> Gay Parents Are Just As Boring
> As Straight Ones

Yeah, we've heard cynical rhetoric like that here before. The need to appear unimpressed while describing others as overstimulated seems to be a big part of this....

And this is what, 1% of the gay population? WHich is MAYBE 6% of the population? So, they are wanting us to do what, about this? And that kid doesn't deserve a mom, right? Kids don't need moms and dads?

What if their mom doesn't want them?

What do the percentages have to do with anything?

And how does she even know the percentages?

"So, they are wanting us to do what, about this?" Um leave them the hell alone. Allow them the same tax shelters as the rest of us. They are not asking for free health-care and free money like the hetero broodmares in the inner city or rural trailers.

How is it that a homophobic Texan house wife knows so much about the lives of gays and lesbians?

"How is it that a homophobic Texan house wife knows so much about the lives of gays and lesbians?"

Maybe because they make it their business to make sure everyone knows all about everything they do. Maybe I am homophobic, because I don't think 95% of society should have to change everything for 5% or so. Who cares? I'm racist too I'm sure, and probably classist, and a few other ists. What's one more? The words have lost all meaning.

From the Gallup poll:

The 2000 U.S. Census Bureau found that homosexual couples constitute less than 1% of American households. The Family Research Report says "around 2-3% of men, and 2% of women, are homosexual or bisexual." The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force estimates three to eight percent of both sexes.

Part of the perception problem lies in the fact that for every "Will and Grace" trying to humanize, personalize and mainstream gays, there are enough gay pride festivals and Folsom Street Fairs to affect people's understanding of the issues and also to perpetuate the negative stereotypes.

If hetros had a better record with respect to marriage, we might have a little more credibility when trying to preserve the "sanctity" of marriage. But John Edwards, Tiger Woods and John Gosselin are all hetros, and look what a mashup they've made of this revered institution.

It's clearly a significant sociological milestone when a "traditional" western society openly supports and condones homosexual partnerships, especially with the legal weight of marriage. The debate is whether this is a positive step or a negative one.

For every Boy Scout leader who molests a boy, there's a female teacher who seduces a young teenager. Not sure who is more dangerous these days!

"Maybe because they make it their business to make sure everyone knows all about everything they do." Lets see if that's correct. This would mean that any gay pride parade in Texas would have about 500,000 marcher. Texas population of 24 million assume equal gender distributions and use the Family Research Report of 2%. The main gay pride event in Austin has thousands attending. Lets put that number at the higher range of thousands say 7000. So only 14% of the gays in Texas were there to force their life style on the noble conservative. So where do you think the other 400+ thousand were? Doing thew same shit the rest of us are doing.

Maybe because they make it their business to make sure everyone knows all about everything they do.

You've just described modern American life. Facebook, MySpace, blogs, etc., make sure we all know everything that is going on in everyone else's life. Just another way in which gays are just like the rest of us.

It is always fascinating on this blog to see the most intolerant people label themselves as the most tolerant.

"I am extremely tolerant. I tolerate the 1 or 2 or 3% of the population that is homosexual. I only hate the 70+% of the population which is religious. Am I not wonderful?"

I have tried to explain a concept that all truly educated people understand, though there aren't many of them.

Human beings are on a Bell curve in almost every measurable parameter. Emotions; political beliefs; physical characteristics.

A civilized society provides a place where anyone on the curve can make his or her own way, within his part of that curve, with only the most extreme beliefs being prohibited. Thinks like necrophilia or marrying little girls or killing other people for entertainment.

It is true no civilized society can exist without some provisions for a place where homosexuals can live in peace.

It is also true no civilized society can exist without some provisions for a place where people who simply do not like homosexuals can live.

Ditto for whites or blacks who do not wish to associate with any race but their own.

Ditto for religious folks and for atheists.

The list is long.

When either end of the social spectrum attempts to force every square foot of a nation to match their own stance, is when a civilization stops being a civilization.

