Ryan is correct! Law and history affirms that marriage is the union of a man and woman only. The social role of marriage is to encourage a man and a woman to form the kind of relationship that is apt for children to come into being as a direct result of their sexual relationship; but several decades ago, the state's loosening of divorce laws only obscured this understanding with the public and subsequent generations. As a result, it became more socially acceptable for fathers to leave their families, for unmarried parents to forgo firmer public commitment, and for children to be born and raised in a household without a mother or a father. In short, people understood that if they can easily dissolve a union (and if the state will now fund a woman's "right" to terminate her pregnancy) then why should they bother limiting themselves to one sexual partner and taking on the responsibilities accompanying marriage and parenting in the first place? Redefining marriage from a gendered to a genderless institution will send the public a very troubling message ... that society no longer needs men to bond to women to form well-functioning families or to raise happy, well-adjusted children. It'll further enshrine the ol' liberal feminist idea that men aren't necessary in the homes, thereby, men will become more susceptible to cultural messages promoting casual or uncommitted sex; thus, giving fathers every reason to abandon their responsibilities to their families and increasing the rate of functionally fatherless children. Legally recognizing the relationship between an infertile or elderly opposite-sex couple won't obscure the public's understanding of marriage as a conjugal union (husband and wife) nor will it make mothers and fathers seem replaceable and nonessential.
Hiding bigotry in the name of religion is cowardly. The worst of the cowards are those who are gay and side with the bigots for fear of being victimized. There is no virtue in discriminating against others. No matter what your religion is, don't ever blame IT for YOUR bigotry or YOUR cowardice. We need to get along as a global community. Life's too short to waste a single moment hating our fellow man. Live and let live, and we can all enjoy paradise on earth right here and right now. We all die soon enough and thus far all remained dead. Let's LIVE and be loving and peaceful.
TatortFanForever I will add to that by pointing out that in the world right now, there are over 92 million homeless orphans (no mothers, no fathers) at risk of starvation and death. Anybody with a sincere interest in child welfare would be trying to help those orphans instead of trying to hurt gay-headed households by keeping them living in 2nd class citizen status. The bigots have tried using the shopworn "All homosexuals are dangerous to children" strategy but it has failed because too many heterosexuals know personally very successful gay-headed families.
+TatortFanForever Now that little candy ass Ryan Anderson is jobless, he could find a new career in gay porn? He can always insist on being straight, but he might as well enjoy his new job. The old one as fact-twisting, lying and distorting anti-gay crusader couldn't possibly have been as much fun as doin' what comes naturally?
It's a good rule of thumb that whenever you hear someone say "that all of the science, dozens of scientific research, independent peer-reviewed studies" proves their position, you should immediately assume that the science is, in fact, not settled. And for this issue, Chad knows this is the case. Most viewers do not....
Dear Ryan Anderson: You are over 30 and unmarried. Rather strange for someone so into "marriage"? Choosing celibacy is NOT choosing heterosexuality. You are admitting that sexual attractions are NOT a choice. You are gay and have decided you don't want to "act on it". Your reasons are personal (doing it for God), but are not something anyone should want to copy. Being gay is nothing shameful. Being a bigot, however, is shameful and it is part of a profoundly flawed character. If abstaining from sexual activity works for you, fine. It is not a "model" to copy, because it is unhealthy and unnecessary. At least you agree that being gay is not a choice, since being straight isn't a possibility in your case.
Love Ryan T. Anderson!
Ryan is correct! Law and history affirms that marriage is the union of a man and woman only. The social role of marriage is to encourage a man and a woman to form the kind of relationship that is apt for children to come into being as a direct result of their sexual relationship; but several decades ago, the state's loosening of divorce laws only obscured this understanding with the public and subsequent generations.
As a result, it became more socially acceptable for fathers to leave their families, for unmarried parents to forgo firmer public commitment, and for children to be born and raised in a household without a mother or a father.
In short, people understood that if they can easily dissolve a union (and if the state will now fund a woman's "right" to terminate her pregnancy) then why should they bother limiting themselves to one sexual partner and taking on the responsibilities accompanying marriage and parenting in the first place?
Redefining marriage from a gendered to a genderless institution will send the public a very troubling message ... that society no longer needs men to bond to women to form well-functioning families or to raise happy, well-adjusted children.
It'll further enshrine the ol' liberal feminist idea that men aren't necessary in the homes, thereby, men will become more susceptible to cultural messages promoting casual or uncommitted sex; thus, giving fathers every reason to abandon their responsibilities to their families and increasing the rate of functionally fatherless children.
Legally recognizing the relationship between an infertile or elderly opposite-sex couple won't obscure the public's understanding of marriage as a conjugal union (husband and wife) nor will it make mothers and fathers seem replaceable and nonessential.
Hiding bigotry in the name of religion is cowardly. The worst of the cowards are those who are gay and side with the bigots for fear of being victimized. There is no virtue in discriminating against others. No matter what your religion is, don't ever blame IT for YOUR bigotry or YOUR cowardice. We need to get along as a global community. Life's too short to waste a single moment hating our fellow man. Live and let live, and we can all enjoy paradise on earth right here and right now. We all die soon enough and thus far all remained dead. Let's LIVE and be loving and peaceful.
TatortFanForever I will add to that by pointing out that in the world right now, there are over 92 million homeless orphans (no mothers, no fathers) at risk of starvation and death. Anybody with a sincere interest in child welfare would be trying to help those orphans instead of trying to hurt gay-headed households by keeping them living in 2nd class citizen status. The bigots have tried using the shopworn "All homosexuals are dangerous to children" strategy but it has failed because too many heterosexuals know personally very successful gay-headed families.
+TatortFanForever Now that little candy ass Ryan Anderson is jobless, he could find a new career in gay porn? He can always insist on being straight, but he might as well enjoy his new job. The old one as fact-twisting, lying and distorting anti-gay crusader couldn't possibly have been as much fun as doin' what comes naturally?
It's a good rule of thumb that whenever you hear someone say "that all of the science, dozens of scientific research, independent peer-reviewed studies" proves their position, you should immediately assume that the science is, in fact, not settled.
And for this issue, Chad knows this is the case. Most viewers do not....
One guy argues the legal question, which is what's up for discussion. The other guy goes all over the place for emotional nonsense.
Of course it's not "the same thing" as having a mom and a dad. I'm a child of divorce - my mom raising us wasn't the same either. So fucking what?
Dear Ryan Anderson: You are over 30 and unmarried. Rather strange for someone so into "marriage"? Choosing celibacy is NOT choosing heterosexuality. You are admitting that sexual attractions are NOT a choice. You are gay and have decided you don't want to "act on it". Your reasons are personal (doing it for God), but are not something anyone should want to copy. Being gay is nothing shameful. Being a bigot, however, is shameful and it is part of a profoundly flawed character. If abstaining from sexual activity works for you, fine. It is not a "model" to copy, because it is unhealthy and unnecessary. At least you agree that being gay is not a choice, since being straight isn't a possibility in your case.