Comments on: Same-sex marriage does not threaten birth rates or child-rearing http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/03/25/same-sex-marriage-does-not-threaten-birth-rates-or-child-rearing/ Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: CraigChilton http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/03/25/same-sex-marriage-does-not-threaten-birth-rates-or-child-rearing/#comment-71851 Mon, 01 Apr 2013 13:16:50 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=19036#comment-71851 Nature, being NON-sentient, has zero ability to “intend” anything whatsoever. Reproduction included. That said, though, thanks to the many available reproductive methodologies other than coitus, gays have proven to be every bit as interested in having kids as straights, and are just as productive. Whether or not they’re married. Their becoming universally able to marry will probably have no affect upon this.

]]>
By: euroyank http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/03/25/same-sex-marriage-does-not-threaten-birth-rates-or-child-rearing/#comment-71779 Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:20:22 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=19036#comment-71779 Turning the issue on it’s head – why is the state allowed to give preferential treatment to heterosexual couples who marry? It cannot only be to encourage procreation, as elderly people beyond child-bearing age are allowed to marry. And marriage is not a necessary step in pregnancy, as borne out by the statistics. So, why does the state give married people tax breaks and spousal benefits? Obviously this is discriminatory to all unmarried individuals.

As to why some of you are so afraid of homosexuals… Mr Fake Turtle, why are you so perversely obsessed with what other people do in their bedrooms?

]]>
By: JL4 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/03/25/same-sex-marriage-does-not-threaten-birth-rates-or-child-rearing/#comment-71776 Tue, 26 Mar 2013 20:34:38 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=19036#comment-71776 @PseudoTurtle, you sound like the Nazis. Hitler didn’t much like “multiculturalism” either.

If I hadn’t wanted answers I wouldn’t have asked them. I didn’t attempt to, not did I think I’d need to take “cheap shots” if you answered my questions, and I was right.

]]>
By: PseudoTurtle http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/03/25/same-sex-marriage-does-not-threaten-birth-rates-or-child-rearing/#comment-71774 Tue, 26 Mar 2013 17:02:43 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=19036#comment-71774 @ JL4 —

There is an old saying, which is quite apt in these circumstances.

If you don’t want to hear the answer, don’t ask the question.

Obviously, you thought you could take a cheap shot at my expense, and never expected an answer.

I stand by what I said above that “I have no animosity against gays/lesbians, but only judge them on their overt behavior and the negative impact they are having on society.”

You are wrong about history being on your side. This country has a track record of civil rights violations that goes back to its beginnings.

It has swung between extremes, and is now at or near the end of a liberal phase where we cannot survive as a nation with “multiculturalism” as a societal concept.

Homosexuality is the predictable result of this drift towards multiculturalism.

NO society has EVER survived for any length of time with increasing multiculturalism as it basis.

That is a fact.

]]>
By: opuntia http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/03/25/same-sex-marriage-does-not-threaten-birth-rates-or-child-rearing/#comment-71772 Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:36:08 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=19036#comment-71772 Whether the U.S. Supreme Court supports or denies the same-sex marriage vehicle, it is of no consequence to heterosexuals. The gay person will only abet or injure him or herself alone but will never reach the heterosexual lifestyle or continuation of the species. So any arguments for or against does not concern any heterosexual couple or person except insofar as it touches upon the benefits to be gained from our state and federal governments. This is really what the argument is going to center upon after the U.S. Supreme Court grants the right to marriage. Will the gay community realize enough income to justify their hand in the public till and not remove any dollar amounts that any heterosexual couple or person may derive from the public well?

]]>
By: PseudoTurtle http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/03/25/same-sex-marriage-does-not-threaten-birth-rates-or-child-rearing/#comment-71771 Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:16:43 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=19036#comment-71771 Frankly, I find the unabashedly pro-gay propaganda from Reuters disturbing. Clearly, they are more interested in social engineering than the truth.

I especially find Reuters statement that 63% of the American people favor same sex marriage. If that is true, why did California pass a law (by popular vote) to deny same sex marriages?

Reuters is not a news organization, but a liberal propaganda machine.

I offer this article from Europe as proof of my charge. THIS is what the American people should be doing. We are stupid beyond belief to allow gay marriage in this country, because it will open a Pandora’s Box that can never be shut.

——————————

From Der Spiegel, with 7 photos covering the demonstrations against gay marriage in Paris.

Protest in Paris: Anti-Gay Marriage Activists Clash with Police

An estimated 300,000 people took to the streets in the French capital to protest against the “marriage for everyone” draft law, passed last month by parliament with a wide majority led by President François Hollande’s Socialists and their allies. The demontrators hope to discourage the bill’s approval next month by the Senate, where the Socialists also lead.

Disagreement over the bill — a campaign promise by Hollande — is dividing French society. While many supported the measure when Hollande was elected, rising unemployment and the president’s failure to improve the economy have sparked resentment of the bill to grant same-sex couples equal marriage and adoption rights. Placards carried by protesters read: “We want a job, not gay marriage.”

Conservative activists, families, pensioners and priests came out to try and stop the law from being passed, many of them from outside the city. But the protest took a violent turn when police blocked a few hundred demonstrators from veering onto the city’s famous Champs-Elysées avenue toward the presidential palace. Demonstrators reportedly harassed officers and objects began flying through the air, prompting police to use tear gas and batons.

Participants reportedly fell to the ground, overcome by the tear gas. Prominent politician Christine Boutin, who heads the conservative Christian Democratic Party, was also reportedly injured. At least two arrests were made.

