Posted: 8/18/2004, 11:19 am
I'm for the marriages, but when it comes to raising kids together I don't think that's a good idea.
Page 19 of 29
Posted: 8/18/2004, 12:15 pm
why? Love is love. And if you think a child should grow up with a male and female role model in the house than we should put a ban on divorces as well. A child will still get the same amount of love as they would in a heterosexual household.
Posted: 8/18/2004, 2:05 pm
Sexuality has no bearing on raising children. I can use myself as a prime example. My Mother is a lesbian. I am not a lesbian, but i do live perfectly happy in a loving and stable environment.Blue Collar Man wrote:I'm for the marriages, but when it comes to raising kids together I don't think that's a good idea.
Ironically, when I lived with my Father[Who is Straight] as a child, it was anything but stable and loving. Far far from it.
Sexuality has nothing to do with raising children.
<b>Nothing.</b>
Posted: 8/18/2004, 7:46 pm
well the child raising issue is complicated because kids benefity from having two gender parents.
sons need male role models, they can't NECCESSARILY get that with two lesbians as their parents.
sons need male role models, they can't NECCESSARILY get that with two lesbians as their parents.
Posted: 8/18/2004, 7:49 pm
it's no different then a single mom raising a son without the father in the picture .. where's the role model there?
2 loving role models (whatever gender they happen to be) is better then one
2 loving role models (whatever gender they happen to be) is better then one
Posted: 8/18/2004, 8:27 pm
Yes that is true. Two parents[Gender Unspecific] Would be much better than one i think. But gender isnt the issue.
Posted: 8/18/2004, 8:33 pm
oh im so not touching this topic with a 10 ft pole
Posted: 8/18/2004, 11:27 pm
I agree it's better than nothing, there are so many kids who just need LOVE period, no matter who it comes from. But I still don't think it's ideal.
Posted: 8/18/2004, 11:58 pm
Then what exactly is ideal?
Posted: 8/19/2004, 12:03 am
A functioning married man/woman marriage. Oh so rare.
Posted: 8/19/2004, 12:33 am
Why do you think a man and a woman can raise a child better than say, two men? Do heterosexual couples give more love than homosexuals?
Posted: 8/19/2004, 12:48 am
I wouldnt call this forum "Non-Religious" Because from what I've seen, there are alot of religious people in it. I happen to be a catholic. I have been my entire life. I believe in god and go to church and all that jazz. I also happen to be absolutely 100% for gay marriage. i think that if it makes a person happy, they should fly to it. I dont let my restrictive religion dictate my life for me.Joe Cool wrote:Your backing me up in the sense that whenever religion is brought into this topic its shot down as I said it would be. I'm not saying your ignorant, i'm saying its just a fact of life that religous arguements arent accepted in a non religous forum.
Posted: 8/19/2004, 9:12 am
I think you'll agree that the male rolemodel can be found from other family members. Grandfathers, uncles, cousins, they can all contribute. Also, why exactly do males need a male role model? We don't need to be taught how to hunt, or build shelters anymore.mosaik wrote:well the child raising issue is complicated because kids benefity from having two gender parents.
sons need male role models, they can't NECCESSARILY get that with two lesbians as their parents.
Posted: 8/19/2004, 10:17 am
Cass wrote:What do morals have to do with the bible? Maybe morals are a bad word, but alot of the parables in the Bible are basically just based on good sense and morals. Some others may not be so obvious, like the law in question. I was just pointing out that in the Bible does say to seperate church and government, but WHERE do the laws come from if they aren't from God? I'm getting to the point where I just don't care, let everyone get married. They will never be able to get married the way I want to get married, so fine by me if they get married civily. The only thing I still have troubles with is adoption, but then I think about all the kids that don't have anyone. Eh, I'm tired.
The Chinese, had laws they're not
Christian.............oh and a little empire called the ROMAN EMPIRE, invented much of our laws, and politics. They were Paegen, at least before the fell down the shitter.
Posted: 8/19/2004, 10:47 am
I know that neither my Aunt of my Grandma were as strong as influences on me as my Mom, nor was my Grandpa or Uncle. I just think it's a matter of balance. I'm not saying they give more love. That's not it at all.
Posted: 8/19/2004, 11:53 am
Well then if it isnt a question of love, why are two straight people more ideal for raising children?
Posted: 8/19/2004, 12:26 pm
It's a question of what a man and a woman bring to a family.
Ok, I can see this is never going to go anywhere.
Ok, I can see this is never going to go anywhere.
Posted: 8/19/2004, 12:45 pm
I agree. *drops* 
Posted: 10/4/2004, 3:27 pm
I forgot to post this, but the ammedment about same sex unioins that Bush wanted as law was voted down by senate. I have to find the whole article. Will post it later.
Posted: 10/4/2004, 3:32 pm
found an article on it.
Posted on Thu, Sep. 30, 2004
House rejects amendment banning same-sex marriage
By JIM PUZZANGHERA
San Jose Mercury News (San Jose, Calif.)
WASHINGTON - A proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage fared better in the House of Representatives on Thursday than it did in the Senate in July, but still fell far short of the two-thirds majority needed to pass.
After more than three hours of often passionate debate, the House voted, 227-186, for an amendment that would define marriage as only between one man and one woman. It needed 276 votes to pass.
