection'. But that idealized perfection never existed in the first place.



Just because you think this doesn't make it true.



Again, just because you think this doesn't meant the child of a gay couple would think this. Had you been raised by gay parents I imagine that you would view that as perfectly normal. Especially if you gay parents were truly loving and caring people and society was also cool with the situation. You wouldn't even think twice about it.



Casual sex has nothing to do with same-gender relationships. You're tossing in other concepts to confuse the issue, or try to make out like same-gender relationships always include other elements, such as casual sex.

In fact, your very mention of the perils of causal (and irresponsible) sex is already in the context of heterosexual relationships which you approve.

Moreover, I would argue that there is nothing at all wrong with 'causal' sex. Where the problems come into play is when that sex is irresponsible. That's when unwanted babies are born.

So it's not the "causal" element that is destructive, but rather the "irresponsible" element that does the damage.



So what?

There will always be adopted children. Even God has made that a necessity of life since God allows for the parents of children to die.

So what's the difference whether these children are adopted by a same-gender loving couple, or a loving couple of different genders? It shouldn't make any difference at all. Assuming all else is equal (i.e. the couples are indeed genuinely loving and fit parents)



Where should I look? Can you point to a study?

I wouldn't be very impressed by such a study anyway because from what I see in America ever biological children often feel left out or confused.

The real problem here is just poor parenting. And, IMHO, a lot of poor parenting is actually due to a belief in God and religion. People often tell their children to just "Trust in the Lord" and do the best they can. And that often leads to failure and falling through the cracks of society because the kids "Trusted" in a God who is never there for them!



Again, you're considering things in terms of an imaginary "perfect world". But the truth of reality is that heterosexual parents are often quite horrible. There is no guarantee at all that having heterosexual parents is going to be any better for a child than having same-gender parents. It all comes down to how loving and wise the actual parents are.



Well, there you go. "No by choice" implies that you had no free will in the matter. So much for "trusting in God".



And once again, you're addressing the issue of "irresponsible sex" which has absolutely nothing at all to do with same-gender love.

There are tons of examples of heterosexual couples who are totally irresponsible on every level imaginable. So clearly "irresponsibility" is not something that would be unique to same-gender couples. Nor would being a same-gender couple imply that they are necessarily going to be irresponsible anymore than a heterosexual couple might be.

You seem to be equating same-gender love to irresponsibility right off the bat.

I'll grant you that the vast majority of gays probably are irresponsible people.

But then so are the vast majority of heterosexual people too.

Humans in general seem to be inherently irresponsible. And that even includes many people who believe they are 'religious'.

to ask why anyone makes sure everyone is doing right simplifies things a bit too much I think

noone can make sure everyone does right, but people can have a vested interest and make efforts to try to live in a community or world that THEY think is healthy and safe(both physically and spiritually)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because you get only one chance in this life time. You can't go through this life, then return to do it again and fix what you've learned. I personally don't do this for anything beneficial to me, that's not why i struggle so much to bring light to God on here. Has absolutely nothing to do with my salvation. I do it out of love for all of you, trying to open peoples eyes and give them an opportunity to bask in the joy of the lord.

you get only one chance in this life time. You can't go through this life, then return to do it again and fix what you've learned.

In the USA, for any law to be considered for enactment and enforcement, it must be considered with respect to the Constitution.

If the Constitution is to be ammended, it must be ammended to reflect the basic ethical perspectives under which it was created and has been previously ammended.

So the 'vested' interest of all people in the USA should be to uphold the basic ideals consistant within the Constitution.

It is the Constitution that assures people of their freedom and liberties, under it's concepts the religiously inclined are free to practice whatever morality does not conflict with its basic tenants.

Therefore, when THEY (people in the USA) think about enactment, enforcement, and ammendment, of the law thier model and authority is the Constitution and NOT A RELIGIOUS BELIEF.

