The first time I saw it I thought so too. But then I remembered I was in a very Republican area of the country and saw the next billboard just said "HELL IS REAL. REPENT YOUR SINS." and it all started to make sense.
I personally don't like Obama (coming from a leftist perspective), but this sign seems like a more convincing Democratic Party ad than a Republican Party ad. (I actually saw this sign somewhere.)
It's not really unconvincing, it would be unconvincing if he didn't support gay marriage, but he does. It's just not a very creative ad, but it's not trying to convince anyone of anything, because anyone who watches any news at all knows Obama does support gay marriage.
By definition rights are not privileges. Taking away people's rights is unconstitutional.
Heterosexuals are granted by government the right to marry. This right affords them many bennifits under the law. Marriage is nothing more than a contract recognozed by the government. Gays are not permitted to enter into marriage contracts. The issue of gay marriage is about civil rights not religion. Even if gay marriage became legal, which it should, churches would not be forced to marry gay people if they did not want to.
I'm 95% sure this is actually a clever ad by the democrats, because it's not paid for by any candidate. It's so outrageous that people hate the republicans for making it.
In the old days there would've been a holy war. Honestly I left the site for a long time because no matter what you said someone would get pissed about it and I'd get a constant stream of comment notifications from 12 year olds trying to sound sophisticated arguing about topics way over their head. As much as I intended this to be more of a joke than anything, I'm glad at least both sides had well reasoned arguments for once.
I am a republican and this advertisement is terrible. Coworker republicans and I believe this ad is terrible and not representative of the majority of republicans or candidates.
It's considered wrong because people who are against Gay marriage are trying to take away rights. It's fine if your religion/personal beliefs dictate that homosexuality is wrong, but if you use that to justify going against gay rights all you're doing is pushing your personal beliefs on someone else. It's like if someone tried to say "I'm Christian, and I don't believe tattoos are right because it says so in the Bible, therefore no one in this country should be allowed to get tattoos despite their beliefs." Uncool.
I have a problem with all of Patrick's points.
First, marriage is a right. Though not outlined in the constitution, the US Supreme court declared marriage to be "one of the 'basic civil rights of man'" in 1967. This would make marriage a right. And yes, even pedophiles get married.
Second, every study I have seen that says homosexuals are more likely to raise children that "suffer from many things" has been debunked. When a child raised by married, same-sex parents is compared to a child raised by married, opposite-sex parents there are no differences (other than the fact that children of same-sex parents tend to be more accepting of their peers. But that's not really a bad difference). The only studies that suggest a child needs a mother and a father compare children of single parents to children of married parents.
Yes, I am comparing people who support "tradtional" marriage to racist. There is no difference.
There is one flaw with your study. It compares people whose parents had been in at least one same-sex relationship while they were growing up to people who had been raised exclusively by their married, biological parents. Had the study compared children who had been raised exclusively by one homosexual couple their entire lives to the children of one heterosexual couple their entire lives, the study would be valid. As it stands, the study is nothing more than a joke. The "gay" parents were usually single people who had been in a relationship with someone of the same sex while raising their children. These parents are better compared to divorcees with children who introduce new boyfriends/girlfriends to their children.
Yes, I remember when I was 11 I "loved" Aaron Carter and I was determined to marry him. But then I grew up. The thing is, I was a child. Children can't get married no matter how in "love" they think they are. A pedophile marrying a child is abuse.
The right to marry. Legalizing gay marriage is not just about a piece of paper but everything that comes with it; the benefits (tax and otherwise), the title, the religious freedom, and perhaps most importantly- a legal documentation of a relationship that is recognized by the state as a legitimate relationship. Many believe that marriage is a more 'legitimate' status than a civil union (probably because it comes with benefits, has a more prominent ceremony, etc), and when a gay couple is given the right to marry, they are put on the same level as everyone else- saying they aren't allowed to marry is basically saying their relationship is somehow less legitimate because it's not 'worthy' of true marital status. And I realize that not everyone against homosexual marriage is a religious freak- my comparison relating to Christianity wasn't trying to focus on the religious aspect, but the personal beliefs in general. Although, I don't like how you said 'supporters for the family unit'.. it makes it seem like you're implying homosexual couples/those who aren't married are incapable of having a good, functioning family.
Ok, I can deal with your first point.
I don't agree with it, but if you don't feel it's a right I doubt I can argue you out of that.
My main problem is your point about adoption. There are plenty of single mothers. Are we going to take their kids away from them?
My grandfather was raised by his aunt because he was an orphan. He was too old for the orphanage and he would have been seperated from his younger siblings if she hadn't taken them in. He was raised by a single person with not enough money, and he turned out fine.
Any home is better than multiple foster homes or living on the street.
And if reproduction is all we care about when it comes to marrage, does that mean the elderly and infertile people can't get married?
I find that awfully unfair.
Wait... so if marriage is just a law to govern behavior, doesn't that mean that interracial couples were not being discriminated against? They had the right to marry who ever they chose so long as they were of the same race and opposite sex just like everyone else, right? That's not discrimination.
Sounds kinda ridiculous, huh? Of course it's discrimination. Gay marriages benefit society just as much as straight marriages. Why not let the marriages be valid?
