EDIT: And I mean that beyond the uniform 'thanks for posting' way, this really does help me look at my views on a serious issue from a different point of view.
Monster Rain wrote:It's just annoying to me that this sort of thing even needs to be debated by legislators.
Well I didn't know about it, the largest obstacle to Gay Marriage (here) would probably be the question of whether children in these families are any different. This would be the first bit of real evidence I've seen either way.
EDIT: And I mean that beyond the uniform 'thanks for posting' way, this really does help me look at my views on a serious issue from a different point of view.
Well, my first thought was that his public speaking skills were really impressive for a 19-year-old college kid.
My second was that he made a compelling argument in the sense that no one can really call him a degenerate, or some such.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Well I didn't know about it, the largest obstacle to Gay Marriage (here) would probably be the question of whether children in these families are any different.
Meh.
Straight parents manage to raise some pretty fethed up children. I don't see how gays raising kids could make things worse.
That was fantastic, not only do I agree whole heartedly with this dude, he's very good at making a sincere point that's also concise right to the heart of the issue. I hope this dude goes into politics.
Just saying, if I was making the law on something like this I'd damn well make sure every little detail was discussed, and the main issue itself even moreso.
Wouldn't it be worse if legislators weren't debating this?
It's worth pointing out that you can have gay marriage without having gay adoption.
I support both, but I can see how people can be hesitant about gay adoption.
Gay marriage, on the other hand, I strongly doubt there's a single rational reason for opposition, which is one of the reasons why those opposing it try to drag in gay adoption.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Just saying, if I was making the law on something like this I'd damn well make sure every little detail was discussed, and the main issue itself even moreso.
Wouldn't it be worse if legislators weren't debating this?
Yes, it would be worse. Which is why the legislators are debating this.
The Iowa Supreme Court found in '08 (IIRC) that there was a right to gay marriage in the Iowa Constitution (9-0). The legislature had no say in the matter at the time.
The current group of majority-party legislators (and the governor) ran on amending the Iowa Constitution to overturn the ruling of the Supreme Court. Three of the justices were up for "recall" (in Iowa the Governor appoints Supreme Court justices, but every 5 years 3 of them have a mandatory "confidence" vote. A majority of votes cast on the issue must support the judge for him to stay in office. Before '10, no justice had ever been voted out of office in this election). All 3 of the justices were removed from office. The campaign to remove the justices was only about the decision on gay marriage.
I think it's pretty clear that there is not majority support for gay marriage in Iowa. Say what you want about gay marriage opponents, but they're taking the proper approach in this case. This has been one area that I have a lot of respect for opponents of gay marriage. They are willing to use the legislative process to achieve their goals, rather than the courts.
Monster Rain wrote:Straight parents manage to raise some pretty fethed up children. I don't see how gays raising kids could make things worse.
For once I agree with the little girl!
Sorry, couldn't help but quote Baldur's Gate. But anyway, this is certainly my position.
Besides, marriage isn't about children, so why should issues over children prevent someone from marrying?
biccat wrote:This has been one area that I have a lot of respect for opponents of gay marriage. They are willing to use the legislative process to achieve their goals, rather than the courts.
The courts are there to protect our rights, even if the legislature would take them away. Don't look down on the courts for doing their jobs. The legislature is dominated by the majority, which is why the executive and judicial branches need to counterbalance by supporting the needs of the minorities.
biccat wrote:This has been one area that I have a lot of respect for opponents of gay marriage. They are willing to use the legislative process to achieve their goals, rather than the courts.
The courts are there to protect our rights, even if the legislature would take them away. Don't look down on the courts for doing their jobs. The legislature is dominated by the majority, which is why the executive and judicial branches need to counterbalance by supporting the needs of the minorities.
I disagree that there's a "right" to marriage benefits, and that the Legislature can choose to extend benefits to whatever groups they want, so long as it's not based on race, sex, religion, or national origin.
Or perhaps you think that they should be able to prevent homosexuals from getting a firearms license? Maybe you want to prevent homosexuals from getting drivers licenses? Mayhaps we should also prevent them from owning businesses?
And so on and so forth, thereby turning homosexuals into second class citizens. Oh wait.
Melissia wrote:And except for this case, sexuality.
Why do you include sexuality?
Melissia wrote:Or perhaps you think that they should be able to prevent homosexuals from getting a firearms license? Maybe you want to prevent homosexuals from getting drivers licenses? Mayhaps we should also prevent them from owning businesses?
If there's a rational relationship between the legislation at issue and the basis for exclusion, then there's no problem. If you can suggest what rational basis there is between sexuality and firearms, drivers licenses, or business licenses (not sure if you think you need government permission to open a business), then there would be no problem with these laws.
But there's not.
Melissia wrote:And so on and so forth, thereby turning homosexuals into second class citizens. Oh wait.
How does a refusal of government to recognize a relationship turn someone into a "second class citizen?" You'll have to explain yourself better.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:Do you live in Idaho?
I assume this was directed to me. Why does it matter?
MODERATOR FRAZZLED WARNING TO ALL. This is a public warning to all posters on this thread. Keep your posts in accord with Dakka Rule #1: Be polite or risk temporary or permanent suspension of your account.
biccat wrote:If there's a rational relationship between the legislation at issue and the basis for exclusion
So you oppose the ban on gay marriage?
There's a ban on gay marriage? I am very confused. Two gay men or women can get married without state involvement. I know many people who have done this. They refer to their SO as "my husband" or "my wife." The police have yet to kick down their doors and arrest them for this.
I could care less about the issue, as I explained last time this came up. I disagree that the courts are the proper way to get benefits from society. It merely creates resentment and backlash against gay marriage proponents, which is what is happening in Iowa.
Melissia wrote:Yes, there is. Just because someone says they're married doesn't mean it is legally true.
Well based on that logic, there's a ban on referring to myself as a three toed sloth.
A real ban is the one that prevents me from calling myself a dentist. If I call myself a dentist, hold myself out to be a dentist, and practice as a dentist, I will go to jail.
Unsimilarly, someone who calls themselves married, holds themselves out as married, and practices being married (to someone of the same sex) will not go to jail.
edit: interestingly, there is a ban on bigamy, in that it is actually illegal to be married (in spirit or in form) to more than 1 person.
So? They still can't get married. They can call themselves married all they want, they still aren't married in the eyes of the law, and are prevented from completing the actions that would allow them to become married in the eyes of the law.
They do not have the same classification under government regarding child rearing, courts, joint property ownership, etc. It is not 'illegal' in that they bash in your door and you go to jail for being gay-married, silly foreign people - it is illegal in that it is not legally recognized, and in that sense, it is a second class citizen, not afforded the same status under civil laws that a straight couple has.
I have said it before: The real solution isn't to legitimize more government interference in social contracts, but to ban all of it. Marriage should be a private matter that means only what it means to those involved from whatever religious, sexual, or 'family values' perspective they believe it does, and should have nothing to do with taxes, courts, or any other government influence.
If no marriage is recognized as a legal distinction any different than two people making their decisions, then there is no problem, no divorce courts, no pre nups, no custody battles, nothing but basic, privately agreed upon social contracts.
If someone wants to get a private agreement notorized and recognized for court purposes, then they can do so just like any other private contract. Get the church and the 'family values' rhetoric out of it because, as monster rain said, there's plenty of fethed up kids raised by straight people anyway. If I had to give a child up for adoption, I would much prefer it to be adopted by a progressive minded homosexual couple than by some nice pure Westborough family values people.
Most important to me at least, is that it would end the vote pandering politicians sucking up to the bible thumping 'right' and they could get back to legislating real issues that effect everyone regardless of color or creed.
It's the same kind of thing as banning interracial marriage - if you go by the notion that homosexuality is genetic (which I do not agree with) but even if it is a decision instead of a birth condition, it would be like banning marriage between rich people and poor people. Again the 'second class citizen' thing is relevant, either way you look at homosexuality: if its a genetic condition, so is being black or white - if its a decision of a lifestyle, so is being wealthy or not.
Melissia wrote:So? They still can't get married. They can call themselves married all they want, they still aren't married in the eyes of the law, and are prevented from completing the actions that would allow them to become married in the eyes of the law.
Please stop the semantics argument.
The constitutional argument that gay marriage must be legally recognized is based on the idea of discrimination, not on the inherent right of people to enjoy government recognition of their relationship. If a state chose to repeal all laws relating to marriage, there would be no case. Marriage would be a purely civil matter between two people (and, if based on religion, their god/gods/prophets/avatars of said gods/enlightened spirit, etc.). There would be no standing for anyone to sue to force the government to recognize their relationship.
The 'case' for gay marriage then is that the legislature, in choosing to extend marriage rights to heterosexual couples and not homosexual couples, is discriminating on the basis of sexuality, and that this discrimination is constitutionally impermissible. Due to this discrimination, homosexual individuals do not have access to the same benefits enjoyed by heterosexual couples (which is untrue, they have the same access, only in a non-preferred arrangement, but set that aside for now).
Legislatures are given wide latitude to pass laws according to a variety of factors. For example, they can choose to confer benefits to one group (e.g. the poor) at the expense of another (e.g. taxpayers). Or, they can prevent some people (e.g. non-dentists) from diluting the market for those who are properly trained (e.g. dentists) by requiring licenses (a non-licensed dentist is not inherently less effective than a licensed dentist, nor is a licensed dentist inherently better at his job than a non-licensed dentist). They can also meddle with social and family structure by setting rules and standards for adoptions, fostering, schools, and child welfare.
When the legislature created marriage laws, the purpose wasn't to discriminate against gays (contra anti-miscegenation laws), but to present a social structure for raising children. The intent was to keep fathers and mothers around to provide the best environment for a child (dad + mom being usually better than just mom or just dad) and a whole host of other benefits.
Homosexuality didn't fit into this mold because a homosexual couple couldn't produce children. Stable homosexual relationships weren't a consideration because they weren't necessary for cultural or social stability.
I think the legislature, in making the determination that marriage rights are between a man and a woman, acted appropriately in exercising their power to grant legal benefits to preserve social structure. Their actions were not unconstitutionally discriminatory.
* Note: yes, there are a lot of ancillary legal issues here, but I'm trying to avoid complicated legal arguments that most non-lawyers don't have the background to understand.
As a US citizen, I have the freedom of the Press. But I am not a reporter, nor do I own a printing press. So the right I have is not a right that "fits" me, by definition.
Gay people, as US citizens, have the same access to Marriage as I do. They just don't like the right as it is currently defined. It does not 'fit" them.
