Gay Marriage page 91

3420 posts

Flag Post

That’s right Beegum. Homosexuals make just as good or terrible parents as Heterosexuals…so your point is what excatly? All marriages should be made void?

And just incase you might not know…marriages do not mean you have to have children.

 
Flag Post

From a statistical or society wide approach this statement you made “Homosexuals make just as good or terrible parents as Heterosexuals” is incorrect. You can study the actual differences between the various family structures in the link I posted. I am sorry that I had to repeat myself, I hope I do not have to do so again.

 
Flag Post

Wow, Beegum.. Let me just respond to the list of fallacies/mistakes you’ve made:

1. Marriage is not a requirement for having children.
2. Not all marriages result in having children.
3. The health of children is affected by drunken parents or those that smoke, by abusive parents or those that work long hours. All of the former are allowed to have children. Even if you agree that they shouldn’t, it is impossible to determine. To then deny homosexuals to marry (which is a silly reason to stop them from having kids) is pure and utter discrimination
4. At what arbitrary point should adults be forbidden to have children any way when they are “damaging” (a rather vague term, isn’t it?) to their children?
5. Why do arbitrary changes in health to children trump the right/privilege for people to have children at all?

I’d add that you’re just a homophobic bigot, but I’m not sure if you’re against marriages in general (both heterosexual and homosexual), so I guess that’s a question you can answer instead.

 
Flag Post

@Darkruler2005
I am asserting with clear evidence that the presence of the family structure "intact biological family’ is scientifically shown to be a positive indicator for future success of children. I need not devolve the argument into a selfish understanding of a ‘right to marry’. Marriage is already very much regulated and I doubt you mean to do away with other regulations in search of getting this singular regulation removed. You need to read more carefully before you assert a numerical list adding things to my position. I clearly never indicated that marriage was a requirement for children nor that all marriages result in children. In fact, I used a study that details the normal result for such a situations as the prior are less healthy for children. The second is irrelevant; I could ask you to describe its relevant logically, but, then you would have to make assertions for supposedly necessary ‘regulations’ you don’t believe in and oppose it with an extremely simplified understanding of heterosexual couples that places a sub-sample (non-reproducing heterosexual couples, we’ll call ‘apples’) against the entire sample (gay couples, ‘oranges’), that is, comparing apples to oranges (cherry picked a sub-sample). Ultimately, 2), then, does not make a logical argument. 3) is addressed directly in studies. 4), as I mentioned, there are other regulations are marriage that help dissuade such reproduction, such as a ban on people marrying their children. 5), the child is not a ’right/privilege, but a person, and the statement seems to contradict your understanding in point 1).

You finish with a personal attack, a ‘flame’. Why? I presented FACTS that you did not like.

 
Flag Post

Beegum, your “studies” come from conservative think-tanks, hardly unbiased…and they don’t actually present any peer reviewed ‘studies’ themselves.

So until you can come up with real studies, I’m going to assert what I’ve already said before -- Homosexuals make just as good or terrible parents as Heterosexuals…so your point is what excatly? All marriages should be made void?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:

Beegum, your “studies” come from conservative think-tanks, hardly unbiased…and they don’t actually present any peer reviewed ‘studies’ themselves.

So until you can come up with real studies, I’m going to assert what I’ve already said before -- Homosexuals make just as good or terrible parents as Heterosexuals…so your point is what excatly? All marriages should be made void?

So, you believe that homosexual couples achieve success where even step parents and devoted single moms seem to fail? That doesn’t seem reasonable on its face. I also reject the notion that the study was more biased than those discredited by the other study I linked to.
We could go further into discussion of the methodology of each study… but, the work is already linked in my initial post on the subject.
I could acknowledge you point to be that there are ‘exceptions’ and that generalization don’t speak to each individual case, but that seems beside the point in deciding public policy.

 
Flag Post

Gay people make up a significantly smaller population than the rest of the world. Secondly, they’re at far more risk of experiencing fringe elements of society due to being relegated there. Lastly, the statistic significance of poor parents being higher in gay people (if we’re humoring this assertion, which I don’t think any study has accurately measured because of the small number of cases in which homosexuals are married parents with equal rights) is not evidence against barring homosexual marriage, and only tangentially suggests that adoption to homosexual parents should be adequately monitored, as I would hope any adoption was.

Black people making up a bigger percentage of the prison population does not mean that black people have an inherent criminal element. As with all things, rote statistical analysis can validate whatever position you’d like. If close analysis of data actually proved that homosexual individuals are not capable of effectively parenting, you wouldn’t have to do very much convincing for me to change my stance on homosexuality. I’d be willing to bet that there’s more instances of domestic abuse in low income homes, but does becoming poor make you beat your wife?