Who says anything about pedophiles wanting to marry children? Most pedophiles are married men with children of their own. They don't want relationships with children. They want sex. There's a difference.
Speaking of the fight for interracial marriage being similar to homosexual marriage, let me tell you all a quick story:
My sister was in an ethics class when they got into a debate about homosexual marriage. When she was asked to debate with another guy (who was half black, usually was picked up to go home by his black dad or white mom), the guy said "It's just completely wrong! Besides, if homosexuals can marry then before you know it people are going to want to marry pigs and dogs!"
My sister is very used to debates at this point and had even spent some time hearing about people against interracial marriage.
So, she looked at him and said "Ha, that's kind of funny. Did you know that was a similar argument against interracial marriage?"
"Are you comparing traditional marriage supporters to racist?" Yes. I find them to be very similar.
"The definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. THAT is the law. " Here's the thing about laws - they change. What the law IS has nothing to do with what the law SHOULD be.
Finally, I read that article. It was very eye-opening. However, it did not compare the children of committed, same-sex couples to the children of committed, opposite-sex couples. If it did, there might be some very different findings - or, there might not. I don't see it as conclusive. I also wonder how much the findings were changed if the attitude of bigotry were changed - how many of the children of homosexual couples were sexually assaulted by homophobes, as punishment for who their parents are? Obviously the children of hetero couples don't have that problem.
Rights are meant to be universal? Then why don't people under the age of 18 have the right to vote? That doesn't seem universal to me.
"There is no evidence to suggest that the children of lesbian and gay parents are less intelligent, suffer from more problems, are less popular, or have lower self-esteem than children of heterosexual parents.
The children of lesbian and gay parents grow up as happy, healthy and well-adjusted as the children of heterosexual parents." http://www.acluutah.org/dcfsfacts.htm
You might think children of gay parents are more likely to have problems, but the research says you're thinking wrong.
And you didn't win on the point that marriage isn't a right because it IS a right. When the Supreme Court says that something is a right, regardless of whether or not it's stated explicitly in the Constitution, it is a right. So unless you know better than the US Supreme Court, you're wrong.
I don't believe my opponents are "evil, bad, racist, Nazi’s, or homophobes." I just believe my opponents are wrong.
If the blue eyed people are being stopped from doing what the other people do, aren't gay people being stopped from doing what straight people do?
Marriage, as it stands right now, has no set definition. Marriage used to be a man and his many wives.
You see, my studies aren't biased. They're based on science. These studies are executed to learn, not to prove anything. The people from your studies deliberately looked for proof to something that they already believe.
The states are not the only ones who regulate marriage. If they were, the federal government would stay out of it.
Just a thought on your pedophile point- pedophiles can't marry children because children aren't considered mature enough to make that decision (though kids in their younger teens are allowed to marry if their parents consent in some places). Gay marriage is a totally separate issue because it's between two consenting ADULTS.
"They are not being discriminated against because the law does not include them."
Let me ask you something. Since women were not included in the the laws giving people the right to vote, were they not being discriminated against? If there was a law that said brown eyed people and green eyed people could do something, would it not be discrimination not to include blue eyed people? There is no set law defining marriage anyway. That's why people argue over this stuff in the first place.
All your sources approach the issue of homosexuality as from the stand point that being gay is bad in and of itself. They all use outdated, biased research.
And marriage should not be a state issue. There are over 1000 rights granted in a federally recognized marriage that are not given in a civil marriage. Saying that we could just move to a state that recognizes our marriage is ridiculous. If married heterosexual couples can travel the US and be married wherever they go, I think gay couples should be afforded that courtesy as well.
I actually don't believe that children growing up with gay parents will have unexpected consequences; I think the consequences are mostly social, and already well-known, and therefore expected. And having gay parents will not make the child more likely to be gay, though it will probably make the child more likely to be comfortable coming out. Homosexuality is not something that is affected by the environment. It isn't a choice. It's the way you're born.
And I don't know if this was addressed to me in particular, or everyone in general, but I don't see how you can destroy my comments with anything about polygamy, seeing as I think polygamy is acceptable when ALL partners are informed and consenting.
I know, it may not seem fair, but it happens. They can decide to move, or they can decide to stay where they are, and maybe even vote for representatives that support gay marriage in the future.
Children, children, Calm down, I will address all of you as the time comes.
@ rowanne
Good job at being knit picky! Besides who are you to tell 12-18 year old kid what to do? (Now before you go on a rage about that, let me explain myself) The pedophile example was just to make a point. The same could be said of Polygamist, and even people who want to marry animals. What I’m saying is that rights are supposed to be universal, so no age group or minority should be denied them. Marriage is not a right. This does not mean I have an opinion on gay marriage, as I will explain upon below.
Partinobodycular
THANK YOU for saying laws change!!! That was the point I was going to bring up. You seem to be forgetting, I don’t care which side of the debate wins, I am a fiscal conservative. The only reason I commented in the first place was because of the several inaccuracies in one of the post. Public opinion changes and therefore certain laws change too. I have no problem with gay marriage being allowed, I just want to express that changing an important building block of society so quickly will have unexpected consequences. People are correcting my inaccuracies and being all knit picky...
more violent crimes than ever before, such as that guy who walked into a family research council and said,” I don’t agree with your politics,” before shooting the place up. My point, believing your opposition is evil is just plain wrong, just think of them as those with opposing views. That’s all.
