I dont approve of Gay marriage, but its cool he is happy

I think the Term Marriage should be held between a man and woman and Union for same sex couples

I dont have anything against Homosexuals, but I just feel that those Terms should be used when describing them

I agree. Leave marriages between men and women and have unions for same-sex partnerships. I don't even mind them having the same rights as married couples, provided they have the same level of documentation required in marriages. What I think will eventually happen with gay marriages is some will lead to gay divorces. I don't think the process for this has been carefully thought out yet. You know what will happen - a gay couple will want a divorce, move to a state that doesn't accept gay marriages, and think that will be the end of it. But you still need to divide up the property, arrange for custody of adopted children if there are any, and will hear "By the laws of our state your marriage never existed, so we can't help with your 'divorce' either."

I'm not saying the possibility of gay divorces should stop gay marriages, but until we decide how a gay marriage would end I don't think it is responsible for a government to sanction them to begin with.

I don't even mind them having the same rights as married couples either, I just would rather have the Term of Marriage be reserved for a man and woman andunion for same sex

and one of my very good friends is gay I got nothing agaisnt that lifestyle morally a little but hey thats how god created them, so I guess its OK

No eventually to it; it's already an issue with a couple that was married in Mass and has subsequently moved.

It also creates an issue with federal benefits such as social security -how are they going to decide who gets it and who doesn't?

The next logical step in legalizing gay marriage is legalizing polygamy. I can think of no legal logic to validate same sex marriages and not multiple ones. Can you imagine the problems there - not just in divorce but in death - how do you divide up social security survivor benefits on someone with three wives and ten minor children?



Since you don't believe in God I'm guessing that is merely a figure of speech? If not, why assume God intended people have same sex attraction.

I believe that gay marriage is wrong.
The natural way of life for the mankind is oriented towards the union between a man and a woman, therefore the marriage is right only for them.

The natural way of life may be to get Parkinson's Disease. But we try to fight that with progressive advances.

No reason why society should be any different. Besides, marriage doesn't necessarily have to be for the purposes of reproduction (commonly used argument against gay marriage). It can be based on companionship and love between two people (or more) without the need or possibility of children.

If you limited marriage to men and women solely for the purposes of continuing mankind, then sterile couples would be banned from marrage. If however the lack of procreation among men and woman is not a limit to marriage, then there's no reason why men and men or women and women should be barred from being allowed to marry.


There's no logical reason why gay marriage should be prohibited.

"Marriage" for all consenting adults should be given equal legal status.

If various churches and religions wish to give a particular union a blessing and recognise it as their version of a "marriage" under their definition of "marriage" then they may do so.

But all marriages whether recognised or approved or not by religions should be considered legal.

You echo my sentiments exactly. I couldn't have said it better.

Surely you don't mean all marriages - certainly not those involving underage partners.

And whether or not any type of marriage is recognized would depend on whether or not it benefits the state to do. Contrary to what people believe - government officials did not sit around and say to themselves - hey let's invent an institution that will allow people to express their love for one another. The government interest in marriage is in the legitimacy and support of minor children and regulated inheritance of property at death. That governments chose to use marriage which also has religious connotations reaches back to the times when religion was an integral part of most societie's culture (it really still is).

Same sex marriage should be legalized when a clear benefit to society can be demonstrated.

(I could go one but lunch is over)

Marriage is an institution that is dead, over 50% of all marriages end in divorce anyway, who wants to get married now a days

Marriage is creatred by the church, hence has to do with god

and yeah it was mostly just a figure of speech

The idea that 50% of marriages end in divorce really isn't true. I mean figuring that there were twice as many marriages as divorce in a year to calculate divorce rate is bad use of statistics.

And the answer to your question is that "people that want to be happy get married" - even the most cynical of us still want to believe in love

How do you know that homosexuality isn't some form of natural population control?

Additionally, saying that marriage is "right" only for certain people that do what's "natural" is wrong in that the only way for marriage to be truly "right" is if humans were naturally monogamous. In truth, however, we're not.

Love is dead in the world today, mostly what is left is Lust

and its a fact today that 50% of all marriages end in divorce, its been documented on TV, News, and Magazines. look up the stat online and you will see

I just celebrated my 24th wedding anniversary this past Monday so I guess I'm sort of an anomaly.......

As for gay marriages, how do they determine who the husband is and who the wife is?...

They have William Shatner give away the bride.

"documented" on TV?

