• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Same sex marriage: what is it really?

What is same sex marriage?


  • Total voters
    62
Marriage changes the nature of the relationship. Partners stay together longer when married, especially if kids are involved. They tend to work on issues rather than to just run away. Same with heterosexual relationships... but nobody ever studies those, but looking around at friends and people I know, they are shifting heterosexual relationships all the time. But they are "normal" and not studied, the negative burden is placed on the homosexuals, they are studied like monkeys... why? What the **** have they done to deserve such retarded treatment? Nada...

That depends on your culture. Most adherents of traditional culture have expectations of what constitute a good marriage. Sometimes it doesn't happen. People stray. Most heteros don't. However, what if you belonged to a culture that wasn't traditional? What if you went into marriage without an expectation of fidelity? If that's the case the institution of marriage, the idea of marriage won't promote monogamy. It's really quite simple when you think about it.

This is a pro-gay marriage article, with a twist. The author suggests straights could learn from gay couples, monogamy isn't really necessary after all. :shock:
source

......New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.

That consent is key. “With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,” said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, “but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.”

The study also found open gay couples just as happy in their relationships as pairs in sexually exclusive unions, Dr. Hoff said. A different study, published in 1985, concluded that open gay relationships actually lasted longer.

None of this is news in the gay community, but few will speak publicly about it. Of the dozen people in open relationships contacted for this column, no one would agree to use his or her full name, citing privacy concerns. They also worried that discussing the subject could undermine the legal fight for same-sex marriage......
 
Marriage changes the nature of the relationship. Partners stay together longer when married, especially if kids are involved.

If this were true the divorce rate would not be up wards of 33 - 50%. It has little affect if any on the length of time. Children have some effect, but according to the 50% rate, not much and almost never good.

They tend to work on issues rather than to just run away. Same with heterosexual relationships... but nobody ever studies those, but looking around at friends and people I know, they are shifting heterosexual relationships all the time. But they are "normal" and not studied, the negative burden is placed on the homosexuals, they are studied like monkeys... why? What the **** have they done to deserve such retarded treatment? Nada...

There are usually five reasons why people get married:

1.they are lonely and want companionship.
2.they want financial security.
3.they want love.
4.they want sex.
5.they think marriage will solve their personal problems.

Some of these reasons are valid and others are definitely not. either way they also tend to be the main reasons for divorce.

I don't agree with your premise.
 
That depends on your culture. Most adherents of traditional culture have expectations of what constitute a good marriage. Sometimes it doesn't happen. People stray. Most heteros don't. However, what if you belonged to a culture that wasn't traditional? What if you went into marriage without an expectation of fidelity? If that's the case the institution of marriage, the idea of marriage won't promote monogamy. It's really quite simple when you think about it.

This is a pro-gay marriage article, with a twist. The author suggests straights could learn from gay couples, monogamy isn't really necessary after all. :shock:
source

Why do so many think that marriage is all about sex?

Monogamy, even within marriages, should be up to the couple. If a couple consent to go outside of their marriage for sex, then that should be up to them.

Even if some of those homosexuals who get married do agree to have sex outside of their marriage, I'd bet that they establish certain rules to help try to reduce their chances of getting some STD or HIV, since now they know that their decisions to have unsafe sex, could also affect the health/life of their loved one. The same is most likely true for heterosexuals who go outside of their marriage for sex. People are more likely to be more cautious when their decisions affect a loved one's health, not just their own.

Plus, marriage is not just about setting up a sexual partner. It is also about establishing a person who will make legal and/or financial decisions for another person with just one legal document, instead of several.
 
Why do so many think that marriage is all about sex?

Monogamy, even within marriages, should be up to the couple. If a couple consent to go outside of their marriage for sex, then that should be up to them.

Even if some of those homosexuals who get married do agree to have sex outside of their marriage, I'd bet that they establish certain rules to help try to reduce their chances of getting some STD or HIV, since now they know that their decisions to have unsafe sex, could also affect the health/life of their loved one. The same is most likely true for heterosexuals who go outside of their marriage for sex. People are more likely to be more cautious when their decisions affect a loved one's health, not just their own.