 
Flag Post

Beegum, the vast MAJORITY of studies agree that there is no difference in adopted children achieving and having a loving environment when raised by gay parents when compared to heterosexual couples. Your two little ‘studies’ are not the norm…and as I’ve stated, come from biased conservative think-tanks.

You might not like the facts, but they are there. Homosexuals parents do not hinder or harm the development of their children.

So now that we know the facts, I guess you’ll be happy to allow homosexuals to marry.

 
Flag Post

@TheBSG
You appear to beg the question down to seeing marriage in an unnecessarily simplified way, to conclude that it is a person right. I call this tactic ‘selfish logic’, failing to see the system and society as it is. The study did not use marriage, but ‘Intact biological families’. And the sample set of gay and lesbian couples that actually stayed together was too small to actually get statistical results in many cases… If you review the study. I disagree with the tactic of simplifying studies to the point where they are unnecessarily unimportant.

 
Flag Post

You finish with a personal attack

When I call a black person “black”, it is not a personal attack. When I call a handicapped person “handicapped”, it is not a personal attack. Unless by all your heart you love homosexuals and have no clue why on Earth I would have considered you to be a homophobic bigot, I think my observation stands. Then again, you’re being vague in your claims, so read the below:

I am asserting with clear evidence that the presence of the family structure "intact biological family’ is scientifically shown to be a positive indicator for future success of children.

So all you’re saying is “I want to be irrelevant to the discussion and just pretend that those who oppose homosexual marriage have a point”? Perhaps this is what is dislikable about you guys the most. You never make a point, just put out random statements, and then disagree with everyone’s understanding about what you said. It might be best if you make your viewpoint clear:

1. Should homosexual marriage be legal?
2. Should heterosexual marriage be legal?
3. Does marriage have any significant relevance to “the success of children based on their parents/caretakers”?

 
Flag Post

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Study shows no difference in adopted children raised by gay parents

University of California

A Literature review prepared for the Australian Psychological Society

Canadian Pyschological Association

I can give you even more studies and reports Beegum if you wish…but that’s already a lot for you to read through.

I think Beegum you can stop hiding behind this facade of “children of homosexuals couples will be disadvantaged” and come out and say what you really think about homosexuals in general.

 
Flag Post

i support gay marrage lots……i think people should be free to express there feelings for one enother.. even if they gay or not…

 
Flag Post

No, yes, yes.

Now we begin to get to the actual state of the discussion in the legal realm, where attempting to make a false equality is not done (except peculiarly by the Obama administration), and, instead, gays asserted as having a protected status. This protected status then, supposedly, means that gays should be allowed the privilege of marriage. Since marriage isn’t the only logical conclusion even if gays should be given a protected status, it becomes a sort of punitive reward.

@FlabbyWoofWoof
The logic of the brief is discussed above.
The first study is actually irrelevant by its methodology… It does not study ‘intact biological families’. That makes it inferior in methodologies to a sound study that does for our purposes.
The second study is actually a collection of studies released as if it were unbiased. This is likely inferior, especially because it appears that many such studies use an all Caucasian often wealthy sample of gay parents, as seen in the critical article I linked previously. The study itself indicates this inadequacy in its conclusion. This indication for further study means that such a study as I have posted is superior.
The third is a study appears to rely on IVF lesbian couples. It mentions 33 gay couples by self filled out questionnaire. It is from Australia.
The fourth is a no source statement.

 
Flag Post

You didn’t actually address my post… selfish logic? Cut the field guide crap. I mentioned very specific reasons why your limited research is neither evidence against gay marriage, nor did you link your claim that would apply adoption to marriage. Marriage is not the institution of having kids, it’s the recognition of legal rights between two individuals in reference to themselves and taxes. You’re mincing issues.

Let me ask you this: Do you think that the percentage of gay couples that maintained a stable relationship would go up or down if their marriage was made legal? Think of the kids.

 
Flag Post

Oh and Beegum, that first ‘study’ you linked to whick came from the Witherspoon Institute…well, this is how well regarded it was…“In 2012, the Witherspoon Institute drew public attention for having funded a controversial study concerning LGBT parenting, conducted by Mark Regnerus, Professor of Sociology at the University of Texas at Austin – which failed both an internal and external audit, and was criticized by major scientific institutions.” Source Wikipedia.

So, your studies have been laid to waste, your arguments against gay marriage now falls on “false equality”??? What is false about equality for all humans?

