WN: Obama declares support for gay marriage - AP

[Guest shiloh357]

I think the fundamental issue here is the belief of homosexuality being a sin is a religious viewpoint, whereas the US was very clearly designed with the intent to allow all religions freedom, and a clear directive that the government would not enforce one specific religion's viewpoint over another's.

Because there is not a good non-religion based reason to ban gay marriage I firmly believe that it should be a legal right. Religious institutions still wouldn't have to marry gays.

Ultimately though this has no impact on much of anything. Regardless of whether gay people are married or just living together they will be having sex, right? Nothing is going to change if it's legally binding or not, it's the same base issue. If you view the act of homosexuality sinful it isn't going to get any more sinful if they're wed.

I think back to the 60s and the sexual revolution and the notion of men and women cohabitating outside of marriage, and the arguments used to justify that behavior are virtually the same as used to justify gay marraige. What harm could it do if a man and woman live together and even have a child together outside of wedlock? If they are not hurting anyone else, then why should it be considered wrong to do so?

Well, the answer to that question came to us in the form of lower marriage rates, unstable marriages that did come out of that lifestyle, higher divorce rates, kids without a dad, increased poverty, increase in cases of child abuse, and sense single mothers ususally end up in poverty, they become depedent on welfare and we spend more on single unwed mothers than we do on our military efforts overseas. From 2004 -2008, we spent $500 Billion on the war in Iraq. In the same five-year period, we lost $560 Billion on unwed mothers in terms of $90 Billion a year on welfare, foodstamps, housing and daycare subsidies, HEAD Start programs and free school breakfast and lunch programs. Couple all of that with a loss of $22 Billion in lost tax revenue due to the fact that they were not working and that adds up to $112 Billion a year and $560 Billion over 5 years.

The problem with liberals is that they never think anything through. They live in the moment. What can it hurt if we just let men get married to each other and adopt children? What harm can that do??? Gay relationships often have an openness about them. Meaning that it is not necessarily a monogamous relationship, which is not surprising. Traditoinal marriage is being scrapped for a "marriage" that isn't strapped with the straight jacket of marital faithfulness. I have worked with gay men and women who readily admit that they are allowed to see other people so long as they don't neglect the needs of their "primary" partner. So you have a marriage that is not based on a commitment to be faithful. Essentially, it is marriage for the sake of convenience. They get all of the governmental benefits since they are legally "married" without being strapped with the commitment, hardwork and sacrifical love that defines traditional marriage. Essentially, gay marriage is not a marriage at all. It is nothing more than a sham.

Homosexuality has a very high rate of depression, suicide, drug use, HIV and other STD's that are contracted through that manner of sexual contact. That makes the lifestyle particularly bad for children to be raised in. It is why gay couples should not be allowed to adopt and raise children. Gay marriages are generally very unstable and while the homosexual community can present exceptions to the rule and some who have managed to beat the odds that doesn't really refute the accuracy of the general rule that gay relationships are typically very unstable.

There have been cases of skydivers actually surviving a fall to the earth when their parachute malfunctioned, but that is not a good argument for abandoning the use of parachutes for skydivers. Just because a few homosexuals manage to somehow forge a successful marriage, it doesn't serve a good argument to abandon the traditional defintion and practice of marriage, which God instituted.

A couple of good non religious reason for not redefining marriage to include gays is that it will have to be done by activist judges on a federal level and not by the democratic will of the people. It is clear that the majority of Americans don't support gay marriage. That is unAmerican. We are not dictatorship. The vote in NC is indicative of what the majority of Americans feel. It is only in extremely far left circles that the delusion that they reflect the views of most Americans exists.

In addition, it opens the gate for other sexual "orientations" to vie for special recognition and to be included in the mainstream such a pedophiles who maintain that they love their victims and their victims love them. If one alternative lifestyle must be accepted, then it only follows that we can't discriminate agaisnt any of them.

[Oh Hamburgers!]

I think back to the 60s and the sexual revolution and the notion of men and women cohabitating outside of marriage, and the arguments used to justify that behavior are virtually the same as used to justify gay marraige. What harm could it do if a man and woman live together and even have a child together outside of wedlock? If they are not hurting anyone else, then why should it be considered wrong to do so?

Well, the answer to that question came to us in the form of lower marriage rates, unstable marriages that did come out of that lifestyle, higher divorce rates, kids without a dad, increased poverty, increase in cases of child abuse, and sense single mothers ususally end up in poverty, they become depedent on welfare and we spend more on single unwed mothers than we do on our military efforts overseas. From 2004 -2008, we spent $500 Billion on the war in Iraq. In the same five-year period, we lost $560 Billion on unwed mothers in terms of $90 Billion a year on welfare, foodstamps, housing and daycare subsidies, HEAD Start programs and free school breakfast and lunch programs. Couple all of that with a loss of $22 Billion in lost tax revenue due to the fact that they were not working and that adds up to $112 Billion a year and $560 Billion over 5 years.