Thank you, but I'd rather think I have no side. I look at both sides and point out flaws in thinking or analysis. I would just as easily debate a traditional marriage supporter on basing everything on the bible. I don't see how the government giving a incentive for a male and a female to marry and also two of the same sex is bad. These marriages can accur, but the church doesn't have to recognize them.
Moving on, I truly don't think anyone would really move just for gay marriage. Is that really what homosexuals think about all day? Do they get up in the morning and think," I'm being oppressed and discriminated against and I can't succeed in the world all because I can't marry that man or woman I love? No, I would like to think not. Life is about improving ones situation, and instead of moping about how laws are ruining your life, you should decide if your life is good as it is, or if it's better in the next state over.
That's really cool, being able to argue both sides. I guess I should have said, I like the way you are presenting the side you are presenting. And the thing about moving was in response to what you said a while back: "If a gay wishes to marry then they should move to a state that is more tolerant of this view." You're probably right that a couple wouldn't move for a marriage, but then, they shouldn't have to choose between getting married and living where they already live.
After about 30 minutes of searching, I found not the original article, but one equally valid. Now please don't comment yet, allow me to respond to your comment first.
They are not being denied a civil right because the law is marriage is between a man and a woman. They are not being discriminated against because the law does not include them. Kind of like how noncitizens can't vote. They aren't being denied a right, because they're not included in the law. Understand? Now this is not the issue, and I have made this point clear further back in the debate. Our difference is not the law, but our interpretation of it. I see it by its logical definition, but you see it by it's emotional side, which makes you think it is discrimination. This is all fine and dandy, and neither of us is going to change our position anytime soon. I'm also not denying that laws can change. Once again, I Will state that ultimately the public decides which way the law goes (except when it comes to the constitution). And besides. Marriage is a state issue, so the states should decide. If a gay wishes to marry then they should move to a state that is more tolerant of this view. If they would rather not, then that's their decision.
I can bring up plenty of proof, I'm just saying that anything I come up with you can counter, and I can counter back as well. So you want stuff, well, here you go...
Now I know some of the articles used strong language, and you're probably ready to fire at me for the smallest error, but before you do I want you to judge each article as a whole. Just because I posted the articles and studies doesn't mean I necessarily agree with them. I think article 2 used strong word choice, and some of article 3's points were unproven, but that doesn't disprove all of the information. I think society is going to embrace gay marriage, but some major things are going to change to the detriment to society.
Saying I'm bad at debate is false. I've been trying to be personable and not that evil homophobe with a cold heart, as I have been in previous debates. The fact that you keep responding goes to show that I don't make myself look like a total retard (oh no, now he's being politically incorrect!!!) this debate is getting boring though, I think we made our positions clear.
So you believe in polygamy? Well that's okay, sorry I assumed everyone was against it. I was just using it as a example because it was so widely known. And it also shows that people don't have to be married to be happy. Polygamist these days just have several dozen girlfriends, that's all.
patrickedwards, I have to say, I think you are doing a good job presenting your side. I still don't agree, but I do want to applaud your efforts.
That said, even if marriage were regulated by the states, it's not fair to say, "If your state won't let you marry, move to another state." That involves finding and paying for a new home, getting new jobs, and leaving family and friends behind, just because your state frowns on your relationship.
Actually, a civil right is not the same thing as a basic right. A civil right stops a person from being discriminated under the law. This is true in the court case, in which a interracial couple wanted to marry, but were denied it based on their race. gays are not being discriminated against because marriage is just another law governing behavior. In this case the government is encouraging unions that will benefit society. Also, my pedophile point was that they cannot marry who they would want (children under 18) even with that child's consent. They absolutely have the ability to marry those above 18, but not under. Is his rights being curved? No, not at all.
On my second point. When you say all studies have been debunked, you are telling me that whatever I say will be wrong. You have effectively backed me into a corner. Good job, you're a great debater. Never the less, I will cite a few studies... ~5minutes later~
I am unable to find that Original article, do I'm just going to drop that arguement and say you won
Marriage, then it will become less efficient. That's all.
Laws can still change. As in a market, people can put into place politicians that will discontinue regulation. My point is discrimination is not a valid point to base in deregulating marriage.
On the studies I put forward, I could easily say that all your studies are biased and are all based on made up statistics without backing it up, as you did. You are playing on the emotional bias of anyone reading this, who are probably already biased and will assume your accusations true.
The states are the only ones granted the ability to regulate marriage. Anything dealing with marriage that the federal government imposes is contridicting previous laws.
The definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. THAT is the law. So when a man and a woman are denied the ability to marry then the law is being broken, and did you see what that judge said was the reason??? He said god seperated the races on different continents, and that's why they can't marry. He was obviously a racist bigot. Are you comparing traditional marriage supporters to racist?
Please don't generalize all pedophiles. There are plenty of examples throughout history where 11-18 year old girls and boys have loved older men and have wished to married. I know not all pedophiles are interested in a relationship with children, but some are.
