Being a parent was setup as one mother and one father being committed to the family.

 

Are there times that heterosexual couples do not fit the above situation, absolutely.

Are there times that single mothers or fathers are wonderful parents, absolutely.

 

But the VERY BEST situation is a loving mother and father who are committed to the marriage and the family.

 

 

Actually, physically it takes a male and female to produce a child. However, I would in no way say that that is required to make a family. What it takes to make a family, in the sense that people are committed to the common good of all has nothing to do with biology, IMO.

 

I would argue that the VERY BEST situation is that a person, or people are committed and working together to provide the best interests of the child. IMO, that doesn't mean only heterosexuals are able to provide those.

Actually, physically it takes a male and female to produce a child. However, I would in no way say that that is required to make a family. What it takes to make a family, in the sense that people are committed to the common good of all has nothing to do with biology, IMO.

 

I would argue that the VERY BEST situation is that a person, or people are committed and working together to provide the best interests of the child. IMO, that doesn't mean only heterosexuals are able to provide those.

 

My posts have been consistent that the VERY BEST situation is a mother and a father that, as you say, are committed and working together to provide the best interests of the family.

 

And a mother and father together is the optimum situation.

I voted a nationwide ban on all gay marraiges and civil unions.

I don't think that any gay relationship and certainly not a marraige should be recognized. Homosexuality is an abomnation to God. No way around it, the Bible clearly states that and this is still "One Nation Under God", whether or not some want to acknowledge that or not does not change it.

 

 

Not sure about the bolded. We can call ourselves anything we want but it doesn't necessarily mean it's true. Historically speaking the Founding Father's must have not seen a need to state this. It didn't appear on money until the Civil War and it was never adopted as the Motto of the Nation until 1954 (almost 180 years after the Declaration). Was it a true statement prior to 1954?

Not sure about the bolded. We can call ourselves anything we want but it doesn't necessarily mean it's true. Historically speaking the Founding Father's must have not seen a need to state this. It didn't appear on money until the Civil War and it was never adopted as the Motto of the Nation until 1954 (almost 180 years after the Declaration). Was it a true statement prior to 1954?

You're thinking of "In God We Trust" which became the national motto in 1956. It first appeared on coins in 1864. In 1908, Congress made it mandatory that the motto appear on all coins that had previously used the motto. The 1 cent and 5 cent coins were excluded. The motto first appeared on currency in 1857, when it appeared on Silver Certificates.

I am only going to post once. I have my beliefs and everyone else has theirs...and that is ok, that is what makes people individuals and different.....

 

Here is my one post:

 

A man and a women get married, then have children to keep up the human race going. Only a man and a women can produce a child. In my value system, only a man and a women should be able to get married and produce or adopt a child. I will not judge, it is not my place to judge....and yes, I have known a women/women union that have adopted and thier little boy is in a loving home with two caring adults raising him. So, no, I am not going into my decision with my eyes closed.

My stance: No to gay marriages or unions....no tax break or anything for said couples. No to adoption for gay unions.

Marriage is not mentioned or defined in the federal constitution, therefore it is an issue for the states.

 

Which is exactly why I voted...leave it for the states to decide.

Marriage is not mentioned or defined in the federal constitution, therefore it is an issue for the states.

 

 

99.99% of the time I would agree completely with you on this one Hearsay. I'm struggling with 2 things.

 

1) What happens if a gay couple gets married in a state that allows gay marriage, then moves to a state that doesn't?

 

- Are they then un-married?

- Or, does the state have to accept them as married?

- Or something inbetween?

 

 

2) Marital status affects federal taxes.

 

- Do the feds treat them as single for fed purposes?

- Or, because the state says they're married, they get marital benifits on their fed taxes.

My stance is NO to.

I would think it would be better to let gay people get married if they want! I wouldn't want a in the closet gay man marry a women because that's the "right thing to do" He would have all this built up inside of him and maybe one day lose it and then what, beat his wife? I am sure if he really wanted to be with another man I don't think he would be to good of a husband towards a wife. Why not let someone be happy and marry the person they love? I married ( a girl ) and she has a gay uncle on both sides of her family. I never really cared one way or not but after getting to know them and their "life partners" I 100% push for their rights. I know this goes against everything they tought me in school since first grade, but oh well.

About the adopt a kid thing, trust me they would be way better parents than many I see day to day!

=coldweatherfan99.99% of the time I would agree completely with you on this one Hearsay. I'm struggling with 2 things.

 

1) What happens if a gay couple gets married in a state that allows gay marriage, then moves to a state that doesn't?

 

- Are they then un-married?

- Or, does the state have to accept them as married?

- Or something inbetween?

 

Look at this part of the Constitution:

 

Article. IV. - The States

Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

 

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

 

Could this mean that if one state allows gay marraige/civil unions, and moves to another, that the second state must recognize that marraige/union in the second state? Think about it.

Edited July 22, 200818 yr by HHSDad
fix quote

I am only going to post once. I have my beliefs and everyone else has theirs...and that is ok, that is what makes people individuals and different.....

 

Here is my one post:

 

A man and a women get married, then have children to keep up the human race going. Only a man and a women can produce a child. In my value system, only a man and a women should be able to get married and produce or adopt a child. I will not judge, it is not my place to judge....and yes, I have known a women/women union that have adopted and thier little boy is in a loving home with two caring adults raising him. So, no, I am not going into my decision with my eyes closed.

My stance: No to gay marriages or unions....no tax break or anything for said couples. No to adoption for gay unions.

 

 

If your basis is that its the responsibility of society to continue to produce offspring in order to keep this experiment going, then you must also be of the mindset that a man or a woman MUST marry and produce children. If that's not the case, how do you OK a man or a woman deciding to go through life without producing a child? How are they helping society anymore than a gay couple?

My stance is NO to.

 

No to what?

To all of the people voting no for everything do you still believe that these people are making a "choice" or do you think they are born to become gay? I think that is important. I firmly believe that people aren't choosing to be gay b/c it's fun and it's so socially accepted. I think they are born that way and therefore they deserve every right that every other American is born w/. Including getting married and adopting kids. Do some people abuse the system for tax and health insurance breaks? Sure. But so do a lot of straight people.

 

So my vote would be the first and the fifth options.

To all of the people voting no for everything do you still believe that these people are making a "choice" or do you think they are born to become gay? I think that is important. I firmly believe that people aren't choosing to be gay b/c it's fun and it's so socially accepted. I think they are born that way and therefore they deserve every right that every other American is born w/. Including getting married and adopting kids. Do some people abuse the system for tax and health insurance breaks? Sure. But so do a lot of straight people.

 

So my vote would be the first and the fifth options.

I don't believe that homosexuality is genetic, but even if it is, that doesn't make it right or the best option.

 

We had an extensive thread on this a while back.