There is no movement in the United States to kill people in the name of second amendment rights but there is a movement that has murdered 1,200,000 children in the name of women's rights

There is no doubt, while far from perfect, the union of a man and woman and subsequent production and rearing of children is what makes a society function and prosper. To elevate any other type of relationship to that status is foolish and counter to a healthy and functional scoiety. I dont wish to control anyone nor tell them who they can do what with, but the two just are not and never will be the same.

But as of late I have been considering the implications of certain traits being degraded in society that have historically had a hand in gluing society together.

Those traits being the family unit and religion.

As far as homosexual relationships being conducive to a strong family environment I feel they can. But I think that it may significantly alter how a family works in unforeseen ways.

But the strength of the family has been degraded even without homosexual considerations being applied to the issue.

I think that issue is indeed a pressing one.

Ithink brings up good points to consider. As does everyone else.

My position on this issue comes from not wanting to deny people what they choose for themselves. I feel that when the minority groups rights are protected and honored then the protection of my beliefs are strengthened in turn.

Now I dont profess to all know the genetic downsides to inbreeding but I was trying to point out that we don't harbor those feelings toward people with dwarfism.

It all comes down to what is socially acceptable.

I must say though after doing a little reading dwarfism is totally a genetic defect. There are other causes. Plus inbreeding can produce positive traits in some cases.

MYTH SAYS As I stated brother and sister etc relationships have serious issues attached to them that has nothing to do with any moral quandary. Inbreeding can introduce genetic defects into the offspring. THEN MYTH SAID Dwarfism is a genetic defect. Should we disallow little people from having children? Sounds like you are on both sides of the issue.

I sorta thought the CAP with MYTH SAYS would be enough of a clue,

Maybe only blue eyed and blonde people should have that privlige????? I think that has been tried

It certainly scares me, Tiredofit.

When quoting somebody, I like to use quotation marks. It avoids confusion.

Should we evaluate prospective parents for fitness?" THAT is a very scarey thing to contemplate. Sounds like a good idea until you stop and think of a Govt agency having that kind of power over somone.

I personally would deny some from having children, especially those who have already had children and left the responsibility for them to me.

Neutering may not be a popular viewpoint, but I feel some people should be neutered.

True, Tiredofit.

There is a big difference between taking children and caring for them and preventing people from having children.

I thought I acknowledged that difference when I wrote, "Here's the pertinent question: Should we evaluate prospective parents for fitness?"

Sorry about that, Tiredofit. Please excuse my mistake.

HARRY SAYS .......I think we all can agree that some people should not be allowed to have children. I know I do. And so does society. We already deny parenthood to those who willingly avoid providing for their children or whose behavior is detrimental to their children. We take the children WE TAKE OVER the responsibilty of thier children but in NO WAY stop them from HAVING more and more. Big Difference

I object to homosexual marriage. Nevertheless, I must admit that my objection is largely based on my own religious and cultural preferences.

Tiredofit asks,

"Should we disallow little people from having children?" THAT WAS NOT MY QUESTION. If you would read more carefuly, both statements are attributable to MYTH.

I agree with Ithink that the family is the cornerstone of our society. Many have made that argument compellingly.

But there's an important point in that argument that gays use to make a case for gay marriage. Family is defined as a man and woman and children. We recognize that men and women each have strengths to use. But gender is "a range of physical, mental, and behavioral characteristics distinguishing between masculinity and femininity."

Gender goes beyond biology. We have all known feminine men and masculine women. Homosexuals argue that a masculine woman can teach masculinity to a young boy at least as effectively as a feminine man can teach it.

And I also believe that homosexuals want special privileges. They want special privileges denied to single heterosexual people.

Ithink, I agree with you. I personally wouldn't consider 2 gay people married.

Your second paragraph explains my point very well. You write, "To recognize that relationship as having specific legal qualities, it would need a definition of 'marriage' that could be held up in courts."

Exactly. The government only needs to define marriage to confer, as you say, "specific legal qualities" on some people while denying those qualities (in this case, special privileges) to all others.

And that's discriminatory.

Tiredofit asks,

"Should we disallow little people from having children?"

I think we all can agree that some people should not be allowed to have children. I know I do. And so does society. We already deny parenthood to those who willingly avoid providing for their children or whose behavior is detrimental to their children. We take the children.

We just have to decide where to draw the line. Now, should dwarfs have children? Why not, provided they're willing and able to be responsible parents?

Here's the pertinent question: Should we evaluate prospective parents for fitness? After all, very few of the dilatory parents out there are little people.

Marriage and the resulting family are the corner stones and foundation of our society. Children have a right to have a father and mother, who by the way, were both an absolute necessity for them to be born.

If government truly got out of the marriage business, we would have to stop recognizing the spousal relationship as having special legal standing. To recognize that relationship as having specific legal qualities, it would need a definition of “marriage” that could be held up in courts . Once the law has to define “marriage” then government is in the “marriage business.”

Imitation does not produce authenticity. Gays will never be married, no matter what it is called. They are good people and welcome in my home, but they will not have a marriage together.