Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 141

Thread: Gay Marriage

  1. #51
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    My suggestion for a clear diffinition between the two different forms of union with a totally different use of words is also something that would REALLY help the averagfe person get a heads-up before going to a social event.....(ie a marriage or a Civial union)

    In the real world it would break down to being like this:

    You open your mail one day and find an invitation to a co-worker's child's "marriage"

    From the use of the term "marriage" you know a head of time what to expect....you know this will be an event where a man and a women are going to be united in legal union.

    However lets say you open the same invitation and see you are asked to attend the union of Cris and Pat in "Domestic Partnership"

    Now you know a head of time to expect that this is a union between two people of the same sex.

    Everyone walks in the door of the church that day knowing what to expect, and no one gets grossed out, pukes, or points fingers. Everyone there "understands"...

    Everyone there knew going in what to expect to see going on...

  2. #52
    asdf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    The benefit of reserving the term "marriage" to mean the union of different sexes is that we show respect to the feelings and traditional beliefs of people of faith like myself.
    The benefit of reserving "whites only" drinking fountains is that we show respect to the feelings and traditional beliefs of people who don't like black people.



    after all, it was a gay person who came up with the term "Domestic partnership" to describe this form on single-sex legal union after all....
    Probably. But it was a kludgy, compromising, temporary, stop-gap method that I don't believe will stand the test of time—when the more elegant and efficient method is to simply allow marriage equality.

  3. #53
    asdf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    My suggestion for a clear diffinition between the two different forms of union with a totally different use of words is also something that would REALLY help the averagfe person get a heads-up before going to a social event.....(ie a marriage or a Civial union)

    In the real world it would break down to being like this:

    You open your mail one day and find an invitation to a co-worker's child's "marriage"

    From the use of the term "marriage" you know a head of time what to expect....you know this will be an event where a man and a women are going to be united in legal union.
    How about you know from the names on the invitation? Or you know by knowing the people to whose wedding you are going?

    However lets say you open the same invitation and see you are asked to attend the union of Cris and Pat in "Domestic Partnership"

    Now you know a head of time to expect that this is a union between two people of the same sex.

    Everyone walks in the door of the church that day knowing what to expect, and no one gets grossed out, pukes, or points fingers. Everyone there "understands"...

    Everyone there knew going in what to expect to see going on...
    Perhaps bigots who would be induced to vomiting at the sight of two men or two women publicly affirming their love should simply stay away from weddings in which they don't know the people.

    That's an absolutely terrible reason to create a separate, parallel ins***ution to marriage.

  4. #54
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by asdf View Post
    Perhaps bigots who would be induced to vomiting at the sight of two men or two women publicly affirming their love should simply stay away from weddings .


    that is one of the reasons my idea is so good.....it gives everyone a heads-up before things get out of control.

    I also believe my idea allows for people to have different views oin the matter without everyone needing to get in each others face over it.

    If a gay couple want to make their relationship binding, then they get to...

    Nothing about the straight's marriage and the gay's Domestic Partnership is different...only the terms used are simply in context of making things more clear to everyone.

    to clarify that one union is between members of different sex, and another union if between members of the same sex.

    The terms are different, like being called "Straight" or "gay" is simply a means to distinguish a person's sexual iden***y.
    No judgement is employed in calling me "Straight" or in calling another "gay"

    The same with the term marriage and Domestic partnership....the terms are different and simply explain things better.

  5. #55
    asdf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    that is one of the reasons my idea is so good.....it gives everyone a heads-up before things get out of control.

    I also believe my idea allows for people to have different views oin the matter without everyone needing to get in each others face over it.

    If a gay couple want to make their relationship binding, then they get to...

    Nothing about the straight's marriage and the gay's Domestic Partnership is different...only the terms used are simply in context of making things more clear to everyone.

    to clarify that one union is between members of different sex, and another union if between members of the same sex.

    The terms are different, like being called "Straight" or "gay" is simply a means to distinguish a person's sexual iden***y.
    No judgement is employed in calling me "Straight" or in calling another "gay"

    The same with the term marriage and Domestic partnership....the terms are different and simply explain things better.
    It's catering to people with bigoted and ****phobic views, creating a permanent undercl***, employing the old "gay panic defense" argument, using the exact same arguments that gave us Jim Crow laws, and fetishizing/exoticizing gay people.

    But other than that, yeah, great idea.

  6. #56
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    I believe my views are a good way for both sides of the issue to get what they really want...

    thats the question I would ask anyone who thinks my idea is wrong..."What are you really after?"

    Get right down to the bare bones of the real goal you are seeking....and you will find that my idea fits nicely there with both sides.

    I also believe that the people on both lunatic ends of the question that disagree with me are not actually seeking equality nor respect for traditional understandings,,,,,rather they just want to hurt the other side.

    shame on them.....

    thats all i can say to some people,,,,,shame on them.

  7. #57
    asdf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    I believe my views are a good way for both sides of the issue to get what they really want...
    As I said from the beginning, I think your proposal is a step in the right direction. Acknowledging the humanity of gay and lesbian people is a crucial first step, and one that many people don't seem to make.

    thats the question I would ask anyone who thinks my idea is wrong..."What are you really after?"

    Get right down to the bare bones of the real goal you are seeking....and you will find that my idea fits nicely there with both sides.
    That is indeed a great question. Here's how I'd break it down.

    What I'm really seeking for my gay and lesbian friends: simple, straightforward equality in the eyes of civil law. Legitimization in the eyes of society. That they are not treated as pariahs by their own government.

    "The other side" could be seeking one of two things, neither of which I believe is well-served by your suggestion of a "separate but equal" ins***ution parallel to marriage. They could be seeking:

    1. Complete delegitimation of gay and lesbian people. Denial that they exist, or trying to force them either into the closet or into "reparative therapy". No recognition of their humanity, no acknowledgment that they have or want to form meaningful, intimate relationships.
    2. The religious liberty to determine standards of morality according to their own consciences. The ability to refrain from participation in, or blessing of, same-sex relationships. The freedom to denounce ****sexuality.

    For those who want 1), I simply have nothing to say, except my confidence that they will lose in the marketplace of ideas.

    For those that want 2), I can appreciate and respect that, though I think it's wrong and harmful to young gay people. I support the rights of religious groups & organizations to refrain from conducting marriages they deem immoral.

