WN: Supreme Court decides this week whether to rule on gay marriage -

[Matthitjah]

I already told you. They have no case because they are not being discriminated against.

maybe if I make it bigger you will be able to read it...

on what grounds or basis should the Supreme Court legally ban two people of the same gender from getting married

You can get all angry and act like a Bully and yell all you want. I'm not intimidated. I already answered you.

Shiloh expounded on what I am saying. It's really not that difficult to understand.

[Guest shiloh357]

There is nothing unfair about not allowing gays to marry. Equal and fair treatment is constitutional, but it is not an unqualified right. Fair and equal treatment under the law pertains to employment, the right to vote, no one can refuse to rent a house to someone based on race, ethnicity, or if they are gay or not. Stuff like that. Equal treatment doesn't extend to marriage.

Gay rights is a myth. There is no such thing. "Rights" pertain to citizens under the constitution. Gays have rights as American citizens, but not as gays. There is provision in our constitution for creating a minority based on how one group of people have sex. It's really kind of ridiculous.

Maybe you will answer the question...on what grounds or basis should two people of the same gender be denied the benefit of marriage?

What compelling reason does the government have to keep two people of the same gender from marrying?

It violates our government's standing definition of marriage, which is between a man and a woman. In addition, our gov't. is tasked with protecting the welfare of its citizens.

Gays who marry want to adopt children and in some cases, Lesbians want to have child through anonymous sperm donators. This means that children will grow up without knowing their fathers. Study after study has been reported about how unhealthy the homosexual lifestyle is for raising children. Liberals like to brush it under the rug, but children are more likely to be sexuallly abused/molested in these kinds of relationships.

Homosexuality has a high rate of suicide, drug abuse, STD's and other comunicable diseases and pathogens. Not only that but homosexual relationships are not typically monogomous. I have worked with gays and they boast of having multiple partners in addition to the person they are in a "relationship" with. One gay man told me that if gays have their way, "monogamy" will be ancient history, as will traditional marriage. Gays are a danger to themselves and to our children.

I think that is a very compelling reason for the government to deny homosexual marriage.

[Guest shiloh357]

Since you agree that the Govt has a definition of marriage, then you would also have to agree the government has the ability to change said definition.

Duh, of course they can change it. But just because they can, doesn't mean they should.

Roughly 40% of children live in fatherless homes at this time thanks to divorce and such. The only time you see people talk about this is in regards to same sex marriage. If it was truly a concern we would hear a lot more about it.

That is a separate issue. That 40% of children live in fatherless homes due to divorce doesn't really stand as a cogent argumetn for gays to adopt children. And yes it is a concern and alot has been said about it. Maybe you just don't pay attention. Single parenting is more expensive than war. in this country.

Being a legal, stable relationship could alleviate many of those problems you spoke of.

But homosexual relationships are anything but stable. The homosexual lifestyle is not very stable, not monogamous and would be incapable of creating a stable marriage much less stable children.

Denying same sex marriage is not going to make homosexuals go away, so why deny them chance for a stable, legal relationship?

The purpose of denying same sex marriage is not to make them go away, but to prevent them from, in part, adopting children and raising children in such an unstable and dangerous environment.

Bottom line is that as much as I dislike the idea, there are no good non-religious reasons for stopping same sex marriage.

Protecting children from spectre of suicide that plagues the homosexual community, protecting children from reality of sexual abuse, STDs are not good nonreligious reasons to keep them from marrying and adopting children?? Protecting children from the instability and the warped values that will affect their future relationships and their own ability to enter into a stable marriage is not a good nonreligious reason to prevent homosexual marriage??

[Cajunluvie]

Basically:

If Homosexuals have a CONSTITUTIONAL right to get married then everyone ELSE have a CONSTITUTIONAL right to marry in these instances regardless of:

monogamy

polymory

polygamy

polygyny

not limited but including....

marriage with animals and minors.

Mention this and there will be fireworks of denial from the other side however, they cannot deny anyone else THIS for whatever reason.

[Matthitjah]

Basically:

If Homosexuals have a CONSTITUTIONAL right to get married then everyone ELSE have a CONSTITUTIONAL right to marry in these instances regardless of:

monogamy

polymory

polygamy

polygyny

not limited but including....

marriage with animals and minors.