The fact that someone says it on tv is not documentation. Actually, what they do is count the # of marriages in a year and compare to the #of divorces. But then I said that in my last post. What I also said in my last post is that isn't the way to determine the divorce rate. If there were a 100 marriages in 2007 and 50 divorces - well those divorces represent marriages from as far back as 1940 or earlier - a much larger pool than the number of marriages in that year - larger pool = smaller rate. Then you throw in the serial divorcer - people that marry and divorce every year or say. You could have ten couples who never divorced and one guy who marries and divorces five times (some of them to the same person more than once) - is that really a 50% divorce rate. Or just the unfortunate fact some people can't recognize a loser.

What there are actual statistics to show: married people (male/female marriages) live longer, make more money, are healthier, are happier, are more likely to survive catastrophic illness, are better drivers.

They don't.

They are simply each other's "spouse"

If it's a female/female relationship, then both could be called "wife"

If it's a male/male relationship, then both could be called "husband"

Like anything I say your just gonna fight me on this so I cant win, why dont you google it and do research yourself and you will see

IMO anybody whio gets married is a fool unless there is a prenup, BTW if Divorce is not so common why does it seems like 90% of marriages today do Prenups?



oh and every girl I dated except 2 came from a family that was divorce

just look around at your friends, and see how many are divorced or has a member of their family divorced, that alone is proof

apparently that last post was directed at me - so let me respond. I don't think you're getting it - just because someone goes on tv and says 50% of marriages end in divorce doesn't make it true - I know that is what people say - I never disputed that. But if you choose to accept anything anyone says without scrutinizes what they use to make that conclusion that's your choice. I choose not to. And when people claim "facts" that aren't supported by evidence - yes I will state my disagreement.

Anecdotal evidence is not proof for any scientific process.

I am sorry you are surrounded by such bitter unhappy people but that isn't my life.

[b]BTW if Divorce is not so common why does it seems like 90% of marriages today do Prenups[/quote]Aside from the fact "seem like" is not actual statistics - a really good reason for pre-nups is second marrieages (which includes widow/widowers) in order to protect your children or to protect yourself from nasty stepchildren.

so where is your evidence to support your claim, what are your sources, all you have to do is a web search and you will also will see I am correct

Its not to hard to see just open your [SNIP] eyes instead of arguing every point I make, Look at any School and just look at the kids in there, Proof is and its a fact on Census too which is where the report on The News came from

oh wait the news lies, right, yeah The Moon landing was taped in a Hollywood basement I forgot wait if I cant see the moon landing in person and it was only reported to me it must not of happened.

If you are going to demand evidence from someone else, shouldn't you also present evidence to support your own claims?

missourifamilies

I honestly do not know how to get this across - I questioned the methodology used in calculating a statistic - which means I am aware of how the statistic is calculated. If you're sure I'm wrong read the above suggested methodology and explain in terms of analysis why your method is preferred.

Bigoted bumper sticker slogans do not make for credible arguments. There is no evidence to support the existence of a god/gods, despite what you may believe. Besides, supernatural entities are irrelevant to the matter of whether gay people should be allowed to marry.



For Christians perhaps. If one is not Christian, there is no reason why they should be subject to Christian beliefs or teachings. In the same sense that a Christian does not have to follow Muslim or Sikh teachings.



The Roman Empire did not collapse because of gay marriage. The Roman Empire collapsed because it was broken in two and then conquered by Germanic tribes in the west and the Ottoman Empire in the east.



The "word" of any god is irrelevant to the subject. Gay people are seeking equality under the law. No one is trying to re-write the Bible. Since none of us live in a Christian theocracy, Biblical teachings are completely irrelevant.

Same sex marriage is not a matter of religious affiliation (which is subjective); it's a matter of this country's civil rights, which in the case of same sex couples, are being denied. It's called separation of church and state, people. Look it up.

There was a time that a mixed race couple could not legally be married because black people were thought to be property rather than people...this is no different, both in its bigotry or in that it is slowly but surely becoming more accepted.

Ah, but since civil rights are granted by governments in the first place one could argue that their rights weren't denied, they never had them to begin with. It takes an act of legislation to create those rights.

What happened in the 1960s (and continuing into today) was minorities asserting the rights they had already been granted by legislation. Gay marriage became legislation only recently.