There is no discrimination in defining a right, unless it specifically singles out a group (say interracial marriage). To say marriage is between a man and a woman does not discriminate against anyone. It defines marriage (or rather supports a centuries old definition of marriage). There is no inherit discrimination.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:As a US citizen, I have the freedom of the Press. But I am not a reporter, nor do I own a printing press. So the right I have is not a right that "fits" me, by definition.
... that is such a bad analogy that it just... ugh.
Freedom of the press has nothing to do with printing presses or being employed at some big name news company. It is freedom of communication and expression through various mediums (electronic, published, word of mouth, etc). A blogger is utilizing freedom of the press, and anyone with internet access can start a blog without any extra investment on their own.
As expressed in the universal declaration of human rights: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers"
Melissia wrote:... that is such a bad analogy that it just... ugh.
Freedom of the press has nothing to do with printing presses or being employed at some big name news company. It is freedom of communication and expression through various mediums (electronic, published, word of mouth, etc). A blogger is utilizing freedom of the press, and anyone with internet access can start a blog without any extra investment on their own.
As expressed in the universal declaration of human rights: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers"
THAT is freedom fo the press.
You are right about the Freedom being more than I stated. I was trying to be brief.
But I am not a blogger. I am not one to get involved in public discourse (barring occasions such as this). But I have the right to, even if I choose not to use it.
That is the point. There is nothing about marriage that is discriminatory. It is open to all. But marriage is between a man and a woman. Every man has equal access to marriage. Not every man wants marriage. Not every man want a relationship with a woman. That does not mean marriage is discriminatory.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:As a US citizen, I have the freedom of the Press. But I am not a reporter, nor do I own a printing press. So the right I have is not a right that "fits" me, by definition.
... that is such a bad analogy that it just... ugh.
Freedom of the press has nothing to do with printing presses or being employed at some big name news company. It is freedom of communication and expression through various mediums (electronic, published, word of mouth, etc). A blogger is utilizing freedom of the press, and anyone with internet access can start a blog without any extra investment on their own.
So you're saying that writing marriage laws so only white people can be married isn't discriminatory towards non-whites, after all, they can just dye their skin and become white if they want to marry?
Melissia wrote:So you're saying that writing marriage laws so only white people can be married isn't discriminatory towards non-whites, after all, they can just dye their skin and become white if they want to marry?
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Adding anything more than that would be discriminatory. That is why is was wrong for people to say that blacks could not marry whites.
But saying that marriage between a man and a woman is discriminatory because "some dudes don't like chicks" is a far cry from racial discrimination and is intellectually dishonest.
It's not at all intellectually dishonest. I very firmly believe that there are marked similarities between the ban on interracial marriage and the ban on homosexual marriage.
Pretty much the same arguments used for the former are also used for the latter, yes, even religious arguments were often used.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Marriage is between a man and a woman. Adding anything more than that would be discriminatory.
Melissia wrote:It's not at all intellectually dishonest.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Marriage is between a man and a woman. Adding anything more than that would be discriminatory.
Just that much is discriminatory.
How? If every person has access to a right (though they may not like the right) where is the discrimination?
How about guns? Does the 2nd amendment discriminate against those who dislike guns? Not liking a right does not equal discrimination.
Again, if every person has access to the right- where is the discrimination?
Edit to address your edit - Marriage means something. I know that words, over time, can change. But the idea of marriage has been a constant until the last decade. I am all for Civil Unions gaining rights. But Marriage means a man and a woman. If you go back to the 1960s.. yes. Go back to 1900... yes. Go back to 1800... yes. Go back to 1700... yes. Etc.
Marriage means man and wife. There is no valid reason for that to change. Some people have found love outside the definition for marriage. Great. But it is not marriage. It is something new (and to them wonderful). Congrats! But it is not marriage.
For the same reason that miscegenation was discrimination back when we practiced that.
In fact, they used your exact same argument, that the miscegenation laws were perfectly fair; after all, everyone could marry someone of their own race, they just aren't allowed to marry someone of a different race... just as you are arguing that it is perfectly fair right now, because everyone can marry someone of the opposite gender, they just aren't allowed to marry the same gender.
Same discrimination, different time period. Just because the majority of the population believe something doesn't mean it should be enacted into law. A republic does not need to be a tyranny of the majority. The republic represents the minorities as well as the majorities, and must respect the rights of both.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Marriage means man and wife. There is no valid reason for that to change.
Just like marriage used to mean man and wife of the same race, right?
You assume that sexual orientation is equal to race. It is not. If it were, then pedophilia would be protected. Necrophilia as well. etc.
If we 'should' change laws for everyones sexual orientation, let's change the age of consent to 13. The is more historic support for that than gay marriage.
Heck, some people want the tax right offs of marriage but don't want a spouse. Lets re-define marriage to include marring a toaster oven.
In fact, why don't we say marriage is just a one person thing. Since we are changing the meaning of the word.
While we are at it, lets say that homosexuality from now on is actually heterosexuality. That way they won't feel different.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
And I think you'll find that the vast majority of people who ever lived on this planet would agree.
Can I have some evidence for this please ?
Well, lets look just at Christendom. Since 400 AD I have all of Europe until about the 70s.
now lets look at Islam. Add in Judaism. Add Ancient Greece (which was fine with homosexuality, but still said marraige was man and woman).
Were you really serious about that?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:You assume that sexual orientation is equal to race. It is not. If it were, then pedophilia would be protected.
No.
I have nothing more to say to you that would not get me banned.
Why not? They were born with that sexual orientation. Who are you to discriminate against what nature made them?
(for the record, I'd love to be the one to flip the switch to kill every pedo out there. I am just making a point)
Am I serious about you actually having some evidence for a statement with regards to whether or not there is a " valid reason for a change" in this situation ?
Yes. very.
Because I really don't see how you can justify that statement in way shape or form, so in future, if you can't actually back up a claim please don't make claims that are essentially unsupportable as evidence for a point that your making. The particular social conventions and attitudes of elsewhere and else when aren't really relevant to this debate in the way you're attempting to crowbar them in here as we're not talking about then, the fact that "now" is different from "then" is indeed a "valid reason" for such a definition to change.
Just as many, many definitions have changed throughout history. And will, one presumes, continue to change as time goes by.
Oh and "
Well, lets look just at Christendom. Since 400 AD I have all of Europe until about the 70s.
now lets look at Islam. Add in Judaism. Add Ancient Greece (which was fine with homosexuality, but still said marraige was man and woman). " is not, by a long shot " the vast majority of people who ever lived on this planet "
If it were, then pedophilia would be protected
No it wouldn't, as the law in this regards that is to do with the age of consent between individuals not sexual orientation. This is a very old argument that ahs been thrown out and out argued countless times. Please don't bring it up again.
This might help people, it's something we might institute on the board in the future.
reds8n wrote:No it wouldn't, as the law in this regards that is to do with the age of consent between individuals not sexual orientation. This is a very old argument that ahs been thrown out and out argued countless times. Please don't bring it up again.
Is this the official moderator position? Can we not argue that potatoes are like turnips?
If so, will you take "official moderator notice" of the fact that miscegenation is not like gay marriage, and that it is an old argument that has been thrown out and out argued countless times?
reds8n wrote: Am I serious about you actually having some evidence for a statement with regards to whether or not there is a " valid reason for a change" in this situation ?
Yes. very.
Please allow me to apologize. I thought you were asking for reference on my statement that the majority of people who ever lived through out time would agree with me.
you were asking for back up about there not being valid reason to change.
The change to a historic institution appease a small minority is wrong. That minority should be protected. They should have freedom to love who they want. But why change marriage? I support civil unions. there is no valid reason that civil unions can not fit the bill for homosexual couples. Marriage is an age old institution that is between a man and wife. Homosexual couples have found love. But it is not marriage. It is to them something wonderful and they want others to think of it like marriage. But if we are changing words to the point that they mean whatever we want, then all I can say is "Blue Snorg Flat Seven Dewlap!" (it means what i want it to mean).
AS for my example of age of consent. If it is a law that we are discussing changing for marriage, then it is just a law for age of consent. If one law is not sacred, than neither is the other.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Marriage is between a man and a woman.
According to whom? And from what basis could it have had that condition applied to it? Could it be... the book of unicorns, the book of leprechauns? the book of chariots of fire racing from one side of a flat sky to the other? other imaginary friends? The book that most people who have ever lived on this planet believed when the world was flat and they had no other explaination for things and no other social order than faith in the words of a guy who talked to shrubs scaring them with eternal burning if they didn't do what he the shrub allegedly said? In that case, unless it's the book of Unicorns (which is the correct one) it is a religiously based condition for the interpretation of a word. Religious interference in a matter of legal status = no (at least in theory). If you care to define the word according to its religious condition, then fine, a man and a woman can be married... if that confers any legal status at all - then it is an overlap of religion and law.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Semantic definition of marriage can mean whatever you want it to. Ask the polygamists. Legal status has nothing to do with semantics though. Call it a civil union to keep the babble belt happy, but the legal status should not be defined by one group's definition of a word. Semantics change over time.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Marriage is between a man and a woman.
According to whom? And from what basis could it have had that condition applied to it? Could it be... the book of unicorns, the book of leprechauns? the book of chariots of fire racing from one side of a flat sky to the other? other imaginary friends? The book that most people who have ever lived on this planet believed when the world was flat and they had no other explaination for things and no other social order than faith in the words of a guy who talked to shrubs scaring them with eternal burning if they didn't do what he the shrub allegedly said? In that case, unless it's the book of Unicorns (which is the correct one) it is a religiously based condition for the interpretation of a word. Religious interference in a matter of legal status = no (at least in theory). If you care to define the word according to its religious condition, then fine, a man and a woman can be married... if that confers any legal status at all - then it is an overlap of religion and law.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Semantic definition of marriage can mean whatever you want it to. Ask the polygamists. Legal status has nothing to do with semantics though. Call it a civil union to keep the babble belt happy, but the legal status should not be defined by one group's definition of a word. Semantics change over time.
Nice. I referenced history and you go off on an anti-religion rant. Again.. words have meaning. We should no go about changing meanings "just because". A child could look and see that a homosexual couple is different than a heterosexual couple. (Different does not mean less). Why change words to be mean something different? Why force millions of people to change their dictionary? Why alter the English language (and piss on thousands of years of tradition) just to make a small group feel better? Give them civil rights. marriage is between a man and a woman. It always has been.