Mention this and there will be fireworks of denial from the other side however, they cannot deny anyone else THIS for whatever reason.

Exactly!

You see, you would be discriminating against these minority's within the culture as well, no matter how repugnent their personal sexual proclivites.

As I've stated repeatedly in this thread, since the Homosexual is not being discriminated against they have no legal standing for their challenge. That is unless you are prepared to offer them a special class of protection that others do not enjoy beyond their basic human rights.

It's remarkable to me that the Leftist fantasy of Secular Utopia does cease at times and it stops at the rights of women within Islam for instance.

[Cajunluvie]

You know what.... I just was thinking on this few minutes ago about some people who had huge issues with the Mormons and plural marriages but they had no problems with gay marriages or don't care either way :

That could have been a good comeback during the election: constitutional right of marriage for all regardless of sexual preference, age, gender identification (transgenderism etc), multiple spouses, bestiality, and child marriages.

Uhhh... umm... hold on people... let's not get crazy just yet..... (uh huh)

If gay marriage is deemed a constitutional right then don't be surprised if this opens a floodgate for other groups to vociferously claim their due right also.

Be ready to sign that letter of apology to the Mormons for the prejudicial treatment to certain groups of LDS who practice polgamy still.

[Cajunluvie]

Basically:

If Homosexuals have a CONSTITUTIONAL right to get married then everyone ELSE have a CONSTITUTIONAL right to marry in these instances regardless of:

monogamy

polymory

polygamy

polygyny

not limited but including....

marriage with animals and minors.

Mention this and there will be fireworks of denial from the other side however, they cannot deny anyone else THIS for whatever reason.

not really accurate.

If the Govt has a compelling reason to deny rights to someone then they can. Felons being allowed to vote or own fire arms is an example.

Marriage also requires consent. Neither animals nor minors can give legal consent.

the argument against polygamy is much weaker in my opinion and I do think that it will be the next thing to get approval.

It is accurate. You miss the point of my two posts. I don't think you understand what I am saying because what I am driving at is using your own argument that there is no constitional argument against homosexual marriage.

You keep telling people in this thread that there is no constititional argument against gay marriage. You may or may not have directly stated it in stark terms but that is the gist of what you are striving at.

Marriage doesn't necessarily necissate consent. Marriage takes place elsewhere in the world with or without consent of one of the two parties. There is no where in the Constition that states marriage is a right or an institution that requires a consentual decision. It didn't always function that way even in the U.S. a century ago. Society was much more so a patriarchy than it is nowadays.

Animals cannot NOT consent to marriage. There have been instances where unbalanced people went abroad to have a "ceremony" done to be "married" to a snake or to a dolphin. We cannot legally prove either way animals can or cannot consent to marriage so that argument underwhelms me.

Minors.. heh.... sure yes they can be married. Minors are children, the last time I checked. In some states, the legal age of marital consent is 16. Parents can threaten to have the man or boy jailed if the boy is 18 for statutory rape even if the girl is 16 but at the same time she is also at a legal age to consent to run off and get married. I believe some require parental permission for a minor to get married. Yes, children can be married off all it requires is people bold enough to lobby for lowering the age of consent even further. Girls hit puberty earlier and earlier nowadays.

You may NOT like the points but they CAN be used down the road in the future as a benchmark to start someone's agenda to see these things a legal reality.

[Cajunluvie]

There are some people who scoff at these things as arguments of futility but at one time...

Gay marriage was one of them. Unthinkable until some bold people started pushing for it and others infilirated other areas of society to make it more palatable and accepting to the point.

Interracial marriage was a no-no at one time and not under legal protection. Both the North and South balked at the thought of miscegnation. Some feminist abolitionists approved of ending slavery but refused to recognize interracial marriages. Separate but equal. Sound familiar? Few supported the mixing of races through marital relationships and families... pushing the racial barrier to its collapse. It only took what how many decades before that issue came up before in court? And we're talking only several decades ago. We are now just coming to grips that it is now becoming the norm.

[GoldenEagle]

It violates our government's standing definition of marriage, which is between a man and a woman. In addition, our gov't. is tasked with protecting the welfare of its citizens.

Gays who marry want to adopt children and in some cases, Lesbians want to have child through anonymous sperm donators. This means that children will grow up without knowing their fathers. Study after study has been reported about how unhealthy the homosexual lifestyle is for raising children. Liberals like to brush it under the rug, but children are more likely to be sexuallly abused/molested in these kinds of relationships.