    But that's no reason to create a parallel ins***ution of "domestic partnership". Going back to my example of the Catholic Church, they may (as an organization), decide that marriage is only a union of a never-married Catholic man and a never-married Catholic woman, but that's no reason to rename a union of two Jews, or two men, or two divorcees, into something other than "marriage", simply to pander to Catholics' religious beliefs. Civil government is not, and should not be, in the business of determining orthodox spirituality. (That's for the best, for both Church and State.)

  8. #58
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by asdf View Post
    What I'm really seeking for my gay and lesbian friends: simple, straightforward equality in the eyes of civil law.
    then can you understand how offended by my ideas are the people who don't want the Gays to be equal under the law?

  9. #59
    TRiG
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    then can you understand how offended by my ideas are the people who don't want the Gays to be equal under the law?
    Frankly, I care very little how "offended" bigots might be at anything.

    TRiG.

  10. #60
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TRiG View Post
    Frankly, I care very little how "offended" bigots might be at anything.

    TRiG.
    Im sure there are just as many guys of not more on the other side that are ready to tell me that "They are not worried about offending perverts"...

    Thus you see the wisdom in my idea in that it offends people on both ends of the question ...

  11. #61
    asdf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    then can you understand how offended by my ideas are the people who don't want the Gays to be equal under the law?
    Of course. What does their offense have to do with whether your suggestion is a just solution?

    Thus you see the wisdom in my idea in that it offends people on both ends of the question ...
    That's a very odd criterion for determining the wisdom of a particular idea.

  12. #62
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by asdf View Post

    That's a very odd criterion for determining the wisdom of a particular idea.

    sooner or later you will also find the wisdom in knowing that justice is never found on the lips of people at the far extremes....

  13. #63
    asdf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    sooner or later you will also find the wisdom in knowing that justice is never found on the lips of people at the far extremes....
    Perhaps one day you will find the wisdom in knowing that just because everybody dislikes an idea that solves nobody's desires, doesn't mean it's the right solution.

  14. #64
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by asdf View Post
    an idea that solves nobody's desires, .

    ahh but my idea does....

    think about this issue from both sides and you will come to see that my idea actually dose give to both sides what they were really deep-down seeking.

    Consider:
    What does the Gays want?
    They want to be able to form life-long legal unions and have all the same legal rights reconized as do married husbands and wives.

    My idea does this.

    On the flip side, what do people who read the Bible and respect the Lord seek?
    They want the concept of "Biblical marriage" reserved for only members of different sex. ( "God made them Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!")

    My idea reserves for all time the term 'marriage" to refer to only members of different sex.

    Thus,my idea is better than any other i have yet heard of of allowing both sides to achieve what they are really seeking.....

    Both sides might have their lunatic ends who will always feel "It's not good enough" but we cant allow this subject to be driven by the nut-***s that are in this discussion for more personal reasons that have nothing to do with the general question of a person's legal rights.

    If you actually are seeking nothing more than legal rights, or the protection of Biblical marriage?.......my idea works.

  15. #65
    asdf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    ahh but my idea does....
    You continue to say that, but you haven't dealt with any of the critiques I have offered.

    think about this issue from both sides and you will come to see that my idea actually dose give to both sides what they were really deep-down seeking.
    In the first place, when one "side" of the "issue" comprises people with anti-reality, anti-equality, bigoted views, I don't feel the need to accommodate their perspective.

    I don't think that 50 years ago, the truth lay somewhere between Bull Connor and Martin Luther King.

    Consider:
    What does the Gays want?
    They want to be able to form life-long legal unions and have all the same legal rights reconized as do married husbands and wives.
    Among other things, as I explained above.

    My idea does this.
    And neglects the rest.

    On the flip side, what do people who read the Bible and respect the Lord seek?
    They want the concept of "Biblical marriage" reserved for only members of different sex. ( "God made them Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!")
    They're welcome to only perform and recognize marriages they consider "Biblical" within their church. They are not welcome to impose it on the general populace through force of U.S. civil law.

    Both sides might have their lunatic ends who will always feel "It's not good enough" but we cant allow this subject to be driven by the nut-***s that are in this discussion for more personal reasons
    Just because there are two "sides" to an issue does not mean that those on both "sides" are equally "nut-***s" and "lunatics".

    Feel free to have the last word. This isn't a conversation, anyway. You don't seem to even be reading, let alone responding to, what I post.

  16. #66
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,191

    Default

    [QUOTE=asdf;93543]
    You continue to say that, but you haven't dealt with any of the critiques I have offered.



    In the first place, when one "side" of the "issue" comprises people with anti-reality, anti-equality, bigoted views, I don't feel the need to accommodate their perspective.

    I don't think that 50 years ago, the truth lay somewhere between Bull Connor and Martin Luther King.
    Being gay is not the same as being black or Hispanic. If I look at a baby, right from the start, I can identify that baby as the race they belong to. ****sexuality is a behavior, not a biological characteristic. For this reason, we shouldn't lump bigotry against race as the same thing as, if you want to call it, bigotry for a behavior.

    Now, if I want to take this to the extreme, couldn't I make any behavior that I want to do and society doesn't accept it as bigoted. Let's say that I want to have sexual relations with animals and society doesn't accept it? Are they bigots? What about with children whose parents give their consent? There are whole animal rights movements that think that sport hunting is inhumane. Are they okay to call those who hunt bigots?

    The gay movement right has tried to play this on both sides of the fence. On one side, they want to say they are born that way. On the other side, they say it is their choice to do what they want.

    I think Alan has a good idea. Allow the gays to have the freedom to unite or gain protections, but don't call it "marriage." A marriage, as defined today, is a union between a man and a woman. A man is not the same as a woman and a woman is not the same as a man. This is obvious, not just by visual inspection , but also there are unique traits (biological things such as differrences in eye-sight, hearing, how we respond to sound, movement, etc.) that make us uniquely a man or a woman. A gay person obviously recognizes these differences or there would be no such self-description as "gay." My thought is, if a gay person can tell the difference between a man or a woman when choosing a partner, certainly, they should not be upset if likewise we recognize the difference between a gay partnership and a marriage.
    I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

  17. #67
    asdf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigJulie View Post
    Being gay is not the same as being black or Hispanic. If I look at a baby, right from the start, I can identify that baby as the race they belong to.
    ****sexuality is not a race. You are correct—but nobody is claiming otherwise.

    ****sexuality is a behavior, not a biological characteristic.
    You are mistaken. Attractional orientation is far deeper than "a behavior"—it speaks to attractions, likes, predilictions. I was heterosexual long before I engaged in sexual activity—indeed long before I knew what sex was. When I was a child, the entirety of the set of people to whom I felt attractions or schoolboy crushes were women/girls.