The supreme court did not say it was a right, they said it was a civil right. There is a difference
The right to vote is not a right, it's just another thing the government provides. Another group that does not (hopefully) vote are foriegners, yet they still have all the rights granted in the bill of rights and the declaration of independents. It may be DESCRIBED as a right, like so many other things, but is not a true, basic right.
And good, at least you don't feel people that have different opinions are evil. I applaud you for that.
About the studies, for just about any study you can come up with I can come up with one glad well. For every shred of evidence each side brings up the other side will have some to the contrary. All I'm really trying to say is that allowing gay marriage is going to have some long lasting affects in society. If society says gay marriage is going to be legal, then it will be, but we should at least know what we are jumping into.
The blue eyed people would be discriminated against because they would be stopped from doing the exact same thing the brown and green eyed people, and to further my evil republican mantra, I would support this because I have brown eyes and republicans are obviously evil.
Back to the point. I don't think you realize that the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. Therefore marriage is the regulation of the relationship between a man and a woman. How I see it, if you advocate for gay marriage, then you advocate for the deregulation of marriage and to put it in the hands of the individual. As in the market, regulation itself is not evil or unconstitutional, but it may have negative results. Sometimes regulation is necessary, as in the case of the environment. This is how traditional marriage supporters usually base their claims. I'm saying that if you take away the encentive for productive
certain examples, BUT THEY DON’T ADDRESS MY MAIN POINTS!!! You cannot seriously believe that children growing up with homosexual parents are not going to have any unexpected problems. Changing one of the parents in a family is going to create many repercussions, and the children are going to be far more likely to be homosexual in the future. For the pedophile thing… Really? You know the point was that marriage isn’t a right, and I pretty much won on that topic. I could easily bring up polygamy and that would destroy your comments. I didn’t even talk about the sex with animals’ thing previous to these comments, so why are you holding me accountable to it? Furthermore, comparing some of the most charitable and giving people in the world to bigots and racist is evil in itself. I know everyone is entitled to their opinion, but believing that all your opponents are evil, bad, racist, Nazi’s, and homophobes is what’s really bigoted (note: none of you have really used that vocabulary, but you associate with them, and this is the left’s general rhetoric to further the stereotype). In fact, The steady polarization of politics, on both the left and the right, is leading to...
person riding the bike. Do you understand? I can explain further if you need some clarification.
Finally, marriage is not a right because it is not found in our constitution or any other founding document. Our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as well as the ones in the constitution, are our only rights. And being human doesn’t even justify these rights, because then why wouldn’t animals have these rights as well. Our rights come from god, and, believe it or not, this protects us from tyrannical government. I am constantly annoyed how the word “right” is excessively used these days. Entitlements, free schooling, and fair wages are now called rights, which is simply not true. These are things provided by government. (I’m not really attacking gay marriage; I’m just saying it’s not a right)
On to my second topic: families can be created by homosexual parents without any negative repercussions. A lot of evidence suggest that children raised by a homosexual couples are far more likely to suffer from many things. The evidence has remarkable similarities to children born out of wedlock. It appears that a mother and father have important contribution...
I could go into a big debate about how gay marriage is going to reduce the importance of a man being a man, and a woman being a woman, and how gays are not being discriminated against, but I won't. I really don't care about gay marriage, and I’m mainly a fiscal conservative. I only find fault with 2 things: marriage being a right, and how homosexual couples can raise a family with no repercussions.
Marriage is not a right, if it was then any number of consenting people would be able to marry. We don't let pedophiles marry, or polygamist, EVEN if both parties wish to marry.
Laws are made to control behavior, and marriage is just another law. Government itself became involved in marriage because it has a vested interest in promoting unions that will generate the future generations of the country. THAT was the point I was making when I said not all ppl who believe in the traditional family unit are religious fanatics. That leads to another interesting point. Gays are not discriminated against by the law. It’s like riding a bicycle and riding a car. Bicycles are not allowed on the highway of marriage, but a car is. The person driving in a car is not doing the same thing as the
Democrats: Why bother making election ads? Just let the republicans do it for you.
I thought this was an ad for Obama...
me too runner, me too...
The first time I saw it I thought so too. But then I remembered I was in a very Republican area of the country and saw the next billboard just said "HELL IS REAL. REPENT YOUR SINS." and it all started to make sense.
Obama loves puppies. Do you?
I love puppies...
"Obama supports gay marriage and abortion. Do you?"
Yes, yes I do.
Haha, that was about what my response was. I knew I wasn't the only one.
I personally don't like Obama (coming from a leftist perspective), but this sign seems like a more convincing Democratic Party ad than a Republican Party ad. (I actually saw this sign somewhere.)
Wait, so you don't like Obama because he isn't left ENOUGH?
It's not really unconvincing, it would be unconvincing if he didn't support gay marriage, but he does. It's just not a very creative ad, but it's not trying to convince anyone of anything, because anyone who watches any news at all knows Obama does support gay marriage.
It's trying to convince people to vote Republican because Obama supports gay marriage and abortion.
I feel like if you're only voting based on those two issues you're already voting republican.
Yeah, and that might not convince you not to vote for Obama, but there's plenty of Americans who'd see the ad and then vote for Romney.
Except most people in those places would probably just be voting for Romney anyway.
I support gay marriage, however not abortion.........