People of your views got charge of the nation of Russia, and before they finished, they had slaughtered over 50 million people for simply not sharing their views of politics and religion.

Hitler was at the other end of the social spectrum, though he is viewed as much worse, especially by left wing journalists. He did have the decency, if we can use that word in connection with the Holocaust, to first offer to let them leave if anyone would take them, and FDR rejected them. The Russians did not want anyone to leave; fit in or die.

What you are trying to do is force every person in the US, in every locale, to share your views, and that is not tolerance. That is why the Federal Government had various states and expected each state to find its own way, so people could find a haven. How amazing that the founders of the US understood so well what today almost no one is able to grasp.

momof4:"What's one more? The words have lost all meaning. "

No, they haven't. You are a bigot.

Giving all citizens equal rights wont effect your life or the life of the "95%" you are touting. You all can still not marry a same sex partner if you so desire. Why are you so against the rest of the population enjoying a higher quality of life at no cost to you?

"No, they haven't. You are a bigot."

Ugh, are people really this ridiculous?

"Why are you so against the rest of the population enjoying a higher quality of life at no cost to you?"

NO COST?!?!? Higher quality of life? Last time I checked, gay couples with no kids did pretty fucking well for themselves financially - everything else is about finding your OWN happiness, and no one is stopping them.

Look, if they want to have a family - I am all for giving them a marriage certificate - but the majority of the gay movement pushing gay marriage does not (they would be non-contributing couples receiving benefits while the majority of the population is raising the next generation), and like it or not that is a COST to us.

Yep, people are so ridiculous that they feel discrimination is passe.

Higher quality of life need not refer to money. Acceptance has got to feel pretty good that this point, no? Having the right to visit family by marriage (including partner) in the hospital, not be treated like second class citizens -- all positive for them and free for us.

Will you be putting the same standard of marriage, that children must be raised, on straight couples?

"Acceptance has got to feel pretty good that this point, no?"

Why is that my job, Jen? Thanks for pointing out what most of us believe underlies this push to change traditional marriage - Its about FORCED VALIDATION. No one gets that. You need to accept yourself, quit bothering me about it.

"Will you be putting the same standard of marriage, that children must be raised, on straight couples?"

I would LIKE to, but that just isn't feasible. So no. Life isn't fair, but something tells me that you want to legislate fairness to be so and get angry about it. Kinda immature don't you think?

"Yep, people are so ridiculous that they feel discrimination is passe."

No, you are so ridiculous because you don't know the context of the word bigot - so you throw it around so the word looses meaning. So, when people like me actually want to call some one a bigot in the true sense of the word, it no longer carries the intended meaning.

YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED!

Right here, folks... step right up:

Chunks asks:
What do the percentages have to do with anything?
- - - - - - - - - - -
The gay rights movement has misused numbers and other pseudo-science to create the impression that homosexuality is a normal variation rather than a dysfunction. For decades they asserted that gays were 10 percent of the population - because it's kinda hard to pathologize that large a chunk of the population.

The gay rights movement also wants the laws of marriage to be upended to accommodate imaginary hordes of committed homosexual couples.

But now we know that the gay population is as tiny as a Gay Pride souvenir g-string, and that gays in committed relationships resembling marriage are a tiny fraction of that.

Which kinda undercuts the rhetoric about a widespread injustice that must be fixed by gutting marriage laws.

"(they would be non-contributing couples receiving benefits while the majority of the population is raising the next generation)" So then lets make having kids a requirement of getting a marriage license. So us heterosexual non-contributors can not sully the nobility of your reproductive glory.

"you don't know the context of the word bigot" The word bigot: A bigot (modern usage) is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions different from their own. (Wiki BIGOT).

