[QUOTE]
I’m not sure how maintaining something that has been understood for thousands of years is pushing anything. It is the anti-domas who are pushing their agenda on others. The shoe fits on both feet at least.
Even if I were to agree with you (which I don’t) it was Christians, based on their religious beliefs, who argued for emancipation.
But also recognized that a nation must be accountable to a Creator. So your appeal doesn’t do much for your argument.
I’ll give you points for creativity.
I think it’s worth noting that a secular idea can also be bigoted, incomplete, misguided, or stupid.
Try reading the part you edited out. You seem utterly focused on ignoring adopted children. As if they don’t deserve stable families, and gay couples couldn’t be a source of them. Why?
You have tunnel vision only on hetro-families. Why? What does gay marriage do to them?
I think you sympathies with the bigots, probably you are one yourself. Otherwise why the interest in promoting bigotry under such a stupid and transparent guise?
True or false, you’re attempting to force a religious idea down everyone elses throat?
False. Next?
Appeal to tradition on the first part, on the second part how is allowing adults to marry pushing anything on you?
Some Christians did, the man who passed it was not a Christian
So you do want a theocracy!!
Of course. Anyone who disagrees with you is either stupid or evil. Or both. How terribly enlightened of you.
[QUOTE=hoopified]
But also recognized that a nation must be accountable to a Creator. So your appeal doesn’t do much for your argument.
[/QUOTE]
What?
What a silly question. What does this have to do with the question at hand? Or any question at all, for that matter?
Again, how does allowing gays to marry directly effect you.
Just because you think something may be beneficial does not mean it is the State is required to encourage and promote it.
Here is a statement: “It is better for children to bring them up within the marriage that produced them than outside of it or without it.”
That, I think, is the “secular purpose” of the state promoting and encouraging heterosexual marriage.
There may be reasons to encourage and promote homosexual marriage but they are different reasons because the above one doesn’t apply. Convince the State that that’s so, gather enough votes and boom! you get your promotion and encouragement of homosexual marriage. Like you just did in Maryland, for example.
So you’re not making a religious argument for DOMA?
Because I just shredded your “secular” one. It’s pretty stupid. You have not demonstrated a gay couple is worse than a hetro couple. Further as I’ve already demonstrated if gay and hetero couples are equal at child raising then adoption shows they can have kids as well.
Basically you have no argument.
You were claiming credit where it was not due, your belief that this country was founded as a “christian” country and has to follow late bronze age fan fiction is invalid.
cfr
My contention is not that gay couples are “worse”. Please try to address what I actually write, not what your bigotry wants me to write. My contention is that the state has determined that marriage between a man and a woman is the best possible construct to raise children. Therefor, that construct deserves preference. That is a secular argument - the argument that was asked of me from the beginning. At no time did I say it’s true, I just provided the secular argument.
I will make this bold, and plain. How does a gay marriage discourage a hetro couple from having kids? How does bigotry against gays promote hetros?
You claim outlawing outlawing gay marriage promotes hetro, but you have not demonstrated how. I on the other hand have demonstrated a clear group with an urgent need for stable homes that gay marriage could provide.
I guess the state must cock suck the bigots instead of give kids stable homes, eh?
No, it isn’t “obvious”. Humans instinctively pair bond, something that’s a lot older than religion.
No, that’s a falsehood created by the anti-homosexual bigots to excuse the passage of such laws. It isn’t true, and it’s irrelevant anyway since very few people live in some kind of ideal home. If that’s the standard for marriage, then almost no one should be allowed marriage.
Convicted serial killers can get married, but not homosexuals. Am I supposed to believe that serial killers make better parents?
Nonsense. The fact that no one cares about that demonstrates that the claim that marriage law is about children is false.
That’s nonsense; if it isn’t true, then it by definition isn’t the motivation; it’s a lie to cover the actual motivation.
If gay couples are not worse than “man and a woman is the best possible construct to raise children” is god damn false. So either the state is pulling that out of its ass, or it’s rationalizing bigotry.
If the state claimed “marriage between two people of the same race is the best way to raise children” would that make outlawing interracial marriage okay?
It doesn’t and it doesn’t.
I don’t think the state is required to encourage and promote something that it does not find itself sufficiently interested in promoting or encouraging.
Your contention is demonstrably false. There is nothing older than religion.
What does that have to do with anything? So your position is that since, as you say, very few people live in “some kind of ideal home” that the state should not strive to provide the best possible environment for that home? That’s ridiculous.
Certainly. Because, presumably, serial killers fall within the state recognized parameters of marriage.
No one cares? I can’t think of anyone who doesn’t care. Can you?
One would have to know that it isn’t true, which would be tough to prove. I would content that most people recognize that a child deserves to have a mother and a father when possible.