I've answered that question, and you played stupid and went out of your way not to get it. You keep drawing lines, and then accuse me of moving them. I've spelled this out more than once. There are some people here who've at least given some sort of intellectual arguement in favor of restricting the right of marriage to monogamous, heterosexual couples. While I think they're wrong, at least they made a point and had something to say. You're just being an **************.
Maybe I am. Maybe the real problem is people here have trouble accepting that values or morals that differ from their own may in fact be equally valid. From what I've read on this board, there's a bit of a tendancy to believe that the liberal way is the only rational way, and all others are either dense or willfully blind. I was only trying to point out that in a lot of cases, it's no more or less rational than the other side of the spectrum. The only difference is the values you approach it with, and who is to say one person's values are more or less worthy than another's? I'm done. I'd rather not make the transition from stating an unpopular point of view to deliberatly baiting people.
Jeez, how do you liberals manage to get thru the day with such a poor grasp of the language? If you ban something, that means that you take action to prevent it. That's different from not giving people licenses to do it. That's like saying that tropical fish are banned because they don't issue fish licenses for your pet fish, Eric.
As opposed to all of the super-well-adjusted adolescents from nuclear families? My agenda is to have kids raised in loving households, nothing more. I think it is better for a child to have two parents than one, because all other things being equal, more parenting is better than less parenting. But the idea that gay people can't be those loving parents is insane. Where is your evidence? (Rosie O'Donnell quotes are not evidence.) This is pointless in continuing unless you can produce some data from an edited medical or sociological journal that shows how much worse life is for adopted kids raised by gay parents vs. adopted kids raised by hetero parents. I want to see higher crime rates, high drug / alcohol abuse rates, and generally higher self-destructive behavior. And unless you can show these data, I'm going to have to assume you're just pulling this stuff out of your ass. To get you started, here's a NYT Magazine cover story from two weeks ago that covers this exact subject. Your turn.
And you clearly are not familiar with the issue. The Ohio State University has been forced due to the passage of Issue One to revoke benefits for non-married partners.
I don't remember comparing them but if it makes you feel better OK. I don't really care what consenting adults do to be honest with you. I have said repeatedly that I reject the theory that homosexuality is genetic. I also understand people not wanting to accept the new morality that says homosexual relationships are the same as heterosexual ones. How does disagreeing with your morals impose mine on anyone? You think like you want and I think like I want. What did you lose? If I stay out of it who are you going to whine about?
Where I live the community is much more accepting of homosexuality than in most areas of the country. Same sex parents are an unnecessary problem for children. As i posted earlier, there are situations with kids who have no other options where any stable household is better than the foster home shuffle. My only problem is where same sex couples make a conscious decision to bring a child into the world to be raised in a same sex relationship. This creates yet another unnecessary obstacle for kids to overcome. The fact that there are problems in many heterosexual relationships does in no way justify the selfishness that homosexual couples demonstrate by forcing a child who has no choice, into that situation.
I agree. As I have posted before, there are situations where a homosexual environment is better than a disfunctional hetero. But to justify same sex parenting by saying there are problems in mixed gender parenting is not logical.
Beastiality was legal in Holland an much of Scandanavia until recently, protected by privacy rationale. Recently protested by animal rights' groups through "rape" rationale. Argument countered by "how do you know they don't like it" rationale. Funny stuff can ensue when yo rationalize the first act of depravity. Never know where the road can go.
Yeah, a real prudent move. If I worked at Ohio State, and was unmarried but cohabitating with a long-time girlfriend, I could no longer purchase health insurance for her as a part of my benefit package. This should be a real boon for the economy in a state that has been one of the hardest hit over the last four years (the city I live in has a 10% unemployment rate). Even the Republican governor and both Republican senators in Ohio opposed Issue One. Ohio already had a law banning gay marriage on the books - one of the toughest in the nation.
I work for a company that offers health insurance to same sex couples but not to unmarried opposite sex couples. Equally baffling.
It baffles me that a private company makes business decisions based on social issues. How on earth does marital status effect insurance rates? Why should a company decide who to offer benefits to based on the individuals decision to marry or live together? Should the company withdraw health insurance for unmarried same sex couples in states that allow civil unions? My answers are that insuring two people costs the same regardless of who they "love" or decide to partner up with. Once you make the change and offer insurance to same sex couples you should offer it to all combinations of two people. Publicly traded companies are not in the business of defining/redefining morality. They exist to make a profit. edit to add The same company offfered other benefits and had to change a few years ago to recognize the large number of homosexual workers. Rather than saying that it offered benefits to married couples and same sex unmarried couples the decision was made to allow everyone that was not married to put one person on their list to be eligible for benefits. This approach gave the same benefits to everyone without valuing the coupled employee over the single employee.
Well, fair enough. I left a loophole there. Big oops on my part. But hey, Danwoods thinks that I somehow approve of bestiality, so go right ahead spreading the word that I'm in favor of adult incenst and infidelity. For some reason, I don't seem to care.
Marriage hasn't always been between a man and a woman. It was often between one man and several women. Or one man and several pre-pubescent girls (get 'em rounded up right before they're ready for breeding, you know).