Party Vibe

@Chrispydelic 545070 wrote:

Hope you don’t mind me asking but what exactly IS the issue?

What is it about gay marriage that you find objectionable?

Marriage is a religious ceremony, and a union between a man and a women for the purpose of creating a family unit for breeding

Im not religious myself but you cant just change the core beliefs and rituals of a religion, you cant say we will correct Gods words because he wasnt PC lol

If gays want they can get civil partnerships which offer the same legal rights as married couples without the religious bits

@Mezz 545074 wrote:

Marriage is a religious ceremony, and a union between a man and a women for the purpose of creating a family unit for breeding

Im not religious myself but you cant just change the core beliefs and rituals of a religion, you cant say we will correct Gods words because he wasnt PC lol

If gays want they can get civil partnerships which offer the same legal rights as married couples without the religious bits

And what about non-religious marriages which are performed in a registry office rather than a church and have no religious dogma or sentiment attached at all? Is that not still a marriage?

@Chrispydelic 545082 wrote:

Where is your evidence for this? Or is it just an opinion?

And what about single parent families?

Here is your evidence

Problems with sexuality are compounded. Children from mother-only families are more likely to marry early and have children early, both in and out of wedlock, and are more likely to divorce. Also, age at the first marriage will be lower for the children of divorced parents who marry, when sex, age, and maternal education are controlled.

Studies from many different cultures have found that girls raised without fathers are more likely to be sexually active, and to start early sexual activity. Father-deprived girls “show precocious sexual interest, derogation of masculinity and males, and poor ability to maintain sexual and emotional adjustment with one male”.

As an example, a British study by Kathleen Kiernan found that girls brought up by lone parents were twice as likely to leave home by the age of 18 as the daughters of intact homes; were three times as likely to be cohabiting by the age of 20; and almost three times as likely to have a birth out of wedlock.

This is just a tiny fraction of the available evidence, looking at just a few key social indicators. Other areas can also be mentioned, such as educational performance, the likelihood of committing suicide, and so on. In every key area, children suffer and are worse off when not raised by their own mother and father.

Yet the homosexual activists and other social engineers keep telling us that family structure has absolutely nothing to do with the well-being of children. There are only two reasons they might say this: they are either woefully ignorant about a half century of social science research, or they are simply lying big time in order to push their activist agendas.

Hmm, I really like the humility and rationality of chrispydelics posts.

What no body here has mentioned yet is that all same sex couple families choose to have their children as they have to go through a process to aquire them. Most straight couple families aquire their children by accident thus that leading to these problems that mr has mentioned.

Thats not to say the children are mistakes but most are unplanned through lapse in contraception (hell me and my siblings where not planned)

I honestly think all this homophobia is due to how offensive people find sodomy. Well…tough shit. Just because you have the inability to see a gay couple holding hands without picturing them fucking one another it does give you the right to opress them.
Fat people fucking is also gross but does ‘discust’ directly correlate with ‘immorality’ Fuck no!

Also Lshaks claim that they are ‘shouting out about their sex life’ is absolute drivel. When you take your partner for coffee and kiss eachother is that shouting out about your straight sexuality? No

People need to keep their god damned nose out of peoples privrate lives. There always will be gays and there always has been (this goes back millenia)

@MR207 545083 wrote:

Here is your evidence

Problems with sexuality are compounded. Children from mother-only families are more likely to marry early and have children early, both in and out of wedlock, and are more likely to divorce. Also, age at the first marriage will be lower for the children of divorced parents who marry, when sex, age, and maternal education are controlled.

Studies from many different cultures have found that girls raised without fathers are more likely to be sexually active, and to start early sexual activity. Father-deprived girls “show precocious sexual interest, derogation of masculinity and males, and poor ability to maintain sexual and emotional adjustment with one male”.

As an example, a British study by Kathleen Kiernan found that girls brought up by lone parents were twice as likely to leave home by the age of 18 as the daughters of intact homes; were three times as likely to be cohabiting by the age of 20; and almost three times as likely to have a birth out of wedlock.

This is just a tiny fraction of the available evidence, looking at just a few key social indicators. Other areas can also be mentioned, such as educational performance, the likelihood of committing suicide, and so on. In every key area, children suffer and are worse off when not raised by their own mother and father.

Yet the homosexual activists and other social engineers keep telling us that family structure has absolutely nothing to do with the well-being of children. There are only two reasons they might say this: they are either woefully ignorant about a half century of social science research, or they are simply lying big time in order to push their activist agendas.

None of those studies have anything to do with children raised in same-sex couple households.

Also, are there more straight couples wishing to adopt than there are children available for adoption? Because unless this is the case, the argument isn’t whether straight couples are better suited to parent than same-sex couples, but whether it is better to be raised by a same-sex couple, or in an orphanage. No prizes for guessing which one is more likely to be a better environment for a child.

@MR207 545177 wrote:

You must’ve skipped over the very first line

This has nothing to do with adoption….. where in my evidence does it ever say anything about adoption? Chrispy was asking me about the single-parent families too, so I provided those facts as well. There is nothing about kids being raised in an orphanage or being adopted.. these are facts about kids having problems being raised by “mother” couples and single parents. It is a study showing children having troubles without being brought up with both mother and father. It’s a no brainer that children have an easier life when raised by both parents instead of a struggling single parent trying to provide for them, I don’t know if you disagree with me on that but that’s a fact.

“Instead of a struggling single parent trying to provide for them.”

That’s being intellectually dishonest. Of course children from economically disadvantaged households are more likely to suffer problems growing up. However this assumes that a single-parent will be incapable of providing for the kids. Two of my cousins were raised in a single-parent household and they are doing perfectly fine.

Yet even with all your “evidence” saying that single-parent households are bad, this doesn’t have anything to do with same-sex marriage and adoption, which is what we were talking about (Chrispy raised the point about single-parent households, I believe, because they are not as stigmatised in the way same-sex couples seeking children are.)

It would do well to note that marriage predates religion. Even if it doesn’t, it certainly predates current faiths. It is a social and legal contract more than a religious one, despite what conservatrolls will tell you.