    For this reason, we shouldn't lump bigotry against race as the same thing as, if you want to call it, bigotry for a behavior.
    Bigotry is bigotry. Nobody is saying racial bigotry is the same as bigotry against non-heterosexuals—rather we are saying it is ****ogous.

    Now, if I want to take this to the extreme, couldn't I make any behavior that I want to do and society doesn't accept it as bigoted.
    It depends on if there's a basis for the bigotry, apart from tradition and religious preference.

    N.B. If you insist on reducing ****sexuality to the same-sex sex act, I'm afraid the ship has sailed on whether "society" is permitted to forbid it under law: "anti-sodomy" laws have been ruled uncons***utional for over 8 years now.

    Let's say that I want to have sexual relations with animals and society doesn't accept it? Are they bigots? What about with children whose parents give their consent?
    Two words: Informed Consent.

    There are whole animal rights movements that think that sport hunting is inhumane. Are they okay to call those who hunt bigots?
    You can call them whatever you want: you can't restrict their behavior using the force of civil law without a rational justification.

    The gay movement right has tried to play this on both sides of the fence. On one side, they want to say they are born that way. On the other side, they say it is their choice to do what they want.
    It's really quite simple: behavior is a choice; attractional orientation is not.

    You could choose to listen to heavy metal music; could you choose to like it?

    I think Alan has a good idea. Allow the gays to have the freedom to unite or gain protections, but don't call it "marriage."
    I appreciate your willingness to consider equal protection under the law for gay people. Honestly. Thank you.

    A marriage, as defined today, is a union between a man and a woman.
    And as it was defined 40 years ago, it was a union between a man and a woman of the same race.
    And as it was defined 100 years ago, it was the union between a man and his property.
    And as it was defined 500 years ago, it was the union between a king and his national ally.
    And as it was defined in Biblical times, it was the union between a man and as many women as he wished, or a man and his rape victim, or a man and the spoils of war.
    ...

    Marriage has undeniably evolved over time. Allowing a small minority, who has traditionally been excluded, to marry will not upend the social order—and will certainly have no effect on my marriage with my wife.

    A man is not the same as a woman and a woman is not the same as a man. This is obvious, not just by visual inspection , but also there are unique traits (biological things such as differrences in eye-sight, hearing, how we respond to sound, movement, etc.) that make us uniquely a man or a woman. A gay person obviously recognizes these differences or there would be no such self-description as "gay." My thought is, if a gay person can tell the difference between a man or a woman when choosing a partner, certainly, they should not be upset if likewise we recognize the difference between a gay partnership and a marriage.
    Perhaps you should meet some gay people and see what they think of your suggestion.

    Thanks for the discussion.

  18. #68
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,191

    Default

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by asdf View Post

    You are mistaken. Attractional orientation is far deeper than "a behavior"—it speaks to attractions, likes, predilictions. I was heterosexual long before I engaged in sexual activity—indeed long before I knew what sex was. When I was a child, the entirety of the set of people to whom I felt attractions or schoolboy crushes were women/girls.
    And human sexuality goes far deeper than just preferences---ask any rape victim or sexual abuse victim. Sexuality is socialized as well as other things. Yet, it is still a behavior that defines it.

    Bigotry is bigotry. Nobody is saying racial bigotry is the same as bigotry against non-heterosexuals—rather we are saying it is ****ogous.
    But, maybe the gay rights movement is stretching this too far. Bigotry against race is far different rather than closer and to use the Martin Luther King argument is not right to blacks and what they went through. The argument has been said that ****sexuals have never had to sit on the back of the bus, use separate bathrooms, etc. What the gay right movement wants is to be recognized as different but accepted as the same.


    It depends on if there's a basis for the bigotry, apart from tradition and religious preference.
    What if it is "bigotry" because there are those in society who feel that the union that can and often does produce a child should be protected precisely because it can bring children into the world. Nature dictates that a ****sexual union cannot produce a child. Anyway you slice it, it is not the same thing. If it is not, then why should we pretend it is?



    Two words: Informed Consent.
    Yes, has marriage been desecrated to little more than "informed consent"?

    You can call them whatever you want: you can't restrict their behavior using the force of civil law without a rational justification.
    I am not restricting their behavior. But why should I think that that behavior is the same when it is clearly different.

    You could choose to listen to heavy metal music; could you choose to like it?
    Ever heard of Pavlov? Sexuality is not just some biological setting. If you want to talk about statistics of ****sexuality, should we bring up the diseases (not talking about AIDS here) like hepa***is, because the body is not meant to function in the way they behave? Increased violence---you explain why there is an increase in violence in ****sexual relationships (don't know myself). What about the higher number of partners (also well researched.) So, the question is, how as a society have we gone from understanding ****sexuality is a harmful behavior to embracing it?

    I appreciate your willingness to consider equal protection under the law for gay people. Honestly. Thank you.
    I am willing to consider equal protection under the law--I am also willing to be honest about the stats that come with ****sexuality and the obvious problems that go with it. Are you willing to do that as well?

    And as it was defined 40 years ago, it was a union between a man and a woman of the same race.
    And as it was defined 100 years ago, it was the union between a man and his property.
    And as it was defined 500 years ago, it was the union between a king and his national ally.
    And as it was defined in Biblical times, it was the union between a man and as many women as he wished, or a man and his rape victim, or a man and the spoils of war.
    ...
    It is still defined this way. Every single one of these definitions can be used. It speaks to a contractual agreement for the protection of those within the stewardship. Today, it is the children. Children still need to be protected and there is a reason that statistics show that children do best when they are raised by their biological mother and father who are still married. They don't do as well with divorce. They don't do as well with single parents. They don't do as well with adoption. That's the stats.

    Marriage has undeniably evolved over time. Allowing a small minority, who has traditionally been excluded, to marry will not upend the social order—and will certainly have no effect on my marriage with my wife.
    But just as divorce, single parenthood, infidelity, out-of-wedlock children, etc. etc. have had a large toll on this society and a large cost to society, it is naive to think we could lose one more protection for children and it also not affect society. Men and women are not the same. There is more similarity between a 5 year old girl and an 80 year old woman than there is between a 50 year old man and a 50 year old woman. Medically, biologically, we are not the same creatures. If you don't believe in God, then at least accept Darwin created differnces in parents for a reason.


    Perhaps you should meet some gay people and see what they think of your suggestion.

