[Dave]

Having two loving parents of any gender is better than leaving kids who have no parents (or whose parents cannot raise them) orphans.

Surely the damage to this 'culture' (which I'm not convinced even exists) by allowing gays to marry and raise children is less than the damage of leaving a significant number of our nation's youth effectively homeless.

I'm not so sure. Two loving parents of the same sex will tend to raise a child in the gay culture, which is not to say that he will become homosexual (which is likely not learned) but will identify more with outgroups. Granted, there are not that many homosexuals and fewer still who actually want monogamy, so the numbers involved are small, but with healthy culture under attack from all sides now is the last time our people need to be battling on yet another front. Foster care is bad, but if we revised our orphanage system we could raise orphans from birth as soldiers or civil servants, for instance. Having a Janissary caste could be very useful.

Exactly why are opposite-sex couples more worthy of such a status than same-sex couples? There is no objective justification for that.

And what objective justification is there for same sex couples to be conferred the same status as opposite sex couples? None. I'm not sure why an objective justification is required in the first place. Gays are annoying and need to stop whining. I used to be pro gay rights, but their incessant whining has turned me against them out of spite. If you're rationalist to the core though, the purpose of family is to create a social vehicle in which parents maximize investment in reproduction and child-rearing. Homosexuality doesn't really fit into that in anyway, and really, monogamy is the last thing homosexuality is about. This is little more than a plot by the organized homosexual lobby to fool people into thinking that homosexuals are just the same as us beyond their sexual orientation.

[Godstud]

God forbid we should create more tolerant humans by having children of homosexuals grow up more tolerant of alternate lifestyles.

[DanDaMan]

Having two loving parents of any gender is better than leaving kids who have no parents (or whose parents cannot raise them) orphans.

I agree. But here's the big question... what family is BEST for a child...
For example... two lesbians that teach a child a father is not needed or a mother and father?

[ninurta]

[]Having two loving parents of any gender is better than leaving kids who have no parents (or whose parents cannot raise them) orphans.[]I agree. But here's the big question... what family is BEST for a child...
For example... two lesbians that teach a child a father is not needed or a mother and father?

You know they care more about "gay rights" than the child's right to the best possible family.

God forbid we should create more tolerant humans by having children of homosexuals grow up more tolerant of alternate lifestyles.

We are tolerant, we just don't want to deprive the child of his rights.

Do you not agree that its important to give the child the best possible family situation?

*I fully support gay marriage, though I personally would prefer no ones marriage, not even straight marriage, be a legal thing nor regulated beyond making sure helpless animals and helpless children aren't being forced into marriage.

[DanDaMan]

*I fully support gay marriage, though I personally would prefer no ones marriage, not even straight marriage, be a legal thing nor regulated beyond making sure helpless animals and helpless children aren't being forced into marriage.

Then you seem to be at odds with your position. I argue marriage is best for the childs welfare. How can you oppose that?

[ninurta]

[]*I fully support gay marriage, though I personally would prefer no ones marriage, not even straight marriage, be a legal thing nor regulated beyond making sure helpless animals and helpless children aren't being forced into marriage.[]Then you seem to be at odds with your position. I argue marriage is best for the childs welfare. How can you oppose that?

Because marriage as it currently stands in the USA has little to do with children and alot to do with alot of things from property to inheritances to a whole bunch of things.

Otherwise I would agree with you, but it as it currently stands is way more complex.

[DanDaMan]

Because marriage as it currently stands in the USA has little to do with children and alot to do with alot of things from property to inheritances to a whole bunch of things.

Otherwise I would agree with you, but it as it currently stands is way more complex.

Well then why not argue marriage should revert to a 50's standard?
I would.

[ninurta]

[]Because marriage as it currently stands in the USA has little to do with children and alot to do with alot of things from property to inheritances to a whole bunch of things.

Otherwise I would agree with you, but it as it currently stands is way more complex.[]
Well then why not argue marriage should revert to a 50's standard?
I would.

Times are different. Some people get married but dont want to have children, others have children and dont want marriage. You dont have to be married to have children. While I agree with that way, its not the only way and reason people get married. I personally believe that if anything the state nor any form of government should have any authority in marriage beyond making sure people aren't getting married to do truly bizarre and sick things with their marriage rights. (Like marrying children and animals.)

Who am I as a libertarian to tell Adam and Steve they can't marry? Especially if I am President, who would I be?

[DanDaMan]

Who am I as a libertarian to tell Adam and Steve they can't marry? Especially if I am President, who would I be?

This where we part ways. I believe certain morals must be upheld for the welfare of our children. Validating behaviors that will lead to schools teaching that sodomy is acceptable leads to more death and disease for our children. (twenty five percent of teen girls have an STD in America. Teaching boys that sodomy is OK only increases the diseases young girls and their children will get)

That's NOT in the interest of the state or society as a whole.

[Lightman]

The overwhelming number of males are either straight or gay; bisexuals exist in some numbers, but they are rare in the male population, much more so than their female counterparts. The likelihood of a male infecting a female with a STD acquired through gay sex is low. It's laughable to blame high rates of STDs on gays, particularly when the rates are higher in straight women (they are almost certainly mostly straight, as lesbian sex is very, very safe in comparison to heterosexual sex and male homosexual sex). If you really cared about the girls in question, you'd be advocating for better sex ed, not for totally unrelated things.