The problem with liberals is that they never think anything through. They live in the moment. What can it hurt if we just let men get married to each other and adopt children? What harm can that do??? Gay relationships often have an openness about them. Meaning that it is not necessarily a monogamous relationship, which is not surprising. Traditoinal marriage is being scrapped for a "marriage" that isn't strapped with the straight jacket of marital faithfulness. I have worked with gay men and women who readily admit that they are allowed to see other people so long as they don't neglect the needs of their "primary" partner. So you have a marriage that is not based on a commitment to be faithful. Essentially, it is marriage for the sake of convenience. They get all of the governmental benefits since they are legally "married" without being strapped with the commitment, hardwork and sacrifical love that defines traditional marriage. Essentially, gay marriage is not a marriage at all. It is nothing more than a sham.

Homosexuality has a very high rate of depression, suicide, drug use, HIV and other STD's that are contracted through that manner of sexual contact. That makes the lifestyle particularly bad for children to be raised in. It is why gay couples should not be allowed to adopt and raise children. Gay marriages are generally very unstable and while the homosexual community can present exceptions to the rule and some who have managed to beat the odds that doesn't really refute the accuracy of the general rule that gay relationships are typically very unstable.

There have been cases of skydivers actually surviving a fall to the earth when their parachute malfunctioned, but that is not a good argument for abandoning the use of parachutes for skydivers. Just because a few homosexuals manage to somehow forge a successful marriage, it doesn't serve a good argument to abandon the traditional defintion and practice of marriage, which God instituted.

You attribute an awful lot of damage to sex outside of marriage, especially when you consider that the highest divorce rates in the country are within the christian demographics (IE the ones allegedly less likely to have sex outside of marriage) (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm) and the United States has the highest divorce rate in the world (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_div_rat-people-divorce-rate). Surely we are not the only ones who have couples living together before marriage? Regardless there are studies out there that show living together before marriage does not have an effect on the divorce rate (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2118719/Living-marriage-longer-increases-chances-divorce.html).

In short you are making sweeping assumptions about what sex before marriage has done do this country without evidence to support it. I also see a lot of conjecture concerning gay marriage and how you think they behave without any data to back it up.

I have not looked into rates of depression suicide drug use etc among homosexuals, but do you think it might have something to do with our society's treatment of gays? I have seen many news stories where a gay teen commits suicide because he is tormented in school, and while I'm not saying that sort of extreme is the norm I think we can all agree that homosexuals are typically looked down upon in this country. If I felt like a hated outcast I think my chance of depression or drug use would go up too.

False Premise. It isn't soley a religious issue. Homosexuality is a moral and societal ill. It does no one any good and only harms everyone involved. Homosexuality is not a religion, so you are not denying a couples freedom of religion if you do not allow them to marry because they are the same sex. All that is is rationalism and an attempt to legitamize something that shouldn't exist. Nature tells us it isn't right without even bringing religion and morals into it. As shiloh says, homosexual relationships are consistently unstable. The family unit in America is already in bad enough shape. It does not need to be eroded further. Being trapped in a moral morass is not a right.

I did not say that homosexuality is a religion, I said that the desire to oppress them is based on a religion, and the Constitution is pretty clear on that (ie it isn't constitutional).

How exactly is Homosexuality a societal ill? You mention it does no good and only harms everyone involved. When was the last time you were directly harmed by homosexuality?

Edited May 17, 2012 by Oh Hamburgers!

[SavedByGrace1981]

I'm not sure when it was that marriage (a religious rite) became a state issue. But I'm sure it was at a time, long ago, when the majority of people were sane - unlike now. Therefore no one foresaw that homosexuals marrying would ever become an issue.

But if you think about it in one way - "marriage" should no more be a state issue than other religious rites such as baptism or communion. And the State has no say in those.

As a Christian, I am vehemently opposed to marriage being anything other than a union between one man and one woman. But politically, I am a libertarian - so there is an apparent conflict.

I have always maintained that the solution to this issue would be to go the "civil union" route. In other words, in the legal sense, a "civil union" would be equal in the eyes of the secular law with marriage.

But somehow - for the militant homosexual activists who want to figuratively rub our noses in their deviant lifestyle - this probably isn't an acceptable solution.

They want to hijack the term marriage, and they won't take "no" for an answer.

Blessings!

-Ed

[Guest shiloh357]

You attribute an awful lot of damage to sex outside of marriage, especially when you consider that the highest divorce rates in the country are within the christian demographics

The problem is that those findings are flawed. They are based on who claims to be a Christian vs. who is actually a committed follower of Jesus Christ. "Christian" has almost become a cultural term. People call themselves "Christians" because they were baptized when they were an infant and have not darkened the door of a church since.