The landmark Champs-Élysées, a tourist magnet, had not been approved as a route for the protest. Interior Minister Manuel Valls said the demonstration “got out of hand” when organizers became overwhelmed by “extremist groups” taking part in the protest.

While police estimated that some 300,000 took part, protest organizers said that 1.4 million people were there.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/euro pe/anti-gay-marriage-activists-clash-wit h-paris-police-a-890752.html

—————————-

NONE of this is being reported by Reuters, mainly in an obvious effort to suppress US opinion against gay marriage.

]]>
By: JL4 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/03/25/same-sex-marriage-does-not-threaten-birth-rates-or-child-rearing/#comment-71770 Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:09:08 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=19036#comment-71770 I can only respond by saying that your expanded version of your original 2 posts says nothing more, except to detail your misguided and unsupportable perception of equality.

Let me clarify – no, I don’t mean that homosexual behavior is only “little better than animal behavior”. What I meant to convey is that gays have a better outlook on what it means to be human than you. Perhaps I was too subtle for you.

You take homosexual equality, and apparently ANY equality of minorities, as a threat to you personally and to this nation. You feel you would be better off without equal rights for others, and consider any legal, social and employment rights for others as “special” and therefore a threat to your standing. Your views are precisely why there is an EEOC. There has to be to prevent people like you from considering anyone who isn’t a white male to be undeserving of equality – perhaps a 3/5 citizen.

Unfortunately, I don’t have the time today to respond to each and every one of your rebuttals, but let me leave you with this – history is not on your side. History has proven time and again that equal rights in this country prevail. They will again, and on this one and only point I do agree with you – you don’t have to like it.

]]>
By: AustinPuppyUSA http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/03/25/same-sex-marriage-does-not-threaten-birth-rates-or-child-rearing/#comment-71766 Tue, 26 Mar 2013 03:01:28 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=19036#comment-71766 You are an idiot if you say that gay marriage is not “normal”. It is completely normal and a bunch of the time it isn’t something we choose. I think if the couple is happy then that is all that matters. Yes, I know we all have different opinions on the topic. One thing that makes me mad is that religion is starting to be brought up into the picture. We all have different religions. Maybe your religion doesn’t support it. That doesn’t mean that the other religion hates it also. Also people say that gays will force their sexuality on others. Yes, some will, but it works the other way also. Heterosexuals also try to force their sexuality on others. It works both ways. I think that EVERYONE should be treated the same. I support gay marriage and I don’t care who knows. Some people have to accept that some people are different from others and that is completely normal.

]]>
By: Commenter12 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/03/25/same-sex-marriage-does-not-threaten-birth-rates-or-child-rearing/#comment-71765 Tue, 26 Mar 2013 00:35:21 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=19036#comment-71765 Even Humpty-Dumpty can make an opinion, but for it to be taken seriously it needs to be sound-minded and logical. Your reasoning fails to resonate among fair-minded Americans and would definitely fail in courts.
How would you celebrate the upcoming Supreme Court’s affirmation of marriage equality in June, Turtle ?

]]>
By: PseudoTurtle http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/03/25/same-sex-marriage-does-not-threaten-birth-rates-or-child-rearing/#comment-71763 Mon, 25 Mar 2013 23:53:15 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=19036#comment-71763 @ JL4 —

In reply to your second comment:

(1) Just FYI, dolphins do it for fun, and apes masturbate. One could argue that the smarter the primate, the more likely they are to enjoy sex for its own sake. That just may make gays smarter than you.

Are you arguing that gays and gay behavior is little better than animal behavior? Animals do a lot of things I don’t believe humans should engage in.

If one’s sexual activities contributed to intelligence, there would be fewer people in the world. It is a well known fact that when a person’s (or an animal’s) sex drive takes over, the urge to procreate makes humans/animals do incredibly stupid things.

Following your logic, I would say gays would be less intelligent, since homosexual behavior seems to totally dominate gays’ lives to exclusion of most everything else. That would argue strongly that homosexual behavior is far from normal, as I stated above.

—————————————–

Homosexuality has been part of the human existence since there was human existence. It isn’t new, it’s just different from you, and steps outside the dogma of the religion, which has lost its control over everyone, except for those who choose to believe. It is no longer in political or military power, and it no longer defines “right” and “good” and “normal”. You can always move to Afghanistan, where religion defines society, is in power, and the male is king.

You are probably right that homosexual behavior has been part of human existence for a very long time, but simply because a particular behavior has been with us for a lengthy period doesn’t necessarily mean the behavior should be encouraged.

For example, people have been killing each other since our species began; however, I don’t think society should actively encourage more killing.

And killing is a “normal” human activity, however much we say we are a nonviolent species.

I agree that religion has lost its ability to control people, but I think that is a good thing, mainly since much of mankind’s violence is religious-based.

You are wrong that homosexuality “is no longer in political or military power, and it no longer defines “right” and “good” and “normal” because that is what we are arguing about today — the political or military power gay attitudes will bring, and it is now in the process of defining (for good or ill) what our society considers right, good and normal.

Sex has always been a part of human society and CANNOT be legislated in or out of society. THAT is what the Supreme Court is attempting to do — regulate human behavior at the most basic level — and they will fail just as the Supreme Court has failed in this area previously.

You take my comments too personally.

I have no animosity against gays/lesbians, but only judge them on their overt behavior and the negative impact they are having on society.

]]>