Plus, marriage is not just about setting up a sexual partner. It is also about establishing a person who will make legal and/or financial decisions for another person with just one legal document, instead of several.

I've argued all along in this thread that marriage, as an institution, served as a vehicle to promote the procreation and rearing of children (sorta important if you actually want your culture/society to actually continue existng). It also has the advantages of retarding std's (for those of us silly enough to think of monogamy as a good thing) and women who are married suffer less abuse than then cohabitating women.

According to the liberals on this thread I'm all wrong. Marriage actually only serves two valid purposes; as a vehicle for the acceptance of gays in society (something that already exists for all practicle purposes) and for the sake of the lawyers. Remarkable.

And people think america is a seriously divided country.


confused-full.jpg
 
Last edited:
I've argued all along in this thread that marriage, as an institution, served as a vehicle to promote the procreation and rearing of children. It also has the advantages of retarding std's (for those silly enough to think of monogamy as a good thing) and women who are married suffer less abuse than then cohabitating women.

According to the liberals on this thread I'm all wrong. Marriage actually only serves two valid purposes; as a vehicle for the acceptance of gays in society (something that already exists for all practicle purposes) and for the sake of the lawyers. Remarkable.

And people think america is a seriously divided country.

When did anyone say those things? And how is SSM not for the rearing of children, the lessening of STD's, and love?
 
I've argued all along in this thread that marriage, as an institution, served as a vehicle to promote the procreation and rearing of children. It also has the advantages of retarding std's (for those silly enough to think of monogamy as a good thing) and women who are married suffer less abuse than then cohabitating women.

According to the liberals on this thread I'm all wrong. Marriage actually only serves two valid purposes; as a vehicle for the acceptance of gays in society (something that already exists for all practicle purposes) and for the sake of the lawyers. Remarkable.

And people think america is a seriously divided country.


confused-full.jpg

Actually, you just brought up the best arguments for SSM without realizing it. Children, lower STD rate, more stable homes.
 
Not to mention same sex couples who are married are more likely to adopt or to use a surrogate or invitro to procreate. You ultimately get the same result.
 
So, provide a source that indicates marriage changes promiscuous behavior in people already.

See, I never said this. What I DID say is that marriage provides a more stable environment for people. This is one of the reasons that government sanctions marriage. Or do you disagree with this reason?

Ok, I'm waiting. However, be able to show those studies all 67 or so of them are also comparing apples to apples with large enough study groups to provide validity, for starters. :mrgreen:

They do all that. And after I do, let's see YOUR sources. And I would hope that none of them have the names "Cameron" or "Schumm" on them, and they do not have so many methodological flaws that I could drive a truck through them.




okey dokey

Good. When will we be expecting those sources, now?
 
I've argued all along in this thread that marriage, as an institution, served as a vehicle to promote the procreation and rearing of children (sorta important if you actually want your culture/society to actually continue existng). It also has the advantages of retarding std's (for those of us silly enough to think of monogamy as a good thing) and women who are married suffer less abuse than then cohabitating women.

According to the liberals on this thread I'm all wrong. Marriage actually only serves two valid purposes; as a vehicle for the acceptance of gays in society (something that already exists for all practicle purposes) and for the sake of the lawyers. Remarkable.

And people think america is a seriously divided country.


confused-full.jpg

This is an excellent example of you distorting what others are saying. Marriage performs several important functions in society. Child rearing. Societal stabilty. Improved health. Please demonstrate any one of these things that would not be benefitted by gays being allowed to marry.
 
When did anyone say those things? And how is SSM not for the rearing of children, the lessening of STD's, and love?

Actually, you just brought up the best arguments for SSM without realizing it. Children, lower STD rate, more stable homes.

Not to mention same sex couples who are married are more likely to adopt or to use a surrogate or invitro to procreate. You ultimately get the same result.

This is an excellent example of you distorting what others are saying. Marriage performs several important functions in society. Child rearing. Societal stabilty. Improved health. Please demonstrate any one of these things that would not be benefitted by gays being allowed to marry.

This is called pointing out that Dutch self-pwned.
 
When did anyone say those things? And how is SSM not for the rearing of children, the lessening of STD's, and love?