The measure failed to win even a majority in the Senate, which defeated it, 50-48, on a procedural vote July 14. Two-thirds of both houses of Congress and then 38 state legislatures must approve an amendment before it becomes part of the Constitution.
Amendment supporters knew they did not have the votes to pass it. But with pressure from conservative groups outraged by same-sex marriages in Massachusetts and earlier this year in San Francisco, supporters said they wanted to put lawmakers on the record on the issue.
"Everybody in this country's going to know how you voted today," House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas told his colleagues after he took the unusual step of managing the Republican side of the debate on the House floor. "We will take it from here and we're going to come back and we're going to come back and we will never give up. We're going to protect marriage in this country."
Amendment supporters said that "traditional marriage" was under assault from "activist judges." Allowing same-sex unions goes against the wishes of a majority of Americans and would lead to fewer marriages and more children born out of wedlock, they said.
Democrats argued states are dealing with the issue and an amendment was unnecessary. They warned that the amendment would also prohibit civil unions. And they accused Republicans of holding the vote to inflame voters over a divisive issue a month before the Nov. 2 election, while delaying action on more pressing matters.
Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., and other opponents noted that the House had passed only one of 13 bills needed to fund the federal government as a new fiscal year begins Oct. 1 and still had not acted on the recommendations of the commission that investigated the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
"The Republicans control the White House. They control the House of Representatives. They control the Senate. They control everything in Washington," Lofgren said. "But despite all these advantages, all of this power, they have no accomplishments. All they can do is play political games to hide their truly abysmal record."
Overall, 36 Democrats joined 191 Republicans in backing the amendment, while 27 Republicans and one independent joined 158 Democrats in opposing it.
Some notable Republicans who opposed the amendment were Rep. Jim Kolbe of Arizona, who is gay; two Californians who are in the GOP leadership, Reps. David Drier and Chris Cox; and Reps. Doug Ose and Mary Bono, both of California.
Supporters said they were forced into action by February's decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court that a ban on same-sex marriages was unconstitutional. Shortly after, President Bush called on Congress to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Massachusetts began the marriages in May.
"I wish traditional marriage was not under attack but it is," said Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., the amendment's chief sponsor. "Like it or not, the courts have thrust this burden on us and we must not fail to shoulder it."
But Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who is gay, said the experience so far in Massachusetts proved that same-sex marriage is no threat to the institution.
"How does it hurt you if we share in it?" he said. "Why do you change my love into a weapon?"
Posted on Thu, Sep. 30, 2004
House rejects amendment banning same-sex marriage
By JIM PUZZANGHERA
San Jose Mercury News (San Jose, Calif.)
WASHINGTON - A proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage fared better in the House of Representatives on Thursday than it did in the Senate in July, but still fell far short of the two-thirds majority needed to pass.
After more than three hours of often passionate debate, the House voted, 227-186, for an amendment that would define marriage as only between one man and one woman. It needed 276 votes to pass.
The measure failed to win even a majority in the Senate, which defeated it, 50-48, on a procedural vote July 14. Two-thirds of both houses of Congress and then 38 state legislatures must approve an amendment before it becomes part of the Constitution.
Amendment supporters knew they did not have the votes to pass it. But with pressure from conservative groups outraged by same-sex marriages in Massachusetts and earlier this year in San Francisco, supporters said they wanted to put lawmakers on the record on the issue.
"Everybody in this country's going to know how you voted today," House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas told his colleagues after he took the unusual step of managing the Republican side of the debate on the House floor. "We will take it from here and we're going to come back and we're going to come back and we will never give up. We're going to protect marriage in this country."
Amendment supporters said that "traditional marriage" was under assault from "activist judges." Allowing same-sex unions goes against the wishes of a majority of Americans and would lead to fewer marriages and more children born out of wedlock, they said.
Democrats argued states are dealing with the issue and an amendment was unnecessary. They warned that the amendment would also prohibit civil unions. And they accused Republicans of holding the vote to inflame voters over a divisive issue a month before the Nov. 2 election, while delaying action on more pressing matters.
Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., and other opponents noted that the House had passed only one of 13 bills needed to fund the federal government as a new fiscal year begins Oct. 1 and still had not acted on the recommendations of the commission that investigated the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
"The Republicans control the White House. They control the House of Representatives. They control the Senate. They control everything in Washington," Lofgren said. "But despite all these advantages, all of this power, they have no accomplishments. All they can do is play political games to hide their truly abysmal record."
Overall, 36 Democrats joined 191 Republicans in backing the amendment, while 27 Republicans and one independent joined 158 Democrats in opposing it.
Some notable Republicans who opposed the amendment were Rep. Jim Kolbe of Arizona, who is gay; two Californians who are in the GOP leadership, Reps. David Drier and Chris Cox; and Reps. Doug Ose and Mary Bono, both of California.
Supporters said they were forced into action by February's decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court that a ban on same-sex marriages was unconstitutional. Shortly after, President Bush called on Congress to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Massachusetts began the marriages in May.
"I wish traditional marriage was not under attack but it is," said Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., the amendment's chief sponsor. "Like it or not, the courts have thrust this burden on us and we must not fail to shoulder it."
But Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who is gay, said the experience so far in Massachusetts proved that same-sex marriage is no threat to the institution.
"How does it hurt you if we share in it?" he said. "Why do you change my love into a weapon?"