Homosexuality has a high rate of suicide, drug abuse, STD's and other comunicable diseases and pathogens. Not only that but homosexual relationships are not typically monogomous. I have worked with gays and they boast of having multiple partners in addition to the person they are in a "relationship" with. One gay man told me that if gays have their way, "monogamy" will be ancient history, as will traditional marriage. Gays are a danger to themselves and to our children.

I think that is a very compelling reason for the government to deny homosexual marriage.

thanks for the reply.

Since you agree that the Govt has a definition of marriage, then you would also have to agree the government has the ability to change said definition.

Roughly 40% of children live in fatherless homes at this time thanks to divorce and such. The only time you see people talk about this is in regards to same sex marriage. If it was truly a concern we would hear a lot more about it.

Being a legal, stable relationship could alleviate many of those problems you spoke of. Denying same sex marriage is not going to make homosexuals go away, so why deny them chance for a stable, legal relationship?

Bottom line is that as much as I dislike the idea, there are no good non-religious reasons for stopping same sex marriage. The laws of our country are not based on the Bible, no matter how much people pretend they are.

Really? No non-religious reason for stopping same-sex marriage? As to Shiloh's comments in bold above... Have you read this study RunningGator? What do you make of it?

NEW STUDY ON HOMOSEXUAL PARENTS TOPS ALL PREVIOUS RESEARCH

Children of Homosexuals Fare Worse on Most Outcomes

By Peter Sprigg

Children of "LMs" (children of "lesbian mothers") and "GFs" (children of gay fathers) are more likely to report a negative impact from their family of origin, are more likely to suffer from deppression, have been arrested more often, and if female report more sexual partners (spreading STD's, increasing "unwanted" pregnancies, etc.) than children raised by "intact biological families" ("IBFs"). That doesn't even account for economic issues (welfare for example) associated with children who grow up with LM's and GF's.

More pertinent to the discussion is the research shows children raised by LM's are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver" than those raised by IBFs.

From: http://www.frc.org/i...evious-research

Regnerus has analyzed his findings, and their statistical significance, in two ways--first by a simple and direct comparison between what is reported by the children of homosexual parents and the children of "intact biological families" ("IBFs"), and second by "controlling" for a variety of other characteristics. "Controlling for income," for example, would mean showing that "IBF" children do not do better just because their married parents have higher incomes, but that they do better even when the incomes of their households and the households of homosexual parents are the same. Again, Regnerus has done these comparisons for "LMs" (children of "lesbian mothers") and "GFs" (children of gay fathers) separately. astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."

Compared with children raised by their married biological parents (IBF), children of homosexual parents (LM and GF):

• Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
  
• Have lower educational attainment
  
• Report less safety and security in their family of origin
  
• Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin
  
• Are more likely to suffer from depression
  
• Have been arrested more often
  
• If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female
  
  

Further, the research shows...

From: http://www.frc.org/i...evious-research

Children of lesbian mothers:

Are more likely to be currently cohabiting

Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance
Are less likely to be currently employed full-time
Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed
Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual
Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting
Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."
Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will
Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others
Use marijuana more frequently
Smoke more frequently
Watch TV for long periods more frequently
Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense

What about the results on children's sexual orientation?

From: http://www.frc.org/i...evious-research

Differences in Sexuality

When comparing children of homosexuals with children of married biological parents, the differences in sexuality--experiences of sexual abuse, number of sexual partners, and homosexual feelings and experiences among the children themselves--were among the most striking. While not all of the findings mentioned below have the same level of "statistical significance" as those mentioned above, they remain important.

At one time, defenders of homosexual parents not only argued that their children do fine on psychological and developmental measures, but they also said that children of homosexuals "are no more likely to be gay" than children of heterosexuals. That claim will be impossible to maintain in light of this study. It found that children of homosexual fathers are nearly 3 times as likely, and children of lesbian mothers are nearly 4 times as likely, to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual. Children of lesbian mothers are 75% more likely, and children of homosexual fathers are 3 times more likely, to be currently in a same-sex romantic relationship.