Perhaps you should look it up - the words "separation of church and state" are not in the US constitution. As has been mentioned so many times - it's a phrase from the personal writings of Thomas Jefferson - not to say it is a bad idea it isn't - but it isn't in the constitution.

And there is no "civil right" to receive money from the public coffers unless the public deems it in the public interest to do. Granted our corrupt government doles public benefits out like candy but that doesn't mean the recipients are constitutionally entitled to it.

What is in the constitution is the "Establishment Clause" meaning the government can't establish a federal religion. And mandating that people adopt any belief on any moral issue violates that. My concern about gay marriage is that (as activists readily admit) they are trying to force "acceptance" of their lifestyle on the public - no one has that right and trying to force it is unconstitutional.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

So even though our government and courts have adopted the concept of separation of church and state, and in the First Amendment it states that our government will not respect any particular religion, you still think that the civil rights of homosexuals aren't being denied?

Just because there was no 'gay clause' in the original Constitution means that homosexuals shouldn't enjoy the same liberties that straight people do? So I guess because it was written that 'all men are created equal', women shouldn't have any rights either?

On the other side of the coin homophobes trying to push their religious beliefs on people who do not believe them at the expense of the freedoms of a specific group of people is also unconstitutional.

Thinking gay is wrong is not just about religious beliefs. Before I became a Christian in my late 30's I thought being gay is wrong. I have told that to my gay sister, uncle and cousin and they have told me that I have a right to my opions and they have theirs. We still all love and hug each other and so far neither side has gotten sick.

anybody ever work with some kind of equipment where there is a Male part and Female Part, (like a Fire Hose) you cant hook the Woman part with the woman part, and your cant hook the Male part with another Male Part

You can with duct tape.

No, I don't think the "civil rights" of people in same sex relationships are being denied - they are still entitled to all the freedoms offered by the constitution - which includes due process, freedom from search & seizure, jury trial etc. LVR is correct there has never been a same sex marriage "right"created. Not only are gay/lesbians protected by the same laws that protect everyone else - they have even more protection. If someone beat the crap out of me - they'd get sent away for battery or malicious wounding etc - maybe a few weeks or months - if someone beat the crap out of a gay person they'd go to jail for much longer time for a hate crime (another policy I don't find fair because it makes the lives of certain classes of people more important than others.)

But marriage is a state created institution and the state (ie the people) has the right to determine who it gives money to. The push for legal marriage is either about getting federal benefits (that means money) or social acceptance. Tax supported benefits are supposed to provide for the public interest. I am still waiting for anyone to offer any explanation as to how gay relationships benefit society to the point that we're to pay them money. If there is a true benefit to society then they're entitled as much as anyone else.

If they're looking to mandate social acceptance - then they're demanding something that is constitutional.

That's the Declaration of Independence not the constitution.

Another question no one came seem to answer is just what "rights" are they being denied. What is significant about being married that makes it a benefit to same sex couples? Seriously, you can make your partner you PoA for health or other decisions, you can leave your life insurance or all your property to them - you can own homes together with rights of survivorship. What you can't get is federal benefits - at which point I must ask again - as a taxpayer how does paying same sex couples benefit me and society?

The other thing you can't get is social approval even if it becomes legal - I mean legalizing abortion did not make it socially acceptable.

Exactly, but this goes beyond gay marriage to include homosexual acceptance in general. Gay advocates don't make their case that their lifestyle should be accepted based on other things that are accepted, they start with the conviction that it should be accepted automatically at face value and then think something is wrong (with society or individuals) if it isn't.

What I don't like about the homosexual agenda is the inconsistency. When it suits them they are quite willing to alternate between calling it a "lifestyle choice", implying the individual has some discretion, and saying it is genetic, implying the individual has none. They want it both ways.



That is one of the major problems with political discourse in this country. People think they have rights they really don't have. Rights are backed up by statute. If a desired action or status isn't backed up by statute then I don't know what you would call it, but it isn't a right. The problem is people justify to themselves that these rights exist anyway.

Example: My mom confessed to me a couple years ago that she tried marijuana once. This was after raising my sister and I in a "Don't Do Drugs" household. She tried to argue with me that it was her right to try it anyway once we were out of the house. The conversation went something like this:

Mom: "Well, I have the right...
Me: "Not the legal right."
Mom: "No, not the legal right."
Me: "What other kind of right is there?"

She couldn't answer me.