So yes we would be guilty of bigotry as we are intolerant of your hate full self agredising opinion. That will not change the fact that you are also a bigot for the same reason. Also none of us (as far as I can tell) want to do anything that will prevent you from spouting your views or in any way affect your life because of the views. You are quite comfortable excluding a group from enjoying the privileges granted by government to those who choose to enter into a union. Now I'm all for pulling the free shit for breeders out of the laws but so long as it's in there we should not be denying the same free shit to same sex couples.

"Why is that my job, Jen? Thanks for pointing out what most of us believe underlies this push to change traditional marriage - Its about FORCED VALIDATION. No one gets that. You need to accept yourself, quit bothering me about it."

Acceptance means being treated the same under the law. Legally, not being a second class citizen. All people struggle with acceptance gay and straight but this issue has nothing to do with that, and thankfully no one is putting you anywhere near the forefront of the acceptance brigade.

Why the attack treating people equally under the law? Because you were born into the majority? Kinda immature don't you think?

"So yes we would be guilty of bigotry as we are intolerant of your hate full self agredising opinion."

Heh?

"Acceptance means being treated the same under the law"

No, it doesn't. Not even if you use the most liberal definition. I believe what you mean to say is "equality".

"Legally, not being a second class citizen."

How are they treated as second class citizens? Our Constitution provides that every citizen be given protection of "life", "liberty" and "property". How are gays being denied this under any law by not being able to get married? They aren't (not unless they have kids, indirectly, then yes they are - but that is why I am all for marriage rights for the few that operate within that context).

As far as hospital visitations, that is a hospital policy problem which can be easily remedied without legislative intervention. I would personally support such a policy change, but this is not something protected under our Constitution and therefore, I believe does not require legislative action.

"...thankfully no one is putting you anywhere near the forefront of the acceptance brigade."

Yes, thankfully. "Acceptance" is not the right word here. But thank you, I do my best to conduct myself and interactions with other people on a level of "tolerance". I am not intolerant of gays and I believe they should have the same rights as every other citizen *as provided by our Constitution*.

What I don't believe is appropriate, in this REPUBLIC, is to have a minority dictating legislation in a manner which fundamentally changes the entire cultural system and impacts the family network because they want "validation" due to their own lacking of it for themselves.

Acceptance ain't my personal problem. Other people's abilities or lack thereof of accepting themselves as they are should have zero affect on my life - and I will block those who wish to legislate "fairness" under my watch.

Feebie unless you are willing to deny marrige to anyone physically incapable of having children or willingly not having children you have no basis to deny non procreating homosexuals from getting married.

At least brian has the stones to say he'd deny the legal benefits of marriage to straight people who cant or wont have kids

My one qualm with gay marriage isn't over "institutional damage" whatever that is supposed to mean.

My problem is that it gets all the benefits of marriage that are provided by the federal & state governments...but the one thing those benefits are meant to encourage are a physical impossibility.

And that is the creation of children.

Yes there are lots of married couples that won't have children. Most of them will however. And those incentives play a role.

I would support gay marriage under 1 condition:

That the law change to only provide the relevant benefits (I'm not talking about wills or death bed decisions), to couples that decide to have children by birth or adoption.

The gay couple that adopts or under goes the process that creates a child gets the same tax breaks and marital benefits as the male & female couple that produces one.

That way everybody wins.

Children get a two parent household, gays get to marry, and my practical objection over undeserved benefits melts away, because it would only apply to people who actually undertake the social neccessity, the burdens and obligations, of seeing to the next generation.

I doubt it would make much of an impact. The total population of "committed gays" is such that even if we took all of them together and put them in a single city, it MIGHT be roughly the size of New York City, going by percentages, depending upon whose estimate you use.

So now imagine how many of those are actually long term committed couples? Lets be generous and say 50% of that 2-3% of the population? You're talking an additional maybe 1.5% of marriages in the nation being between same sex couples.

Now imagine that you remove the financial incentives except to those who desire children?
You probably won't see more than 1 in 10 of that 1.5% actually end up married.