Oh, let's see; homosexual couples rarely produce children, sleeping around is a really, really, good way to contact and spread std's, and......I never actually mentioned love. Why the hell would you bring that issue up on a thread debating the uses/function of marriage?

confused-pirate3.jpg
 
Oh, let's see; homosexual couples rarely produce children

http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/FinalAdoptionReport.pdf

So wrong on your first point.

sleeping around is a really, really, good way to contact and spread std's, and

Marriage tends to lead to increased fidelity, which lowers STD rates.

......I never actually mentioned love. Why the hell would you bring that issue up on a thread debating the uses/function of marriage?

Your really did not just say that, right?
 
Self-pwned?

huh.jpg

Absolutely. Read the posts that I quoted. Then read what you wrote that were important components to marriage. Pretty identical. Further, you said that liberals have been arguing, and I quote from you, "According to the liberals on this thread I'm all wrong. Marriage actually only serves two valid purposes; as a vehicle for the acceptance of gays in society (something that already exists for all practicle purposes) and for the sake of the lawyers." Please quote-post where anyone on this thread has said this.

It's called self-pwnage when you help your opponents prove you wrong.
 
OK, folks. Quite a few of you have seen me do this before. I will now post my string of 10 studies that demonstrate that the children of gay parents do as well as those of straight parents. Let's see what studies Dutch comes up to refute.

Without further ado...

Here are the studies supporting my position that children in same-sex households do, at least, as well, overall as those in heterosexual households. Universally, studies show that not only do same-sex parents perform as well as straight parents (whose children would probably be biological), but do better at times. As far as children's emotional health goes, studies show that, on 4 important scales, there is little or no difference between children reared from single-sex families and those from straight parents (whose children would probably be biological). The 4 components examined were Gender Identity, Gender Role Behavior, Sexual Orientation, and Other Aspects of Personal Development, such as Social Relationships. One difference they did find was that children raised by single-sex parents tend to be more flexible and less closed-minded in their thinking.

The studies I am posting are peer reviewed and reproducible, certainly based on the number that produce similar results.

Studies:
Anderssen, N., Amlie, C., & Ytteroy, E. A. (2002). Outcomes for children with lesbian or gay parents: A review of studies from 1978 to 2000. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43, 335-351.

Reviewed 23 empirical studies published between 1978 and 2000 on nonclinical children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers (one Belgian/Dutch, one Danish, three British, and 18 North American). Twenty studies reported on offspring of lesbian mothers, and three on offspring of gay fathers. The studies encompassed a total of 615 offspring (age range 1.5-44 yrs.) of lesbian mothers or gay fathers and 387 controls, who were assessed by psychological tests, questionnaires, or interviews. Seven types of outcomes were found to be typical: emotional functioning, sexual preference, stigmatization, gender role behavior, behavioral adjustment, gender identity, and cognitive functioning. Children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers did not systematically differ from other children on any of the outcomes. The studies indicate that children raised by lesbian women do not experience adverse outcomes compared with other children. The same holds for children raised by gay men, but more studies should be done.
615 offspring from gay parents; 387 controls from straight parents. No differences in 7 types of functioning.

That's ONE.

Gottman, J. S. (1990). Children of gay and lesbian parents. In F. W. Bozett & M. B. Sussman (Eds.), Homosexuality and family relations (pp. 177-196). New York: Harrington Park Press.

Reviews research literature on children of homosexual (HS) parents, including comparisons with children of heterosexual parents. Children of HS parents did not appear deviant in gender identity, sexual orientation, or social adjustment. Issues that emerged during their upbringing related more to society's rejection of homosexuality than to poor parent-child relationships. Most social adjustment problems occurred in both groups and were commonly related to family history of divorce. Results are supported by J. Schwartz's (unpublished manuscript) investigation of the above variables in adult-aged daughters in relation to mothers' sexual orientations, with a focus on role modeling theory.
No difference between children raised by gay parents vs. straight parents on 3 scales. Only issue was society's issue with homosexuality; parenting was a non-issue.

That's TWO.