But I bet you think that is only because evil and stupid religion is being evil and stupid.
We are lucky to have smart people like you at the helm these days!
biccat wrote:
Is this the official moderator position?
Yes, currently.
Can we not argue that potatoes are like turnips?
In relevant threads yes you can, but not if you're throwing them out there as "chaff" to distract from the point at hand.
If so, will you take "official moderator notice" of the fact that miscegenation is not like gay marriage, and that it is an old argument that has been thrown out and out argued countless times?
No.
Please allow me to apologize. I thought you were asking for reference on my statement that the majority of people who ever lived through out time would agree with me.
you were asking for back up about there not being valid reason to change.
No worries, we're good matey .
I agree entirely with you that ( we'll shorthand it for ease, crass as that may sound, no offence intended) to those of the common faiths would, overall, be against such a change. Cast iron rock solid agreement.
But of course the majority of those people even would take hugely different views on a lot of things -- can't see some of them being over keen on 40K or internet fora in general to be honest -- from our world or time, so i don't really see exactly how that's relevant, per se.
The change to a historic institution appease a small minority is wrong
..well is that not a moral judgement ? Absurdity aside -- yeah yeah, there'll always be the odd or few £$%£"$ crazy or extremists demanding X/Y/Z which, of course shouldn't be catered to or can be ignored. Let's leave those aside.
That minority should be protected. They should have freedom to love who they want.
Agreed.
But why change marriage?
.. why not change marriage though ?
there is no valid reason that civil unions can not fit the bill for homosexual couples
I agree in principle here but as it is -- and please feel free to correct me here ( and again I'm sure this too might well vary from state to state/similar) despite this being largely the case this still isn't quite true in all areas. I believe that some areas such as adoption, err... medical treatment with regards to one spouse and, perhaps, even a few tax and/or will purposes there's still the odd, glaring, loophole.
Now if, as I think you're saying, these should be removed so a same sex couple would have 100% the same rights as different sex partners -- I'll even agree there could be no legal forcing of a church of X creed to wed such a couple on their premises here -- then yeah, I'd have no problem with leaving the definition as is. Because then it really is nothing mroe than a label or another word which could indeed be replaced ( and no doubt will be slang wise over time).
However --and this isn't directed at you personally -- it strikes me as if some of those who protest against the allowance of same sex marriages do so specifically to keep there being some degree, no matter how slight of ( perhaps even implied) superiority in the term. That i don't agree with and think should be.. well.... "confronted" is a tad aggressive and grandiose here but it'll have to do for now.
Could it be... the book of unicorns, the book of leprechauns? the book of chariots of fire racing from one side of a flat sky to the other? other imaginary friends?
No more of this please, make your point without being rude, comments like this do nothing to foster a debate or exchange of ideas.
reds8n wrote: Am I serious about you actually having some evidence for a statement with regards to whether or not there is a " valid reason for a change" in this situation ?
Yes. very.
Because I really don't see how you can justify that statement in way shape or form, so in future, if you can't actually back up a claim please don't make claims that are essentially unsupportable as evidence for a point that your making. The particular social conventions and attitudes of elsewhere and else when aren't really relevant to this debate in the way you're attempting to crowbar them in here as we're not talking about then, the fact that "now" is different from "then" is indeed a "valid reason" for such a definition to change.
Just as many, many definitions have changed throughout history. And will, one presumes, continue to change as time goes by.
Oh and "
Well, lets look just at Christendom. Since 400 AD I have all of Europe until about the 70s.
now lets look at Islam. Add in Judaism. Add Ancient Greece (which was fine with homosexuality, but still said marraige was man and woman). " is not, by a long shot " the vast majority of people who ever lived on this planet "
If it were, then pedophilia would be protected
No it wouldn't, as the law in this regards that is to do with the age of consent between individuals not sexual orientation. This is a very old argument that ahs been thrown out and out argued countless times. Please don't bring it up again.
This might help people, it's something we might institute on the board in the future.
Actually Red I think he's proffered evidence whereas you haven't to support alternate marriage constructs.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Just saying, if I was making the law on something like this I'd damn well make sure every little detail was discussed, and the main issue itself even moreso.
Wouldn't it be worse if legislators weren't debating this?
Yes, it would be worse. Which is why the legislators are debating this.
The Iowa Supreme Court found in '08 (IIRC) that there was a right to gay marriage in the Iowa Constitution (9-0). The legislature had no say in the matter at the time.
The current group of majority-party legislators (and the governor) ran on amending the Iowa Constitution to overturn the ruling of the Supreme Court. Three of the justices were up for "recall" (in Iowa the Governor appoints Supreme Court justices, but every 5 years 3 of them have a mandatory "confidence" vote. A majority of votes cast on the issue must support the judge for him to stay in office. Before '10, no justice had ever been voted out of office in this election). All 3 of the justices were removed from office. The campaign to remove the justices was only about the decision on gay marriage.
I think it's pretty clear that there is not majority support for gay marriage in Iowa. Say what you want about gay marriage opponents, but they're taking the proper approach in this case. This has been one area that I have a lot of respect for opponents of gay marriage. They are willing to use the legislative process to achieve their goals, rather than the courts.
I am glad biccat is taking the heroic perspective that rights are granted to people by society. I am also sure he would have heroically stood against the vile tide of integration and advocated against the Brown decision. You sir are a hero and I wish people here could see that as well.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:[
Nice. I referenced history and you go off on an anti-religion rant. Again.. words have meaning. We should no go about changing meanings "just because". A child could look and see that a homosexual couple is different than a heterosexual couple. (Different does not mean less). Why change words to be mean something different? Why force millions of people to change their dictionary? Why alter the English language (and piss on thousands of years of tradition) just to make a small group feel better? Give them civil rights. marriage is between a man and a woman. It always has been.
But I bet you think that is only because evil and stupid religion is being evil and stupid.
We are lucky to have smart people like you at the helm these days!
It "always had been" applied to a sun revolving around us too. A child can also look at a couple of midgets or a couple of different skin colors and see that they are different. The point is, legally, the status should not matter. A couple is a couple. Defining Marriage as between a man and a women IS a religious thing. Who else has a problem with it? Irrational homophobes or people who have a religious bias as to the definition (the former is usually the latter too, I don't hear about many non-religious homophobic stances).
"evil and stupid" are not one definition either. "evil" is going out of your way to cause unnecessary harm. Does allowing a gay couple to marriage threaten the well being of a straight couple? no it doesn't. So there is no defensive excuse except defending their own right to be biased against homosexuals. That doesn't cut it. Therefore, restricting others for no purpose to your own well being is evil. Stupid.. well pages and pages can be written about that by people far more eloquent than me. We could start with witch burnings, human sacrifices, cubs fans, faith healers, holy wars, and go on for hours about baseless 'belief' taken as fact causing massive problems but its really up to each to define what is stupid. Personally, I think belief in unfounded rules by which to live because someone else wrote it down to be stupid. Someone else might think that me not fearing the repercussions of living in sin with my GF and burning for eternity is stupid of me.
reds8n wrote:No it wouldn't, as the law in this regards that is to do with the age of consent between individuals not sexual orientation. This is a very old argument that ahs been thrown out and out argued countless times. Please don't bring it up again.
Is this the official moderator position? Can we not argue that potatoes are like turnips?
If so, will you take "official moderator notice" of the fact that miscegenation is not like gay marriage, and that it is an old argument that has been thrown out and out argued countless times?
1. no. Strangely enough Dakka doesn't have amoderator policy on this.
2. Misceganation should only be typed while speaking with a bad Southern drawl ala O Brother Where Art Thou
3. Any further attempt to link the Greatness that is potatoes with the horror show of turnips may result in Frazzled getting a shovel, pair of pliers, and bozo the clown and finding whoever posts this heresy...
you people are making me post in OT. Stop it!
Automatically Appended Next Post: This is the put the thread on notice that attacking people of religion because of your personal beliefs will result in warnings and termporary or permanent suspensions opf your account as needed. I warned everyone about this topic.
I think you are too sensitive to these attacks on people of religion.
I'm very religious and go to services regularly and participate in charity through my place of worship. My religious view and my democratic view on such matters sometimes differ. In such situations I try to be a human being and be righteous to my brothers and sisters in this world instead of imposing my religious beliefs on them.
People aren't "attacking religious people" here. People are attacking bigots who hide behind their religion as an excuse for their bigotry. My Jewish friends don't get angry at me for not keeping Kosher. Not because they aren't good Jews but because they're not jerks.
Thank you TheHammer. The attack isn't on people of religion, its about the institutionalition of religion in law, which obviously, is only something that certain people of religion would have a problem with. Many religious people are content to practice their religion without wanting to legislate it such that a group of people are restricted by another's religious beliefs. Holding back homosexual's right to be legally considered married the same as any other partnership is such a case of legislation overlap. That is the attack. Appologies if it was harsh and seemed directed at the religious people, it isn't people who practice a religion, it is the institutionalization of it. I'm just saddened that nobody takes my Unicorns as seriously. They only allow marriage between a woman and a frog prince in my faith.
yeenoghu wrote:Thank you TheHammer. The attack isn't on people of religion, its about the institutionalition of religion in law, which obviously, is only something that certain people of religion would have a problem with. Many religious people are content to practice their religion without wanting to legislate it such that a group of people are restricted by another's religious beliefs. Holding back homosexual's right to be legally considered married the same as any other partnership is such a case of legislation overlap. That is the attack. Appologies if it was harsh and seemed directed at the religious people, it isn't people who practice a religion, it is the institutionalization of it. I'm just saddened that nobody takes my Unicorns as seriously. They only allow marriage between a woman and a frog prince in my faith.
Marriage between woman and frog prince is sacred!
I think we know where this thread is going. Some people will hold an opposed view in either reserved or outspoken (and inherently flamebaiting, even if unintended) fashion while most of the forum members would be fine if it went through. There will be outrage, grr. I'm all for the gays getting marriaged, obviously
TheHammer wrote:I think you are too sensitive to these attacks on people of religion.
I'm very religious and go to services regularly and participate in charity through my place of worship. My religious view and my democratic view on such matters sometimes differ. In such situations I try to be a human being and be righteous to my brothers and sisters in this world instead of imposing my religious beliefs on them.
People aren't "attacking religious people" here. People are attacking bigots who hide behind their religion as an excuse for their bigotry. My Jewish friends don't get angry at me for not keeping Kosher. Not because they aren't good Jews but because they're not jerks.