Homosexuals are not asserting to having a ‘protected status’ (please cite evidence), homosexuals are asking for equal rights that should never be denied by their government.

means that gays should be allowed the privilege of marriage

And what argument do you have against them having this ‘privilege of marriage’?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:

You didn’t actually address my post… selfish logic? Cut the field guide crap. I mentioned very specific reasons why your limited research is neither evidence against gay marriage, nor did you link your claim that would apply adoption to marriage. Marriage is not the institution of having kids, it’s the recognition of legal rights between two individuals in reference to themselves and taxes. You’re mincing issues.

Let me ask you this: Do you think that the percentage of gay couples that maintained a stable relationship would go up or down if their marriage was made legal? Think of the kids.

I believe that marriage has a purpose that is deducible (for instance from these studies) and that we need not make it self defined. Again we need not devolve our current regulation to allow people to ‘self define’ what marriage is as you are attempting to do.

 
Flag Post

Completely side stepping my points.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:

Completely side stepping my points.

No I did not. You’re attempting to lead in circles. I rejected your premise. I refused to allow you to beg the question. Marriage has a distinct purpose which is deducible. We need not relativize this knowledge into some sort of social experiment for people who do not even have the capacity to exhibit the the behaviour “Intact biological family”… in any sample. You’ve made the logical error, also, of rejecting obvious information, that is, you have made the system unnecessarily simple so as to ignore information that is unfavorable to your cause.

 
Flag Post

Beegum, whatever you may do in life regarding your opposition of same-sex marriage, it will be futile. No matter what you do your whole life, a greater number of Americans (and people of other nations) every day are more accepting of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. It WILL become law. And knowing that your opinion is useless against the majority of non-homophobics makes me happy. :)

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:

Oh and Beegum, that first ‘study’ you linked to whick came from the Witherspoon Institute…well, this is how well regarded it was…“In 2012, the Witherspoon Institute drew public attention for having funded a controversial study concerning LGBT parenting, conducted by Mark Regnerus, Professor of Sociology at the University of Texas at Austin – which failed both an internal and external audit, and was criticized by major scientific institutions.” Source Wikipedia.

So, your studies have been laid to waste, your arguments against gay marriage now falls on “false equality”??? What is false about equality for all humans?

Homosexuals are not asserting to having a ‘protected status’ (please cite evidence), homosexuals are asking for equal rights that should never be denied by their government.

means that gays should be allowed the privilege of marriage

And what argument do you have against them having this ‘privilege of marriage’?

He was wrongly accused, suffered greatly, and despite all the harsh headlines, when he was dignified with having his study verified, the biased media ignored it.

Originally posted by JaumeBG:

Beegum, whatever you may do in life regarding your opposition of same-sex marriage, it will be futile. No matter what you do your whole life, a greater number of Americans (and people of other nations) every day are more accepting of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. It WILL become law. And knowing that your opinion is useless against the majority of non-homophobics makes me happy. :)

It isn’t futile. I describe reality and fact, which will ultimately prove themselves all the more the more people bet on falsehood. It may, indeed, come to pass that the people make illogical emotional choices to give gay people a falsified version of marriage. There is already plenty of evidence, both scientific and philosophical, to conclude factual error in making gay marriage law. This calling the debate futile is a sort of begging the question. A sort of fear tactic. Homosexual couples will still have poorer parenting results and poor health (such as poor tone in anal tissue) as a result of the actual activities they partake in. The real futility is in fighting reality. And, it seems I have found the gay propaganda machine very alive here.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Beegum:
Originally posted by TheBSG:

Completely side stepping my points.

No I did not. You’re attempting to lead in circles. I rejected your premise. I refused to allow you to beg the question. Marriage has a distinct purpose which is deducible. We need not relativize this knowledge into some sort of social experiment for people who do not even have the capacity to exhibit the the behaviour “Intact biological family”… in any sample. You’ve made the logical error, also, of rejecting obvious information, that is, you have made the system unnecessarily simple so as to ignore information that is unfavorable to your cause.

Cognitive dissonance has a big vocabulary. Nothing you said adequately addresses my post. You’re the one who made an assertion about the meaning of marriage, and still have yet to identify what that has to do with adoption. Furthermore, as we’ve quickly discovered, the measurements of homosexual parents is inadequate, because of their estrangement from society, their small population size, and their lack of equal rights. Comparing gay people to straight people on their “intact biological family” is a farce because one is given the right to do so and the other isn’t.

 
Flag Post
You’ve made the logical error, also, of rejecting obvious information, that is, you have made the system unnecessarily simple so as to ignore information that is unfavorable to your cause.