Tiny tiny numbers. Hardly worth mentioning in terms of a national debate.

"Feebie unless you are willing to deny marrige to anyone physically incapable of having children or willingly not having children you have no basis to deny non procreating homosexuals from getting married."

I don't HAVE to do anything, luj. People who are physically incapable of having children often don't know it until AFTER they get married. You honestly feel it better that people have their marriage yanked from them for a disability beyond their control? That's just absurd.

The majority of heterosexual couples who get married will go on to raise families. The majority of homosexual couples pushing for this fundamental change in marriage laws (not social security laws, not tax laws, not property laws) have no desire to carry the added burden of raising a family. Period.

Laws will Never be "fair" to everyone. What good and just laws will do is protect and distribute on an equal basis the premises for which people can provide for themselves "life, liberty and property". This will inherently be fair for most, and perhaps unfair to a few - but the starting point will always be equal.

Fair is everyone gets a shoe. Equality is everyone gets the shoe that fits.

Oh, well if Brian says so.....????

"changes the entire cultural system and impacts the family network" Sure agreed but here the rub how will it change the cultural system and impact the family network? I have yet to have anyone actually explain how gay marriage will have the slightest impact on society for good or bad? They will espouse all sorts of gloom and doom scenarios all of which end with "I don't want my kids to see guys kissing".

Part of the perception problem lies in the fact that for every "Will and Grace" trying to humanize, personalize and mainstream gays, there are enough gay pride festivals and Folsom Street Fairs to affect people's understanding of the issues and also to perpetuate the negative stereotypes.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/gaypride-parade-sets-mainstream-acceptance-of-gays,351/

Vlad. More tax breaks and benefits going to homosexual couples (without taking on the burden of raising children and a family) means less to the heterosexual couples who are doing just that.

Our system will never be able to support such a change. As I see it, marriage laws provide a good solid starting point to raise a family in a stable fashion. Financially, physically, emotionally and mentally. They provide this stability to future tax payers and hopefully future productive members of society.

To say that homosexual couples taking out from this institution without putting something back in will not change the cultural system and impact the family network in a negative way isn't being honest.

"That the law change to only provide the relevant benefits (I'm not talking about wills or death bed decisions), to couples that decide to have children by birth or adoption." There are no benifits to married couples without children. Being a DINK let the IRS plow you like a tabbaco field.

My wife doesn't get any benifits from me except slightly better medical coverage, which was not a federal issue till recently. She works so she's not a dependent and thus not entitled to my social security. We will likely end up in that unprotected tax bracket to our deduction will basically vanish. If there are other government mandated perks to marriage I'd love to hear them.

"More tax breaks and benefits going to homosexual couples" Like what?

"marriage laws provide a good solid starting point to raise a family in a stable fashion" Again which laws in what state do that? The only marriage laws I aware of deal with corn holing the working spouse if she or he get tired of the lazy slacker spouse. Though this may vary with tax bracket at least where I am there is no financial benefit to marriage until we have kids.

"She works so she's not a dependent and thus not entitled to my social security."

Exactly. Many families choose to have one parent home to raise the children. Those children usually fair better than others who didn't do it this way. This is a benefit given to a stay at home Mom so that society ultimately benefits.

What happens when two homosexuals get married, and one decides not to work - and they don't have a family?

I also just think this whole thing is a power play.

Like Robert said above, we are looking at a very, very small minority in this country being able to completely redefine laws based on their sexual preference and lifestyles.

Why is it that every gay I've talked to personally about this has said the same thing: "Well, I don't want to get married BUT....."

"What happens when two homosexuals get married, and one decides not to work - and they don't have a family?" As opposed to a hetero couple who has no intention of having children and one dose not work.

I have my own personal bias when it comes to stay at home parents with kids over five yo. I don't think any one should get a free ride after procreation. But again if hetero slackers get to do it so should homo slackers.