Thank you for your opinion. We'll take your words under advisement and give them the full weight they deserve.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yeenoghu wrote:Thank you TheHammer. The attack isn't on people of religion, its about the institutionalition of religion in law, which obviously, is only something that certain people of religion would have a problem with. Many religious people are content to practice their religion without wanting to legislate it such that a group of people are restricted by another's religious beliefs. Holding back homosexual's right to be legally considered married the same as any other partnership is such a case of legislation overlap. That is the attack. Appologies if it was harsh and seemed directed at the religious people, it isn't people who practice a religion, it is the institutionalization of it. I'm just saddened that nobody takes my Unicorns as seriously. They only allow marriage between a woman and a frog prince in my faith.
Evidently the warning didn't take. I'm sure eventually they will, or you will be gone.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:So it's okay for me to speak of miscegenation then? I'm southern
Ancient Greeks and Romans found the basis for democracies and republics. They both also are a-okay with homosexuality. Both did define marriage as between a man and a woman. So the idea that if you oppose changing marriage you must be a bible-thumping tyrant is wrong. Nor must you hate homosexuals to want to preserve marriage. It is not one or the other.
reds8n wrote: Am I serious about you actually having some evidence for a statement with regards to whether or not there is a " valid reason for a change" in this situation ?
Yes. very.
Because I really don't see how you can justify that statement in way shape or form, so in future, if you can't actually back up a claim please don't make claims that are essentially unsupportable as evidence for a point that your making. The particular social conventions and attitudes of elsewhere and else when aren't really relevant to this debate in the way you're attempting to crowbar them in here as we're not talking about then, the fact that "now" is different from "then" is indeed a "valid reason" for such a definition to change.
Just as many, many definitions have changed throughout history. And will, one presumes, continue to change as time goes by.
Oh and "
Well, lets look just at Christendom. Since 400 AD I have all of Europe until about the 70s.
now lets look at Islam. Add in Judaism. Add Ancient Greece (which was fine with homosexuality, but still said marraige was man and woman). " is not, by a long shot " the vast majority of people who ever lived on this planet "
If it were, then pedophilia would be protected
No it wouldn't, as the law in this regards that is to do with the age of consent between individuals not sexual orientation. This is a very old argument that ahs been thrown out and out argued countless times. Please don't bring it up again.
This might help people, it's something we might institute on the board in the future.
Actually Red I think he's proffered evidence whereas you haven't to support alternate marriage constructs.
I see no offered evidence why people of faiths, faiths that have made drastic and severe changes to their own creeds ( and therefore words, definitions and the like) over time would with 100% certainty be against a change here, with regards to relevancy in the modern world.
But we've covered that already.
and turnips well.. I.. but.... hmm... well... I'll concede that one.
People aren't "attacking religious people" here.
You are if/when you draw ludicrously exaggerated caricatures and comparisons for their faith.
I was referring to and thiiiink he was referring to historically marriage was between men and women. I think thats prima facae evident in recorded history in most regions fo the world. You need to provide countersupport at this point. If thats not what he was saying or you were referring to then my point is not correct.
Frazzled wrote:I was referring to and thiiiink he was referring to historically marriage was between men and women. I think thats prima facae evident in recorded history in most regions fo the world.
Indeed it is, that's not what I'm arguing at all. Support this claim 100%.
But just because this -- "A" is true " -- it does not automatically follow that B/C/D is true is the point I was picking up on.
But the good gentleman has cleared this up, so we're good.
If thats not what he was saying or you were referring to then my point is not correct.
How is it an exaggerated caricature? bushes that talk while on fire, boats the size of zoos, 900 year lifespan old men, ocean voyages via whale belly, talking snakes with evil fruit, goat horned beast in firey place waiting to get you? Sounds as much like it could belong in a D&D game or Harry Potter movie as a unicorn or a leprechaun and just about as believable. It's not a caricature. I don't believe in frog princes and unicorns either, I'm just saying if I did, then it would be my belief that you cannot get married unless it is to a frog prince, because that's my belief. If I attempted to make everyone else obey the rules of my chosen story, I would be considered unreasonable and insane.
Historically, a man and a woman join in unison to raise a family. Those were the days when unfit babies were left to float downstream too. The only way conceivable to raise a family was to get down and do the deep. Not a lot of ancient greek adoption agencies that I have heard of. Marriage seems to have meant 'getting together to raise a family', which homosexuals can do too. If the grounds that they cannot procreate themselves in this fashion is an issue then I guess infertile people shouldn't be allowed to get married either.
It's very simple.
You really can't *ban* a way of thought. No matter how homophobic you are, you can't stop it. Arright.
People have this misconception that marriage *is* a religious ceremony, despite the fact that it really is religious, only within the religion. tl;dr, it is made a religious ceremony within the religion. It is entirely secular in normal practice.
From this, it doesn't really matter if it happens or not. I don't personally care about Adam and Steve's relationship but I can't say that I feel it is destructive to anything or anyone.
Just let it happen. Homosexuality is universally panned by religion so why the feth should it have any religious implications?
TheHammer wrote:I am glad biccat is taking the heroic perspective that rights are granted to people by society. I am also sure he would have heroically stood against the vile tide of integration and advocated against the Brown decision. You sir are a hero and I wish people here could see that as well.
What gave you the idea that marriage is a right?
There's a significant difference between Brown and gay marriage laws.
Frazzled wrote:
biccat wrote:
reds8n wrote:No it wouldn't, as the law in this regards that is to do with the age of consent between individuals not sexual orientation. This is a very old argument that ahs been thrown out and out argued countless times. Please don't bring it up again.
Is this the official moderator position? Can we not argue that potatoes are like turnips?
If so, will you take "official moderator notice" of the fact that miscegenation is not like gay marriage, and that it is an old argument that has been thrown out and out argued countless times?
1. no. Strangely enough Dakka doesn't have amoderator policy on this.
I get confused when moderators make specific remarks about what should or should not be allowed in a discussion. Also, if red is your moderator voice, does that mean I have to speak in a southern drawl as I type? I'll admit, I haven't used it in a couple of decades, but I think I could whip up a few "sirs" and "ma'ams." I might even be able to "cut the lights" (I'm not sure whether this is a southern thing or particular to Georgia).
Mr. Self Destruct wrote:It's very simple.
You really can't *ban* a way of thought. No matter how homophobic you are, you can't stop it. Arright.
People have this misconception that marriage *is* a religious ceremony, despite the fact that it really is religious, only within the religion. tl;dr, it is made a religious ceremony within the religion. It is entirely secular in normal practice.
From this, it doesn't really matter if it happens or not. I don't personally care about Adam and Steve's relationship but I can't say that I feel it is destructive to anything or anyone.
Just let it happen. Homosexuality is universally panned by religion so why the feth should it have any religious implications?
Many people are acting based on their own personal thoughts. You can't ban a way of thought.
Many believe that Marriage is between a man and a woman. They also believe it is their duty to stand for what they believe is right.
Should they be banned from public discourse because of their way of thought?
Should they forsake their beliefs and "just let it happen"?
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Many people are acting based on their own personal thoughts. You can't ban a way of thought.
Many believe that Marriage is between a man and a woman. They also believe it is their duty to stand for what they believe is right.
Should they be banned from public discourse because of their way of thought?
Should they forsake their beliefs and "just let it happen"?
Conversely many people believe that marriage should be between any two consenting people, regardless of their sex/sexuality. They also believe it is their duty to stand for what they believe is right.
Should they be banned from public discourse because of their way of thought?
Should they forsake their beliefs and "just let people who disagree with a broader understanding of marriage continue to prevent them from what they believe should be allowed"?
Personally I do not see a greater threat of raising children in a loving homosexual household than a loving heterosexual household (the "argument" that tends to lead on from "homosexuals should not be allowed to marry... erm... because it is wrong!"), nor do I see anything wrong with homosexuals from being married in the eyes of the law, or the eyes of their chosen god(s).
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Many people are acting based on their own personal thoughts. You can't ban a way of thought.
Many believe that Marriage is between a man and a woman. They also believe it is their duty to stand for what they believe is right.
Should they be banned from public discourse because of their way of thought?
Should they forsake their beliefs and "just let it happen"?
Conversely many people believe that marriage should be between any two consenting people, regardless of their sex/sexuality. They also believe it is their duty to stand for what they believe is right.
Should they be banned from public discourse because of their way of thought?
Should they forsake their beliefs and "just let people who disagree with a broader understanding of marriage continue to prevent them from what they believe should be allowed"?
Personally I do not see a greater threat of raising children in a loving homosexual household than a loving heterosexual household (the "argument" that tends to lead on from "homosexuals should not be allowed to marry... erm... because it is wrong!"), nor do I see anything wrong with homosexuals from being married in the eyes of the law, or the eyes of their chosen god(s).
Is it really marriage when the genders are the same? Or is it something new, something different?
I believe that a loving homosexual couple should be allowed all the rights in hospitals, all the tax write offs, etc. I have no problem with that!
But it is not marriage as has been define for centuries.
I think the only problem I have is in adoption. The child, in his desperation to be adopted, may not be aware or prepared for growing up with homosexual parents. He will most likely be teased and it is unfair to the child. They are not mentally able to make an informed decision on an alternate family unit.
NOTE: I did not say Gays are automatically bad parents! I am just concerned for the child's mental health and development.
Well then, poor people shouldn't raise children either, or people with glasses, as their kids may be teased too. If it wasn't such a cultural tabboo, kids wouldn't tease.
mister robouteo wrote:Well then, poor people shouldn't raise children either, or people with glasses, as their kids may be teased too. If it wasn't such a cultural tabboo, kids wouldn't tease.
Poor people should not be adopting. You are right.
I have never heard of a kid being teased because his parents have glasses. Have you? Or were you just be flippant and dishonest?
Having a good female and a good male role model are the best for a child. This is most commonly found in marriage. Single mothers will often have the grandfather spend time with a child to provide that good role model.
the young man in the OP was well adjusted, but he mentioned that he and his sister have the same DNA (it was important to him, by the way he said it). Why did that matter to him? I believe children want to feel like they belong. Adoption is a wonderful thing. My buddy was adopted. But he had issues to deal with. Add in an alternate lifestyle and the waters get muddy real fast!
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Is it really marriage when the genders are the same? Or is it something new, something different?
I would argue that yes, it is. For example, there are many words which have altered their meaning (the word "gay" springs to mind in the context of this topic) through popular usage, or have been altered to include new developments (many technical and scientific terms have developed and expanded to include new developments for example).