    Thanks for the discussion.
    I know many. They are very nice---but I would say this to their face as readily as to yours. Men and women are different. Children deserve more than to be a pet to someone's dream of what they want in life.
    I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

  19. #69
    asdf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigJulie View Post
    And human sexuality goes far deeper than just preferences---ask any rape victim or sexual abuse victim. Sexuality is socialized as well as other things.
    Indeed—but sexual orientation goes far deeper than just sexuality. Which is why I prefer the term attractional orientation to be more clear.

    Yet, it is still a behavior that defines it.
    No more than there is a behavior that defines me as heterosexual.

    But, maybe the gay rights movement is stretching this too far. Bigotry against race is far different rather than closer and to use the Martin Luther King argument is not right to blacks and what they went through.
    Perhaps—but many civil rights leaders, from John Lewis to Coretta Scott King, see the parallels.

    The argument has been said that ****sexuals have never had to sit on the back of the bus, use separate bathrooms, etc.
    This is true. But they have been bullied, discriminated against in employment, har***ed, and—more to the point—denied fundamental equal justice under US law.

    What the gay right movement wants is to be recognized as different but accepted as the same.
    I'm not sure I follow.

    What if it is "bigotry" because there are those in society who feel that the union that can and often does produce a child should be protected precisely because it can bring children into the world. Nature dictates that a ****sexual union cannot produce a child. Anyway you slice it, it is not the same thing. If it is not, then why should we pretend it is?
    Heterosexual unions and opposite-sex marriages do not revolve around the ability to procreate.

    Yes, has marriage been desecrated to little more than "informed consent"?
    What? No. Informed consent is necessary, but not sufficient, for a marriage.

    I am not restricting their behavior. But why should I think that that behavior is the same when it is clearly different.
    Nobody is asking you to think any such thing. We're not arguing about your thoughts—we're arguing about the status under US law.

    Ever heard of Pavlov?
    Yes. There's no legitimate science to suggest that ****sexuality can be learned (or unlearned) as a Pavlovian response.

    Sexuality is not just some biological setting. If you want to talk about statistics of ****sexuality, should we bring up the diseases (not talking about AIDS here) like hepa***is, because the body is not meant to function in the way they behave?
    Even ***uming (for the sake of argument) that your "statistics" are based on sound, evidence-based scientific research, would it not be a solution to the problem to channeling sexual impulses within the context of a committed, monogamous, faithful, loving, lifelong relationship like marriage?

    Increased violence---you explain why there is an increase in violence in ****sexual relationships (don't know myself).
    My hypothesis is to blame The Closet. Being forced into a ghetto of societal disapproval, often facing rejection by family and friends and employers, hiding oneself from bigots . . . has to add a great deal of stress and uncertainty to a person.

    What about the higher number of partners (also well researched.)
    Applies to gay men, not lesbian women.

    So, the question is, how as a society have we gone from understanding ****sexuality is a harmful behavior to embracing it?
    Pretty much the same way we've gone from understanding left-handedness as "sinister", evil and unlucky to "embracing it"—viz., reality.

    I am willing to consider equal protection under the law--I am also willing to be honest about the stats that come with ****sexuality and the obvious problems that go with it. Are you willing to do that as well?
    "The stats" do not come with ****sexuality—they come with promiscuity and unsafe sex, whether same-sex or opposite sex.

    It is still defined this way. Every single one of these definitions can be used. It speaks to a contractual agreement for the protection of those within the stewardship.
    Um, no. My wife is not my property. She is not my rape victim. She is not a spoil of war, nor a political arrangement. She's certainly not one of many women.

    Today, it is the children.
    According to your tradition, perhaps. According to U.S. civil law? Nonsense.

    Children still need to be protected and there is a reason that statistics show that children do best when they are raised by their biological mother and father who are still married. They don't do as well with divorce. They don't do as well with single parents. They don't do as well with adoption. That's the stats.
    I've seen studies comparing two-parent households with single-parent households and step-households and foster-households, but not with adoptive two-parent households. Could you cite your source?

    Anyway, ***uming you're correct, what's your solution? Prohibiting divorce under civil law? Prohibiting adoption? (Full disclosure: I am an adoptee, and do not take kindly to smears against adoption.)

    But just as divorce, single parenthood, infidelity, out-of-wedlock children, etc. etc. have had a large toll on this society and a large cost to society, it is naive to think we could lose one more protection for children and it also not affect society. Men and women are not the same. There is more similarity between a 5 year old girl and an 80 year old woman than there is between a 50 year old man and a 50 year old woman. Medically, biologically, we are not the same creatures. If you don't believe in God, then at least accept Darwin created differnces in parents for a reason.

    I know many. They are very nice---but I would say this to their face as readily as to yours. Men and women are different. Children deserve more than to be a pet to someone's dream of what they want in life.
    Marriage is not about children. It's a red herring.

  20. #70
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,191

    Default

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by asdf View Post
    Indeed—but sexual orientation goes far deeper than just sexuality. Which is why I prefer the term attractional orientation to be more clear.
    Well, things that science has found to be deeper as well are things such as mental illness, alchoholism, etc. these, at least have found a genetic link. ****sexuality has yet to do that. Alcholism is a harmful behavior as well, but society recognizes it as such and does not embrace it.


    No more than there is a behavior that defines me as heterosexual.
    And one of the reasons that we have marriage is so that your "heterosexual" tendencies do not harm the possible offspring as the result of that tendency. That is one reason we have marriage--to give children a safe, protected place to grow. We can see what happens to the children when this union is desecrated and the ending result on society.

    Perhaps—but many civil rights leaders, from John Lewis to Coretta Scott King, see the parallels.
    And many blacks are offended by what they "see." It is not the same and to pretend it is is just using the black experience, once again, for their own social gains.

    This is true. But they have been bullied, discriminated against in employment, har***ed, and—more to the point—denied fundamental equal justice under US law.
    A marriage law will not change this---people who are bullies are bullies. Oh boy, are you suggesting we give ****sexuals "affirmative action" laws? And nobody even knows a ****sexual is ****sexual unless they announce it themselves, either verbally or by their behavior. I've been bullied for being Mormon, made fun of by a teacher in school in front of the cl***, been put down at work. I survived. If you believe what you are is okay--bullying doesn't make a difference. And a marriage law is not going to change this.


    Heterosexual unions and opposite-sex marriages do not revolve around the ability to procreate.
    Which is WHY they should not be given the name of "marriage" which one of the absolute possiblities with marriage is procreation--even for those who use birth-control.


    Nobody is asking you to think any such thing. We're not arguing about your thoughts—we're arguing about the status under US law.
    Why should state law not acknowledge a difference between a heterosexual union and a ****sexual union when clearly, there is a difference?

