"why Gay Marriage Is Unconstitutional"

[Guest Eth]

Just wanted to know what everyone thought of this crazy can of worms. http://tinyurl.com/yg7sree

Basically, the person who wrote this is arguing that gay marriage is sexist against men and will take rights away from men. Personally, I kind of agree with them that there's a problem with the legal system and how they deal with the custody of children during divorces and separation. I think the system is hugely biased towards women in that regard and that men should have an equal right to their own children. However, I obviously do not think gay marriage is a bad thing or sexist in any way... This person did point out how some foolish people might abuse it, although I still think it's highly highly unlikely that it would become "popular" or that it is a legitimate reason to invalidate same-sex love or same-sex marriage. I think that this person entangled two separate issues that need to be viewed individually; same-sex marriage, and men's rights to their children.

My opinion is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with same-sex marriage and that what is wrong is denying any couple the right to marry or be acknowledged appropriately under the law. I also think that men need more rights to their children and should have a say in cases such as abortion, and that we really need to tackle the blatant bias going on in the courts when it comes to child custody where the courts almost ALWAYS give custody to the mother because of the prejudiced idea that women automatically make good parents and that men do not, or that men are incapable of being good single parents.

I absolutely do not think we should ban same-sex marriage because a tiny handful of unscrupulous people would abuse it or use it to promote sexism. I think that same-sex marriage is not wrong and should be allowed, and that the issue of men's rights needs to be dealt with separately. As this person argued that same-sex marriage will just further sexism, I could argue that automobiles can be used for a number of unplesant acts such as robbery, murder/attempted murder, speeding, reckless endangerment, and et cetera... Shall we outlaw automobiles? Because I mean surely the people who claim to want to use them for good things are liars and just furthering some sort of anti-bicycle agenda. Oh well.

[Guest Evan_J]

LOL and right when I wasn't in the mood for yet another person to warp something so that it was consistent with how they wanted it to be . "Fatherhood is not a biological fact?" REALLY????? Really?

Originally I was going to say that the author must be a student of some sort ...and one destined to fail his courses. HOWEVER I see the top of the page now "...order of the illuminati......blah, blah". Quacks

Not that quacks are not dangerous and should be dealt with, but this person has as much ration is their mind as any follower of half-baked conspiracy theories and guys still sitting on top of RV's waiting for Y2K to catch up with all of us "unenlightened" who haven't realized that it IS going to catch up to us eventually.....

I don't take him likely though. Or his ilk. Ya can't do that. A million organized quacks is still a milllion organized.

[Guest Eth]

Yeah I've been reading some other articles by him. He IS a conspiracy theorist. I just got done with one where he said the United States is still secretly a colony of Great Britain. Yep.

[Guest thefireship]

I think that this person entangled two separate issues that need to be viewed individually; same-sex marriage, and men's rights to their children.

I feel the same way. Though I can see why they are tying it in together. I may not like it, but I can see it. Anyhoo, there's a lot in this article I could go a-ranting about, but I'd be here forever if I did.

However, I do have to say that I love how they swept the adoption option under the rug though, yet get all specific about everything else. No one ever knows what to do with us adopted kids!

[Guest Eth]

I feel the same way. Though I can see why they are tying it in together. I may not like it, but I can see it. Anyhoo, there's a lot in this article I could go a-ranting about, but I'd be here forever if I did.

However, I do have to say that I love how they swept the adoption option under the rug though, yet get all specific about everything else. No one ever knows what to do with us adopted kids!

Yeah, and it also drives me nuts how people act like adopted kids are somehow "less" than kids that share the parent's DNA. I don't get it. I mean, we share 80% of our genes with bananas anyway. Who cares if you share 50% of your genes with your child after that?*

*I know that sounds odd but it's true. It's actually in how we define "genes".. when we compare ourselves to our offspring we count the specific genes. When we compare humanity as a species to another species we compare the types of genes and what the genes do. So, a father shares 50% of his exact genes with his offspring, and 80% of the genes in humans serve the same function as those found in a banana. I thought that'd just be a fun statement to make.

[Guest Elizabeth K]

I could argue that automobiles can be used for a number of unplesant acts such as robbery, murder/attempted murder, speeding, reckless endangerment, and et cetera... Shall we outlaw automobiles?

THEY CAN BE USED FOR ALL THAT? YIKES!

Ban automobiles immediately! Where do I sign a petition!

And marriage - why not just a legal marriage between two people who love each other - gender not considered.

Lizzy

ummmmm.... I wondered where Anna Banana came from? {ducks and runs}

[Guest Kaitlyn88]

I never knew that was an issue. My parents got divorced when I was 2 and all 3 of us went to my dad. Also I have 2 friends that also went to their fathers. I thought it was the other way around since the men usually had better jobs and if they wanted the children got them as long as they didn't have a criminal record. That is just what I've seen though I'm sure it goes both ways like anything depending on the judge.

[Guest Eth]

I never knew that was an issue. My parents got divorced when I was 2 and all 3 of us went to my dad. Also I have 2 friends that also went to their fathers. I thought it was the other way around since the men usually had better jobs and if they wanted the children got them as long as they didn't have a criminal record. That is just what I've seen though I'm sure it goes both ways like anything depending on the judge.

According to the U.S Census Bureau (and these are 2007 & 2009 statistics so it's all fairly recent), roughly 26% of children under 21 are actually raised by single parents. 84% of custodial parents are women while only 16% are men. Of the women who are single parents, 45% are currently divorced or separated, 34.2% have never been married, 19% have remarried and 1.7% were widowed. 79.5% of custodial mothers are gainfully employed while 90% of custodial fathers are. 27% of custodial single mothers and their children live in poverty in comparison to 12.9% of custodial fathers and their children. 22% of single mothers receive Medicaid and 23.5% are on food stamps.

So, yes, you're right that logically speaking men do tend to make more money and live better so if anything they'd be more likely to be the better parent, yet the statistics clearly show that the courts HUGELY favor women, often for not much reason other than "She's a woman". Being the child of two divorced parents- a father who used to make "good money", who had to pay child support, etc., and a mother who really did abuse the system and always lived in poverty- I can personally attest to a lot of these facts. It's unfortunate but there IS sex-bias and sex-discrimination going on in the courts when it comes to child custody.