The greater proportion of the definition of "marriage" fits homosexual couples. Indeed, I would suggest that it fits all the important criteria to be considered as "marriage".
I believe that a loving homosexual couple should be allowed all the rights in hospitals, all the tax write offs, etc. I have no problem with that! But it is not marriage as has been define for centuries.
So, update the definition. As I have mentioned language (even technical language) evolves over time. You also need to remember that "marriage" itself has evolved significantly, even in the last 100 years - man's importance has decreased, while the woman's has increased, as a very simple example of how marriage is altering.
I think the only problem I have is in adoption. The child, in his desperation to be adopted, may not be aware or prepared for growing up with homosexual parents. He will most likely be teased and it is unfair to the child. They are not mentally able to make an informed decision on an alternate family unit.
I can't speak for all children, or all situations, etc, however, the process of adoption ensures (in the vast majority of cases) that only the best people are permitted to adopt a child, regardless of their religion, race or sexuality. A loving household, no matter how different from the "norm" (however one chooses to define that) is almost always a superior environment for a child to be raised than any other.
Part of this is educating the child regards the parents lifestyle choices (be that sexuality, religion, political views, etc). It is all part of the mix of growing up in a well balanced household. I would argue that children growing up in a homophobic family, a racist family, a deeply religious family (westboro baptist church for example), or family with extreme political views is far more damaging to the child than having 2 mums (or dads).
Bullying and so on is not solely limited to picking on a person because their parent(s) are homosexual - indeed, an adopted child will always run the risk of being bullied simply because they are adopted, just as a fat child will risk being teased for being fat, etc.
NOTE: I did not say Gays are automatically bad parents! I am just concerned for the child's mental health and development.
As should we all be. Children are the future and we should try and ensure that we raise them as well as we can (as a society as well as individuals). But as I mentioned, how is a homosexual family more damaging to a child than a family who think that Jews should be exterminated, or that black people should ride on the back of the bus and go to their own schools?
There are good and bad people of both sexes and all sexualities, the trick is to try and ensure that children belonging to the bad parents receive the appropriate help, not that all people who belong to a certain group are prevented from having children on the off chance that a child might suffer (however slightly) because their parents belong to that group.
Because if the parents wear glasses, there's a good chance the kid would be "four-eyes" too. Sorry if that was unclear.
If having a good male and female role model is a requirement for child rearing, then thank god we can all be free of "baby-daddy" in the future too, then?
I imagine the speaker in that video had to state that his sister and he were DNA related because it was important to him that people know this, as many detractors on either side maintain that homosexuality is or is not genetically based as a stance for their positions.
mister robouteo wrote:I imagine the speaker in that video had to state that his sister and he were DNA related because it was important to him that people know this, as many detractors on either side maintain that homosexuality is or is not genetically based as a stance for their positions.
I took it that he was stating the facts of his origins, regardless of any other point. Though it could also be linked to his sense of belonging and family - he knows that his sister is his genetic sister, rather than half sister, which I imagine would be a good emotional boost to help him feel connected within the family. He is also making the point that homosexual families are just that - families.
SilverMK2 - I see your opinion on what is marriage. I disagree.
I also see that you belief (if I am not mistaken) is that newer generations should be taught that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality. That social stigmas should be removed from it.
The only time this becomes a problem is when a child from a family that is against homosexuality is told at school "Your parents are wrong".
Let me try this. In my religion, suicide is wrong. If society embraces assisted suicide, then one day my little guy may come home to tell me that I am wrong. Suicide is okay. So where does that leave the child? It is the state (school) saying his religion is wrong. That, I think you will agree, is a big no-no.
So. I propose that Civil Unions be pick up a notch. Marriage remains between a man and a woman. Adoption agencies stay out of alternate homes (as the child is incapable of understanding that commitment). And people be nice to each other by honoring the new unions while respecting preexisting institutions (i.e- Marriage)
That makes good sense too. I can see that the religious overtone can be irritating to people, but I think the family composition model is best. There are all kinds of families though, not just a single nuclear family model like earlier generations pretended towards, especially nowadays. If legislation of what constitutes a worthy family is to be the primary deciding factor, it opens up a lot of potential for unnecessary social control as a mandate from the standard template, not just sexuality. Girls are supposed to learn to cook and clean and have long hair like and be pretty like mom, while boys are supposed to be good at baseball and learn to work on cars like pop if a certain family model is to be considered acceptable and another is not. What a horrible world that would be.
yeenoghu wrote:How is it an exaggerated caricature? bushes that talk while on fire, boats the size of zoos, 900 year lifespan old men, ocean voyages via whale belly, talking snakes with evil fruit, goat horned beast in firey place waiting to get you? Sounds as much like it could belong in a D&D game or Harry Potter movie as a unicorn or a leprechaun and just about as believable. It's not a caricature. I don't believe in frog princes and unicorns either, I'm just saying if I did, then it would be my belief that you cannot get married unless it is to a frog prince, because that's my belief. If I attempted to make everyone else obey the rules of my chosen story, I would be considered unreasonable and insane.
Historically, a man and a woman join in unison to raise a family. Those were the days when unfit babies were left to float downstream too. The only way conceivable to raise a family was to get down and do the deep. Not a lot of ancient greek adoption agencies that I have heard of. Marriage seems to have meant 'getting together to raise a family', which homosexuals can do too. If the grounds that they cannot procreate themselves in this fashion is an issue then I guess infertile people shouldn't be allowed to get married either.
"And thats when he got suspended your honor. "
Posts attacking an entire group of people be it nationality, religion, gender, or ethnicity are not permitted on Dakka. All posters would do well to remember that.
mister robouteo wrote:That makes good sense too. I can see that the religious overtone can be irritating to people, but I think the family composition model is best. There are all kinds of families though, not just a single nuclear family model like earlier generations pretended towards, especially nowadays. If legislation of what constitutes a worthy family is to be the primary deciding factor, it opens up a lot of potential for unnecessary social control as a mandate from the standard template, not just sexuality. Girls are supposed to learn to cook and clean and have long hair like and be pretty like mom, while boys are supposed to be good at baseball and learn to work on cars like pop if a certain family model is to be considered acceptable and another is not. What a horrible world that would be.
I get that you are worried about where do we draw the line, but your examples are a bit extreme.
In courts, they talk about a reasonable person. Like "could a reasonable person tell the difference?" it is saying that a generic person could do something (Not a genius, not an engineer, etc.)
I think the same should apply in a couple seeking adoption. Could a generic couple in their setting have and raise a child? Man and woman in good financial standing? Sure! Poor single woman? No (remember the Raise part, not just knocked up). A single woman with good finances? Yes, but that is not as good as a couple. Etc.
Nothing of their personal preferences are involved in this scenario.
TheHammer wrote:I am glad biccat is taking the heroic perspective that rights are granted to people by society. I am also sure he would have heroically stood against the vile tide of integration and advocated against the Brown decision. You sir are a hero and I wish people here could see that as well.
What gave you the idea that marriage is a right?
There's a significant difference between Brown and gay marriage laws.
Frazzled wrote:
biccat wrote:
reds8n wrote:No it wouldn't, as the law in this regards that is to do with the age of consent between individuals not sexual orientation. This is a very old argument that ahs been thrown out and out argued countless times. Please don't bring it up again.
Is this the official moderator position? Can we not argue that potatoes are like turnips?
If so, will you take "official moderator notice" of the fact that miscegenation is not like gay marriage, and that it is an old argument that has been thrown out and out argued countless times?
1. no. Strangely enough Dakka doesn't have amoderator policy on this.
I get confused when moderators make specific remarks about what should or should not be allowed in a discussion. Also, if red is your moderator voice, does that mean I have to speak in a southern drawl as I type? I'll admit, I haven't used it in a couple of decades, but I think I could whip up a few "sirs" and "ma'ams." I might even be able to "cut the lights" (I'm not sure whether this is a southern thing or particular to Georgia).
Everyone else must use a Southern Drawl. You sir, must speak like this fellow, its like he's a kindler gentler version of me (way kinder and gentler and more young):
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:SilverMK2 - I see your opinion on what is marriage. I disagree.
I accept that you disagree. However, the point I think that needs to be made is that a large amount of the argument against homosexual marriage and child rearing is opinion. Generally relating to religious belief, though that is not always the case (my parents are not religious and I believe that they are against homosexual adoption and resistant to homosexual marriage - though for "civil unions/etc").
I have no issue with people holding these views (however they are arrived at). I would hope that they would be able to take a dispassionate and logical view on the issue and decide based on objective evidence and study (not that I am particularly expecting this to ever happen ).
I also see that you belief (if I am not mistaken) is that newer generations should be taught that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality. That social stigmas should be removed from it.
The only time this becomes a problem is when a child from a family that is against homosexuality is told at school "Your parents are wrong".
I see your point, however, if a child's parents tell their child that the Earth is flat, or that black people are inferior to white people, or that 2+2=90, would you expect schools/society/etc to allow that child to be uneducated in the realities?
I appreciate that people have different views that they arrive at in different ways. However, there are certain universal truths backed up by evidence, and have been assessed as being "truth" to the best of our ability. Different races do have certain differences between them, however, in general they are pretty much the same. Evolution provides a good understanding as to how animals and plants have developed since the formation of life.
As far as I am concerned (and the little un-biased research I have seen on the topic seems to back this up, as well as a small amount of personal experience) seems to suggest that homosexual families are no more damaging to a child than any other try of family, and are better than many other unstable families/orphanages/foster families/etc.
Let me try this. In my religion, suicide is wrong. If society embraces assisted suicide, then one day my little guy may come home to tell me that I am wrong. Suicide is okay. So where does that leave the child? It is the state (school) saying his religion is wrong. That, I think you will agree, is a big no-no.
If a follower of the old Mayan religions thought that sacrifice (human and otherwise) was the way to go, you can be sure that the majority of people would be more than happy to tell they were wrong. Indeed, if they attempted to practice their religion they would likely be locked up. An extreme example perhaps, however, you cannot use religion as some kind of catch all shield and defense against change in society.
If I believe that suicide is wrong (or indeed if I had any particular religious or otherwise belief at odds with modern education) I would explain to my child what I believed and why I believed it.
Indeed, if the roles were reversed, and my child went to a religious school (or if society was religious, rather than secular) and came home having been told that [insert religious dogma here], I would do the same as above, explaining to them my point of view, why I believe it and why the school has told them what they have, why the school/society/etc believe why they do, etc.