    Yes. There's no legitimate science to suggest that ****sexuality can be learned (or unlearned) as a Pavlovian response.
    But there are plenty of examples of ****sexuals who were in heterosexual relationships and then ****sexual relationships and then back. Obviously, ****sexuality is not just one way or the other. And in tribal countries, ****sexuality is often used as a way for more powerful men to control less powerful men.

    Even ***uming (for the sake of argument) that your "statistics" are based on sound, evidence-based scientific research, would it not be a solution to the problem to channeling sexual impulses within the context of a committed, monogamous, faithful, loving, lifelong relationship like marriage?
    Statistics also note that for ****sexuals, they do not define "marriage" as a "committed, monogamous, lifelong relationship." They want to be "married" but have a more open ended idea of what it is.

    For gay men, sex outside the primary relationship is ubiquitous even during the first year. Gay men reportedly have sex with someone other than their partner in 66 percent of relationships within the first year, rising to approximately 90 percent if the relationship endures over five years.103 And the average gay or lesbian relationship is short lived. In one study, only 15 percent of gay men and 17.3 percent of lesbians had relationships that lasted more than three years.104 Thus, the studies reflect very little long-term monogamy in GLB relationships. http://www.catholiceducation.org/art...ty/ho0075.html
    My hypothesis is to blame The Closet. Being forced into a ghetto of societal disapproval, often facing rejection by family and friends and employers, hiding oneself from bigots . . . has to add a great deal of stress and uncertainty to a person.
    A hypothesis found to be incorrect when looking at the Netherlands where ****sexuality is far more accepted.

    Applies to gay men, not lesbian women.
    Among the difficulties in establishing the pathologies ***ociated with lesbianism is the problem of defining who is a lesbian.61 Study after study documents that the overwhelming majority of self-described lesbians have had sex with men.62 Australian researchers at an STD clinic found that only 7 percent of their lesbian sample had never had sexual contact with a male.63

    Pretty much the same way we've gone from understanding left-handedness as "sinister", evil and unlucky to "embracing it"—viz., reality.
    Just read this whole article. Being left handed does not increase your risk for early death, among other things.

    http://www.catholiceducation.org/art...ty/ho0075.html

    "The stats" do not come with ****sexuality—they come with promiscuity and unsafe sex, whether same-sex or opposite sex.
    Which "marriage" is---monogamous, safe sex. But our society is desecrating what marriage is---plenty of infidelity, promiscuty, etc. But read the stats, ****sexuality does not desire to conform to "marriage" standards, rather to have the label without the standard.

    Um, no. My wife is not my property. She is not my rape victim. She is not a spoil of war, nor a political arrangement. She's certainly not one of many women.
    But you do have a stewardship over her well-being as well as she to you in a marriage relationship.


    I've seen studies comparing two-parent households with single-parent households and step-households and foster-households, but not with adoptive two-parent households. Could you cite your source?
    I could look it up, or you could. My husband does this type of stuff by profession....adoptions are good about 50% of the time, the other 50% of the time, the children struggle with iden***y issues and from my cousin who adopted three children and has 10 of her own---she stated that having genetic similarities helps a parent to understand their children better--sheis somewhat flying blind trying to help one of her adopted children who is having some problems. In other words, if OCD tends to run in the family, you recognize it and there have been generations that have figured out how to deal with it.

    Anyway, ***uming you're correct, what's your solution? Prohibiting divorce under civil law? Prohibiting adoption? (Full disclosure: I am an adoptee, and do not take kindly to smears against adoption.)
    Well, no-fault divorces certainly have not helped this country at all. This whole idea that adults should be happy and that chlidren will adjust has proven false. Infidelity and single parenthood in on the rise---do you really think that this is not affecting your own household or how much you pay in taxes---how much you must work to pay for other's children as well? etc. And the money is just one small portion to the reality. How are these kids doing in the cl***rooms? How about crime? It is rediculous to think we live in an island and other's behavior does not affect us.

    Marriage is not about children. It's a red herring.
    And this statement here is exactly why you support gay "marriage" because you do not understand the depth of the word and what it means TO children.
    Last edited by BigJulie; 10-21-2011 at 09:31 AM.
    I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

  21. #71
    asdf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigJulie View Post
    Well, things that science has found to be deeper as well are things such as mental illness, alchoholism, etc. these, at least have found a genetic link.
    I find the comparison insulting and offensive.

    ****sexuality has yet to do that.
    I'm afraid you're mistaken. There is a great deal of evidence that attractional orientation is genetically influenced. There's a decent summary and links to further resources on the empirical research at the Wiki page on Biology and sexual orientation.

    Alcholism is a harmful behavior as well, but society recognizes it as such and does not embrace it.
    Alcoholism is a harmful behavior. ****sexuality is not a behavior at all. Alcoholism is detrimental to the individual as well as families & society. People in stable same-sex relationships are not.

    And one of the reasons that we have marriage is so that your "heterosexual" tendencies do not harm the possible offspring as the result of that tendency. That is one reason we have marriage--to give children a safe, protected place to grow. We can see what happens to the children when this union is desecrated and the ending result on society.
    I'm sorry, but there is no multi-million dollar lobby to prevent the infertile from marrying, or to prohibit single parents from raising children. Again, certain ideas about the role of parenting may be important in your religious tradition, but they don't hold ground when given scrutiny (say, in a court of law).

    And even if marriage were defined around couples' fitness to be stable, healthy parents, there is no evidence that same-sex couples are unfit to raise children.

    And many blacks are offended by what they "see." It is not the same and to pretend it is is just using the black experience, once again, for their own social gains.
    Shrug.

    A marriage law will not change this---people who are bullies are bullies. Oh boy, are you suggesting we give ****sexuals "affirmative action" laws? And nobody even knows a ****sexual is ****sexual unless they announce it themselves, either verbally or by their behavior. I've been bullied for being Mormon, made fun of by a teacher in school in front of the cl***, been put down at work. I survived. If you believe what you are is okay--bullying doesn't make a difference. And a marriage law is not going to change this.
    Which is why I said "and more to the point—denied fundamental equal justice under US law."

    Which is WHY they should not be given the name of "marriage" which one of the absolute possiblities with marriage is procreation--even for those who use birth-control.
    No. It is not an "absolute possibility". Post-menopausal women, men who have had vasectomies, women who have had hysterectomies, the infirm, the handicapped, the asexual, ... are all permitted to marry. The government does not have a compelling interest in whether, what kind, how much, and how fertile your sexual relationship is.

