Gay Marriage is a fad

[ISpeakToo]

Personally I have nothing against gay people and some type of civil union. You should know that some of the best people I've known personally are gay. But I don't care much for the gay marriage topic. I think they should call it something else, but that's just me.

[AquaKnight]

Wow.....there are just so many things wrong with this post.
First of all the primary difference between a heterosexual and homosexual couple are the sexes of the individuals in the relationship not the ability to procreate. If procreation was the focus so many more groups would be marginalized for the inability to reproduce.
There are also multitudes of reasons that heterosexual couples cannot effectively procreate (infertility, age, unwilling etc) and you don't see those couples being discriminated against .
As far as taxes and benefits received from the governing body...this is a matter of state and to remain in agreement with the ideals of our nation there should be no difference among citizens as to not create a sense of second class citizenship. Religion is one of the main proponents and arguments for the limiting of marriage to man and woman...allowing religion to dictate this decision violates the separation of church and state.
As far as the liberal movement is concerned we are in an ever changing and evolving society and the idea is to move forward and continually adapt to the needs of a progressive society.
As a Pre-Med student with an emphasis on developmental biology.....I can give a million(okay exaggeration) reasons why incest is not okay for producing a healthy functional family, and also pedophilia implies that a child has the mental maturity to give sexual consent. THE REASON THIS HASN'T PERSISTED THROUGH THE AGES IS BECAUSE OF LIBERALS...who have stood up and said with valid reason this isn't conducive to the well being of our society.
there is so much more i could say.....please swerve.

[OrphanPip]

Don't respond to trolling.

[princealbertofb]

I wonder why we never try to put ourselves in the shoes of a bisexual person.... OK so, let's admit that their first relationship is an opposite-sex relationship. The man and woman get married, have children or don't, but in any case are allowed a certain number of rights because they live in marital ''bliss''... and a union that is recognised by the state.
Die one of the partners, or divorce occurs. Either the widow or widower (or divorcee) now falls in love with (and wishes to have a similar relationship with) a same-sex partner this time. Why are this person's rights now drastically changed just because the new partner is of the same sex, while if they'd gone into another opposite-sex relationship they could have started everything all over again, thus benefiting of all the same rights they had before? That shows that some relationships are discredited, regardless of whether the second relationship will produce offspring or not. And anyway, since that man or woman has already had children from the previous relationship (maybe), is there any reason why the new couple should produce more? I think it is right to consider reproduction, marriage and parenthood as three totally separate things. Reproduction can happen in the worst of circumstances, no matter what the couple's or the woman's status. I say woman because if she's been raped and bears a child, the father is probably not in the slightest bit interested in the child he's spawned. Parenthood links the child to his parent or parents (depending on how lucky the child is to have two parents (or more) looking after him/her), while marriage links two adult people together who want to share their living circumstances (ie money, house, car, taxes, holidays, children even...) but children don't have to be part of the equation.

The day women started living their own lives and became financially independent through work or personal fortune, the day women and couples were able to control their fertility rate, then was the time that the whole family, marriage, parenthood thing started to unravel.

Of course in the past there were single parents, probably more than we think. There were widows and widowers galore, that we can be sure of... and there were probably more than one gay uncle or aunt who had to raise their sister's or brother's children because the children had become orphaned.
So the case for gay adoption is probably not such a new idea as we might think.

What science has brought us now is the option of procreating outside the traditional and natural reproduction way, so that fairly new science has also brought a change to the way we can view our partnerships today. A same sex family does not devalue the opposite sex family in any way. It could just coexist with the same rights. After all, is our bisexual father from the first marriage now no longer to be considered the father of his offspring because his second relationship is a gay one?
Time to wake up to reality.

[Marc]

Am I bovverd?!

[EvenOlderButWiser]

Not sure I can post a URL, but I think this would sum up my reply to iSpeak2

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/12...b=facebook

ObW
x

[princealbertofb]

Am I bovverd?!

hahaha, Marc, I love that....

[princealbertofb]

Good one, OlderButWiser... mile:

[BobInTampa]

Ironic that this thread was started by a "transexual man" in an OPEN straight relationship. Talk about TWISTED!

[Corsac]

The only thing that makes marriage a fad is the increasing amount of divorces taking place each year, it seems like people want to throw things away the minute things go wrong. Also, If religious people wanted to keep it religious then they should have fought to keep it out of the legal systems of the world.