Comments about ‘Delay on gay marriage debate not a sign of victory’

"Victory" will be the legalisation of same sex marriage. Let's get it done' we've got way more important things that should be 'the big issue'.

The argument against same sex marriage is that it somehow hurts traditional marriages. I don't see the link.

A better argument is that children ought to have a mother and a father, and same sex relationships called marriage (or not) should not lead to adoption of children by such couples, especially when heterosexual couples can't adopt for lack of available children.

Correction: "heterosexual couples can't adopt for lack of available [healthy, white infant] children."

Evidently the shift between the rejection of gay marriage to the acceptance of gay marriage has sped up over time. I mean within a 4 year time span the shift has grown largely and even organizations who once supported the ban of gay marriage has now weakened their stance on it. Although they may not fully support the action of gay marriage they no longer fully oppose. I don't understand why the nation continues to prolong what is inevitably going to occur...and that is that gay marriage will be legalized.

O K I'll say it Mandate. There

The argument against same sex marriage is that it somehow hurts traditional marriages. I don't see the link. - cjb

I agree.

There is, no evidence of the 'harm' gay marriage brings America....

almost a decade later.

**'After 5 Years of Legal Gay Marriage, Massachusetts still has the lowest state divorce rate...' - Bruce Wilson - AlterNet - 08/24/09

Line:
'Massachusetts retains the national title as the lowest divorce rate state, and the MA divorce rate is about where the US divorce rate was in 1940, prior to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.'

Massachusetts was the first state to legalize gay marriage in 2004.

For any factual evidence against gay marriage, please cite date, author and source.

I would love to read it.

@cjb
sorry but as has been pointed out to you before your claims about children are blatantly false. A short search of the research including a 20 longitudinal study by NYU shows that children raised by homosexual couples suffer no ill effects and function on the same level as those raised by heterosexual couples. its time for you to drop this lie it has not and will not work in any court of law and has lost its footing in the court of public opinion.

A better argument is that children ought to have a mother and a father, and same sex relationships called marriage (or not) should not lead to adoption of children by such couples, especially when heterosexual couples can't adopt for lack of available children. - cjb

Lack of available children?

Unless there are 'zero' every child needs parents.

And, I am pretty sure gay couples do not have accidental children.

As for any implication that gay parents somehow bring 'harm' to unwanted children of heterosexual couples, that has alos been disproven.

By the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Here is the date, title, source, volume and page number:

"In most ways, the accumulated research shows, children of same-sex parents are not markedly different from those of heterosexual parents."

- AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS (AAP)
- 'Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents' - POLICY STATEMENT - PEDIATRICS Vol. 109 No. 2 February 2002, pp. 339-340 - Pulished: 02/01/10

How many children have two homosexual parents ever created together in the history of the world?

Zero

Mother nature has spoken

And I agree

the same marriage rules that apply to heterosexuals apply to homosexuals.

find someone of the opposite sex of legal age who is not already married, and you can marry them.

Since the same rules apply, there is no discrimination and no one is being denied any rights.

Dear Lost:
You wrote: "find someone of the opposite sex of legal age who is not already married, and you can marry them"

Hopefully you mean Him or her intestad of "them"

It really bothers me to state the obvious, but, I guess sometimes it may be necessary.

The LDS church has a large number of single members, heterosexual members, many of them wanting desperately to get married . However, they don't seem to find the right person. Why? You know the answer, because they don't seem to find the person that their hearts wants.

Marriage is more than sex. Marriage is about love, commitment, friendship, similar interests, etc. etc. sex and gender are only two components.

Lost, why are you against SSM? How SSM affects you personally? If it is for religious reasons...Then, shouldn't be a personal choice?

If you answer me these questions, I may understand you and others better. Thank you for your clear and objective response.

Voting on someone else's rights puts your own at risk because you set a precedent that the rights of others are optional, which makes your own rights optional.

That is not America.

No matter how you justify, it has been,and will always be wrong.

@lost
Again lost this the EXACT same failed logic used to try to justify not allowing interracial marriage. If you have any actual evidence to support an actual ligitimate state or societal interest in not allowing same sex marriage please present it.

Everyone has equal rights. You can marry a consenting adult of the opposite gender.

It's not true to say that everyone but gays can marry who they want to.

A man cannot marry his brother.

Nor his father.

Nor his pet rock.

Even if he wants to.

Is this discrimination?

No, just common sense.

Really Chris? You just embarrass yourself with such comments. Give us one ligitimate state or societal interest for blocking gay marriage.

@ Chris B.

Is this your best argument against SSM?

May be common sense is a not as common as people say.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

===========

Your logic as to who can marry who, only, and "if"
are about as lame as saying --

A Jew can only marry a Jew,
A Catholic only a Catholic,
A Mormon only a Morman,
A Black only a Black,
An Asian only an Asian,
A male only a female,

It might be taught that way in church, or in the home,
but it doesn't even come close to passing legal constitutional muster.

@LDS Liberal,

Your lack of a logical response again shows my point is valid.

Thank you.

and what is with "Morman"?

I would have thought a Mormon knew how to spell Mormon.

But then again, we all know you aren't a MormOn.

Bacchus0902,
Just because someone cannot find the person they want to marry does not mean they do not have the right to marry. I do not want to smoke, but that does not mean I do not have the right to smoke.

What you want to do and what you have the right to do are not always the same thing. Some want to steal, some don’t, but as long as the same rules apply to all, (NO ONE can steal) EVERYONE is being treated equally.

Tolstoy,
If you cannot tell the difference between race and gender, you need a remedial biology class. What percent of self-contained homosexual relationships are capable of procreation? ZERO. What percent of self-contained interracial relationships are capable of procreation?

The societal interest argument is from the religion act signed by Clinton that gives congress the power to deny religious rights if there is a compelling national interest. The 1st amendment does NOT say, “congress shall make no laws concerning the establishment of religion unless there is a compelling national interest”

LDS?lib,
See the first comment to Tolstoy, but in addition to “interracial” add “interreligion”.