Kleber, D. J., Howell, R. J., & Tibbits-Kleber, A. L. (1986). The impact of parental homosexuality in child custody cases: A review of the literature. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 14, 81-87.

Reviews the literature on the impact of parental homosexuality in child custody cases. As a result of the relatively high rate of divorce in the United States and the increasing awareness that many parents (an estimated 1.5 million) are homosexual, the courts and divorce mediators have become actively involved in child custody placement decisions involving homosexual parents. While custody decisions have tended to reflect stereotyped beliefs or fears concerning the detrimental effects of homosexual parenting practices on child development, the research literature provides no evidence substantiating these fears. Several specific custody issues are discussed as well as social factors relevant to lesbian motherhood.
Interesting study. No significant issues when homosexual parents obtain custody when a divorce occurs.

That's THREE.

Victor, S. B., & Fish, M. C. (1995). Lesbian mothers and their children: A review for school psychologists. School Psychology Review, 24, 456-479.

Reviews 56 studies (published from 1971 to 1994) on lesbian mothers and their children. Three main family patterns and some common misconceptions about these families are addressed. Research suggests there are no differences between children of lesbians and children of heterosexuals with regard to their emotional health, interpersonal relationships, sexual orientation, or gender development. Psychological adjustment and parenting skills were not significantly different for lesbian and heterosexual mothers. Implications for school psychology practice and training are discussed.
No significant difference in important emotional health issues between children raised by lesbian parents vs. straight parents.

That's FOUR.

Bigner, J. J., & Jacobsen, R. B. (1989b). Parenting behaviors of homosexual and heterosexual fathers. In F. W. Bozett (Ed.), Homosexuality and the family (pp. 173-186). New York: Harrington Park Press.

Compared the responses of 33 homosexual (HMS) fathers with those of 33 heterosexual (HTS) fathers on the Iowa Parent Behavior Inventory. HMS subjects did not differ significantly from HTS subjects in their reported degree of involvement or in intimacy level with children. HMS subjects tended to be more strict and more responsive to children's needs and provided reasons for appropriate behavior to children more consistently than HTS subjects. Possible explanations for these similarities and differences in parenting styles are explored.
Homosexual parenting vs. Heterosexual parenting is explored. No significant differences were found, though homosexual parents tended to be more strict, more responsive, and more consistent with their children.

That's FIVE.

Continued...
 
Continued...

Bos, H. M. W., van Balen, F., & van den Boom, D. C. (2004). Experience of parenthood, couple relationship, social support, and child-rearing goals in planned lesbian mother families. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 755-764.

The phenomenon of planned lesbian families is relatively new. The overall aim of this research was to examine whether planned lesbian mother families differ from heterosexual families on factors that are assumed to influence the parent-child relationship, such as experience of parenthood, child-rearing goals, couple relationship, and social support. One hundred lesbian two-mother families were compared with 100 heterosexual families having naturally conceived children. A variety of measures were used to collect the data, including questionnaires and a diary of activities kept by the parents. Lesbian parents are no less competent or more burdened than heterosexual parents. Both lesbian and heterosexual parents consider it important to develop qualities of independence in their children. However, "conformity" as a childrearing goal is less important to lesbian mothers. Furthermore, lesbian social mothers feel more often than fathers in heterosexual families that they must justify the quality of their parenthood. There are few differences between lesbian couples and heterosexual couples, except that lesbian mothers appear less attuned to traditional child-rearing goals and lesbian social mothers appear more to defend their position as mother.
Lesbian parents vs. Biological parents. Both are equally competent and unburdened. Styles may be different, but no other differences.

That's SIX (and a rather nice six, I might add).

Flaks, D., Ficher, I., Masterpasqua, F., & Joseph, G. (1995). Lesbians choosing motherhood: A comparative study of lesbian and heterosexual parents and their children. Developmental Psychology, 31, 104-114.