I know that by using the "It's my right" argument she was trying to convince me, and herself, that what she did wasn't that bad. In fact it wasn't that bad. (Heck, I think it should be legalized myself.) But saying an illegal act is a right not only displays a weak knowledge of basic civics but the argument itself is easily defeated.

I freely admit that my issue with gay marriage is a religious one. I don't believe it's right. Even if you claim separation of church and state, you can't ask me to support something I don't feel is right and expect me to jump on your bandwagon. To even acquiesce to it would be wrong... simply sitting by and doing nothing while it happened. You can't separate the church and the state within me. To claim separation of church and state is to say that the state is not subject to the church. If I claim that God is Lord of Heaven and Earth, Lord of all who live, Lord of all the universe, you cannot ask me to make that personal separation of church and state, to vote contrary to my beliefs. To do so would be idolatorous. (I however do want to make it understood that a national theocracy as government would be disastrous, simply for the corruptibility of man). The gay people I've talked to (meaning actual face to face interaction, instead of cyber-debating) about this understand why I feel this way, and they respect my opinion, and we even stay friends. They simply won't, however, send me invitations to their wedding, but we still get along. It's the supportive straights who are more visceral in their loathing for me and my opinion.

I understand the point-of-view from fellow Christians who follow the train of thought begun by Paul who said to confront the immorality, and after repeated confrontations, if they still won't turn away (meaning conscious refusal as opposed to an addiction) from the immoral deed, to let them go their own way. However, I feel gov't sanctioning goes a bit beyond simply letting them go their own way.

They aren't.

No more than inter-racial couples who marry are trying to "force" anything on the public.



No it isn't. The constitution states that Congress (and the states via the 14th amendment) cannot pass laws based on "religion".

It does not state "a federal religion" or "a state religion" or "an official religion"

It means "religion" in general.

Actually the first amendment says...


The first clause is referred to as the establishment clause and law libraries are lined with journals and books where distinguished legal scholars have analysed the original intent of the phrase and they are not in agreement. One of the questions or theories is they simply intended not to step on the states' right to have state religions which did exist at one time.

The interpretation of the establishment clause when presented before the courts often relies on the Lemon test

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

When the federal government passes a law - it would be a federal law and they are bound by the US constitution.

Most states offer the same guarantees in their state constitution but regardless states can not take away a federal protection.

None of which really matters because same sex marriage is a new institution which has never been before the courts and should be treated as such. Attempting to apply the same standards or conditions that apply to heterosexual marriages to a new institution demonstrates an extreme lack of understanding of basic "scientific" principles - ie you can't just assume that the benefits to society of heterosexual marriage will apply to same sex marriage - you need to collect data and analyze.

And this is the point which our country has reached - it is a give me, owe me society that things the federal government owes them anything they want. No one seems to understand that taking money from the public coffers should be about benefiting society.

If everyone says that religion and the Government do not belong together, the the Pledge of Allegiance needs to be changed, It Says in it as everyone that went to school int the USA Knows "ONE NATION, UNDER GOD", no when I hear about the separation of Church and State it pisses me off, why, look historically the United States Government was founded on Christian Beliefs, in a Court or when a Person Takes office, why do they place their hand on a Bible and swear to God, Sry but if the Government does this kind of stuff, but they insist that everything elses needs to be seperate from Chuch and State is a Joke!

I am not Religious by any means and I Know I am more of a Sinner then a Saint (and kind of Proud of that) but just because some Liberal Judges interplated the Separation of Church and State to the Extreme and out of context of what the founding fathers meant, is a Joke!

I just dont Approve of the wording of Marriage, all I say is call it a life union or something like that, I am not against the act, just the term being used for gay sex Unions

I feel like I'm going to get ripped apart for entering this discussion, but here we go.

I don't know if anyone here reads the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, but earlier this week there was a very good "opinion" piece on the matter. The author was a conservative Christian, and he said, in so many words, that although he does not condone homosexuality, and while it does make him uncomfortable, he is still in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage. He said that the world does not and should not go out of its way to accommodate his own comfort and subjective morality.

The fact of the matter is that the institution of marriage is and always has been changing. As recent as the 1960's interracial marriage was illegal, and if you further back in history, divorce was also illegal and women were practically the property of men.

Correction: It needs to be changed again. The "under God" part wasn't added until the 1950s.

What was there before? Maybe it is because I am used to hearing it a certain way, but it doesn't flow right without something there, even if it isn't "under God".

My persnal beliefe is that irrespective of comfort levels, respecting andacknowledging a relationship and its validity in te eyes of law (If a couple wants official commitment).