By definition rights are not privileges. Taking away people's rights is unconstitutional.
Heterosexuals are granted by government the right to marry. This right affords them many bennifits under the law. Marriage is nothing more than a contract recognozed by the government. Gays are not permitted to enter into marriage contracts. The issue of gay marriage is about civil rights not religion. Even if gay marriage became legal, which it should, churches would not be forced to marry gay people if they did not want to.
I'm 95% sure this is actually a clever ad by the democrats, because it's not paid for by any candidate. It's so outrageous that people hate the republicans for making it.
I know I'm wrong, but It'd have been clever.
And@omgeetoast, exact same.
Do people actually hate the Republicans for this? I just looked at it as a way of simplifying certain issues to help voters pick a side.
In the old days there would've been a holy war. Honestly I left the site for a long time because no matter what you said someone would get pissed about it and I'd get a constant stream of comment notifications from 12 year olds trying to sound sophisticated arguing about topics way over their head. As much as I intended this to be more of a joke than anything, I'm glad at least both sides had well reasoned arguments for once.
CHRISTIANITY IS THE BEST!!! ALL DISSENTERS SHOULD BE MURDERED AND BURNED IN THE PITS OF HELL.
do you think that will start a debate?
I never even realized this wasn't for Obama.......
support the two concepts that cannot exceed one generation.
I am a republican and this advertisement is terrible. Coworker republicans and I believe this ad is terrible and not representative of the majority of republicans or candidates.
This gives me a strong urge to vote Obama, too bad he is WAYYY too far to the right.
I don't see why it considered wrong to not support gay marriage. Really, both sides have a right to their opinion.
It's considered wrong because people who are against Gay marriage are trying to take away rights. It's fine if your religion/personal beliefs dictate that homosexuality is wrong, but if you use that to justify going against gay rights all you're doing is pushing your personal beliefs on someone else. It's like if someone tried to say "I'm Christian, and I don't believe tattoos are right because it says so in the Bible, therefore no one in this country should be allowed to get tattoos despite their beliefs." Uncool.
But I don't understand what's wrong with taking away people's rights. Rights are a privilege that you have to earn. By following the Bible.
I have a problem with all of Patrick's points.
First, marriage is a right. Though not outlined in the constitution, the US Supreme court declared marriage to be "one of the 'basic civil rights of man'" in 1967. This would make marriage a right. And yes, even pedophiles get married.
Second, every study I have seen that says homosexuals are more likely to raise children that "suffer from many things" has been debunked. When a child raised by married, same-sex parents is compared to a child raised by married, opposite-sex parents there are no differences (other than the fact that children of same-sex parents tend to be more accepting of their peers. But that's not really a bad difference). The only studies that suggest a child needs a mother and a father compare children of single parents to children of married parents.
Yes, I am comparing people who support "tradtional" marriage to racist. There is no difference.
There is one flaw with your study. It compares people whose parents had been in at least one same-sex relationship while they were growing up to people who had been raised exclusively by their married, biological parents. Had the study compared children who had been raised exclusively by one homosexual couple their entire lives to the children of one heterosexual couple their entire lives, the study would be valid. As it stands, the study is nothing more than a joke. The "gay" parents were usually single people who had been in a relationship with someone of the same sex while raising their children. These parents are better compared to divorcees with children who introduce new boyfriends/girlfriends to their children.
Yes, I remember when I was 11 I "loved" Aaron Carter and I was determined to marry him. But then I grew up. The thing is, I was a child. Children can't get married no matter how in "love" they think they are. A pedophile marrying a child is abuse.
The right to marry. Legalizing gay marriage is not just about a piece of paper but everything that comes with it; the benefits (tax and otherwise), the title, the religious freedom, and perhaps most importantly- a legal documentation of a relationship that is recognized by the state as a legitimate relationship. Many believe that marriage is a more 'legitimate' status than a civil union (probably because it comes with benefits, has a more prominent ceremony, etc), and when a gay couple is given the right to marry, they are put on the same level as everyone else- saying they aren't allowed to marry is basically saying their relationship is somehow less legitimate because it's not 'worthy' of true marital status. And I realize that not everyone against homosexual marriage is a religious freak- my comparison relating to Christianity wasn't trying to focus on the religious aspect, but the personal beliefs in general. Although, I don't like how you said 'supporters for the family unit'.. it makes it seem like you're implying homosexual couples/those who aren't married are incapable of having a good, functioning family.
Ok, I can deal with your first point.
I don't agree with it, but if you don't feel it's a right I doubt I can argue you out of that.
My main problem is your point about adoption. There are plenty of single mothers. Are we going to take their kids away from them?
My grandfather was raised by his aunt because he was an orphan. He was too old for the orphanage and he would have been seperated from his younger siblings if she hadn't taken them in. He was raised by a single person with not enough money, and he turned out fine.
Any home is better than multiple foster homes or living on the street.
And if reproduction is all we care about when it comes to marrage, does that mean the elderly and infertile people can't get married?
I find that awfully unfair.
Wait... so if marriage is just a law to govern behavior, doesn't that mean that interracial couples were not being discriminated against? They had the right to marry who ever they chose so long as they were of the same race and opposite sex just like everyone else, right? That's not discrimination.