I grew up in the Far East for a short time as a child. My parents had to do the same in the largely Islamic culture prevalent in the country that we lived.
So. I propose that Civil Unions be pick up a notch. Marriage remains between a man and a woman. Adoption agencies stay out of alternate homes (as the child is incapable of understanding that commitment). And people be nice to each other by honoring the new unions while respecting preexisting institutions (i.e- Marriage)
Again, I understand you have your position and your right to have it, though I disagree with it.
Ignoring for a moment any "right" for a couple (of any type) to have children when married, why distinguish legally between marriage and "civil union" if all the rights (again, ignoring for the moment the "right" to have children), legal implications etc are exactly the same?
It it simply a case of wanting to distance yourself from it? You want a distinct separation between homosexuals and heterosexuals? You want "marriage" to exist only for religious ceremonies (and how does this work for heterosexuals who are not religious - do they only warrant a "civil union"?)?
I would like to know what your thinking is on this (I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, I am genuinely interested to hear your thoughts)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Everyone else must use a Southern Drawl. You sir, must speak like this fellow, its like he's a kindler gentler version of me (way kinder and gentler and more young):
SilverMK2 - First off, thanks for being intelligent and courteous even when we disagree. It is the sign of a true gentleman (or lady, if that be the case)
To avoid big quote blocks I will just number.
1 - We agree to disagree. But we did it with grace. thank you.
2 - your example, self admittedly, was extreme but I see what you are saying. However, the old "your freedom to move your arm ends where my nose begins" comes into play. Teaching acceptance of an alternate life style or religion does indeed conflict with parent rights. Where as to say Homosexuality or Religion is morally wrong in your home is protected.
3 - I kinda went over it all in #2. Sorry.
4 - Why have it different? Because it is different. We use words to show that an orange is not an apple. I do not see any reason to force other to accept an orange be renamed apple, when the word orange works just fine. There was a mantra used that "separate is not equal" (attempting to pull racial rights into the argument) but I would say that separate is not inherently inequal either.
Frazzled wrote:Posts attacking an entire group of people be it nationality, religion, gender, or ethnicity are not permitted on Dakka. All posters would do well to remember that.
See, he said OR. That means it's OK to attack female Mormon Inuit from Taiwan. Right?
Kilkrazy wrote:Surely the most basic principle of the foundation of the Unites States is the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
If gay people think it will make them happy to marry, why do people want to stand in their way?
So abolish all taxes as they restrict liberty? End abortions as they stop life? Free warhammer models for all (because happiness is free warhammer stuff.)?
I'm on board!
All arguments aside, I have to say the kid was quite eloquent in his speech and I for one couldn't have made a better argument for gay marriage. Good goin' kid!
Frazzled wrote:
Everyone else must use a Southern Drawl.
An' as fer that thar Frazzled feller, he's wun hell of a mod an' I'd sure heck hate ta see 'im use them wiener dogs o' his on all ya'll!
Frazzled wrote:Posts attacking an entire group of people be it nationality, religion, gender, or ethnicity are not permitted on Dakka. All posters would do well to remember that.
See, he said OR. That means it's OK to attack female Mormon Inuit from Taiwan. Right?
Do you want to tap dance in the mine field too Biccat?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Brother Heinrich wrote:All arguments aside, I have to say the kid was quite eloquent in his speech and I for one couldn't have made a better argument for gay marriage. Good goin' kid!
Frazzled wrote:
Everyone else must use a Southern Drawl.
An' as fer that thar Frazzled feller, he's wun hell of a mod an' I'd sure heck hate ta see 'im use them wiener dogs o' his on all ya'll!
Frazzled wrote:Posts attacking an entire group of people be it nationality, religion, gender, or ethnicity are not permitted on Dakka. All posters would do well to remember that.
See, he said OR. That means it's OK to attack female Mormon Inuit from Taiwan. Right?
Do you want to tap dance in the mine field too Biccat?
I'll take that as a no. Drat. I had a really good joke about taiwanese mormon inuit babes.
Frazzled wrote:Posts attacking an entire group of people be it nationality, religion, gender, or ethnicity are not permitted on Dakka. All posters would do well to remember that.
See, he said OR. That means it's OK to attack female Mormon Inuit from Taiwan. Right?
Do you want to tap dance in the mine field too Biccat?
I'll take that as a no. Drat. I had a really good joke about taiwanese mormon inuit babes.
Well there are of course exeptions. had you said babes in the first place...
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:SilverMK2 - First off, thanks for being intelligent and courteous even when we disagree. It is the sign of a true gentleman (or lady, if that be the case)
It is nice to discuss things with people who do not go off on a rant, I have to admit. And I am endowed with a Y chromosome
1 - Indeed
2 - However, this also works when teaching acceptance of religious views. I personally disagree with much that is taught by organised religion, however, I accept that it is advantageous for my children (and indeed myself when I was in school) to learn about different religions, some of their core beliefs, how they are like and dislike other religions, etc. Understanding breeds (if you will forgive the pun) acceptance, and acceptance brings peace, harmony and fluffy kittens
I personally am atheist, as are my parents, but I know about a number of religions and that knowledge helps displace the ignorance I would otherwise be acting from. I would be the first to admit that I don't know everything about any religion (or even a great deal about a single religion), however, I know enough to not be scared of what I do not understand.
I would argue that discussing pretty much any ethical or social standpoint in school is a good thing, as it allows the child to develop an understanding of things outside of their family background.
4 - Again, I can see what you are saying, however, I do not think that the argument you are using is apt in this case. An apple and an orange are easily identifiable as not the same thing. They are not even the same family of fruit. You need to trace the family tree back (argh! Puns everywhere!) quite away before you find a common ancestor.
I would suggest that what you are trying to do is take a granny cox apple and a red delicious and say that the red delicious is not an apple because it is not a granny cox.
I also feel that you have somewhat sidestepped the question - you have stated that they are "different", however, you have not explained why that is the case, and how that relates to homosexuals not being able to marry, being limited only to "civil union".
Da Boss wrote:Really, this whole thing could be made easy by making marriage and civic union legally exactly the same thing.
Would you make any difference between the terms "marriage" and "civic union"? That seems to be a stumbling block for many people as far as I have observed.
I find it somewhat sad that many of the arguments against gay marriage seem quite similar to those once used against inter-racial marriage...in as much as these unions are " Unnatural" or that the children in/of these unions will somehow "suffer" as "outcast" due to their parents.
....IMO...intolerance is intolerance,and attempting to justify it by citing social/religious "norms" doesn't make it any less so.
SilverMK2 wrote:
I also feel that you have somewhat sidestepped the question - you have stated that they are "different", however, you have not explained why that is the case, and how that relates to homosexuals not being able to marry, being limited only to "civil union".
It was not intentional, I assure you.
Take me as a traditionalist. The first thing that pops into my mind when I hear 'marriage' (other than the clip from Princess Bride) is "Man and Wife".
I see my wife. I see my mom and dad who still go on romantic get aways. I think of my departed grandparents. I see the line of genealogy that my family has done.
Marriage means something special to me.
When I see a homosexual couple trying to get married, it looks like kids pretending. It just does not look like marriage as I see it. I know many will label me 'homophobe' because of that. So be it. But it just does not fit the centuries of marriage that I have seen and read (certificates).
If I side-stepped your question, perhaps I did not want to offend anyone. Sorry.
AS for why a difference. I would guess that adoption is a big part. I don't care that homosexuals get hospital visitation, tax write-offs, etc. I am just concerned for those who do not have agency or understanding. They have no real 'say' in going to an alternative lifestyle. That seems unfair. If a teen wants gay parents, let it happen, but not those who cannot choose for themselves.
FITZZ wrote: I find it somewhat sad that many of the arguments against gay marriage seem quite similar to those once used against inter-racial marriage...in as much as these unions are " Unnatural" or that the children in/of these unions will somehow "suffer" as "outcast" due to their parents.
....IMO...intolerance is intolerance,and attempting to justify it by citing social/religious "norms" doesn't make it any less so.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:NOTE: I did not say Gays are automatically bad parents! I am just concerned for the child's mental health and development.
All actual research on the subject says you are wrong to be concerned.
Marriage has nothing to do with children. If that was the case, infertile spouses-to-be could not be married either, nor could those who did not intend to have children.
As a side note, the fact that we have the gender-neutral term "spouse" to begin with means that marriage is obviously not tied entirely to gender.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:If I side-stepped your question, perhaps I did not want to offend anyone. Sorry.
No worries - I just wanted to know your thoughts behind your views.
From what you say your opposition to homosexual marriage is that it goes against "tradition", which is understandable. Everyone has a comfort zone based on their experience, culture etc. I know that I would find certain practices committed in some cultures abhorrent (edit: Perhaps abhorrent is too strong a term, but hey ) because they do not tie in with what I find acceptable.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:NOTE: I did not say Gays are automatically bad parents! I am just concerned for the child's mental health and development.
All actual research on the subject says you are wrong to be concerned.
Marriage has nothing to do with children. If that was the case, infertile spouses-to-be could not be married either, nor could those who did not intend to have children.
As a side note, the fact that we have the gender-neutral term "spouse" to begin with means that marriage is obviously not tied entirely to gender.
Have you really studied? Or did you just flip open a pro-gay marraige review?
Any mental health professional will tell you that a father and a mother is the best setting. If you ask about homosexual setting, they will vary on their response. Some are more progressive than other. But the best is always a mother and a father. That is in our biology.
Also, I had a thought about 'homophobia' (not fear of same or fear of man. You know what I mean)
What is it's origin? As a kid I never heard about homosexuals. When I first saw it I was physically affected. It made my stomach lurch. By definition phobias include revulsion. Is it possible that homophobia is an evolutionary product? Are those that are belittled as bigots actually predisposed to a strong revulsion to gays?
SilverMK2 wrote: I also feel that you have somewhat sidestepped the question - you have stated that they are "different", however, you have not explained why that is the case, and how that relates to homosexuals not being able to marry, being limited only to "civil union".
It was not intentional, I assure you.
Take me as a traditionalist. The first thing that pops into my mind when I hear 'marriage' (other than the clip from Princess Bride) is "Man and Wife". I see my wife. I see my mom and dad who still go on romantic get aways. I think of my departed grandparents. I see the line of genealogy that my family has done. Marriage means something special to me.
When I see a homosexual couple trying to get married, it looks like kids pretending. It just does not look like marriage as I see it. I know many will label me 'homophobe' because of that. So be it. But it just does not fit the centuries of marriage that I have seen and read (certificates).