"I have my own personal bias when it comes to stay at home parents with kids over five yo. I don't think any one should get a free ride after procreation. But again if hetero slackers get to do it so should homo slackers."

So you are saying stay at home Mother's/Father's are slackers? Interesting.

Your personal belief is negated by years and years of experience and evidence. Kids do better with a stay at home parent. It is optimal. Which is not to say that with working parents they don't do well, they just generally do better with stay at home parent.

Your personal bias is quite interesting, you appear to put other adults above children. Makes the remainder of your postings pretty darned interesting now having that background.

"So you are saying stay at home Mother's/Father's are slackers?" If the kids are 5 and at school and you are sitting at home yes, read what I wrote.

"Feebie unless you are willing to deny marrige to anyone physically incapable of having children or willingly not having children you have no basis to deny non procreating homosexuals from getting married."

-----------------------------------------

We never had that rule before because it was never necessary. It was, and still is generally believed, that most married couples will sooner or later decide to have children. And the vast majority of them do. Roughly 7 out of 10 if I remember correctly. Nobody ever thought to mandate it, because it was already the probable outcome first of all, the legal system actively encouraged that outcome via laws at federal and state level, and then left it up to the individual couples to decide when the right time in their lives happened to be. For some that was immediately, for others it was a few years down the road or more.

The point is here, that without anyone forcing the issue, the natural result was hugely in favor of a child producing outcome.

That is never possible with a gay couple, you might make fire rubbing two sticks together, but you won't make life.

I wouldn't mind removing some of our marriage incentives and applying them only when a couple marries.

But I think we'd be setting ourselves up for the law of unintended consequences. Which I believe would be a massive dropoff in population growth. And given the extensiveness of our lives, we also need population growth to sustain production to support those long lives as they continue to age.

Its not an easy issue lujlip, and I don't think it is something we should change lightly solely for the benefit of the tiniest part of the population.

Why not just mandate that gays can get married if they adopt a kid? That way you know from the get go they're going to have the same end state as most of the married population and they can get the benefits they want.

This is why I'm not often on the side of gays. The demand that everyone in society adapt the system to meet their desires...not their needs...their WANTS.

"Oh well not all straight couples have children, and some of them can't, so we have to change the system to make it so they can't get benefits either, since we can't."

News flash, LIFE ISN'T FAIR. There is a 0% chance of conception with a gay couple, there are at least 7 out of every 10 straight couples that will have children, some of them more than one. You don't fuck with the laws that encourage that 7 out of 10 to follow through, because of 1 in every 10 out of 1 out of every 100 want the benefits without even a chance they'll support the future as a matter of course in their lives.

I stand by my former statement in regards to an equitable outcome...but I'll be DAMNED before 1% tells 99% that they MUST change.

Gay marriage has been legal for years now, and not affected straight marriages.

It affected my life in these two ways:
1) On my license, the blanks said "Spouse A" and "Spouse B" or something to that effect instead of "husband" and "wife"
2) Now that gay people I know are getting married, I have to buy them presents.

Other than that, I have a nice hetero marriage, and if all goes well we are having a kid in October. My husband will be the breadwinner, and I'll stay home with the kid for now, and we will re-assess that in a year or two. HOW MUCH MORE TRADITIONAL CAN YOU GET?

Granted, I am currently in Philly and soon to be in CH, but Boston is still where I'm "from".

Somehow my lesbian friends didn't stop me from doing my thing.

ya, what Robert says!

"If the kids are 5 and at school and you are sitting at home yes, read what I wrote."

Um, every stay at home parent I ever knew was never just "sitting around at home" unless they were the types that should have their children taken away and given to loving (hetero/homosexual) parents.

And vlad, your assessment of what is best for kids speaks for itself, and only gives me more resolve to my assessments about the motives behind the gay marriage movement.

They don't take some really important things about other peoples lives into consideration and deny this is about their own validation while forcing the majority of others to conform to their world.