That does not mean that between the two (Constitution and Religion)there will not be some common groung - BUT the authority to be used to focus perspective is the Constitution first and foremost.

To belive otherwise is nothing more than an attempt to impose a religioulsy held belief system above the Constitution and the outcome of that imposition is nothing less the prohibition of freedom, justice, and liberty for all.

do we define harm in an immediate sense

as in there is no immediate harm in selling someone a bag of weed,
there is no immediate harm in a 15 year old sleeping with a 22 year old, there is no immediate harm in driving drunk UNTIL someone gets hit


I think the culture does plenty of judging of things which have no immediate harm, based upon their collective harm

if it were all truly to have no intervention , we wouldnt have most the laws that govern the land today and probably would be much more chaotic than we are now

Immediate harm occurs when selected religious values are reflected in the law of a culture who do not share that religious perspective.

why just 'religious' values,, does it make all that much difference WHERE one has learned and built upon their personal values?

and if the culture doesnt share a value, in a democracy, wouldnt that go back to PUBLIC opinion, which is mostly made of CHRISTIANS?

I mean to say, there is no culture in which ALL the people agree about anything, so we would have to define what the CULTURE shares with what the majority believe,,,,,,,,

Not true, this depended on the culture. What you say isn't as universal as how it is now. Here's some history on Marriage. Nottice, even the ANCIENT ROMANS used engagement rings. Now what would engagement rings institute? Would show it wasn't preplanned.
---------------------------------------------------

Most ancient societies needed a secure environment for the perpetuation of the species,a system of rules to handle the granting of property rights, and the protection of bloodlines. The institution of marriage handled these needs. For instance, ancient Hebrew law required a man to become the husband of a deceased brother's widow.

One nearly universal tradition is that of the engagement ring. This custom can be dated back to the ancient Romans. It is believed that the roundness of the ring represents eternity. Therefore, the wearing of wedding rings symbolizes a union that is to last forever. It was once thought that a vein or nerve ran directly from the "ring" finger of the left hand to the heart.

The statement of Pope Nicholas I in which he declared in 866, "If the consent be lacking in a marriage, all other celebrations, even should the union be consummated, are rendered void", shows the importance of a couple's consent to marriage. It has remained an important part of church teaching through the years.

its not any one simple thing, but many things point to why its BEST for children to have a foundation which begins out of a loving commitement with two people who not only created them through love of each other, but helped them to love themself by setting that primary example,,,

this is where you come from, your mom and dad,, love
there can arguably hardly be anything as good for children and their foundation in life than that....

marriage is understood to be 'consummated'

Show me the possible harm in gay marriage.

similar to the possible harm in sibling marriage,

disassembly of the very structure of family by equating all relationships to that of a mother and father, where family starts,,,,

I think uncle dads and aunty moms would be a very confusing type of culture to promote or support bringing a child up in

I think similary about daddy and daddy or mommy and mommy being a replacement or even on equal footing with mommy and daddy

there were probably many people , when casual sex was just building up support, who thought that wasnt harmful either and look at the studies of how much worse off children have become since there have begun to be fewer and fewer DADDYS in their life to supplement the MOMMY and vice versa

look at how adopted children seek out their biological roots

look at how many STEPCHILDREN grow up feeling left out or confused

I am a single parent, but not by choice, and I would never recommend it or put it on similar footing with the two parent home I grew up in with the two from whence I came,,,

all the alternate things are just harming our families and our structure and it will only become apparent in the LONG LONG run, just as the consequence of all the irresponsible sex didnt become apparent right away,,,

possibly in the ideal where the constitution is the agreed upon ultimate declaration of healthy and just life

but in reality,, if laws are not UNCONSTITUTIONAL , which is a hard standard to prove, they are eligible to be passed

the constitution does not mention marriage at all, but states have afforded and then built upon the institution

perhaps an argument could be made that the FEDERAL government should not be the ones to implement the marital guidelines, but the STATES certainly have the right to and I believe they have

it could be debated that the federal government should not get involved, but I still think the outcome would be the same,,the states would still support the institution of marriage, they would still require that those who marry fit certain guidelines(currently to not be siblings, children , or same sex)

possibly in the ideal where the constitution is the agreed upon ultimate declaration of healthy and just life

but in reality,, if laws are not UNCONSTITUTIONAL , which is a hard standard to prove, they are eligible to be passed

the constitution does not mention marriage at all, but states have afforded and then built upon the institution

perhaps an argument could be made that the FEDERAL government should not be the ones to implement the marital guidelines, but the STATES certainly have the right to and I believe they have

it could be debated that the federal government should not get involved,

I mean to say, there is no culture in which ALL the people agree about anything, so we would have to define what the CULTURE shares with what the majority believe,,,,,,,,

I think I was asked what harm I saw in gay marriage and I gave my honest and thorough opinion.

I think there are times when it takes GENERATIONS before the inherent harm of a culture becomes apparent or documented.

Marriage is not one persons CHOICE, it is the choice of two people who are willing to make it work

Pretty much, all cultures throughout history assign certain close family relationships as taboo. ALL of them have one thing in common –the children conceived on a regular basis withing fist generation and second generational relationships, eventually tend to have deficiencies. Hemopheliacs are the most commonly recognized but there are many others.

We have long understood the reason that occurs – it really isn’t something new. So put your mind at ease, since two gay people can not ‘conceive’ in the traditional way THERE IS NO DANGER THERE.



The view above is not only spoken from a lack of experience, but it also indicates that the only relevant experience is the one the poster is familiar with.

The view assumes that any confusion on the child’s part is the fault of the parents. When the truth is that, any confusion such children might experience comes from thier acceptance in society.

How are they accepted: Open discrimination against their family, those in society who fight to prohibit equitable treatment,and entertainment, books, and educational tools that would exhibit same-sex families in the same normal settings as any other family.

Giving diversity lip service is not enough - support must back up that lip service. If one believes the immigrant babies born here deserve automatic citizenship, they fight to assure that rule remains in the Constitution. If one believes that gays should be treated equally they need to support that equality and not find ways to make them less equal.



WHAT STUDIES: did those studies consider dead-beat dads – did they figure in the estimated income of the actual fathers if they had stayed. PA LEEZE –are you not the one always ruling out statistical studies as they can be manipulated so as to back up our personal perspective?



How many out of how many – on both counts. You can’t just make these open ended statements without some reference.

"They say this – all those people are hypocrits" – are as useful as the quote above at least they are equally informative and accurate. But what do they tell us about anything?



The opinion stated is the same as the beginning opinion and there was absolutely not a single valid point to support the opinion in between– however, if given the power this poster would prevent gay marriage, with no valid or critical thought process to back up the opinion.

THIS IS THE IMMEDIATE HARM that is caused when people hold to a belief so tightly they are incapable of a critical thought process – especially if it means their own valualbe ‘opinion’ is at stake.

Opinion yes, with no basis to support the choice of opinion.



Is that sound logic? I think slavery should continue for many generation until we have enough data to prove whether it causes any inherent harm of our culture.

OUR CULTURE - inherent harm on OUR CULTURE
Equality, human respect, diginity, what part of those thing are inherent in our culture that was not inherent in African culture, or Chinese Culture, or Japanese culture.

Since when do we allow a known discriminatory action agains a sector of society - just see it's effect on our CULTURE generations down the road.

Attemps to justify irrational thoughts, behavior or opinion will be irrational and the more ardently one attempts such justification the more rediculous the irrational justifications become.



A choice between two people
A contract between two people
A relationship that begins with two people from which love spreads to others.

Two people willing to take responsibility one for the other
Two people willing share their love and connect their families through love.

Two people whose love is so large it can spread like wings around children, protecting, guiding, and teaching them how to spread their own wings.

It all begins with TWO PEOPLE their gender has no importance.