If we were to follow the biblical definition of a true Christian, those divorce statistics would drop dramatcially among authentic followers of Christ.

Sex outside marriage is very destructive. It is very harmful to marriage, particularly the "test drive" scenario that many people use to justify such self-destructive lifestyles.

In short you are making sweeping assumptions about what sex before marriage has done do this country without evidence to support it.

No I haven't. We are harvesting fruit of the seeds sown in the past. Monogamous, committed, sexually faithful marriages are superior to marriages where people shack up togeher and then get married afteward. I used to work in the registrar's office of a local community college and our primary clientele were unwed mothers, most of them who had been living with a guy who abandoned them and left them without support, having to live on food stamps, and the charity of others. They came to school and racked up tones of student loan debt to get a job that paid enough for them to raise children. Many of those girls could not finish because they could not juggle raising a child, going to school and working a part-time job, particularly when gas prices kept going up. Many that lived out of town had to simply stop attending and drop out, having incurred thousand of dollars in new debt.

All because they were in a relationship that was not based on loving faithful commitment. The story was always the same. They were living with a guy, got pregant unexpectantly and he bolts and leaves them with a child and the guy probably works under the table to avoid being found through his social security number in an attempt to escape paying child support. A little child is raised in an unstable home due to a derelict man who is no man at all. I have seen first hand what sex outside of marriage does to people and I don't have to search high and low to prove it to you.

I have not looked into rates of depression suicide drug use etc among homosexuals, but do you think it might have something to do with our society's treatment of gays?

Nope, because for the most part, our society is very tolerant and friendly to gay people. They enjoy a great deal of support in the entertainment and sports industries, they are not denied jobs, are not denied any civil freedoms that the rest of us enjoy. To try and act like our society persecutes gays is simply intellectually dishonest on your part. Sure they don't like it that we consider their lifestyle a sin, but we don't call them to be mistreated or shipped out of the country or locked away in special "camps."

An unfaithful, "open' marriage/sexual relationship dehumanzes and diminishes the value of a person. In those relationships, partners are just tools for self-gratification. It is a very self-destructive relationship. Everyone becomes expendable. Once a person has outlived their usefulness or has contracted a diease or perhaps decides that they want more from the relationship, the other partner casts them aside for someone else. I have seen that happend as well.

The media has done a good job shielding most people from the under belly of the homosexual lifestyle and the real problems it has. People like you live in a delusional world where they think that gays actually love each other. They don't. They give lip serivice to it, but in the end, they don't live it out.

I think we can all agree that homosexuals are typically looked down upon in this country.

No, we can't. Everyone has their supporters and detractors. Even people who oppose redefiining marriage to include alternative lifestyles don't necessarily have any angst against gays, personally.

[Oh Hamburgers!]

@ Flawed findings: And I suppose you're the authority on who is a committed follower of Jesus Christ and who is merely a "Christian"?

If you have your own definition of what a Christian is I can't stop you, but you provide no way to assert your claims either since there is no way to distinguish the two unless you're God. So if you reject my data but fail to provide your own we're at an impasse.

I acknowledge that single parents have a hard time providing for their children, but that is also an issue of safe sex practices, not simply one of non-married couples. It's important to note that there are many 'shotgun marriages'; those might be marriages but they are certainly not based on loving faithful commitment. If I had to choose between a single parent with a stable support group of friends and family, or a hurried marriage due to unexpected pregnancy that lacks the surrounding support, I would choose the stable single parent as the best parent for the child every time. Do you disagree? My point is marriage doesn't always = a better relationship.

@ Societal views of Homosexuality: If you think our country on the whole is tolerant and friendly to gay people I think you are taking for granted the prevalence of heterosexual culture. Consider this: every day you see heterosexual couples doing things together, taking care of children, arguing, showing signs of affection in public places. Do you even notice? Now replace that couple with a homosexual couple with children at the grocery store, talking, kissing in a public place. I guarantee that the majority of this country (myself included) would be much more aware of that happening, and many would feel a bit uncomfortable.

Now consider all the advertisements on tv and in magazines that involve heterosexual couples together, often in suggestive romantic situations. When was the last time you saw a mattress commercial that portrayed a homosexual couple getting their sleep number bed?

@Homosexuality diminishing value of people: I find it interesting how you seem be telling Christians what they believe (distinguishing true followers from the 'fake Christians') and now you seem to be telling homosexual couples what they feel (couples don't care about one another). How have you become such an authority on the inner workings of other people that you have no information about? That seems quite presumptuous if you ask me, since you aren't in the mind of a homosexual and have no reference on whether they value each other or truly love each other.

[Guest shiloh357]

Flawed findings: And I suppose you're the authority on who is a committed follower of Jesus Christ and who is merely a "Christian"?