Most of marriges 'benefits' come kin the form of not having to spend hours filling out forms, spend thousands in having a lawyers files those forms with teh approprite courts, and having to keep copies of those forms on you at all times in the event of an unforseen emergency.

Personally, Ive never been married, and dont plane on it or kids. But I have seen my parents and tax forms and didnt see a whole hell of a lot of difference in what tax breaks they get with kids out of the house and the ones I get.

So could someone point out a list of money that the federal governemnt will stop getting and how much on avergage they will lose per married childless gay couple?

Otherwise you'all will have to come up with a new objection. And please dont use sanctity or tradition we all know those two are bullshit.

Luj, your so cute when your arguing while angry....

(my "yours" should have been you'res)

"your assessment of what is best for kids speaks for itself" And pray tell what these noble great parents are doing when the kids are at school. How would kids benefit from mom or dad being at home while they are in school?

"How would kids benefit from mom or dad being at home while they are in school?"

Cleaning? Laundry? Dusting? Mowing lawns? Relaxing a little? All so that when the kids get home, they have 100% attention from a parent(s) to help them complete their homework, cook them a healthy meal, help them with their day to day problems....

I could go on and on. But good parents know they need to take care of themselves (and as much as they can while kids aren't around) because by doing that they can provide 100% attention and support to their little guys when they are home om order to be sure they have the appropriate levels of nurturing and guidance need to become healthy and well adjusted adults.

"The 2000 U.S. Census Bureau found that homosexual couples constitute less than 1% of American households. The Family Research Report says "around 2-3% of men, and 2% of women, are homosexual or bisexual." The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force estimates three to eight percent of both sexes."

Wonderful. Now: what is different about you that I can use to deny you something? I bet I can find something.

At the exact same time that the State has a vested interest in paternity for the purpose of establishing inheritance (although you might not think of that of you spend everything and don't own anything), the Constitution doesn't say you get to treat someone differently because of sexual orientation.

But don't miss the point. The citation argues that small numbers are a reason to discriminate. Since there is only one of you, it follows that society should not give a damn about your rights.

This isn't the only argument either for or against, but it's one of the best at illustrating how people shout, "Me FIRST! ME FIRST!" all the time.

what the hell happened in that last paragraph I have no idea - I never claimed to be a grammatical genius but that was embarrassing!

I haven't paid much attention to this thread, preferring to focus on the "Parents of entire high school senior class conspire to make one lesbian student feel like total shit" discussion.

Among the better points I've seen is Rad's pointing out that just because you might consider the number trivial, that is not a license to discrimate. 1% of the population is still over 3 million.

Most of the stuff I've already been through. Blah, blah, blah...marriage is for having children and gays can't have children...some of us adopt. And even a tiny percentage of us adopting would amount to tens, if not hundreds of thousands of families. It's so hard to trivialize a percentage when you're dealing with a population base of over 300 million.

And again, not all couples can have, or plan to have children. So, the procreation argument, which has never been valid but is constantly brought up, still fails.

You could almost copy and paste the last gay marriage discussion. Nothing new is raised here.

Luj, your so cute when your arguing while angry....

Posted by: Feebie

3 things.

1- your spelling mistake while pointing out mine is just plain funny

2- arguing angry is more fun, it sharpens the mind, though my anger is more about peoples stupidity in the reasoning they use to defend their arguments

3- I'm always cute

"If the kids are 5 and at school and you are sitting at home yes, read what I wrote."

Whooo yeah, because latchkey kids do great. And afterschool care kids do almost as good! Which is why this generation that's proudly taking food stamps in their 20s and 30s is just so damn successful! (sarcasm off)

I left my teenage years behind in the latter half of the '70s. This was about the time the gay movement started bursting into public consciousness.

And as an young blond haired guy I got hit on my gay/bi men often enough. Eventually, I got to know some of them. And what I found was that (a) being gay in no way implies anything else, stereotypes to the contrary, and (b) gay men are as diverse, as ordinary and as boring as straight people.