Compared 15 lesbian couples and the 3- to 9-year-old children born to them through donor insemination with 15 matched, heterosexual-parent families. A variety of assessment measures were used to evaluate the children's cognitive functioning and behavioral adjustment as well as the parents' relationship quality and parenting skills. Results revealed no significant differences between the two groups of children, who also compared favorably with the standardization samples for the instruments used. In addition, no significant differences were found between dyadic adjustment of lesbian and heterosexual couples. Only in the area of parenting did the two groups of couples differ: Lesbian couples exhibited more parenting awareness skills than did heterosexual couples. The implications of these findings are discussed.
Lesbian parents vs. heterosexual parents. No differences except that the lesbian parents exhibited more parenting awareness.

That's SEVEN. Your "biological" position smells real bad right now. :2razz:

McPherson, D. (1993). Gay parenting couples: Parenting arrangements, arrangement satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pacific Graduate School of Psychology.

Twenty-eight gay male parenting couples and 27 heterosexual parenting couples from across the United States participated in a study comparing gay parenting couples and heterosexual parenting couples. Gay parenting couples are already existing gay couples into which a child has been brought prior to the child's 9-month birthday and in which the child is presently being reared. Parents' division of labor and satisfaction with their division of labor was assessed using Cowan and Cowan's Who Does What? Relationship satisfaction was assessed using a single question on relationship satisfaction and Spanier's 32-item Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS). Results revealed gay parenting couples demonstrate significantly more equitable arrangements of parenting tasks and roles and significantly greater satisfaction with those arrangements than the heterosexual parenting couples. A single question on relationship satisfaction revealed no significant difference between groups in reported satisfaction, while the 32-item DAS revealed the gay parenting couples to be significantly more satisfied with their relationships than the heterosexual couples, especially in the area of dyadic cohesion and affective expression. Post-hoc testing revealed a gender difference: Women reported significantly greater dissatisfaction with parenting arrangements than their husbands or gay parents. Findings are explained in terms of three factors unique to the experience and social setting of gay parenting couples.
Gay male couples vs. heterosexual couples. The gay couples were happier and more equitable in their parenting tasks. Other than that, no significant differences.

That's EIGHT.

Miller, B. (1979). Gay fathers and their children. Family Coordinator, 28, 544-552.

Presents data from a 3-year study on the quality and nature of the relationships of homosexual fathers with their children. In-depth interviews were conducted with a snowball sample of 40 gay fathers and 14 of their children. Uses a cross-national sample: Interviews were conducted in large and small cities in both Canada and the United States. Excluded from the study were men who no longer saw their children. Fathers were aged from 24 to 64, and the children who were interviewed ranged from 14 to 33 years of age. Addresses the nature of the father-child relationship and the children's adjustment to their father's homosexuality. Four issues frequently raised in custody cases are discussed: Do gay fathers have children to cover their homosexuality, do they molest their children, do their children turn out to be gay in disproportionate numbers, and does having a gay father expose a child to homophobic harassment. Concludes that concerns that gay fathers will have a negative impact on their children's development are unfounded.
The impact on the children of gay fathers based on 4 concerns. No negative impact.

That's NINE.

Green, R., Mandel, J. B., Hotvedt, M. E., Gray, J., & Smith, L. (1986). Lesbian mothers and their children: A comparison with solo parent heterosexual mothers and their children. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 7, 175-181.

Compared the sexual identity and social relationships of 30 daughters and 26 sons (aged 3-11 yrs.) of 50 homosexual mothers with 28 daughters and 20 sons of 40 heterosexual mothers. Mothers were currently unmarried White women aged 25-46 years. In addition to age and race, mothers were matched on length of separation from father; educational level and income; and number, age, and sex of children. Subjects were from rural and urban areas in 10 U.S. states and lived without adult males in the household for a minimum of 2 years. Data from children's tests on intelligence, core-morphologic sexual identity, gender-role preferences, family and peer group relationships, and adjustment to the single-parent family indicate that there were no significant differences between the two types of households for boys and few significant differences for girls. Data also reveal more similarities than differences in parenting experiences, marital history, and present living situations of the two groups of mothers. It is suggested that the mother's sexual orientation per se should not enter into considerations on parental fitness that are commonly asserted in child custody cases.
Children's sexual identity when reared by lesbian mothers vs, heterosexual mothers was explored. No difference in boys; few in girls. Mostly, both groups were similar.

That's TEN.

Golombok, S., Spencer, A., & Rutter, M. (1983). Children in lesbian and single-parent households: Psychosexual and psychiatric appraisal. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 24, 551-572.

Compared the psychosexual development, emotions, behavior, and relationships of 37 children (aged 5-17 yrs.) reared in 27 lesbian households with 38 children (aged 5-27 yrs.) reared in 27 heterosexual single-parent households. Systematic standardized interviews with the mothers and with the children, together with parent and teacher questionnaires, were used to make the psychosexual and psychiatric assessments. The two groups did not differ in terms of their gender identity, sex-role behavior, or sexual orientation. Also, they did not differ on most measures of emotions, behavior, and relationships, although there was some indication of more frequent psychiatric problems in the single-parent group. It is concluded that rearing in a lesbian household per se does not lead to atypical psychosexual development or constitute a psychiatric risk factor.
Children in lesbian households vs. those in single-parent heterosexual households on sexual identity. No significant difference. In fact, no difference on any emotional/behavioral scale.

That's ELEVEN.

Had enough, yet? No? OK.

Kirkpatrick, M., Smith, C., & Roy, R. (1981). Lesbian mothers and their children: A comparative survey. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 51, 545-551.

Forty 5- to 12-year-olds, divided equally into groups according to their mothers' sexual choice and within group by sex, were assessed with a developmental history, WISC scores, the Holtzman Inkblot Technique, and the Human Figure Drawing test. Subjects' gender development was not identifiably different in the two groups. Prevalence of disturbance was not found to be a function of the mother's sexual choice.
Children of lesbian mothers vs. heterosexual mothers in regards to developmental, intellectual, and emotional functioning. No significant difference.

That's TWELVE.

And that's enough for tonight.

Links used:

Lesbian & Gay Parents
Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents
Empirical Studies Specifically Related to Lesbian & Gay Parents & Their Children
Empirical Studies Generally Related to the Fitness of Lesbians and Gay Men as Parents
Reviews of Empirical Studies Specifically Related to Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children
Reviews of Empirical Studies Specifically Related to Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children

DP posts referenced:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057543399-post326.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057543400-post327.html

There. This supports my position, not based on discrimination, but based on the importance of the family.

Enjoy.
 
copy/paste is cheating CC.
 

Adoption isn't exactly "producing children." You do know that don't you?



Marriage tends to lead to increased fidelity, which lowers STD rates.

I've already provided an article that suggested some 50% of gays think marriage shouldn't be be limited to monogamy.


Your really did not just say that, right?

No, I actually never mentioned love. This thread is already screwed up enough already.
 
I've already provided an article that suggested some 50% of gays think marriage shouldn't be be limited to monogamy.




What article was that?
 
Absolutely. Read the posts that I quoted. Then read what you wrote that were important components to marriage. Pretty identical. Further, you said that liberals have been arguing, and I quote from you, "According to the liberals on this thread I'm all wrong. Marriage actually only serves two valid purposes; as a vehicle for the acceptance of gays in society (something that already exists for all practicle purposes) and for the sake of the lawyers." Please quote-post where anyone on this thread has said this.

It's called self-pwnage when you help your opponents prove you wrong.

Nice. just declare unilateral victory. Well, I disagree.
 
Nice. just declare unilateral victory. Well, I disagree.

Disagree all you like. You provided the information that caused your defeat. You walked right into it. Don't blame anyone but yourself.
 
Adoption isn't exactly "producing children." You do know that don't you?

Read the source for gods sake:
provided source said:
More than one in three lesbians have given birth
More than half of gay men and 41 percent of lesbians want to have a child

I've already provided an article that suggested some 50% of gays think marriage shouldn't be be limited to monogamy.

Yes, it was rather laughable. It studied gay relationships. Guess what, that means mostly outside of marriage. Further, the study was not out when the source linked mentioned it, so impossible to evaluate.

Are you denying that marriages are a better avenue to fidelity than relationships outside of marriage?


No, I actually never mentioned love. This thread is already screwed up enough already.

So you really do not understand why people would bring up love as one of the purposes of marriage? And you think gays getting married would hurt the institution?
 
Back
Top Bottom