The same holds true with the number of sexual partners. Both males and females who were raised by both lesbian mothers and homosexual fathers have more opposite-sex (heterosexual)partners than children of married biological parents (daughters of homosexual fathers had twice as many). But the differences in homosexual conduct are even greater. The daughters of lesbians have 4 times as many female (that is, same-sex) sexual partners than the daughters of married biological parents, and the daughters of homosexual fathers have 6 times as many. Meanwhile, the sons of both lesbian mothers and homosexual fathers have 7 times as many male (same-sex) sexual partners as sons of married biological parents.

What about sexual abuse you ask?

From: http://www.frc.org/i...evious-research

The most shocking and troubling outcomes, however, are those related to sexual abuse. Children raised by a lesbian mother were 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver" (23% reported this, vs. only 2% for children of married biological parents), while those raised by a homosexual father were 3 times more likely (reported by 6%). In his text, but not in his charts, Regnerus breaks out these figures for only female victims, and the ratios remain similar (3% IBF; 31% LM; 10% GF).

As to the question of whether you have "ever been physically forced" to have sex against your will (not necessarily in childhood), affirmative answers came from 8% of children of married biological parents, 31% of children of lesbian mothers (nearly 4 times as many), and 25% of the children of homosexual fathers (3 times as many). Again, when Regnerus breaks these figures out for females (who are more likely to be victims of sexual abuse in general), such abuse was reported by 14% of IBFs, but 3 times as many of the LMs (46%) and GFs (52%).

What is the conclusion of the study?

Conclusion

The articles by Marks and Regnerus have completely changed the playing field for debates about homosexual parents, "gay families," and same-sex "marriage." The myths that children of homosexual parents are "no different" from other children and suffer "no harm" from being raised by homosexual parents have been shattered forever.

Are these sufficient good non-religious reasons for stopping same sex marriage?

Yet we are on a Christian forum and we are Christians... So more importantly...

Bottom line RunningGator: Is homosexuality sin from a Biblical perspective? Please use Scripture to support your answer.

God bless,

GE

[Cajunluvie]

It is accurate. You miss the point of my two posts. I don't think you understand what I am saying because what I am driving at is using your own argument that there is no constitional argument against homosexual marriage.

You keep telling people in this thread that there is no constititional argument against gay marriage. You may or may not have directly stated it in stark terms but that is the gist of what you are striving at.

no, I got your point, they just were a weak argument.

Marriage doesn't necessarily necissate consent. Marriage takes place elsewhere in the world with or without consent of one of the two parties. There is no where in the Constition that states marriage is a right or an institution that requires a consentual decision. It didn't always function that way even in the U.S. a century ago. Society was much more so a patriarchy than it is nowadays.

I do not care how people in other countries do things or how they "used" to be here. We are talking about the here and now. The here and now laws require consent. Try and stay focused on the here and now. There is nowhere in the Constitution that speaks of marriage at all, but there is a part that speaks of fair and equal treatment.

Animals cannot NOT consent to marriage. There have been instances where unbalanced people went abroad to have a "ceremony" done to be "married" to a snake or to a dolphin. We cannot legally prove either way animals can or cannot consent to marriage so that argument underwhelms me.

There is no such thing as "cannot not". That is just silly and not worthy of discussion. As for what unbalanced people have done, that is the same as talking about laws form other counties....basically who cares.

Minors.. heh.... sure yes they can be married. Minors are children, the last time I checked. In some states, the legal age of marital consent is 16. Parents can threaten to have the man or boy jailed if the boy is 18 for statutory rape even if the girl is 16 but at the same time she is also at a legal age to consent to run off and get married. I believe some require parental permission for a minor to get married. Yes, children can be married off all it requires is people bold enough to lobby for lowering the age of consent even further. Girls hit puberty earlier and earlier nowadays.

yes, different states have different laws, but they all have an age limit...

You may NOT like the points but they CAN be used down the road in the future as a benchmark to start someone's agenda to see these things a legal reality.

I dont like your points (edited by me) because they dont make sense. Each argument that you listed above has to be taken on their own merit. You cannot say that just because we changed something for one reason we have to change it for others. Each change has to be taken on its own merit and it not tied to other changes.

There is no constitutional right to marry at all. But there is a constitutional right to fair and equal treatment and once the government chooses to give benefits to married couples there is a constitutional requirement that if they are going to deny those same benefits to couples they need a compelling reason why