Sounds kinda ridiculous, huh? Of course it's discrimination. Gay marriages benefit society just as much as straight marriages. Why not let the marriages be valid?
Who says anything about pedophiles wanting to marry children? Most pedophiles are married men with children of their own. They don't want relationships with children. They want sex. There's a difference.
Speaking of the fight for interracial marriage being similar to homosexual marriage, let me tell you all a quick story:
My sister was in an ethics class when they got into a debate about homosexual marriage. When she was asked to debate with another guy (who was half black, usually was picked up to go home by his black dad or white mom), the guy said "It's just completely wrong! Besides, if homosexuals can marry then before you know it people are going to want to marry pigs and dogs!"
My sister is very used to debates at this point and had even spent some time hearing about people against interracial marriage.
So, she looked at him and said "Ha, that's kind of funny. Did you know that was a similar argument against interracial marriage?"
That shut him up very quickly.
Mitt Romney?! I didn't know you liked amirite!
Same reason it was wrong to be agains inter-racial marriage. You being uncomfortable with it has nothing to do with the law.
It was never said that marriage is a basic right. Yes, it is a civil right. Being denied a civil right is flat out discrimination.
You say allowing gay marriage is going to have some long lasting affects in society? Great. Prove it.
You're really bad at this whole debate thing. You can't just make claims without backing them up.
"Are you comparing traditional marriage supporters to racist?" Yes. I find them to be very similar.
"The definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. THAT is the law. " Here's the thing about laws - they change. What the law IS has nothing to do with what the law SHOULD be.
Finally, I read that article. It was very eye-opening. However, it did not compare the children of committed, same-sex couples to the children of committed, opposite-sex couples. If it did, there might be some very different findings - or, there might not. I don't see it as conclusive. I also wonder how much the findings were changed if the attitude of bigotry were changed - how many of the children of homosexual couples were sexually assaulted by homophobes, as punishment for who their parents are? Obviously the children of hetero couples don't have that problem.
Rights are meant to be universal? Then why don't people under the age of 18 have the right to vote? That doesn't seem universal to me.
"There is no evidence to suggest that the children of lesbian and gay parents are less intelligent, suffer from more problems, are less popular, or have lower self-esteem than children of heterosexual parents.
The children of lesbian and gay parents grow up as happy, healthy and well-adjusted as the children of heterosexual parents."
http://www.acluutah.org/dcfsfacts.htm
You might think children of gay parents are more likely to have problems, but the research says you're thinking wrong.
And you didn't win on the point that marriage isn't a right because it IS a right. When the Supreme Court says that something is a right, regardless of whether or not it's stated explicitly in the Constitution, it is a right. So unless you know better than the US Supreme Court, you're wrong.
I don't believe my opponents are "evil, bad, racist, Nazi’s, or homophobes." I just believe my opponents are wrong.
If the blue eyed people are being stopped from doing what the other people do, aren't gay people being stopped from doing what straight people do?
Marriage, as it stands right now, has no set definition. Marriage used to be a man and his many wives.
You see, my studies aren't biased. They're based on science. These studies are executed to learn, not to prove anything. The people from your studies deliberately looked for proof to something that they already believe.
The states are not the only ones who regulate marriage. If they were, the federal government would stay out of it.
Just a thought on your pedophile point- pedophiles can't marry children because children aren't considered mature enough to make that decision (though kids in their younger teens are allowed to marry if their parents consent in some places). Gay marriage is a totally separate issue because it's between two consenting ADULTS.
"They are not being discriminated against because the law does not include them."
Let me ask you something. Since women were not included in the the laws giving people the right to vote, were they not being discriminated against? If there was a law that said brown eyed people and green eyed people could do something, would it not be discrimination not to include blue eyed people? There is no set law defining marriage anyway. That's why people argue over this stuff in the first place.
All your sources approach the issue of homosexuality as from the stand point that being gay is bad in and of itself. They all use outdated, biased research.
And marriage should not be a state issue. There are over 1000 rights granted in a federally recognized marriage that are not given in a civil marriage. Saying that we could just move to a state that recognizes our marriage is ridiculous. If married heterosexual couples can travel the US and be married wherever they go, I think gay couples should be afforded that courtesy as well.
"Says Sarcasm 2 hours ago"
and someone still downvoted.
I don't know, maybe the right to marry whoever you want?
I actually don't believe that children growing up with gay parents will have unexpected consequences; I think the consequences are mostly social, and already well-known, and therefore expected. And having gay parents will not make the child more likely to be gay, though it will probably make the child more likely to be comfortable coming out. Homosexuality is not something that is affected by the environment. It isn't a choice. It's the way you're born.
And I don't know if this was addressed to me in particular, or everyone in general, but I don't see how you can destroy my comments with anything about polygamy, seeing as I think polygamy is acceptable when ALL partners are informed and consenting.
I know, it may not seem fair, but it happens. They can decide to move, or they can decide to stay where they are, and maybe even vote for representatives that support gay marriage in the future.
I found this hilarious
But my first point Is still valid!!!
http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/n...vious-research
Children, children, Calm down, I will address all of you as the time comes.