    Why should state law not acknowledge a difference between a heterosexual union and a ****sexual union when clearly, there is a difference?
    What is the difference?

    But there are plenty of examples of ****sexuals who were in heterosexual relationships and then ****sexual relationships and then back. Obviously, ****sexuality is not just one way or the other. And in tribal countries, ****sexuality is often used as a way for more powerful men to control less powerful men.
    Sometimes. And in other "tribal" cultures, ****sexual and "third sex" people are fully accepted and integrated into society.

    Yes, there can be some fluidity and grey areas in sexual iden***y, gender expression, and attractional orientation, but that is all the more reason to be accepting and understanding of non-heteronormative expressions—particularly when considering the evidence that efforts to change orientation are almost universally impossible.

    Statistics also note that for ****sexuals, they do not define "marriage" as a "committed, monogamous, lifelong relationship." They want to be "married" but have a more open ended idea of what it is.
    Source?

    N.B. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a greater incidence of consensual nonmonogamy and "open relationships" among same-sex couples as among opposite-sex couples. One explanation (among many, I'm sure) could be that gay and lesbian people tend to have been rejected by conservative religious movements.

    A hypothesis found to be incorrect when looking at the Netherlands where ****sexuality is far more accepted.
    Source?

    Just read this whole article. Being left handed does not increase your risk for early death, among other things.

    http://www.catholiceducation.org/art...ty/ho0075.html
    Quote Originally Posted by The Health Risks of Gay Sex
    the studies reflect very little long-term monogamy in GLB relationships.
    Even if these were true, the mind boggles at how one uses a statistic like this, ostensibly showing the instability of GLB relationships, as a cudgel against allowing them the validation and incentive to stability that is civil marriage.

    Which "marriage" is---monogamous, safe sex. But our society is desecrating what marriage is---plenty of infidelity, promiscuty, etc. But read the stats, ****sexuality does not desire to conform to "marriage" standards, rather to have the label without the standard.
    You're welcome to personally adhere to whatever idiosyncratic, personally defined, religiously based "definition" of marriage you like—you're not welcome to impose that on others with the force of civil law.

    But you do have a stewardship over her well-being as well as she to you in a marriage relationship.
    Which is a completely different issue, and is a very far cry from the historical understandings of marriage I cited above.

    I could look it up, or you could.
    You ***erted it. You can substantiate it, or not, as you like.

    My husband does this type of stuff by profession....adoptions are good about 50% of the time, the other 50% of the time, the children struggle with iden***y issues and from my cousin who adopted three children and has 10 of her own---she stated that having genetic similarities helps a parent to understand their children better--sheis somewhat flying blind trying to help one of her adopted children who is having some problems. In other words, if OCD tends to run in the family, you recognize it and there have been generations that have figured out how to deal with it.
    I am white; my mom is Filipina. Not much genetic similarity there at all. In any case, good luck trying to tear apart families by outlawing adoption—or whatever it is your endgame is.

    Well, no-fault divorces certainly have not helped this country at all. This whole idea that adults should be happy and that chlidren will adjust has proven false. Infidelity and single parenthood in on the rise---do you really think that this is not affecting your own household or how much you pay in taxes---how much you must work to pay for other's children as well? etc. And the money is just one small portion to the reality. How are these kids doing in the cl***rooms? How about crime? It is rediculous to think we live in an island and other's behavior does not affect us.
    Of course others' behavior affects us; of course no man is an island entire of itself. I don't know anyone claiming otherwise, so you're fighting a straw man here.

    And this statement here is exactly why you support gay "marriage" because you do not understand the depth of the word and what it means TO children.
    You're pining for something that never existed.

  22. #72
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,191

    Default

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by asdf View Post
    I find the comparison insulting and offensive.
    And yet alcholism and sexual behavior are both based on behaviors while skin color is not. Can you imagine then, how offensive it is for LGB's to high-jack another's completely non-behavior oriented experiences as a comparison to their own?


    I'm afraid you're mistaken. There is a great deal of evidence that attractional orientation is genetically influenced. There's a decent summary and links to further resources on the empirical research at the Wiki page on Biology and sexual orientation.
    Please provide something other than a WIKI. Regardless, behaviors that are harmful, even if genetic, such as alcholism, are not embraced by society.

    Alcoholism is a harmful behavior. ****sexuality is not a behavior at all. Alcoholism is detrimental to the individual as well as families & society. People in stable same-sex relationships are not.
    Did you even read the article I provided you. Let's get gross here for a moment---the body is not meant to conform to ****sexual sexual practices. As a result, damage is done to the body and it becomes suseptible to all kinds of diseases. ****sexuality is a behavior---you can't be sexual until you act on a feeling. You can't be anything that is determined by a behavior at all unless you act. You can't be a baseball player until you stand at a plate. You can't be a pianist until you sit at a piano. I might feel to hurt someone, but I am not considered violent until I act.

    I'm sorry, but there is no multi-million dollar lobby to prevent the infertile from marrying, or to prohibit single parents from raising children. Again, certain ideas about the role of parenting may be important in your religious tradition, but they don't hold ground when given scrutiny (say, in a court of law).
    Marriage isn't based on the fact that some couples may be infertile. Marriage is based on the fact that when a man and a woman get together, offspring is a possibility and offspring is ONLY a possibility when a man and a woman have intercourse. Marriage is that union. Yes, I know that we have desecrated marriage to the point that the purpose has been lost--but look at the end result of our society. Crime, drug abuse---so many problems in society can be linked to the failure in the home. Every teacher who has ever taught children will tell you, children from homes where the parents are not home, single parents, chidren of divorce--these kids are struggling.


    And even if marriage were defined around couples' fitness to be stable, healthy parents, there is no evidence that same-sex couples are unfit to raise children.
    A man is different than a woman and a woman is different than a man. It takes a man and a woman to have a child and as such, the child has a right to be raised by both and the best scenario is for the child to have their biological parents who raises them in love. This "best practice" has been desecrated over and over again. Now, to think that a child does not need a mother or a father is ludicrous. A ****sexual recognizes a differences when choosing a partner--and now the child is not supposed to notice a difference of not having one or the other (and society too)? ****sexual "marriage" is just one more nail in the coffin for the well-being of children.