Pot, meet kettle. Seriously, try as you might to ignore the majority of studies that go against you, you are still wrong.

Marriage has a distinct purpose which is deducible

Haha, explain please! Since you’re an expert on marriage, explain marriage’s distinct purpose.

 
Flag Post

Should homosexual marriage be legal?

No

You have no arguments for this. Instead, you went on a rant about kids and parents. It has nothing to do with marriage.

Does marriage have any significant relevance to “the success of children based on their parents/caretakers”?

yes

Ridiculous. You can have children without being married, and you can marry without having children. You can even adopt kids, or let them be raised by others while at work. Not to mention you can have kids with others while being married. All marriage is is a binding paper for certain legal issues or a religion accepting the two of you “being together”. You bring not a single piece of evidence for marriage being a significant issue in raising kids.

Now we begin to get to the actual state of the discussion in the legal realm, where attempting to make a false equality is not done (except peculiarly by the Obama administration), and, instead, gays asserted as having a protected status. This protected status then, supposedly, means that gays should be allowed the privilege of marriage. Since marriage isn’t the only logical conclusion even if gays should be given a protected status, it becomes a sort of punitive reward.

“False equality”? “Protected status”? “Punitive reward”? Are you sure you understand the concepts you’re using? This whole paragraph seems full of nonsense not working towards any argument against homosexual marriage (and certainly not for heterosexual marriage). Here are some easier statements for you instead:

1. Religious institutions can “recognise” whatever the hell they want.
2. The government should promote equality. To recognise one thing, but reject it from others and then give certain benefits to the first is discrimination.
3. For the smartasses out there, you don’t have to bring up bestiality or pedophilia. Legal consent is an issue.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:

Let me ask you this: Do you think that the percentage of gay couples that maintained a stable relationship would go up or down if their marriage was made legal? Think of the kids.

 
Flag Post

Catching up, things got a bit murky. Apologize for the general clutter.

The main source of homophobia? Big question. Certainly not one answer. Some people are probably afraid of that which is new or unfamiliar to them. If you want my speculation as to why my (non-Christian) friend was gay, I would say it was because he was deathly afraid he was gay. There was some serious closet fear going on there.

I am afraid I have to put you to to task here. You suggest a non-answer. Outside of personal ancedotes, look at the north american mainstream culture’s homophobia. What is the source? I do believe it is the inheritance if not cultivation of traditional anti gay “christian” values. Does this mean all Christians are homophobic? No. Does this mean the nature of Christianity includes homophobia? No. But somewhere between what people are saying and doing underneath the Christian banner, that is what is happening.

The Roman Catholic Church made some fairly strong denouncements of homophobia for example. But they certainly do not acknowledge homosexuality as legitimate either.

Homophobia: unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.
Antipathy: a natural, basic, or habitual repugnance; aversion; an instinctive contrariety or opposition in feeling.
Having antipathy toward homosexuality is being homophobic according to Dictionary.com.

Really though that is a blurry line. Consider that your two definitions linked really just called all Heterosexuals homophobic. Anyone who has an instinctive contrary feeling to homosexuality? Really?

Marriage is traditionally a religious institution.

No, no it is not. Marriage By The State has a far older history then the entirety of the Christian religion.

Marriage is a religious thing. If government said my marriage was invalid, I’d find that slightly humorous, and just ignore government. Since when did we allow government do decide what is and what isn’t a legitimate marriage?

Since always. The idea that marriage was born from your religious structures is ludicrous. There is not a lick of evidence to support it. Marriage was always a theological festival in the same way all activities were. But do not pretend that Christianity invented, defined, or dominates marriage. Rome was marrying people for hundreds of years before Christ ever showed up. Along with the rest of the civilized world for thousands.

That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying that marriage in the eyes of God and community is a personal thing. The government has no right to define what it is or isn’t. Let individual churches and communities decide what marriage is to them, and let the government use some other blanket term to identify couples. The government has no right to define marriage. This isn’t about lifestyles or intolerance, it’s about government control, and the imposition of a redefining of sacred terms that mean different things to different people. Most people really don’t care what people do unless it tries to cross their doorstep.

Once again the idea that Marriage is a Christian Tradition, a Christian Value is not true. There are Christians traditions related to marriage, and Christian values related to marriage, certainly. But Christians, Churches, Theists alike have no real claim to authority here. Really, I do agree with your suggestion, that the Marriage by state should be one thing, and that marriage by church another. But what I find bothersome is Christian groups lording about marriage like it was their idea, their ritual, their tradition, their sacred idol. No, no, no.