End of the day, I don't care how you dress it, its an official commitment. Perhaps the term Marriage is wrong, Marriage is a religious union. Civil partnership is perhaps more apt?

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." (1892-1924)

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." (1924-1954)

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." (1954-present)

I am aware of all this. In fact the US Congress has broken this clause twice technically by adopting "In God We Trust" as the US national motto and adding "Under God" to the pledge. It's just a shame that the Supreme Court doesn't have the professionalism to adhere to the founding principles of the United States.



There is no evidence to suggest that homosexual marriage will not benefit society, and certainly no evidence to suggest it will harm society.



It's nothing to do with demanding any funds from the government.

It's got everything to do with equal treatment being denied.



I don't see why you would get ripped apart for this particular post, because it's logically sound and entirely reasonable.

I never said it would - what I said was to demand that government recognize and support an institution that instituation must show it benefits the general welfare. That is the constitutional standard for taxing the populace (not that it is always followed)



That is exactly what it is about - otherwise what is it they are demanding?


Equal with what? Same sex relationships are not the same as hetersexual relationships - so there is no logic in demanding they be treated equally.

Again, can anyone be specific - rather than hiding behind the mantra "equal rights" - "equal treatment" address specifically what those rights are and how it benefits society to bestow them.

no wonder the rest of the World hates the USA, Hell I am starting to see why they call us Big satan

I think it's the Great Satan and that is from Muslim countries so allowing same sex marriages would only strengthen that opinion.

It benefits the general welfare by eliminating an imbalance in rights. If consenting adults can marry simply on the basis of being of the opposite sex, then there's no reason to deny consenting adults to be able to marry simply because they are of the same sex. The slippery slope fallacies, the arbitrary morality, the predictions of social collapse, the religious arguments etc... All entirely without logical merit.



They are demanding the right to marry the person that they love. It's the same logic behind why a straight person may wish to marry. It is absurd to marginalise people by claiming some kind of financial agenda behind their struggle for equal recognition.



What is the difference? Other than the people involved? ALL relationships are different to each other. There is a logic in demanding to be treated equally, because at the moment, they are not treated equally, nor has any rational reason been provided as to why exactly they should not be treated equally.



I will explain. Consenting heterosexual adults can marry. Consenting homosexual adults also want the right to have their marriages/unions recognised on an equal basis to heterosexual marriages. It benefits society to have equal recognition of rights in the same sense that it benefitted society to give black people civil rights and women the right to vote. It benefits society to not discriminate and be prejudical. It benefits society to not have legally sanctioned double standards and hypocrisy.

LB - do you really not get it? That is some of the most circular reasoning I have ever seen.

It is amazing that people keep demanding equal rights yet can't name one "right" that marriage bestows.

It is unbelievable that average, supposedly thinking people, are under the impression that the state's (ie goverment's) interest in marriage lies in providing people a socially sanctioned way to express their attachment to one another. It doesn't work that way. A legal marriage contract exists to provide certains rights.

Let me fill in the gap - some of the "rights" of a a legal marriage: the right to receive government benefits, the right to inherit property on the death of a spouse, the presumed parentage of children, the right to make medical decisions etc. These are some the benefits of being married over living together. Some of those can be handled by legal documents such as trusts, medical power of attorney, wills, deeds etc. But the part about getting government benefits can't. So again, what "benefit" does a same sex marriage bestow on society that it should provide them with tax payer funded benefits.

In the beginning social security survivor benefits were provided to stay at home spouses who devoted their life to raising children. Society benefits from having children raised in stable homes so this was a benefit to society. The benefit to society from marriage was common knowledge at least as early as colonial times (Julia Cherry Spruill, Women's Life and Work in the Southern Colonies). Marriage also has existed as a religious institution (sacrament, ordinance etc depending on the faith) and it is true that such marriage could continue to exist should government decide to eliminate any legal contract of marriage. But the dissolution of families would be a tragedy to the welfare of children (as the government sanctioned destruction of the family is already proving to be)

Again, anyone claiming to understand the scientific method should know you can't just assume the benefits from one situation will apply to another. So, you can't assume the historic benefits of traditional marriage to society will hold for same sex couples - it may or may not - but to simply assume they are the same flies in the face of scientific reasoning. Yes, the difference is the people involved - two people of the same sex living together is no more the same as a heterosexual couple as assuming medical research done only on men will provide the same benefit to women. Man and women are different despite what political activists want us to believe and thus the dynamic will be different - how that affects society - who can say? But to insist they are the same is more a matter of political objective than scientific reality.