The Bible is my guide understanding what a Christian is and isn't. There is a form of Chrsitianity that doesn't have Christ in it. Many people claim to be "Christians" but reject biblical values and teachings and in fact, often view the Bible as a merely human guidebook.

If you have your own definition of what a Christian is I can't stop you, but you provide no way to assert your claims either since there is no way to distinguish the two unless you're God. So if you reject my data but fail to provide your own we're at an impasse.

It isn't my definition. The Bible outlines exactly what a follower of Jesus looks like. That is where my data for who is and isn't a true believer. Those who are committed followers of Jesus, who believe the Bible to be the inspired and inerrant word of God to man and have a saving relationship with God through Jesus are a small demographic and represent those who are truly Christian and not just anyone who wants to wear the label.

I acknowledge that single parents have a hard time providing for their children, but that is also an issue of safe sex practices, not simply one of non-married couples. It's important to note that there are many 'shotgun marriages'; those might be marriages but they are certainly not based on loving faithful commitment. If I had to choose between a single parent with a stable support group of friends and family, or a hurried marriage due to unexpected pregnancy that lacks the surrounding support, I would choose the stable single parent as the best parent for the child every time. Do you disagree? My point is marriage doesn't always = a better relationship.

Safe sex??? LOL what a joke. The fact is that "safe sex" doesn't really address the underlying problem. Marriage is about waaaaaaay more than sex. The problem is that shacking up outside of marriage is ALL about sex. You are not really addressing the substance of what I wrote. Marriage is better for the economy, and better for society than shacking up or trying to go it alone. Married mothers are less likely to end up in poverty. Umarried mothers are far more likely to end up in poverty and I have seen that first hand. The problem is that most of these women are in poverty for the simple reason that they don't have support from friends or family. They often come from ustable familes and have already been engaging in a self-destructive, unsafe relationship with a deadbeat simply because they need to the money to support their child. They are no less unstable after he abandons her and his child than when they were together. There are some who beat the odds, but in most cases, they don't. A one parent family is rarely ever "stable."

Societal views of Homosexuality: If you think our country on the whole is tolerant and friendly to gay people I think you are taking for granted the prevalence of heterosexual culture. Consider this: every day you see heterosexual couples doing things together, taking care of children, arguing, showing signs of affection in public places. Do you even notice? Now replace that couple with a homosexual couple with children at the grocery store, talking, kissing in a public place. I guarantee that the majority of this country (myself included) would be much more aware of that happening, and many would feel a bit uncomfortable.

People feel uncomfotable around heterosexuals making out at the park and grocery stores. No one likes to see those kinds of overt public displays of affection. It's just kinda gross. The fact is that homosexuals enjoy the same overall freedoms that everyone else does and if you refuse to acknowledge the HUGE support they get all over the country from religious groups, the entertainment industry, political groups, sports organiations, then you are simply intellectually dishonest and are not really qualified to even have this debate. I have never seen gay people thrown out of a restaurant or any other public venue.

Now consider all the advertisements on tv and in magazines that involve heterosexual couples together, often in suggestive romantic situations. When was the last time you saw a mattress commercial that portrayed a homosexual couple getting their sleep number bed?

So what?? When the Sleep Number Company refuses to sell their beds to gay couples, get back with me on that.

Homosexuality diminishing value of people: I find it interesting how you seem be telling Christians what they believe (distinguishing true followers from the 'fake Christians') and now you seem to be telling homosexual couples what they feel (couples don't care about one another).

They don't care about each other. Their willingness to be "open" is a sign of a lack of commitment or desire to be faithful. If your wife was seeing other men wouldn't you question how much she really cares about you? When one partner decides they want a commitment and the other partner says no, it goes to the fact that love is missing from that relationship.

The problem is that down in the deepst core of our being there are needs that simply can't be met by sex or even relationships. There are deep seated needs and a need to be loved in a way that no human can love us. God is the only one who really bring complete fulfillment. Not even in hetero-sexual marriages can those needs be met apart from God. It's one reason the divorce rate among hetero sexual exceeds 50%. God designed husband and wife to meet each other's secondary needs, but God meets their ultimate and deepest needs.

How have you become such an authority on the inner workings of other people that you have no information about? That seems quite presumptuous if you ask me, since you aren't in the mind of a homosexual and have no reference on whether they value each other or truly love each other.

Their fruit is evident. I have a lot of first hand experience having worked around them and even gone to school with them years ago. I have watched their relationships tear apart and it is uglier than a divorce. I have had three people I know of in my own city who were gay and committed suicide over losing their partners. I have seen the damage that homosexuality and sexual promiscuity do to people's lives.

This is not propostional knowledge. I am telling you what I have witnessed first hand.

[other one]

Flawed findings: And I suppose you're the authority on who is a committed follower of Jesus Christ and who is merely a "Christian"?