@ rowanne
Good job at being knit picky! Besides who are you to tell 12-18 year old kid what to do? (Now before you go on a rage about that, let me explain myself) The pedophile example was just to make a point. The same could be said of Polygamist, and even people who want to marry animals. What I’m saying is that rights are supposed to be universal, so no age group or minority should be denied them. Marriage is not a right. This does not mean I have an opinion on gay marriage, as I will explain upon below.
Partinobodycular
THANK YOU for saying laws change!!! That was the point I was going to bring up. You seem to be forgetting, I don’t care which side of the debate wins, I am a fiscal conservative. The only reason I commented in the first place was because of the several inaccuracies in one of the post. Public opinion changes and therefore certain laws change too. I have no problem with gay marriage being allowed, I just want to express that changing an important building block of society so quickly will have unexpected consequences. People are correcting my inaccuracies and being all knit picky...
more violent crimes than ever before, such as that guy who walked into a family research council and said,” I don’t agree with your politics,” before shooting the place up. My point, believing your opposition is evil is just plain wrong, just think of them as those with opposing views. That’s all.
Also equally valid
" opposite as well", not " glad as well"
Believe it or not, that was auto correct
Thank you, but I'd rather think I have no side. I look at both sides and point out flaws in thinking or analysis. I would just as easily debate a traditional marriage supporter on basing everything on the bible. I don't see how the government giving a incentive for a male and a female to marry and also two of the same sex is bad. These marriages can accur, but the church doesn't have to recognize them.
Moving on, I truly don't think anyone would really move just for gay marriage. Is that really what homosexuals think about all day? Do they get up in the morning and think," I'm being oppressed and discriminated against and I can't succeed in the world all because I can't marry that man or woman I love? No, I would like to think not. Life is about improving ones situation, and instead of moping about how laws are ruining your life, you should decide if your life is good as it is, or if it's better in the next state over.
That's really cool, being able to argue both sides. I guess I should have said, I like the way you are presenting the side you are presenting. And the thing about moving was in response to what you said a while back: "If a gay wishes to marry then they should move to a state that is more tolerant of this view." You're probably right that a couple wouldn't move for a marriage, but then, they shouldn't have to choose between getting married and living where they already live.
After about 30 minutes of searching, I found not the original article, but one equally valid. Now please don't comment yet, allow me to respond to your comment first.
They are not being denied a civil right because the law is marriage is between a man and a woman. They are not being discriminated against because the law does not include them. Kind of like how noncitizens can't vote. They aren't being denied a right, because they're not included in the law. Understand? Now this is not the issue, and I have made this point clear further back in the debate. Our difference is not the law, but our interpretation of it. I see it by its logical definition, but you see it by it's emotional side, which makes you think it is discrimination. This is all fine and dandy, and neither of us is going to change our position anytime soon. I'm also not denying that laws can change. Once again, I Will state that ultimately the public decides which way the law goes (except when it comes to the constitution). And besides. Marriage is a state issue, so the states should decide. If a gay wishes to marry then they should move to a state that is more tolerant of this view. If they would rather not, then that's their decision.
Hold on, let me comment on your other points
I can bring up plenty of proof, I'm just saying that anything I come up with you can counter, and I can counter back as well. So you want stuff, well, here you go...
http://www.wnd.com/2002/03/13321/
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/110616
http://carm.org/gay-marriage-harm
Now I know some of the articles used strong language, and you're probably ready to fire at me for the smallest error, but before you do I want you to judge each article as a whole. Just because I posted the articles and studies doesn't mean I necessarily agree with them. I think article 2 used strong word choice, and some of article 3's points were unproven, but that doesn't disprove all of the information. I think society is going to embrace gay marriage, but some major things are going to change to the detriment to society.
Saying I'm bad at debate is false. I've been trying to be personable and not that evil homophobe with a cold heart, as I have been in previous debates. The fact that you keep responding goes to show that I don't make myself look like a total retard (oh no, now he's being politically incorrect!!!) this debate is getting boring though, I think we made our positions clear.
@partinobodycular
So you believe in polygamy? Well that's okay, sorry I assumed everyone was against it. I was just using it as a example because it was so widely known. And it also shows that people don't have to be married to be happy. Polygamist these days just have several dozen girlfriends, that's all.
patrickedwards, I have to say, I think you are doing a good job presenting your side. I still don't agree, but I do want to applaud your efforts.
That said, even if marriage were regulated by the states, it's not fair to say, "If your state won't let you marry, move to another state." That involves finding and paying for a new home, getting new jobs, and leaving family and friends behind, just because your state frowns on your relationship.
Explain what rights are being taken away. Not all supporters for the family unit are crazy religious fanatics.
Actually, a civil right is not the same thing as a basic right. A civil right stops a person from being discriminated under the law. This is true in the court case, in which a interracial couple wanted to marry, but were denied it based on their race. gays are not being discriminated against because marriage is just another law governing behavior. In this case the government is encouraging unions that will benefit society. Also, my pedophile point was that they cannot marry who they would want (children under 18) even with that child's consent. They absolutely have the ability to marry those above 18, but not under. Is his rights being curved? No, not at all.
On my second point. When you say all studies have been debunked, you are telling me that whatever I say will be wrong. You have effectively backed me into a corner. Good job, you're a great debater. Never the less, I will cite a few studies...
