11/19   Has anyone heard an argument for defining marriage as being between
        a man and a woman that hasn't relied on "common sense" or
        "tradition"?  I can't seem to find an argument that can't be traced
        back to religious doctrine fairly easily.
          \_ This is going to get flamed but every gay or lesbian person I've
             known has been a little odd, aside from the sexual aspect. Well, ok
             one of the lesbos was pretty cool. I think it's a mental thing.
             \_ There's no point in flaming you.  You're already on fire.
        \_ Yes.  The purpose of marriage is to create a stable societally
           enforced and supported relationship to raise children.  The benefits
           to marraige are there to make it easier to raise kids because
           healthy, happy, educated, well adjusted kids are a great benefit
           to society.  If you're not having kids society doesn't benefit
           from your marriage enough to justify any benefits received.
           Further more, children are better off with a mom and a dad, not two
           mommies or two daddies.  Those in favor of diversity should
           understand that getting the multi-gender upbringing and perspective
           on life is more likely to provide a child with the tools s/he needs
           to do well in life.
           \_ STOP OVERWRITING PEOPLE'S POSTS
              \_ wasn't but you're going to start getting purged just for being
                 wrong and an idiot and casting blame in the wrong direction.
           \_ Any particular reason you posted this FIVE TIMES?!
              \_ what?  i didnt.
                 \_ Yeah, you did, somehow.  I took a liberty of removing the
                    copies for you.  You're welcome.
                    \_ no.  i didn't.  thanks for cleaning the multiple copies
                       for everyone, anyway.
           \_ Got any evidence to support your idea that a child is
              "better off" with two parents of different sex?
              \_ OP wanted a reason.  I provided.  If you don't like the status
                 quo reason, it falls upon those seeking change to justify it.
                 \_ And if the status quo reason makes no logical sense and is
                    instead based on mindless tradition, it behooves the
                    society to embrace the change-- even grudgingly.
                    \_ It makes no logical sense to you.  It makes lots of
                       sense to lots of people.  If you want something
                       different from the status quo it is your burden to
                       prove that your solution is not only better but the
                       costs to society to make the change are worth it as
                       well.  If the new thing were better enough society
                       wouldn't grudgingly change, it would embrace the new
                       thing without force.
                 \_ Your "reason" is irrational. Thanks for proving his point.
                    \_ I didn't provide a "reason".  He asked a question which
                       I answered.  No points made in any direction.  I wasn't
                       expressing my own opinion.
           \_ If the purpose of marriage is to create well-adjusted kids, then
              it stands to reason that two loving parents in a committed,
              monogamous relationship and equipped with an adequate income
              would be better suited to help an orphaned or abandoned child
              than the current system of orphanages and foster homes--
              regardless of whether that couple is hetero- or homosexual.
              A child raised by either two men or two women is still as likely
              to receive a positive education about gender roles as any child
              raised in a household with non-same-sex parents.
              \_ I agree until you get to "A child raised by" at the end.  How
                 can two women provide a child with what a man can provide?
                 How can two men replace a child's mother?
                 \_ What is it that a mother provides that a loving male
                    parent cannot?  What is that a father provides that a
                    loving female parent cannot?  Until we define these so-
                    called differences, we cannot make broad generalizations
                    about who can provide what to a child.
                    \_ A child needs a father AND a mother.  They respond
                       differently to them, and they learn different lessons
                       from them.
                       \_ What lessons? How are they gender-dependent?
                          \_ You really think there's no difference between
                             men and women?  Mothers and fathers?  You're now
                             getting into areas that are so fundamental that
                             if you disagree it would take volumes to cover
                             all the basics.  You're not an alien from another
                             world so I can't believe your reply is anything
                             other than a rhetorical attempt to ignore the
                             obvious.  Saying men and women are the same is
                             ridiculous on it's face and no one from any part
                             of the political, social, or other spectrum would
                             agree with that statement.
        \_ perhaps gays should start adopting the word 'civil union'
           instead of marriage and guys like my dad won't get so upset. - danh
           \_ My mind automatically inserted "and mom" into your comment,
              which changed its meaning immensely.
              \_ c'mon, admit it, you were thinking about yermom, not his
        \_ The purpose of marriage to legitimize children. Adoption - the only
           way fags "reproduce" - is not the same thing.
           \_ So, any childless marriage is null and void? And barren/sterile
              people should not be allowed to marry?  (But your point about
              a non-religious argument is taken. Thank you.)
                \_ In certain societies this is the case.
                   \_ Perhaps, but in our society?
           \_ Dont' forget the lesbians, who can easily produce children
              without resorting to adoption...
              \_ they can?  no, they can't.  they still need a man.  did you
                 never get the birds and bees chat or take an anatomy course?
           \_ Dont' forget the lesbians, who can easily produce children without
              resorting to adoption...
        \_ Almost all homosexuals have mental neurosis or pathologies.  Look
           at the epidemiological data on disease transmission and sexual
           addiction statistics.  Look at SF, you have 100's bathhouses for
           anonymous sex - this is an environment to bring children up in?
           \_ You lie. Actually everything in your post is false. You believe
              there are 100s of bathhouses in SF? You are nuts.
              \_ Not only is he nuts, he's really insistent about it.  He's
                 already deleted four responses to his drivel, and probably
                 \_ Not to defend bigots, but (1) there were not four deleted,
                    and (2) at least one was an accidental overwrite by an
                    idiot.
               \_ Consider that syphillis has been virtaully eradicated in
                  every segment of society except one; which segment do you
                  think that is?
                  \_ You're just jealous because the gay men are gettin' some
                     and you're still jerking off to plumper and shemale pics.
              there are 100s of bathhouses in SF? You are nuts.
              \_ Not only is he nuts, he's really insistent about it.  He's
                 already deleted four responses to his drivel, and probably soon
                 a couple more.
                 soon a couple more.
                 \_ tinfoil hat time.  its a motdedit war, stupid.