The Bible is my guide understanding what a Christian is and isn't. There is a form of Chrsitianity that doesn't have Christ in it. Many people claim to be "Christians" but reject biblical values and teachings and in fact, often view the Bible as a merely human guidebook.

If you have your own definition of what a Christian is I can't stop you, but you provide no way to assert your claims either since there is no way to distinguish the two unless you're God. So if you reject my data but fail to provide your own we're at an impasse.

It isn't my definition. The Bible outlines exactly what a follower of Jesus looks like. That is where my data for who is and isn't a true believer. Those who are committed followers of Jesus, who believe the Bible to be the inspired and inerrant word of God to man and have a saving relationship with God through Jesus are a small demographic and represent those who are truly Christian and not just anyone who wants to wear the label.

I acknowledge that single parents have a hard time providing for their children, but that is also an issue of safe sex practices, not simply one of non-married couples. It's important to note that there are many 'shotgun marriages'; those might be marriages but they are certainly not based on loving faithful commitment. If I had to choose between a single parent with a stable support group of friends and family, or a hurried marriage due to unexpected pregnancy that lacks the surrounding support, I would choose the stable single parent as the best parent for the child every time. Do you disagree? My point is marriage doesn't always = a better relationship.

Safe sex??? LOL what a joke. The fact is that "safe sex" doesn't really address the underlying problem. Marriage is about waaaaaaay more than sex. The problem is that shacking up outside of marriage is ALL about sex. You are not really addressing the substance of what I wrote. Marriage is better for the economy, and better for society than shacking up or trying to go it alone. Married mothers are less likely to end up in poverty. Umarried mothers are far more likely to end up in poverty and I have seen that first hand. The problem is that most of these women are in poverty for the simple reason that they don't have support from friends or family. They often come from ustable familes and have already been engaging in a self-destructive, unsafe relationship with a deadbeat simply because they need to the money to support their child. They are no less unstable after he abandons her and his child than when they were together. There are some who beat the odds, but in most cases, they don't. A one parent family is rarely ever "stable."

Societal views of Homosexuality: If you think our country on the whole is tolerant and friendly to gay people I think you are taking for granted the prevalence of heterosexual culture. Consider this: every day you see heterosexual couples doing things together, taking care of children, arguing, showing signs of affection in public places. Do you even notice? Now replace that couple with a homosexual couple with children at the grocery store, talking, kissing in a public place. I guarantee that the majority of this country (myself included) would be much more aware of that happening, and many would feel a bit uncomfortable.

People feel uncomfotable around heterosexuals making out at the park and grocery stores. No one likes to see those kinds of overt public displays of affection. It's just kinda gross. The fact is that homosexuals enjoy the same overall freedoms that everyone else does and if you refuse to acknowledge the HUGE support they get all over the country from religious groups, the entertainment industry, political groups, sports organiations, then you are simply intellectually dishonest and are not really qualified to even have this debate. I have never seen gay people thrown out of a restaurant or any other public venue.

Now consider all the advertisements on tv and in magazines that involve heterosexual couples together, often in suggestive romantic situations. When was the last time you saw a mattress commercial that portrayed a homosexual couple getting their sleep number bed?

So what?? When the Sleep Number Company refuses to sell their beds to gay couples, get back with me on that.

Homosexuality diminishing value of people: I find it interesting how you seem be telling Christians what they believe (distinguishing true followers from the 'fake Christians') and now you seem to be telling homosexual couples what they feel (couples don't care about one another).

They don't care about each other. Their willingness to be "open" is a sign of a lack of commitment or desire to be faithful. If your wife was seeing other men wouldn't you question how much she really cares about you? When one partner decides they want a commitment and the other partner says no, it goes to the fact that love is missing from that relationship.

The problem is that down in the deepst core of our being there are needs that simply can't be met by sex or even relationships. There are deep seated needs and a need to be loved in a way that no human can love us. God is the only one who really bring complete fulfillment. Not even in hetero-sexual marriages can those needs be met apart from God. It's one reason the divorce rate among hetero sexual exceeds 50%. God designed husband and wife to meet each other's secondary needs, but God meets their ultimate and deepest needs.

How have you become such an authority on the inner workings of other people that you have no information about? That seems quite presumptuous if you ask me, since you aren't in the mind of a homosexual and have no reference on whether they value each other or truly love each other.

Their fruit is evident. I have a lot of first hand experience having worked around them and even gone to school with them years ago. I have watched their relationships tear apart and it is uglier than a divorce. I have had three people I know of in my own city who were gay and committed suicide over losing their partners. I have seen the damage that homosexuality and sexual promiscuity do to people's lives.

This is not propostional knowledge. I am telling you what I have witnessed first hand.