~5minutes later~I am unable to find that Original article, do I'm just going to drop that arguement and say you won
Marriage, then it will become less efficient. That's all.
Laws can still change. As in a market, people can put into place politicians that will discontinue regulation. My point is discrimination is not a valid point to base in deregulating marriage.
On the studies I put forward, I could easily say that all your studies are biased and are all based on made up statistics without backing it up, as you did. You are playing on the emotional bias of anyone reading this, who are probably already biased and will assume your accusations true.
The states are the only ones granted the ability to regulate marriage. Anything dealing with marriage that the federal government imposes is contridicting previous laws.
The definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. THAT is the law. So when a man and a woman are denied the ability to marry then the law is being broken, and did you see what that judge said was the reason??? He said god seperated the races on different continents, and that's why they can't marry. He was obviously a racist bigot. Are you comparing traditional marriage supporters to racist?
Please don't generalize all pedophiles. There are plenty of examples throughout history where 11-18 year old girls and boys have loved older men and have wished to married. I know not all pedophiles are interested in a relationship with children, but some are.
The supreme court did not say it was a right, they said it was a civil right. There is a difference
The right to vote is not a right, it's just another thing the government provides. Another group that does not (hopefully) vote are foriegners, yet they still have all the rights granted in the bill of rights and the declaration of independents. It may be DESCRIBED as a right, like so many other things, but is not a true, basic right.
And good, at least you don't feel people that have different opinions are evil. I applaud you for that.
About the studies, for just about any study you can come up with I can come up with one glad well. For every shred of evidence each side brings up the other side will have some to the contrary. All I'm really trying to say is that allowing gay marriage is going to have some long lasting affects in society. If society says gay marriage is going to be legal, then it will be, but we should at least know what we are jumping into.
The blue eyed people would be discriminated against because they would be stopped from doing the exact same thing the brown and green eyed people, and to further my evil republican mantra, I would support this because I have brown eyes and republicans are obviously evil.
Back to the point. I don't think you realize that the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. Therefore marriage is the regulation of the relationship between a man and a woman. How I see it, if you advocate for gay marriage, then you advocate for the deregulation of marriage and to put it in the hands of the individual. As in the market, regulation itself is not evil or unconstitutional, but it may have negative results. Sometimes regulation is necessary, as in the case of the environment. This is how traditional marriage supporters usually base their claims. I'm saying that if you take away the encentive for productive
to a child’s development that gay couples cannot fully reproduce.
I’ll provide my source if you really want me to, but I’m too lazy to look it back up right now
certain examples, BUT THEY DON’T ADDRESS MY MAIN POINTS!!! You cannot seriously believe that children growing up with homosexual parents are not going to have any unexpected problems. Changing one of the parents in a family is going to create many repercussions, and the children are going to be far more likely to be homosexual in the future. For the pedophile thing… Really? You know the point was that marriage isn’t a right, and I pretty much won on that topic. I could easily bring up polygamy and that would destroy your comments. I didn’t even talk about the sex with animals’ thing previous to these comments, so why are you holding me accountable to it? Furthermore, comparing some of the most charitable and giving people in the world to bigots and racist is evil in itself. I know everyone is entitled to their opinion, but believing that all your opponents are evil, bad, racist, Nazi’s, and homophobes is what’s really bigoted (note: none of you have really used that vocabulary, but you associate with them, and this is the left’s general rhetoric to further the stereotype). In fact, The steady polarization of politics, on both the left and the right, is leading to...
person riding the bike. Do you understand? I can explain further if you need some clarification.
Finally, marriage is not a right because it is not found in our constitution or any other founding document. Our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as well as the ones in the constitution, are our only rights. And being human doesn’t even justify these rights, because then why wouldn’t animals have these rights as well. Our rights come from god, and, believe it or not, this protects us from tyrannical government. I am constantly annoyed how the word “right” is excessively used these days. Entitlements, free schooling, and fair wages are now called rights, which is simply not true. These are things provided by government. (I’m not really attacking gay marriage; I’m just saying it’s not a right)
On to my second topic: families can be created by homosexual parents without any negative repercussions. A lot of evidence suggest that children raised by a homosexual couples are far more likely to suffer from many things. The evidence has remarkable similarities to children born out of wedlock. It appears that a mother and father have important contribution...
I could go into a big debate about how gay marriage is going to reduce the importance of a man being a man, and a woman being a woman, and how gays are not being discriminated against, but I won't. I really don't care about gay marriage, and I’m mainly a fiscal conservative. I only find fault with 2 things: marriage being a right, and how homosexual couples can raise a family with no repercussions.
Marriage is not a right, if it was then any number of consenting people would be able to marry. We don't let pedophiles marry, or polygamist, EVEN if both parties wish to marry.
Laws are made to control behavior, and marriage is just another law. Government itself became involved in marriage because it has a vested interest in promoting unions that will generate the future generations of the country. THAT was the point I was making when I said not all ppl who believe in the traditional family unit are religious fanatics. That leads to another interesting point. Gays are not discriminated against by the law. It’s like riding a bicycle and riding a car. Bicycles are not allowed on the highway of marriage, but a car is. The person driving in a car is not doing the same thing as the