So it comes as no surprise to me that the daily lives of gay parents and their children, and the issues between gay parents and the children they are raising differ little from that of families headed by straight parents.

So we can't trivialize a small percentage that, by your own statement is roughly 3 million, Patrick, but we can trivialize a HUGE MAJORITY that numbers over what, 200 million?

Howsat work?

----------------------------------

As far as sanctity & tradition goes, its hardly an invalid argument. Its been found to be a perfectly valid argument by more than 1 supreme court case, that tradition and law take precedence over the individual, which is why polygamy is still outlawed today. Of course the culture is changing to be more accepting of homosexuality, and on that basis one could make a very STRONG argument in support of same sex marriage.

----------------------------------

But the bottom line is that there IS a social benefit to hetero marriage, and there is NO benefit to homosexual marriage. The "child test" as it has been called here, is quite valid and provides a continually necessary social good, which no amount of gay unions could ever come close to doing.

The law as written clearly recognizes the obvious.

Now some of you have argued, (some reasonably, some not so much) that prohibition of gay marriage is a violation of their rights.

Lets think about that. The most frequent argument is the right to pursue happiness.

Ok, I'm cool with that, except for one thing.

Nowhere does it argue that society is obligated to make it easy, or provide it, at cost to itself.

And supporting marital contracts does indeed cost time and money. Lawyers would win big, as divorce court needs went up.

As far as the cost in benefits, I don't think that makes any sense to even dispute, those benefits exist only for one single purpose. WHy should that benefit be extended to a segment of the population that will never ever contribute to the result those benefits exist to encourage?

Sorry, but NOBODY is entitled to something for nothing. Arguing "lots of straight couples never have kids, and some of them can't" is disengenuous at best, because the vast majority of them will, and the law encourages that. It can't legitimately dictate when or how often or how many, and it is not legit to forcibly administer fertility tests either, just encourage a particular result, and you'll almost always get the one you want, contributions to the next generation of tax payers.

Gays don't give that, at all. You argue for the child test, I point out that adam and eve had a lot more luck perpetuating the population than adam and steve. You show me one example of the reverse, you MIGHT have an argument.

Otherwise, you're just arguing to give them something for nothing and making everybody else support it.

Screw that. I'm still pissed about this damned burdensome healthcare bill.

Robert you disengenious bastard. The fact that polygamy is illegal is proof positive that the 'tradition' argument doesnt hold up.

Because you are either a complete fucking moron and didnt realize that polygamy predates the current form of marriage, or you are a lair and choosing to ignore it.

So which are you Rob? A liar or a moron?

You say gays arent entitled to something for nothing. Fair enough. I'll ask again since you seemed to miss it the first time.

HOW
MUCH
MONEY
WILL
THE
GOVERNMENT
LOSE
IN
TAX
REVENUE
PER
MARRIED,
CHILDLESS,
HOMOSEXUAL
COUPLE?

Then compare that with how much the government curently loses per married childless heterosexual couple.

Using the figures quoted above 1% of the population is gay, let us assume that 50% want to get married.

That is
300,000,000 people / 100% =
3,000,000gay people /50%of gay people who want marrige =
1,500,000 /2people per marrige =

750,000 gay marriges - some of whom will adopt or surrogate, but lets assume for arguments sake they wont

Now lets assume 50% of heteros marry and 3 of 10 couples do not have kids(per figures quoted above)

300,000,000people - 300,000gay people =
297,000,000 / 50% getting married =
148,500,000married people =
74,250,000marriges x 0.3%of straight childless marriges =
22,275,000 straight marriges sans children

Now lets assume only 25% of straight americans marry rather than 50%, you wind up with 5,568,750 childless straight marriges by the 7 out 10 marriges produces children

that figure is 7.425 times LARGER than the total number of gay marriges, childless or no.