Far be it from me to push a Gay lifestyle, but honestly the same things happen with heterosexual relationships too.

[Oh Hamburgers!]

The Bible is my guide understanding what a Christian is and isn't. There is a form of Chrsitianity that doesn't have Christ in it. Many people claim to be "Christians" but reject biblical values and teachings and in fact, often view the Bible as a merely human guidebook.

It isn't my definition. The Bible outlines exactly what a follower of Jesus looks like. That is where my data for who is and isn't a true believer. Those who are committed followers of Jesus, who believe the Bible to be the inspired and inerrant word of God to man and have a saving relationship with God through Jesus are a small demographic and represent those who are truly Christian and not just anyone who wants to wear the label.

chris·tian/ˌkrisCHən/

Adjective:

Of, relating to, or professing Christianity or its teachings.

Noun:

A person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.

That is the definition of Christian. If someone professes themselves to be Christian, how can you say they are truly otherwise unless you have proof? Are you judge and jury when it comes to who is a true believer and who is not? The bible might teach about what a true Christian should look like, but God is the only one who can make that distinction.

You say you have data for who is and isn't a believer, but you don't really have any numbers,do you? You might think you know what it takes to be a true follower, but only God can actually count them.

So again unless you have some way to back up the % of 'true Christians' that get divorced I'm going to go with the best available data, which is what people proclaim their faith us. And those findings show that Christians are just as likely if not more so to have a divorce.

Safe sex??? LOL what a joke. The fact is that "safe sex" doesn't really address the underlying problem. Marriage is about waaaaaaay more than sex. The problem is that shacking up outside of marriage is ALL about sex. You are not really addressing the substance of what I wrote. Marriage is better for the economy, and better for society than shacking up or trying to go it alone. Married mothers are less likely to end up in poverty. Umarried mothers are far more likely to end up in poverty and I have seen that first hand. The problem is that most of these women are in poverty for the simple reason that they don't have support from friends or family. They often come from ustable familes and have already been engaging in a self-destructive, unsafe relationship with a deadbeat simply because they need to the money to support their child. They are no less unstable after he abandons her and his child than when they were together. There are some who beat the odds, but in most cases, they don't. A one parent family is rarely ever "stable."

A good marriage is way more than sex, but not every marriage is good - or are you now going to redefine 'marriage'? . My point is simply being married doesn't mean a situation is suddenly good or better. In the same way I think being a single parent doesn't mean that environment is bad for raising kids, having a fulfilling life etc. Given the choice between a happy stable married couple and a happy stable single parent I would choose the married couple, but it isn't simply a black & white issue.

People feel uncomfotable around heterosexuals making out at the park and grocery stores. No one likes to see those kinds of overt public displays of affection. It's just kinda gross. The fact is that homosexuals enjoy the same overall freedoms that everyone else does and if you refuse to acknowledge the HUGE support they get all over the country from religious groups, the entertainment industry, political groups, sports organiations, then you are simply intellectually dishonest and are not really qualified to even have this debate. I have never seen gay people thrown out of a restaurant or any other public venue.

I didn't say even making out, I said kissing, showing signs of affection (hugging, holding hands). I agree the overt displays of affection are not meant for the public regardless of your sexual preference, but even small things that are generally acceptable for heterosexual couples to do will get a raised eyebrow or uncomfortable stares if it is a same sex couple doing it.

It's true that homosexuals enjoy most of the same overall freedoms, but they certainly aren't treated the same way in this country. Marriage is a perfect example.

They don't care about each other. Their willingness to be "open" is a sign of a lack of commitment or desire to be faithful. If your wife was seeing other men wouldn't you question how much she really cares about you? When one partner decides they want a commitment and the other partner says no, it goes to the fact that love is missing from that relationship.

Their fruit is evident. I have a lot of first hand experience having worked around them and even gone to school with them years ago. I have watched their relationships tear apart and it is uglier than a divorce. I have had three people I know of in my own city who were gay and committed suicide over losing their partners. I have seen the damage that homosexuality and sexual promiscuity do to people's lives.

These two statements seem contradictory. On the one hand you assert homosexuals don't care about each other, and in the next paragraph you comment on how you've witnessed homosexual break-ups tear two individuals apart. If they truly didn't care about each other, why would someone go to the length of suicide after a break-up? If anything I think you are only enforcing that homosexual couples do often care about one another and are just as emotionally invested in relationships as heterosexual couples.

[Remnantrob]

I think back to the 60s and the sexual revolution and the notion of men and women cohabitating outside of marriage, and the arguments used to justify that behavior are virtually the same as used to justify gay marraige. What harm could it do if a man and woman live together and even have a child together outside of wedlock? If they are not hurting anyone else, then why should it be considered wrong to do so?