    No. It is not an "absolute possibility". Post-menopausal women, men who have had vasectomies, women who have had hysterectomies, the infirm, the handicapped, the asexual, ... are all permitted to marry. The government does not have a compelling interest in whether, what kind, how much, and how fertile your sexual relationship is.
    Acceptions to the rule should not make the rule. We don't do a fertility test for marriage, we just understand that offspring is a possible result. And, all situations, in which you gave---if these people did adopt, there would be a man and a woman to raise the child. While adoptions are a bandaid--these homes would still at least, at minimum recognize that a man and a woman are not the same and that a child should have both.

    What is the difference?
    A man and a woman is different than 2 men or 2 women. Men and women are different. If ****sexuals themselves did not recognize tihs difference, there would be no reason to be ****sexual.

    Sometimes. And in other "tribal" cultures, ****sexual and "third sex" people are fully accepted and integrated into society.
    Yes, and we can see from tribal experiences, that this open sex policies has resulted in disaster and even the discontinuation of many tribes.

    Yes, there can be some fluidity and grey areas in sexual iden***y, gender expression, and attractional orientation, but that is all the more reason to be accepting and understanding of non-heteronormative expressions—particularly when considering the evidence that efforts to change orientation are almost universally impossible.
    You say that, but the ****sexual community has gone to great lengths to prevent counsellors from helping those turn away from ****sexual tendencies. The huge number of gay people who report bi-sexual behavior leads me to believe this is not a sexual orientation issue, but more a fidelity issue.


    N.B. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a greater incidence of consensual nonmonogamy and "open relationships" among same-sex couples as among opposite-sex couples. One explanation (among many, I'm sure) could be that gay and lesbian people tend to have been rejected by conservative religious movements.
    The data says otherwise, you are just sucking this out of your thumb and showing me that you did not read the link I gave you.

    Source?
    I gave you the link for the whole article. Did you read it?


    Even if these were true, the mind boggles at how one uses a statistic like this, ostensibly showing the instability of GLB relationships, as a cudgel against allowing them the validation and incentive to stability that is civil marriage.
    It is true and in light of what stats has revealed and in light of what happens to chlidren in our already desecrating the marriage union, why do we want to go one step further into unbridaled p***ions?

    You're welcome to personally adhere to whatever idiosyncratic, personally defined, religiously based "definition" of marriage you like—you're not welcome to impose that on others with the force of civil law.
    What do you think a law is if it not the collective wisdom imposed by society for the safeguarding of society? So, you are wrong---I can define marriage and I can impose that on others. We do this with other things such as child pornography, pornography in general, etc. So, yes, we impose ourselves on others all of the time. This is why you will get a ticket if you race down the street like a maniac. And yes, I view the protection of children worth my time to sit and make my point to you.


    Which is a completely different issue, and is a very far cry from the historical understandings of marriage I cited above.
    Every historical relationsip has a stewardship--a king to his country, his country to him. Christ to his church, his church to him. A man to a woman, a woman to him---and the resulting children to their parents and their parents to them. So, yes marriage is a contractual agreement, but marriage between a man and a woman is unique in that it has the possiblity of bringing others into the world. If you sat and argued for single-parenthood or divorce--I would be making these same arguments as to why marriage is important.

    You ***erted it. You can substantiate it, or not, as you like.
    As you are adopted, I thought you would be interested in looking up these stats.


    I am white; my mom is Filipina. Not much genetic similarity there at all. In any case, good luck trying to tear apart families by outlawing adoption—or whatever it is your endgame is.
    I am not trying to outlaw adoption, I merely recognize that it is a bandaid for infedility. It is not the best situation for a kid, but better than a single parent home or being brought up in a home that there parents are abusive, etc.

    Of course others' behavior affects us; of course no man is an island entire of itself. I don't know anyone claiming otherwise, so you're fighting a straw man here.
    I am glad you recognize then that there is a reason to have a vested interest in how we define marriage for the sake of children.

    You're pining for something that never existed.
    You fight for the "rights" of ****sexuals. I will fight for the rights of the children---truly the abused in our society while the adults run around and claim their right to divorce, be unfaithful, unchaste, have sex with whomever they want and then try to define it anyway they want.
    I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

  23. #73
    asdf
    Guest

    Default

    My reply is too long; I'll have to split it into two posts.

    Quote Originally Posted by BigJulie View Post
    And yet alcholism and sexual behavior are both based on behaviors while skin color is not.
    How many times do we have to go over this—sexual behavior is (um, rather by definition) based on behavior; attractional orientation is not.

    Please provide something other than a WIKI.
    Seriously? You're complaining about source objectivity while linking me to "catholiceducation.org"? I'm dumbstruck.

    Nonetheless, read what I offered at Wiki again: "a decent summary and links to further resources on the empirical research". Take the first example, Twin Studies. You'll find a summary within the text, as well as footnotes leading to the studies, in this case to the empirical, peer-reviewed scientific journals American Journal of Sociology, the American Neurological ***ociation's Journal of nervous and mental disease, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, and Archives of sexual behavior.

    Regardless, behaviors that are harmful, even if genetic, such as alcholism, are not embraced by society.
    You have yet to establish that a ****sexual orientation is harmful, and even if you had, it does not follow that same-sex relationships should be criminalized, or driven underground, or any other method of legal discrimination.

    Even if your slanderous comparison to addictions were accurate, the government does not prohibit people from purchasing alcohol (even alcoholics!) or tobacco.

    Did you even read the article I provided you.
    I read it about as thoroughly as I'd read this book—
    “THE NEGRO A BEAST”
    . . . OR . . .
    “IN THE IMAGE OF GOD”
    The Reasoner of the Age, the Revelator of the Century!
    The Bible as it is!
    The Negro and His Relation to the Human Family!
    The Negro a beast, but created with articulate speech,
    and hands, that he may be of service to
    his master—the White man.
    The Negro not the Son of Ham,
    Neither can it be proven by the Bible, and the argument
    of the theologian who would claim such, melts
    to mist before the thunderous and
    convincing arguments of this
    masterful book.
    —(pdf), printed in 1900, arguing that black people are not humans. (That's a heck of a ***le, though, I must admit.) Or the 1894 book Revolted Woman: Past, Present, and to Come, arguing that if women gain civil equality, they will have deformed children and destroy the human race.

    Which is to say, no. I skimmed through it as a curiosity, for its bad logic and bigotry, but I felt no need to closely ****yze its arguments.

    Let's get gross here for a moment---the body is not meant to conform to ****sexual sexual practices. As a result, damage is done to the body and it becomes suseptible to all kinds of diseases.
    1. Many gay men do not have **** sex.
    2. Virtually no lesbians have **** sex.
    3. Many heterosexual couples have **** sex.

