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


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,,,

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.

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'.

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.

I realize that the world is not perfect, but that shouldnt stop humans from making the EFFORT to come as close as they can.

As a parent, I want my child and every child to have the BEST possible circumstances in which to grow up. I dont feel that diminishing the REAL significance of the mother father relationship by equating ALL other consentual relationships to it, is the way thats going to happen.

I chose for my children fathers whom I loved and whom I believed loved me. I chose the BEST POSSIBLE situation I could to allow my children to have a home where they could witness daily the love from which they came and learn to grow into adults who would be able to and look forward to that same type of solid foundation.

My second husband was a mistake, was not emotionally stable enough to handle the responsibility so my choice had to be altered to protect my family. My first husband remained a part of our sons life and my son is better for it. Marriage is not one persons CHOICE, it is the choice of two people who are willing to make it work, so in that, I didnt choose for the father to screw up but I had to deal with it when he did.

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.

In general, most people think that committing yourself to a good cause is commendable. But there are other components which need to be expressed from that idea.

First, what is a 'good' cause? Secondly, what have we learned if our commitment to a cause means we repeat the same day 20,000 times?

What is a 'good' cause. Any course of action which provides a beneficial outcome to humans. This can be as simple as donating food or money, or more time consuming by serving in some capacity that is time intensive. A good cause can also be protecting the environment or doing scientific research.

Teaching is also a good cause, but if we have leaned nothing else, we have leanred that for teaching to be beneficial to anyone, the teacher must constantly update their skills and knowledge otherwize they provide misinformation or worse, mere opinion.

So when a teacher is committed to the cause of teaching but only teaches the same thing from the same perspective 20,000 days in a row - that teacher has only repeated 1 day of their life 20,000 times.



What is the benefit of living for over 60 years if we have not experienced what this life has to offer. What have we learned if we ignore any information which is contrary to an opinion we held 60 years ago. And what misinformation may have been imparted to others over that time?

No matter what the 'good' cause is, a committment to that cause is commendable - but not at the expense of all your time.

Anyone devoting time and effort to a 'good' cause, owes it to themselves and to others, whom they are serving, to continue to seek new knowledge, new resources, and fairly incorporate all new information and all perspectives into their commitment to serve.

MORAL - transformation is not accomplished through preaching, it is accomplished through sharing information and leadership.

Sharing infroamtion not handing out one's version of truth.

And good leadership includes an equitable amount of time reviewing, reseaching, and incorporating new information which can then be shared again.

It is a cycle that provided benetifs to both the (server, teacher, leader...)and everyone they share with.

At the end of 1 day - repeated 20,0000 times what have you learned, whom have benefited, and what if on the first of all those days you were mistaken?

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)

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

Research - it is beneficial to the mind.

Marriage was useful to the Hebrews and necessary to maintian the lineage of the Chosen people.

Hense Marriage, to the Hebrews, was racial issue and that explains why Hebrew law required a man to become the husband of a deceased brother's widow - it assured others in the tribe of the pure lineage of any children when parents died. And since widows were not virgins, most other men would not have them, so they seek arrangements outside (the race)- therefore it was better that the brother keep the woman in the fold.

There is a vast difference between what is and what any one person thinks it should be.

Reality must be faced here. I will face it too - at a time when the lineage of a 'chosen' people was the most important aspect of making babies - marriage and all the STRICT rules that applied to it was an important thing.

In that environment it was NECESSARY for children to know and be recognized as part of the fold.

Marriage had absolutely nothing to do with the fairy tale ending which the poster perscribed to it.

In fact, growing and merging cultures have added, changed and recreated marriage for any number of reasons. What is marriage today, with possible exception of some Islamic States, is not in any way related to the function of marriage in biblical terms.

That fact, means that the marriage laws that Christians seek to uphold is not related in any way to their religion, but the hypocracy is that they claim it is.

Their claim alone, means they are trying to impose a religeous perspective onto our society who do NOT share their religious perspective.

THAT is causing 'immediate' harm.

I have asked before when this was posted - please explain what it means to 'consummate' a marriage and WHERE you get that definition.

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.

The Constitution is not, nor has it ever been a declaration of a healthy and just life, it is a declaration that guarantees all people will have the same responsibility to uphold the law and the same protections and opportunity to the extent that government can provide them to everyone.



The process of how a bill becomes law is one of those things every American is supposed to know. Ultimately the proving ground for Acts passed in Congress is how it functions in the real world.

Laws that have existed unchallenged for a long time may come under scrutiny as societies change – and we are allowed – in fact we are responsible for making changes to the laws to assure that no law is in defiance of Constitutional values and principals.



Mm – sort of true, the actual Constitution does not but law proceeding at the Federal Level based of U.S. Supreme court rulings mention marriage (A LOT)



Yes and the following is a very small list of how states have handled that responsibility:

In the case Loving v. Virginia, interstate commerce was a big issue. While couples of mixed race were allowed to be married in some states, it was considered illegal in other states. The US Supreme court declared it was unconstitutional to prohibit mixed race marriages because doing so was against Federal interstate law.

Many States have recently incorporated or are attempting to incorporate language similar or just like DOMA into their state constitutions. The result is automatic discrimination against a sector of society. The Precedent set in Loving v. Virginia will not allow this kind of interstate discrimination even if only ONE state allows “same-sex Marriage”. That’s Federal Law.

The Supreme court has already repealed DOMA at the Federal level as unconstitutional (In July) but many States have already incorporated that language into their state constitution as prohibition against same-sex marriage.

States will be forced to repeal those laws.


That has been the debate from OUR perspective for many years but we could not get the US Supreme court to call up the case – which is why we have experienced the same-sex marriage battle for many years. Eventually it HAS to be called up because other currently established Federal Precedent regarding marriage has already been set.

No, not define culture based on what the majority 'believe' rather, laws of THIS country are defined by the pricipals and values ascribed to the Constitution.

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.

I think it is more an issue of the very subjective definition of what is 'critical thought process'

for example

The BBC program focused on the case of Patrick and Susan Stubing, a German brother and sister who live as a couple and have had four children together. Incest is a criminal offense in Germany, and Patrick has already spent more than two years in prison for having sex with his sister. The two of them are asking Germany's highest court to abolish the law that makes incest illegal.

" We've done nothing wrong," Patrick told the BBC. "We are like normal lovers. We want to have a family." They dismiss the conventional argument that incest should be banned because the children of close relatives have a higher risk of genetic defects. After all, they point out, other couples with known genetic risks aren't punished for having sex. In any event, Patrick has had himself sterilized so that he cannot father any more children.

not all children of incest have irregularities and in fact, most arent sure what the studies show but I would guess that the MAJORITY arent born with defects,,,,so if we are to be fair, and this type of argument made it to court,,,,do you think americans would jump at giving siblings the right to marry and if not, do you think they would therefore be RELIGIOUS and not using 'critical thought'

what if we add a stipulation that potential couples be tested for genetic risks and only those siblings without recessive traits which would cause genetic defects would be permitted to marry

do you figure most americans would support that and if not would THEIR logic not be 'constructive'?

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.




..EXACTLY, my point is that for everyone asking what is the harm, I am supposing they need to wait until harm can be documented and obvious before they agree it is there

I am not of the belief that we should wait for generations as long as we dont immediately see some measure of 'harm'

then why should their age or biological relationship?

where in the legal definitions of marriage is the vague and subjective idea of 'love' mentioned

I do agree that COMMITMENTS are between two people, but MARRIAGE is about the community and the laws and the laws dictate guidelines based upon many BIOLOGICAL components,,(age, relationship, gender)

as to the question of consummation,, it pertains to legal definitions


we start here

I’m often asked what the difference is between a divorce and an annulment. A divorce dissolves the marriage between the Husband and the Wife. An annulment is to judicially declare that a valid marriage never took place. For an annulment to take place, the marriage has to either be void or voidable

http://lasleylaw.com/blog/2010/04/annulment-tampa-vs-divorce/

so a divorce ends a marriage
an anullment states there wasnt a valid marriage


..then we go here

Grounds for annulment can also include impotency and incest. A person whose spouse is physically and incurably impotent during marriage has grounds for annulment, so long as they were not aware of the impotency prior to the marriage. If a marriage was never consummated, this constitutes viable grounds for annulment. Grounds for annulment also include unions between two people who are too close in relation such as: whole or half siblings, first cousins, parents, grandchildren, uncles, aunts, and the like.

http://www.divorce-lawyer-source.com/html/law/annulment-grounds.html


so the law will recognize failure to consummate as reason to nullify the validity of a marriage,,,,,it is not mandatory but is obviously considered by law to be part of the marriage,,,