Well, the answer to that question came to us in the form of lower marriage rates, unstable marriages that did come out of that lifestyle, higher divorce rates, kids without a dad, increased poverty, increase in cases of child abuse, and sense single mothers ususally end up in poverty, they become depedent on welfare and we spend more on single unwed mothers than we do on our military efforts overseas. From 2004 -2008, we spent $500 Billion on the war in Iraq. In the same five-year period, we lost $560 Billion on unwed mothers in terms of $90 Billion a year on welfare, foodstamps, housing and daycare subsidies, HEAD Start programs and free school breakfast and lunch programs. Couple all of that with a loss of $22 Billion in lost tax revenue due to the fact that they were not working and that adds up to $112 Billion a year and $560 Billion over 5 years.

The problem with liberals is that they never think anything through. They live in the moment. What can it hurt if we just let men get married to each other and adopt children? What harm can that do??? Gay relationships often have an openness about them. Meaning that it is not necessarily a monogamous relationship, which is not surprising. Traditoinal marriage is being scrapped for a "marriage" that isn't strapped with the straight jacket of marital faithfulness. I have worked with gay men and women who readily admit that they are allowed to see other people so long as they don't neglect the needs of their "primary" partner. So you have a marriage that is not based on a commitment to be faithful. Essentially, it is marriage for the sake of convenience. They get all of the governmental benefits since they are legally "married" without being strapped with the commitment, hardwork and sacrifical love that defines traditional marriage. Essentially, gay marriage is not a marriage at all. It is nothing more than a sham.

Homosexuality has a very high rate of depression, suicide, drug use, HIV and other STD's that are contracted through that manner of sexual contact. That makes the lifestyle particularly bad for children to be raised in. It is why gay couples should not be allowed to adopt and raise children. Gay marriages are generally very unstable and while the homosexual community can present exceptions to the rule and some who have managed to beat the odds that doesn't really refute the accuracy of the general rule that gay relationships are typically very unstable.

There have been cases of skydivers actually surviving a fall to the earth when their parachute malfunctioned, but that is not a good argument for abandoning the use of parachutes for skydivers. Just because a few homosexuals manage to somehow forge a successful marriage, it doesn't serve a good argument to abandon the traditional defintion and practice of marriage, which God instituted.

You attribute an awful lot of damage to sex outside of marriage, especially when you consider that the highest divorce rates in the country are within the christian demographics (IE the ones allegedly less likely to have sex outside of marriage) (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm) and the United States has the highest divorce rate in the world (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_div_rat-people-divorce-rate). Surely we are not the only ones who have couples living together before marriage? Regardless there are studies out there that show living together before marriage does not have an effect on the divorce rate (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2118719/Living-marriage-longer-increases-chances-divorce.html).

In short you are making sweeping assumptions about what sex before marriage has done do this country without evidence to support it. I also see a lot of conjecture concerning gay marriage and how you think they behave without any data to back it up.

I have not looked into rates of depression suicide drug use etc among homosexuals, but do you think it might have something to do with our society's treatment of gays? I have seen many news stories where a gay teen commits suicide because he is tormented in school, and while I'm not saying that sort of extreme is the norm I think we can all agree that homosexuals are typically looked down upon in this country. If I felt like a hated outcast I think my chance of depression or drug use would go up too.

False Premise. It isn't soley a religious issue. Homosexuality is a moral and societal ill. It does no one any good and only harms everyone involved. Homosexuality is not a religion, so you are not denying a couples freedom of religion if you do not allow them to marry because they are the same sex. All that is is rationalism and an attempt to legitamize something that shouldn't exist. Nature tells us it isn't right without even bringing religion and morals into it. As shiloh says, homosexual relationships are consistently unstable. The family unit in America is already in bad enough shape. It does not need to be eroded further. Being trapped in a moral morass is not a right.

I did not say that homosexuality is a religion, I said that the desire to oppress them is based on a religion, and the Constitution is pretty clear on that (ie it isn't constitutional).

How exactly is Homosexuality a societal ill? You mention it does no good and only harms everyone involved. When was the last time you were directly harmed by homosexuality?