[Icon]

I agree. But here's the big question... what family is BEST for a child...
For example... two lesbians that teach a child a father is not needed or a mother and father?

All academic research has indicated that there are no negative effects of same-sex couples parenting compared to opposite-sex couples parenting.

Then you seem to be at odds with your position. I argue marriage is best for the childs welfare. How can you oppose that?

Marriage is indeed best for the child's welfare. That is one of the reasons same-sex marriage should be legal, so that same-sex couples raising children will receive equal legal status, which affects their children as well.

I believe certain morals must be upheld for the welfare of our children.

Your 'certain morals' are not helping the welfare of any children. Pretty much every child welfare organization overwhelmingly supports same-sex marriage, because they view it as a way of decreasing the number of children who have no one to raise them.

[DanDaMan]

I agree. But here's the big question... what family is BEST for a child...
For example... two lesbians that teach a child a father is not needed or a mother and father?

All academic research has indicated that there are no negative effects of same-sex couples parenting compared to opposite-sex couples parenting.

That's not an answer.
Let's say I want to hire you to place children and I want to see how competent you are at looking out for a child's rights. I tell you a childs first right is to a normal family and that fathers ARE relevant to raising them.

Show me how competent you are at making decisions based on the facts given above.
Who gets the child.... the lesbians or the married man and woman?

The likelihood of a male infecting a female with a STD acquired through gay sex is low.

Then explain to me why there is only ONE documented case of HIV transmission between lesbians?

[Lightman]

Then explain to me why there is only ONE documented case of HIV transmission between lesbians?

...

Because HIV can spread through heterosexuals. I assure you, the vast majority of heterosexual males with HIV have never had gay sex.

[PatrickMahoney]

Gays should be allowed to marry because they are humyn beings too, and should be entitled to find love and pursue happiness, as it says in the Constitution. We have to move away from old ways of thinking and jump feet first (or dare i say head first ) into new ways of thinking. The path of progress, which is sometimes difficult always must arrive at its destination. But, no matter how difficult the path ahead is, all we have to do is walk it.

I think polygamy should be excluded because it is a throwback to when womyn were treated as property. This is unprogressive thinking and unfit for the modern world.

Marriage is not just about children, it is about love. Why do heterosexual couples that can't have children get to marry? We have to tear down the invisible walls of bigotry that turn the world into a prison.

[Lightman]

Gays should be allowed to marry because they are humyn beings too, and should be entitled to find love and pursue happiness, as it says in the Constitution

Learn your constitution. This is nowhere to be found in it; it is in the Declaration of Independence. Further, intentionally misspelling "human" isn't cute, it's childish.

[chuuzetsu]

I'm still waiting for someone to provide an actual good reason why gay marriage should not be allowed.

I tend to agree with Louis CK regarding gay marriage:

[youtube]H6p_aESYqtg[/youtube]

[DanDaMan]

I'm still waiting for someone to provide an actual good reason why gay marriage should not be allowed.

Does a child have a right to a mother and father or do lesbians have the same equal rights to a child as a competing heterosexual couple?

If the lesbians have equal rights the child has no rights to what nature intended.
Is that best for the child?

[DanDaMan]

Because HIV can spread through heterosexuals. I assure you, the vast majority of heterosexual males with HIV have never had gay sex.

You avoided my point.
Who is doing the majority of spreading if lesbians rarely pass it?
is it the women or is it the men?

[chuuzetsu]

If the lesbians have equal rights the child has no rights to what nature intended.
Is that best for the child?

It is of your opinion that gay parents cannot properly raise children. Care to back this up with evidence?

[Dave]

Gays should be allowed to marry because they are humyn beings too,

They are in fact human beings.

and should be entitled to find love and pursue happiness, as it says in the Constitution.

Several problems with this:
1-The purpose of marriage is not love, that is romantic ideal
2-Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that people are entitled to pursue happiness, you are referring to the Declaration of Independence which does not carry weight in US law (beyond establishing our independence)
3-Marriage is a state responsibility, thus the federal Constitution is not relevant here

We have to move away from old ways of thinking and jump feet first (or dare i say head first 8)) into new ways of thinking. The path of progress, which is sometimes difficult always must arrive at its destination. But, no matter how difficult the path ahead is, all we have to do is walk it.

Why?

I think polygamy should be excluded because it is a throwback to when womyn were treated as property. This is unprogressive thinking and unfit for the modern world.

Why are women necessarily property in polygamous marriage but not in monogamous marriage?

Marriage is not just about children, it is about love. Why do heterosexual couples that can't have children get to marry?

No, romantic love as a reason for marriage is a product of modernity, and not at all the reason the institution exists and is legally protected. Romantic love does not require or benefit from a contractual obligation.

We have to tear down the invisible walls of bigotry that turn the world into a prison.

Agreed, we must destroy liberalism which is the leading source of bigotry in the world today.

It is of your opinion that gay parents cannot properly raise children. Care to back this up with evidence?

Early studies show no appreciable difference except that gay parents raise more tolerant children, which is my number one reason for opposing gay marriage. Tolerance must be stopped at all costs.