Assuming 25% of straits marry and 100% of gays do and NONE of them EVER have, adopt or foster children, the number of straight people who wont have kids is still
OVER THREE TIMES LARGER.

So plese dont tell us its about the money, or gay people getting 'something for nothing'.

If it were really about saving tax revenue those three in 10 couples would not be allowed to marry or have their marriges anulled and charged the difference in back taxes after a set time frame,

Please try again

"Robert you disengenious bastard."

(((HOWLING))))

"Jane, you ignorant slut!"

If you are going to argue numbers you should crunch them first

Robert: Nowhere does it argue that society is obligated to make it easy, or provide it, at cost to itself.

Wrong argument. You can't discriminate. This is America. Homosexuality is not a pathology. You cannot extend rights to one segment of the population and not another. If you allow heterosexuals to marry each other, then the rights have to be extended to homosexuals. It's really that simple.

It simply doesn't matter if it comes at a cost. By the way, are you absolutely sure that heterosexual marriage doesn't cost the government in terms of tax revenue? What you extend to one segment, you extend to the other. Cost to the government does not determine civil rights. Nothing in our constitution says anything about equal rights for all, unless one particular segment of "all" costs too much money.

Ahem. "Head of household" once paid quite a bit less in taxes than "married filing jointly".

If it still does, then a gay couple living together, not being "married" (in quotes because nobody seems to know what it means), pays less in taxes than, for instance, you do, mo4.

That's fair, right?

No.

But this is not about fair, not about the money. It's actually about rights and who gets to administer them. Big news: people are endowed by their Creator, whatever identity you think that thing takes, all sorts of differences. Be sure you're not just crying, "ME FIRST! What I'M doing is RIGHT, and what those other people are doing is WRONG and THEY should be PUNISHED!"

Cost to the government does not determine civil rights.

This is perhaps the best argument I've heard on the subject yet. We can sit here and crunch numbers until our eyes bleed, but unless we want to live in a country where all ethical choices are run through a calculator first to see whether they are cost effective, we need to extend the whole "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" thing to every one of our citizens.

There may very well be unintended consequences. There are consequences for NOT allowing gays to marry that are also unpleasant. But society is malleable, and I doubt this will lead to the fall of civilization.

And if the numbers of gay people who will ultimately marry are so small that they don't matter, why get our hetero panties in a wad over it?

"life, liberty and pursuit of happiness"

Not to nit-pick, but its not the pursuit of happiness guaranteed to us by the Constitution, it's property.

Pursuit of happiness is in the Deceleration of Independence, it is there to provide us with a guide of the Founders intentions behind the Constitution.

I never mentioned the Constitution. I was referring to the overall spirit of the Declaration, which tends to get drowned out by so many competing fears.

But I respect the need to correct that, since I find myself doing it frequently, too.

"Maybe I am homophobic, because I don't think 95% of society should have to change everything for 5% or so."

What have you changed other than the Wishful Thinking Cap you managed to keep pulled down over your eyes all these many years to convince yourselves gays didn't exist? Or that they were happy being second class citizens?

Name a single thing other than the comfortable feeling of acceptable prejudice that you've had to change? You're still prejudiced, of course, it's just harder to feel so warm and fuzzy about it now.

"Maybe I am homophobic, because I don't think 95% of society should have to change everything for 5% or so."

Maybe you are. But, better yet, maybe you're not thinking because of fear or revulsion.

But what is this, "everything" "society should have to change"?

Their undeserved vision of themselves as the champions of rights?

I'll ask a tough question: what rights do you propose denying to people who simply aren't built like you are?

Make the connection: there are real people, some of whom pass you on the street, who are hiding from you because you would ridicule them for being in that gray area between male and female. Since I have shown you in that link that such Americans really exist, what do you propose to tell them about their rights? Where do you get the authority?

Also, in the whole "life, liberty, pursuit of hapiness" thing.

Gay marriage rights would fall under liberty, not pursuit of happiness