Interesting points Hamburgers,

The main response that stuck out to me is the statement you made about divorce rates in the US. Have you ever considered that outside of a handful of countries around the world, (christians or otherwise) Divorces seem pretty low when people avoid sexual promescuity before marriage. Even in places like India, arranged marriages have a very low divorce rate. In biblical times (I'm not an expert) from what I have read, arranged marriages were the norm and may have not started out in love, but usually developed. I won't go as far as saying marriage should be mandated that way in this country, but their success in marriage is somewhat of a testimony to me. And does it bother you that a lot of countries seem to reject a lot of musicians who are publicly for gay rights. For example I heard the other day that Lady Gaga is not allow in some country because they are afraid that she will promote negative values. America loves to boast about freedom, but it comes at a cost. A lot of our problems, in my opinion, step from trying to meet everyone's desires. It just can't be. There has to be a standard. I don't have data to support my statements, but I'm gonna have to go with shiloh's stance on the issues even though I know its useless trying to fight the masses. We had our problems in America in the 50s and 60s and even before, but you have to agree that the more tolerant we have become of everything, the more problems seem to have risen exponentially. Those who lived during those times know that you could leave your door and window open and sleep relatively sound. There was no fear of having your car robbed. In school, a teachers list of problems they had with their students were so mild compared to the issues teachers deal with today. Am I saying that gay people are the reason for all of this? no, but the more tolerant we become, the more problems seem to slip through the gates that we have to learn to deal with. Since marriage has been labeled as a civil issue moreso than a religous/moral issue I have to abide by the law. But I think its offensive when christians are thrown under the bus for speaking up for what they believe is sin. I'm not saying we need to deport anyone for their lifestyles, but the same rights they have to speak about how they feel should be extended to christians. Anyways, enjoying the debate between you two. Carry on.

[Oh Hamburgers!]

Interesting points Hamburgers,

The main response that stuck out to me is the statement you made about divorce rates in the US. Have you ever considered that outside of a handful of countries around the world, (christians or otherwise) Divorces seem pretty low when people avoid sexual promescuity before marriage. Even in places like India, arranged marriages have a very low divorce rate. In biblical times (I'm not an expert) from what I have read, arranged marriages were the norm and may have not started out in love, but usually developed. I won't go as far as saying marriage should be mandated that way in this country, but their success in marriage is somewhat of a testimony to me.

That's a good point, I do think the freedoms we enjoy in America attribute in part to the high divorce rates. You mention arranged marriages being the norm, and in many countries that is still the case. I think the idea of a 'divorce' is fairly foreign to some cultures as well, so even if someone is in an unhappy marriage the concept of divorce is barely considered, while here in America divorce almost seems like the first thing to turn to in some cases.

I do think that divorce is not something that should be taken lightly, and I think part of the problem is our culture/the ease in which people go into and exit relationships. At the same time I would bet that many cultures that have arranged marriages would result in more divorces than now if the concept of divorce became more commonplace.

And does it bother you that a lot of countries seem to reject a lot of musicians who are publicly for gay rights. For example I heard the other day that Lady Gaga is not allow in some country because they are afraid that she will promote negative values. America loves to boast about freedom, but it comes at a cost. A lot of our problems, in my opinion, step from trying to meet everyone's desires. It just can't be. There has to be a standard. I don't have data to support my statements, but I'm gonna have to go with shiloh's stance on the issues even though I know its useless trying to fight the masses. We had our problems in America in the 50s and 60s and even before, but you have to agree that the more tolerant we have become of everything, the more problems seem to have risen exponentially. Those who lived during those times know that you could leave your door and window open and sleep relatively sound. There was no fear of having your car robbed. In school, a teachers list of problems they had with their students were so mild compared to the issues teachers deal with today. Am I saying that gay people are the reason for all of this? no, but the more tolerant we become, the more problems seem to slip through the gates that we have to learn to deal with. Since marriage has been labeled as a civil issue moreso than a religous/moral issue I have to abide by the law. But I think its offensive when christians are thrown under the bus for speaking up for what they believe is sin. I'm not saying we need to deport anyone for their lifestyles, but the same rights they have to speak about how they feel should be extended to christians. Anyways, enjoying the debate between you two. Carry on.

I wasn't around in the 50's or 60's so part of this is probably coming from ignorance, however I think part of the mindset is nostalgic. There was a time when organs in churches was considered subversive and unnatural. Elvis Prestley's hips were considered highly inappropriate and rock and roll was the equivalent of the devil's music. The sexual revolution in the 60's & the drug use of the time was something that was feared, in the 90's there was a concern about crime in the country rising. There was a time where inter-racial marriage was not considered appropriate (incidentally it was 1971 when North Carolina finally approved inter-racial marriage, just as now they have banned gay marriage).

I think that we might view some of the things in the past as more trivial than today's problems, and indeed there are some serious issues today, but my point is our culture has continuously evolved over time and accepted things that were once considered completely horrible. You might view that as our culture getting worse and accepting more, but one can also view it as moving forward and making changes for the better in many cases.

I understand the concerns people have with homosexuality from a religious standpoint, and I can see where that issue comes from. However I think many people blow the issue out of proportion and create a fire and brimstone scenario if gays are allowed to marry, when (in my opinion) the marriage of homosexuals will have very little impact on the majority of Americans. If I have a same sex couple living next door to me one year, and the next year that couple becomes a married couple, my life will be for all practical purposes completely unaffected. People can still believe that married homosexuals are living in sin, just as they can believe homosexual couples living together are living in sin today. That belief will remain regardless of whether homosexuals are officially married or not.