If I side-stepped your question, perhaps I did not want to offend anyone. Sorry.
AS for why a difference. I would guess that adoption is a big part. I don't care that homosexuals get hospital visitation, tax write-offs, etc. I am just concerned for those who do not have agency or understanding. They have no real 'say' in going to an alternative lifestyle. That seems unfair. If a teen wants gay parents, let it happen, but not those who cannot choose for themselves.
What about the increasingly large number of heterosexual couples who prefer to co-habit rather than marry? That's an alternative lifestyle. For that matter, using family planning is an alternative lifestyle in many people's minds.
I can't believe homosexual couples will be able to propagandize their children into becoming homosexual. Heterosexual couples haven't managed to propagandize their children into becoming heterosexual.
Isn't it the right of parents to bring up their children how they like?
Yes. The overwhelming majority of the studies say that homosexual parents typically raise well-adjusted kids, with the primary difference between kids raised by homosexuals and those raised by heterosexuals is that they are more likely (not by a large amount) to reject traditional gender roles (girls raised by lesbian parents have a higher chance of pursuing sports, for example, or desiring jobs traditionally held by men). Children raised by homosexual parents are no more likely to identify as homosexual, either. The irrational fear that homosexual parents will "convert" or "recruit" children has always been just that-- irrational.
Perhaps it's based on the fact that many heterosexuals try to "convert" or "recruit" homosexuals.
Often violently.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the Child Welfare League of America, the North American Council on Adoptable Children, and Canadian Psychological Association all support homosexuals raising children, and it's rare that you see sociological work that so consistently supports a consensus like there is in the subject of homosexual parents being able to raise well-adjusted children.
In fact, it's generally agreed that it is the quality of family processes that contribute to the child's well-being rather than its structure-- quality of parenting, psychosocial wellbeing of parents, quality and satisfaction with relationships in the family, cooperation and harmony between the parents, etc.
What is it's origin? As a kid I never heard about homosexuals. When I first saw it I was physically affected. It made my stomach lurch. By definition phobias include revulsion. Is it possible that homophobia is an evolutionary product? Are those that are belittled as bigots actually predisposed to a strong revulsion to gays?
It's always possible, but it's unlikely. Phobias are rarely genetic AFAIK, usually they're built up through life's experiences. For example my phobia of bees, wasps, and other flying insects with stingers (and my hatred of my older sister) is based off of childhood trauma, it's certainly not genetic-- while my father, who is allergic to bees/wasps, has no phobia even though it would make more sense for him to have it given his biology. The cause of phobias is not always as blatantly obvious as this.
Surely thats a bad argument though isnt it? I mean, we move forward all the time, look at what we have learned in the last 50 years!
Of course people thought homosexuality was some sort of evil, they also thought it could make plagues or hurricanes.
Its 2011 mate, dont you think we SHOULD be changing things? Im not gay, I have no interest in gay people or what they get up to, but the fact of the matter is, something is really wrong with us forcing our opinions onto other people. I think gay people have just as much right to be as miserable as the rest of us.
For the first time in the US more people are for gay marriage than against. To find the link find the last thread. It was, like, 3 weeks ago so shouldn't be that hard.
Tradition says that an Irishman is the same as an African and not white. Tradition says women shouldn't be educated. At one point tradition said Christians needed to be fed to lions and that Jews drank the blood of babies. At one point in time the majority of people of those times would tell you that is how it is, always was, and always will be.
Oh, and here's the official position of the American Psychological Association and American Pediatric Association:
Although it is sometimes asserted in policy debates that heterosexual couples are inherently better parents than same-sex couples, or that the children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children raised by heterosexual parents, those assertions find no support in the scientific research literature. When comparing the outcomes of different forms of parenting, it is critically important to make appropriate comparisons. For example, differences resulting from the number of parents in a household cannot be attributed to the parents’ gender or sexual orientation. Research in households with heterosexual parents generally indicates that – all else being equal – children do better with two parenting figures rather than just one. The specific research studies typically cited in this regard do not address parents’ sexual orientation, however, and therefore do not permit any conclusions to be drawn about the consequences of having heterosexual versus nonheterosexual parents, or two parents who are of the same versus different genders. Indeed, the scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been remarkably consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are every bit as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents. Amici emphasize that the abilities of gay and lesbian persons as parents and the positive outcomes for their children are not areas where credible scientific researchers disagree. Statements by the leading associations of experts in this area reflect professional consensus that children raised by lesbian or gay parents do not differ in any important respects from those raised by heterosexual parents. No credible empirical research suggests otherwise. Allowing same-sex couples to legally marry will not have any detrimental effect on children raised in heterosexual households, but it will benefit children being raised by same-sex couples.
Yes. The overwhelming majority of the studies say that homosexual parents typically raise well-adjusted kids, with the primary difference between kids raised by homosexuals and those raised by heterosexuals is that they are more likely (not by a large amount) to reject traditional gender roles (girls raised by lesbian parents have a higher chance of pursuing sports, for example, or desiring jobs traditionally held by men). Children raised by homosexual parents are no more likely to identify as homosexual, either. The irrational fear that homosexual parents will "convert" or "recruit" children has always been just that-- irrational.
Perhaps it's based on the fact that many heterosexuals try to "convert" or "recruit" homosexuals.
Often violently.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the Child Welfare League of America, the North American Council on Adoptable Children, and Canadian Psychological Association all support homosexuals raising children, and it's rare that you see sociological work that so consistently supports a consensus like there is in the subject of homosexual parents being able to raise well-adjusted children.
In fact, it's generally agreed that it is the quality of family processes that contribute to the child's well-being rather than its structure-- quality of parenting, psychosocial wellbeing of parents, quality and satisfaction with relationships in the family, cooperation and harmony between the parents, etc.
What is it's origin? As a kid I never heard about homosexuals. When I first saw it I was physically affected. It made my stomach lurch. By definition phobias include revulsion. Is it possible that homophobia is an evolutionary product? Are those that are belittled as bigots actually predisposed to a strong revulsion to gays?
It's always possible, but it's unlikely. Phobias are rarely genetic AFAIK, usually they're built up through life's experiences. For example my phobia of bees, wasps, and other flying insects with stingers (and my hatred of my older sister) is based off of childhood trauma, it's certainly not genetic-- while my father, who is allergic to bees/wasps, has no phobia even though it would make more sense for him to have it given his biology. The cause of phobias is not always as blatantly obvious as this.
To take it a step further, research also tends to indicate that of all household types those headed by two women will:
-Generally have the lowest chance of physical or sexual abuse.
-Generally have the lowest chance of neglect.
-Generally have improved academic performance compared to children in other household types.
-Generally have fewer social & emotional problems - bar bullying.
I feel that adoption should look at homosexual couples with the same eye that they would co-habitating unmarried individuals. They may be a good match.
Again, I did not say that homosexuals are inherently bad parents. It has been quoted and discussed above. I am saying that adoptions should be looking for a man and woman where possible, as the child (usually) is unable to decide where it wants to go.
In other words, the child should not be forced into a situation that it may not like. I am basing this on my personal experience and conversations with more than one friend who was adopted. And on my experiences with homosexuality.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:the child should not be forced into a situation that it may not like.
My nephew doesn't like being put into a situation where he's not being given candy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:I am saying that adoptions should be looking for a man and woman where possible
The overwhelming majority of North American psychological and sociological researchers firmly disagree with you. What matters isn't the gender of the parents, but the quality of the parenting.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:I feel that adoption should look at homosexual couples with the same eye that they would co-habitating unmarried individuals. They may be a good match.
Provide a rational evidence-based reason for this.
In other words, the child should not be forced into a situation that it may not like.
Someone may or may not like any number of circumstances. There is no evidence to indicate that a household headed by heterosexuals results in happier, safer, healthier or more successful kids. In fact some evidence shows the opposite is true to certain extent. Children raised by lesbians may tend to be happier, safer, healthier and more successful.
I am basing this on my personal experience and conversations with more than one friend who was adopted. And on my experiences with homosexuality.
Wholly irrelevant in the face of staggering scientific evidence to the contrary. Personal anecdotes aren't valid evidence.
Any source that I quote is biased. Just like any you would quote. Above we discussed the APA. Go back 25 years and Homosexuality was a disease. Now it leads in the fight for gay marriage. Why? How does an institution for treating mental health get involved in the politics of marriage. Why does it actively campaign, which is an action beyond its charter?
The APA recently had to retract a statement that pedophilia was also part of the normal operating human sexual experience.
All the organizations that take a side on this issue are "infiltrated" one way or the other. Opinions drive policy.
And this whole thread is based off a personal anecdote that you no doubt praised when you saw it.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote: I feel that adoption should look at homosexual couples with the same eye that they would co-habitating unmarried individuals. They may be a good match.
So you would lump married/civil unioned homosexuals with unmarried heterosexuals and imply that both are inferior to heterosexual married couples (if they weren't different then there would be no need to separate them in regards to child rearing). This is why I'd just prefer either gay marriage or the adoption of civil unions and the abolishment of marriage as a legal construct.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Again, I did not say that homosexuals are inherently bad parents. It has been quoted and discussed above. I am saying that adoptions should be looking for a man and woman where possible, as the child (usually) is unable to decide where it wants to go.
Why assume that the child wouldn't want to be with homosexuals? What's your opinion on artificial insemination for lesbian couples or whatever the term is for the male opposite (renting a uterus?)?
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:In other words, the child should not be forced into a situation that it may not like. I am basing this on my personal experience and conversations with more than one friend who was adopted. And on my experiences with homosexuality.
You would disallow homosexual couples to adopt because of your feelings.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:I am saying that adoptions should be looking for a man and woman where possible
The overwhelming majority of North American psychological and sociological researchers firmly disagree with you. What matters isn't the gender of the parents, but the quality of the parenting.
What do those study show as the comparison for children raised by 2 heterosexual women?
Did it cover that? Probably not. Then the study is faulty. How about children raised with a mother and a step mother?
Perhaps having more women in your life is a good thing. Should we then be arguing for polygamy? Would that be the best home? We dont know because the studies are most likely not doing a full comparison. (I would wager that those doing the studies are biases at the offset.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RustyKnight wrote:You would disallow homosexual couples to adopt because of your feelings.
And you would allow it because of yours.