No, I don't get your unsupported arguments.



It's not circular reasoning. It's logical reasoning.



The right to get married in itself is the right that homosexuals demand. They are perfectly justified in making such a demand.



If the government recognises heterosexual marriage, then refusing to acknowledge/legalise homosexual marriage is discrimination. The matter at hand is the double standard of recognising one type of marriage between consenting adults, while refusing to recognise another.



And if heterosexual are permitted to gain these benefits by being married, then so should homosexuals.



It would provide the same "benefits" that successful heterosexual marriages provide society. That being, providing what in theory is a stable environment for families. There's nothing to suggest that a same-sex marriage would be any less stable than a heterosexual marriage.

Once again I state that recognising same-sex marriages eliminates the current system of state-approved discrimination. All your arguments could have been applied to banning inter-racial marriage. There's nothing at all different between that and arguing to ban same-sex marriages.



See above. There is no evidence to suggest that children in a same-sex married family would be in a less stable environment.



"Government sanctioned destruction of the family" sounds like political spin.

The issue of marriage as a religious institution is also completely irrelevant.



No it doesn't. There's nothing to suggest that same-sex marriage will harm society. If two gay people decide to get married, it won't suddenly stop two straight people from having the right to marry, nor would it force two married straight people to get divorced.



There is no scientific reality to back up any position regarding the prohibition of gay marriage. None whatsoever.

To argue that gay marriage might possibly-maybe-perhaps have some hypothetical adverse effect on society is quite frankly laughable. One could in theory argument that it's it heterosexual marriage that has a problem and a harmful effect on society given the fact that half of marriages tend to end in divorce which can lead to broken homes and instability.

Again, the same "chicken little" arguments could have been made to deny two people of different races from marrying, or giving women the right to vote, or giving black people civil rights. It's the "slippery slope" fallacy, and nothing more.

I think I need to clarify something here - I have no desire to offend anyone that is involved in a same sex relationship - but what I am trying to do is get people to look beyond the political or emotional appeal of the situation and look at or even admit at what is really being asked.

I am still amazed that people don't understand that a legal marriage contract is a state created institution for the purpose of serving state interests - it is an means to an end - not an end in itself.

But suppose it was an end in itself... then exactly what does being married mean? If you're not looking for the legal benefits then it goes back to something I said earlier - proponents are looking for social approval, acceptance etc... The problem is no one is entitled to that - not in the US - not as long as the constitution still exists ... people have the freedom to believe whatever they want and government doesn't have the right to tell you what you have to believe on certain issues. And on the issue of same sex relationships many school districts across the country are violating the first amendment hand over fist. And this is what bothers me - the insistence aided by government mandate that I must accept anything. It's frightening - many of you may not care because you happen to agree on this instance but what about when you don't agree - that is the consequence people tend to overlook. That is why you dont' want to set a precedent where the state legislates what you must believe.

As for logic - logic does not mean using words that sound authoritative - logic means a conclusion supported by the facts.

Thus you can make an argument that if A + B = X and B + A = X then A + B = B + A

However, you can not conclude from the same facts that A + A = B + B



Actually, it's called welfare - providing a monthly stipend to have illegitimate children. It also makes receiving benefits such as medicaid, food stamps etc contingent on being single; thus encouraging people to live with the father of the children without benefit of marriage. And in IMO the greatest waste of tax dollars ever proposed they want to spend more money on programs encouraging these same people to get married. Truly idiotic - why not just pay health benefits to children of the working poor two parent households.

Okay back on track.



Same sex couples do not produce offspring - no matter how you spin it - this is a biological fact that does not change. If someone in a same sex relationship has a child - you can be certain there was some member of the opposite sex involved in the child's creation. So you have children either conceived from sperm donors, surrogate mothers or children from failed relationships or marriages. None of these things is good for society.

Here to me is the ultimate irony of the same sex marriage debate - millions of years of evolution have brought humanity to the point where we are now - heterosexual reproduction. And studies have shown children do benefit from having a parent of each gender because, again (despite what activists may tell you), men and women are different - and the cultimation of those differences do provide the proper balance for raising children. Yet people want to throw all that out the window for a political objective. Playing around with mother nature usually comes back to bite you.