    **** sex is not a "****sexual sexual practice".

    ****sexuality is a behavior---you can't be sexual until you act on a feeling. You can't be anything that is determined by a behavior at all unless you act. You can't be a baseball player until you stand at a plate. You can't be a pianist until you sit at a piano. I might feel to hurt someone, but I am not considered violent until I act.
    You're welcome to your private idiosyncratic definition, but you shouldn't expect reality to bend to your will. As I've said before—from my earliest childhood memories, the entirety of my schoolboy crushes—whether on actors, cl***mates, or whatever—were women and girls. All of this before I even knew what sex was.

    I have always been heterosexual.

    Marriage isn't based on the fact that some couples may be infertile. Marriage is based on the fact that when a man and a woman get together, offspring is a possibility and offspring is ONLY a possibility when a man and a woman have intercourse. Marriage is that union. Yes, I know that we have desecrated marriage to the point that the purpose has been lost--but look at the end result of our society. Crime, drug abuse---so many problems in society can be linked to the failure in the home. Every teacher who has ever taught children will tell you, children from homes where the parents are not home, single parents, chidren of divorce--these kids are struggling.

    A man is different than a woman and a woman is different than a man. It takes a man and a woman to have a child and as such, the child has a right to be raised by both and the best scenario is for the child to have their biological parents who raises them in love. This "best practice" has been desecrated over and over again. Now, to think that a child does not need a mother or a father is ludicrous. A ****sexual recognizes a differences when choosing a partner--and now the child is not supposed to notice a difference of not having one or the other (and society too)? ****sexual "marriage" is just one more nail in the coffin for the well-being of children.
    You're welcome to believe all this, but none of it has anything to do with the legality of marriage, either descriptively or prescriptively.

    Acceptions to the rule should not make the rule. We don't do a fertility test for marriage, we just understand that offspring is a possible result. And, all situations, in which you gave---if these people did adopt, there would be a man and a woman to raise the child. While adoptions are a bandaid--these homes would still at least, at minimum recognize that a man and a woman are not the same and that a child should have both.

    A man and a woman is different than 2 men or 2 women. Men and women are different. If ****sexuals themselves did not recognize tihs difference, there would be no reason to be ****sexual.
    I have yet to see evidence that two men or two women are incapable of providing healthy, stable, loving homes for their children, either adoptive or natural. In any case, adoption law is a separate issue from marriage law. Married couples who are unstable or have mental health issues are prohibited from adopting, no? So if the empirical evidence actually showed that gay people are bad at parenting, then prohibit them from parenting. Prohibiting them from marrying is a non sequitur.

    Yes, and we can see from tribal experiences, that this open sex policies has resulted in disaster and even the discontinuation of many tribes.
    Source? I've never heard anything of the sort.

  24. #74
    asdf
    Guest

    Default

    You say that, but the ****sexual community has gone to great lengths to prevent counsellors from helping those turn away from ****sexual tendencies. The huge number of gay people who report bi-sexual behavior leads me to believe this is not a sexual orientation issue, but more a fidelity issue.
    You're welcome to believe that. Reality will continue to disagree with you.

    The data says otherwise, you are just sucking this out of your thumb and showing me that you did not read the link I gave you.

    I gave you the link for the whole article. Did you read it?
    What reason do I have to believe that catholiceducation.org provides a fair, accurate, and well-balanced summary of legitimate, empirical scientific research?

    It is true and in light of what stats has revealed and in light of what happens to chlidren in our already desecrating the marriage union, why do we want to go one step further into unbridaled p***ions?
    I have no idea why you would think that two people committing their lives to each other, pledging their mutual love, and creating familial bonds equates to "unbridled p***ions".

    It's one of the most bizarre things I've heard in some time.

    What do you think a law is if it not the collective wisdom imposed by society for the safeguarding of society? So, you are wrong---I can define marriage and I can impose that on others. We do this with other things such as child pornography, pornography in general, etc. So, yes, we impose ourselves on others all of the time. This is why you will get a ticket if you race down the street like a maniac. And yes, I view the protection of children worth my time to sit and make my point to you.
    You are cons***utionally prohibited from "depriv[ing] any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; [or denying] to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Prohibiting loving couples from establishing committed, loving relationships; with the same rights, benefits and protections opposite-sex relationships are automatically given; on the basis of nothing more than religious belief and traditional animus; is a pretty clear violation.

    We'll see. I have no doubt that anti-marriage equality laws will be overturned; I just hope (and work) for it to be sooner rather than later. But I have every reason to believe that marriage equality will be as uncontroversial within 50 years as our views on Jim Crow laws are today.

    Every historical relationsip has a stewardship--a king to his country, his country to him. Christ to his church, his church to him. A man to a woman, a woman to him---and the resulting children to their parents and their parents to them. So, yes marriage is a contractual agreement, but marriage between a man and a woman is unique in that it has the possiblity of bringing others into the world. If you sat and argued for single-parenthood or divorce--I would be making these same arguments as to why marriage is important.
    As I said, your beliefs about mutual submission within marriage are not the historical view in the instances I cited upthread.

    As you are adopted, I thought you would be interested in looking up these stats.
    Sure, I'll take a look if you care to provide a link to a credible source. I've seen some research indicating no difference between the well-being of adoptees and biological children when other factors are controlled for, but I'm willing to look if you'd like to support your ***ertions to the contrary.

    I'm not going to go out of my way to track down research to support your ***ertions. I'm not that interested.

    I am not trying to outlaw adoption, I merely recognize that it is a bandaid for infedility. It is not the best situation for a kid, but better than a single parent home or being brought up in a home that there parents are abusive, etc.
    If adoption is worse than biological parents but better than no parents/orphanages/single parent homes/abusive parents/..., you've got a hierarchy, but no basis for prohibiting some of those adoptive parents from being married to each other. It's just a weird red herring.

    I am glad you recognize then that there is a reason to have a vested interest in how we define marriage for the sake of children.
    That's not what I said. If you want to have a conversation with me, please don't put words into my mouth.

    You fight for the "rights" of ****sexuals. I will fight for the rights of the children---truly the abused in our society while the adults run around and claim their right to divorce, be unfaithful, unchaste, have sex with whomever they want and then try to define it anyway they want.
    Some people are gay. One day you may get over it.

  25. #75
    asdf
    Guest

    Default

    Just a fun little statistic to add to the conversation: there are more than 100000 children currently waiting to be adopted in the US.

    Oh, and 31 states discriminate against gay and lesbian families in their adoption laws.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •