Does that mean that single women shouldn't be allowed to have children and since marriage exists to protect children does that mean that when a couple is divorced the children should become wards of the state.
Furthermore, should divorce be illegal once a couple has had children.
2006-07-06 12:03:12 · 14 answers · asked by collegedebt 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I like your thinking. However, I do not think that any Conservatives on this site will be able to rebuttal.
2006-07-06 12:10:56 · answer #1 · answered by MishMash [I am not one of your fans] 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Traditional families are already a thing of the past. People copied Hollywood, and started doing prenups, etc. - meaning, in my opinion, that the marriage is not intended to last.
I disagree with the person who said that we are paying for the children of single women - many work, and support their families quite nicely. Others stay home with the kids, but get a decent amount of child support from the children's father.
It would be nice if everyone growing up could have a mom and dad living in the same household - but that idea has been overthrown.
I believe that people should only get married if they do intend to stay together for the rest of their lives - and I don't believe that most people are even thinking that way any more.
2006-07-06 19:12:38 · answer #2 · answered by Terri C. 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's the irrational argument that has been thrown out by every court that has considered it.
In fact, courts have commented on how irrational it to try to claim the same-sex marriage has anything to do with child raising, because every major neutral study that's been done over the past two decades have shown that there is no correlation between the sexual orientation of the parent or parents and the health or welfare of the child.
The bottom line is that certain religious groups just don't like homosexuals, and want to enact their prejudice as a matter of law. And when they are told that religious prejudice can't be legally enforced, they invent completely preposterous arguments to try and support their irrational arguments.
They should just admit that there is no secular grounds for denying same-sex couples the benefits of state sanctioned monogamy and try to their agenda passed on purely religious grounds. At least then they would be seen as fervent, rather than irrational.
2006-07-06 19:06:53 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
one issue doesnt make the other issue right... my bible says a sin is a sin... right is right and wrong is wrong. it is stated that a man and woman should enter into matrimony... and having a child out of wedlock is also frowned upon..in bible.. so either way both are against the teachings of the bible and both have a negative affect on the scheme of things. however every one has the ability to ask forgiveness for anything they do...and that is a whole different answer in itself. a couple in my bible get divorced for adultery... and there may be other issues stated that i am unaware of... however...it seems we have thrown away everything we have been taught that is right or wrong by most standards. and we are paying for it greatly. extended families.. mulitple step moms and dads.... those in society who went to school or got jobs...having to pay for those who didnt... and for the children they have... i dont feel same sex or opposite sex couples should have the same benefits.. that a married couple has. there should be some rewards for trying to do things the right way... or the norm. i have nothing against same sex folks dating as long as they dont hoard my benefits.. or reach into my pocket book.. the same with children out of wedlock or in wedlock... you have them ... you pay for them. i will pay for mine. i am not heartless... any one can make a mistake and have a baby... but six ... eight... no daddies... no husbands... and you want me to pay. bullllllllll a marriage tells me at least you tried..... i just dont like having to be tolerant...and then..my life is turned upside down over a decision you made. i want to see some statistics..that same sex partners... stay together longer than married people and i mean real marriages... not some hollywood.. infactuation... with a divorce in a week. that is the trouble ..we call everything a marriage... so bottom line... what is your point... same sex marriage.. multiple births to people who cant afford them... fifty different babies mammas...and daddys... two day marriages... alll the same to me. as far as divorce..sometimes the wrong people in a ,marriage... hurts children worse then a divorce.. especially when violence and abuse is present.
2006-07-06 19:27:28 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO, the situations that you are refuring to are different. The children are still being brought up with correct family values in homes with only one of each type of parent.
I think that homos should not be allowed to adopt children because of the inbalance and the incorrect views that the child will learn. Also answer me this. Why do homos that are married or dating each act like different genders? Doesn't the fact that one is more feminane and one more masculine make the homosexuality pointless? I don't care what you think, this is my answer to your ? and if you are unhappy with it, so be it. I wasn't the one who asked the ?.
D. o. D.
2006-07-06 19:16:08 · answer #5 · answered by Duchess of Discourse 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
homosexuals are made that way, turned that way, not born that way well very little of them are, you know how they are turned whats the big deal about being married MONEY, divorce is illegal
and homosexuals should only be able to have same sex children
lets see that happen
if the couple had sex that produced children naturally then it is natural
homosexuals need to remain in the closet
I have nothing against homosexuals, except the way that they were turned
2006-07-06 19:18:05 · answer #6 · answered by man of ape 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Homosexuals can't marry because that's not what marriage is, except apparently in Massachusetts. For the record, I do support civil unions for gay couples, with all the legal benefits of marriage in the states that choose to confer them.
2006-07-06 19:10:03 · answer #7 · answered by Chris S 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Didn't you hear about the thousadns of heterosexual married couples spontaneously divorcing just because a homosexual couple was within 10 feet of them?
I think that is in the Bible too ya know.
2006-07-06 19:12:22 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They can't marry because marriage gets tax benefits because it is beneficial to society and having children keeps the human race going. The is no benefit that society gets by recognizing homosexual marriage and giving them tax benefits.
2006-07-06 19:16:45 · answer #9 · answered by remmo16 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I feel that sex should only be between a man and a woman who are married (to each other) As for divorce well I am opposed to it except in cases of abuse and infidelity
2006-07-06 19:53:36 · answer #10 · answered by Ethan M 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When a single woman has a child , he becomes a ward of the state. You and I pay for him.
2006-07-06 19:07:26 · answer #11 · answered by tex 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