Every person reaches their opinion based on their feelings. Sure, they consult data and reports that support their instinct. But have you EVER heard someone say "I really hated gays, but the APA said they are okay so I changed my mind?" Those that change usually do so when they have family member that come out. So in that sense it is self serving.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Okay, I am out.
Rip me up when I leave,but I made my stance.
Give equal rights to civil unions in every way save allowing adoption agencies the right to take the union type into account. (i.e. -Catholic Adoptions can give preferential treatment to herto marriage).
I am not saying burn the gays at the stake. I am not saying (again) that gays are bad parents.
Actually I think you're just saying it's flawed because you disagree with it.
The majority of studies looked at homosexual parents compared to heterosexual parents, because that is the issue at hand. Claiming that they were flawed because they didn't look at something which was not part of the debate to begin with no other justification for said claim with is rather silly.
I'm not basing my conclusions off of feelings. I'm basing mine off of FACT.
Give equal rights to civil unions in every way save allowing adoption agencies the right to take the union type into account.
I am not saying burn the gays at the stake. I am not saying (again) that gays are bad parents
If gays aren't bad parents there is no rational reason to give heterosexual households preference.
If you give heterosexual households preference with no rational basis you are discriminating.
These two statements can't coexist if you're trying to maintain a rational position.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:I feel that adoption should look at homosexual couples with the same eye that they would co-habitating unmarried individuals. They may be a good match.
Again, I did not say that homosexuals are inherently bad parents. It has been quoted and discussed above. I am saying that adoptions should be looking for a man and woman where possible, as the child (usually) is unable to decide where it wants to go.
In other words, the child should not be forced into a situation that it may not like. I am basing this on my personal experience and conversations with more than one friend who was adopted. And on my experiences with homosexuality.
That would seem to be a view born of the existing widespread prejudice against homosexuals, in the sense that it recognises that a child of homosexual parents may well be teased at school, for example.
The problem with allowing this to be a determinant of action is that the bad behaviour (the teasing) is liable to be perpetuated.
Homosexuality is a deviation of humankind. It is not normal.
I don't know why it exists. No one does. Science has no answer.
Is it evolution trying to take them out of the gene pool?
Is it just a misfire of the mind?
Is it genetic?
is it learned?
We don't know.
But we know it is not the norm.
People can do whatever they want. They can be gay as grandma's hatband.
But you can never legislate acceptance.
Blue eyes aren't the "norm*"
Being 6'+ isn't the "norm"
Liking the sound of nails on a chalkboard isn't the "Norm".
Being a genius isn't the "norm"
Being lactose tolerant isn't the "Norm"
Speaking French isn't the "Norm"
So what?
*assuming "Norm" here is being used to mean 'most common'. Rather than 'proper'. If being used to mean 'most common' it doesn't really have much value, as these examples illustrate. If being used to mean 'proper' rational evidence is needed to prove how it is harmful to the self or others.
Chongara wrote:Blue eyes aren't the "norm*"
Being 6'+ isn't the "norm"
Liking the sound of nails on a chalkboard isn't the "Norm".
Being a genius isn't the "norm"
Being lactose tolerant isn't the "Norm"
Speaking French isn't the "Norm"
So what?
*assuming "Norm" here is being used to mean 'most common'. Rather than 'proper'. If being used to mean 'most common' it doesn't really have much value, as these examples illustrate. If being used to mean 'proper' rational evidence is needed to prove how it is harmful to the self or others.
Do you really, honestly think your examples are the same situation? If so I feel sorry for you.
Why should I provide "rational evidence". I made the claim. You debunk it! Your "rational evidence" thus far has been drivel. "Speaking French isn't the norm." Really? Are you being a wise guy or are you incapable of honesty in your intellectual pursuits?
Just like with any other behavior, no simple, single cause for homosexuality has been found; instead it is a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. Biological factors from the very moment the egg is fertilized, through the important stages of the womb, and in early developmental stages in childhood are extremely important, along with a very complex interplay of genetic factors.
And even with all of the these factors, some people who later find out that they're homosexual, nevermind those who never find out in their lifetime, still reproduce, and besides that, assuming it is a recessive trait with a wide variety of linked genes (it is), there's be no more reason that homosexuality would die out than, say, blue eyes.
In truth, there is a proposed evolutionary benefit-- homosexual members of the family group would be able to hunt, defend the family, farm, and craft items just as well as heterosexual members, but they would provide less of a drain on the group's resources due to not producing children. Therefor they are beneficial to the group.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Homosexuality is a deviation of humankind. It is not normal.
I don't know why it exists. No one does. Science has no answer.
Is it evolution trying to take them out of the gene pool?
Is it just a misfire of the mind?
Is it genetic?
is it learned?
We don't know.
But we know it is not the norm.
People can do whatever they want. They can be gay as grandma's hatband.
But you can never legislate acceptance.
On what exactly are you basing "The Norm"...?
For centuries a "Flat Earth" was the "Norm"
Slavery was the "Norm"
Women being denied basic rights was the "Norm"
Segregation was the "Norm"...
Just because an "Idea" is the "Norm" doesn't make it correct....
Chongara wrote:Blue eyes aren't the "norm*"
Being 6'+ isn't the "norm"
Liking the sound of nails on a chalkboard isn't the "Norm".
Being a genius isn't the "norm"
Being lactose tolerant isn't the "Norm"
Speaking French isn't the "Norm"
So what?
*assuming "Norm" here is being used to mean 'most common'. Rather than 'proper'. If being used to mean 'most common' it doesn't really have much value, as these examples illustrate. If being used to mean 'proper' rational evidence is needed to prove how it is harmful to the self or others.
Do you really, honestly think your examples are the same situation? If so I feel sorry for you.
Why should I provide "rational evidence". I made the claim. You debunk it! Your "rational evidence" thus far has been drivel. "Speaking French isn't the norm." Really? Are you being a wise guy or are you incapable of honesty in your intellectual pursuits?
If you make a claim without rational evidence, there isn't anything debunk or even discuss. As for my evidence: take your pick.
Anyway, the statement that "Speaking French Isn't the Norm" is true where "Norm" is defined as "less common" That is, the statement:
There are more people in the world that do not speak French, than people that do speak French.
Is true. Just as the statement:
There are more people in the world who are not homosexual, than people who are homosexual.
is also true.
Neither of those two statements have very much value however, which was my point.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Homosexuality is a deviation of humankind. It is not normal.
I don't know why it exists. No one does. Science has no answer.
Is it evolution trying to take them out of the gene pool?
Is it just a misfire of the mind?
Is it genetic?
is it learned?
We don't know.
But we know it is not the norm.
People can do whatever they want. They can be gay as grandma's hatband.
But you can never legislate acceptance.
Homosexual people are being accepted, more and more, into the society of today's youth. I live in Texas-- and yet a flamingly homosexual black boy was elected class president twice in a row in my junior and senior high school years. This was something like... six years ago, seven?
You may not accept homosexuals, but that doesn't mean that nobody will, or that society will never do so. Perhaps all the older people will never be able to do so, perhaps they're so stuck in the past that they cannot make friends with those different from them. But I like to think that I, and children of today's age of interconnectivity and social networking, are a little bit better than that.
Call it arrogance.
Chongara wrote:If you make a claim without rational evidence, there isn't anything debunk or even discuss.
Indeed. The onus is on the claim-maker to prove their point, not on everyone else to disprove it.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Homosexuality is a deviation of humankind. It is not normal.
I don't know why it exists. No one does. Science has no answer.
Is it evolution trying to take them out of the gene pool?
Is it just a misfire of the mind?
Is it genetic?
is it learned?
We don't know.
But we know it is not the norm.
People can do whatever they want. They can be gay as grandma's hatband.
But you can never legislate acceptance.
Why not? They are a group of people just like any other? Maybe they were born a little different, just a little off.
Do you believe that others with mental disabilities should not be able to get married? Because they are not normal?
Should two people that are autistic, who have found happiness together, not be allowed to get married? Because they are a deviation of humankind? Are they not people?
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Homosexuality is a deviation of humankind. It is not normal.
I don't know why it exists. No one does. Science has no answer.
Is it evolution trying to take them out of the gene pool?
Is it just a misfire of the mind?
Is it genetic?
is it learned?
We don't know.
Look, this can't be a debate. Your position is simply too ridiculous. Instead, I'll just try and list as many of the errors as I can think of on the spot, so that maybe you can recognise you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and maybe you'll just stop talking.
So here we go;
Your assumption that science has no idea why homosexuality occurs is completely factually wrong.
Your unstanted assumption that a thing must have scientific purpose to exist is nonsense.
It is absurd to suggest someone can learn to be gay. Do you think if you were given morning lessons that in time you'd start to desire sex with men?
Evolution can't "try" to do anything. It simply is.
No-one is try to legislate acceptance. The homosexual community does not, in fact, give two gaks about what some random homophobe thinks about them. They want equal rights before the law.
There is nothing in being the norm that actually makes it better, or more desirous. The idea that every individual is free to reject or embrace any idea of normality and still be equal before the law is actually the whole fething point of modern society.
And besides, we DO know. It's just that it varies from person to person. For most who would actually define themselves as homosexual, it's probably biological-- a combination of genetics, embryonic/fetal development, and so on. There's been numerous documented things which contribute to homosexuality.
But not everyone defines themselves as such. A great deal of people are simply bisexual-- or perhaps they're more emotional-based than based on their partner's gender (IE, they're attracted to a specific person, who happens to be the same sex... or the opposite). You know, the old saying "I'd go gay for [person's name]". Or in the homosexual community, "I'd go straight for [name]" is probably more likely, heh.
Human sexuality is an incredibly nuanced and complex system, with uncounted billions of variables from the ten or so years before puberty effecting it, from genetics to hormones to fetal development to what the mother was eating at what particular time-- even including the mother's health years before the pregnancy-- to environmental factors, from those beyond our control such as natural disasters, radiation, pollution, etc to more commonly thought of ones such as society.
And we still haven't found everything there is to know on the subject.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Homosexuality is a deviation of humankind. It is not normal.
I don't know why it exists. No one does. Science has no answer.
Is it evolution trying to take them out of the gene pool?
Is it just a misfire of the mind?
Is it genetic?
is it learned?
We don't know.
But we know it is not the norm.
People can do whatever they want. They can be gay as grandma's hatband.
But you can never legislate acceptance.
Ah, okay. Probably should wrap it up here folks.
Indeed. This thread is becoming piling on. Everyone will just have to wait until the inevitable thread in the next week or so, rehashing the same .
.
you people are making me post in 
