« Links Mentioned on the Show | Main | Be Ready to Discuss Same-Sex Marriage Today »

June 26, 2013

Comments

I love how you apologists of bigotry like to narrow your vision until it's just black and white to you. Children have little, if anything, to do with marriage, which has historically always been about property and political power. Marriage never guaranteed children, the paternity of children or sexual exclusivity. Furthermore, children are not perpetually inherent of all families, as neither are mothers, fathers, siblings, grandparents or anything else since people die/disagree/become vagrants, etc. Think outside of your own box.

Also, your use of UK law doesn't change US law. The fact that the brits can't define sex doesn't mean that we haven't already -thank you Bill Clinton. Neither does homosexuals' inability to have children outside a heterosexual relationship or other fertility practices (nice work on only mentioning cloning). I laugh that the lesbian lady is the only parent, because homosexual adoption is now illegal? lol How does that change the institution of marriage when I know plenty of women who have become pregnant by one and married another? It doesn't.

Try less scare tactic and more reason, mkay? That is your mission statement, after all? Oh, and when you're filing your taxes, acting on behalf of a loved one in a coma, trying to protect a life you've made with that person against government forces, upholding the sanctimony and right to privacy in your relationship in court, etc, et al, and gripping your marriage license all while doing so, remember how you told the world it was all about paternity and enforcing your misogyny.

i8yourmom4lunch, please understand that every single detail that an individual can think of regarding legal homosexual marriage would not be mentioned in a single article. Honestly, one can write many volumes regarding the issues of the concept of homosexuality, and what it provides and penetrates because of it's deemed and accidental consequences and occurrences.

I'm afraid you missed much of the point this article is making. I am not affiliated with the organization Stand to Reason, and I'm sure they do not need any defending. I will not defend them. I want to help you understand the article.

The point of this article is not to scare anyone, nor is it to baffle an individual with illogical reasoning. The point of the article is the following: "How Has Homosexual Principles Affected Governments of Today?". The topics of the article are the following: To display how governments of Britain and France are doing with the new "legislation", how the people are affected by the laws of each country, and to question of "Should we bring this same legislation into the United States?". This article questioning the affects of homosexuality in government and showing how it is not as great and simple as it seems.

Since all of the claims made in the article are facts and experience, it would be foolish to defend or attack such an article. Please know what is being said before you comment.

I will not reply to any further comments. Thank you.

I have to think that a person who really was above "scare tactics" would refrain from facile accusations of "bigotry," "misogyny," etc.

And in case it's not obvious to anyone, if marriage were really only about property and political power, there would be no reason for it to have historically been understood as only pertaining to complementary-sex unions.

The result is that in some cases children would be classed as having only one parent….

Legislation was created to allow heterosexual couples to adopt. Legislation was created to handle artificial insemination in the event of a sterile father. Legislation was created to handle surrogate pregnancies. These types of parents are 'artificial' as well. I doubt anyone at STR objects to most of them.

Legislation was changed dramatically because of the civil rights movement.

That legislation as it currently exists isn't up to the task is in no way an argument against the institution of same sex marriages.

Thanks for writing this. I'll have refer to this and of course the other things written on this blog later when people get in an argument with me about this matter.

The comments to this entry are closed.