[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
What a transparent dodge. Do you or do you not support non-biogted laws to include all those other relationships. [/quote]
IF there is a good argument for the legalization for polygamy, I would support it yes. This isn’t an ‘all or nothing’ thing that you’re trying to peg it as. Look at gun laws, you can legalize certain weapons while keeping others illegal.[/quote]
Did you just compare humans to property? Talk about going back to the slave days.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Credibility GONE, VAMOOSE!! If there ever was any.
[/quote]
Correct, it was probably founded on Christian values. And because it was founded on Christian values it must forever remain intact with Christian values, because if it didn’t then Christians would not like that very much… and in this country if 1 group of people is upset, we must give in to their demands.[/quote]
Who cares. Western Civilization is based on Christian virtue. So is America. Hitchen’s virtues are based on Christianity, so are Dawkins and pretty much everyone else in this thread.
The only reason you care about SSA people having rights is because of Christian virtue. Get over it.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
And again: Homosexuality vanishes tomorrow…shrug. Heterosexuality, disaster. Blame nature for all things not being equal.
[/quote]
Why do you keep saying this, the same could be said about African American’s when they had their civil rights movement, if they all turned white tomorrow, no big deal.[/quote]
Lol. You’re analogy fails. If whites disappeared tomorrow, no big deal either. However, if heterosexuality disappears…no more humans. I’m not sure if you realize this.[/quote]
Actually if heterosexuality disappeared I am sure they would find a way to make the human race live on, they may be gay but they are not dumb.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Nevertheless, you won’t see me supporting the government’s elevation of a relationship above others that can be nothing more than buddies living together. [/quote]
And this is the bottom line here. Because you don’t believe it in you also believe that nobody else should. You’re not going to listen to or be swayed by any arguments no matter how compelling or logical. Everyone in this thread is essentially wasting key strokes.
It’s interesting (but totally unrelated…I just want a jab), I never hear the religious hard liners condemning their religious leaders for allowing their priests to molest boys who were left in their charge but they get all up in arms when two men want to marry.
james
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
And again: Homosexuality vanishes tomorrow…shrug. Heterosexuality, disaster. Blame nature for all things not being equal.
[/quote]
Why do you keep saying this, the same could be said about African American’s when they had their civil rights movement, if they all turned white tomorrow, no big deal.[/quote]
Lol. You’re analogy fails. If whites disappeared tomorrow, no big deal either. However, if heterosexuality disappears…no more humans. I’m not sure if you realize this.[/quote]
Actually if heterosexuality disappeared I am sure they would find a way to make the human race live on, they may be gay but they are not dumb.[/quote]
…
[quote]atypical1 wrote:<<< It’s interesting (but totally unrelated…I just want a jab), I never hear the religious hard liners condemning their religious leaders for allowing their priests to molest boys >>>[/quote]Then you aren’t listening. Every persoin int his thread including all the Catholics (big C Chris), all of which I have history with, have repeatedly and unwaveringly denounced both the act and the perp.
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Nevertheless, you won’t see me supporting the government’s elevation of a relationship above others that can be nothing more than buddies living together. [/quote]
And this is the bottom line here. Because you don’t believe it in you also believe that nobody else should. You’re not going to listen to or be swayed by any arguments no matter how compelling or logical. Everyone in this thread is essentially wasting key strokes.[/quote]
That’s not what I said. However, that is exactly what you’re doing based on nothing more than feelings and emotions, like a little school girl that is upset about a fairy tale.
Several folks here have provided disinterested civil arguments against the discrimination of all relationships, besides hetero and same sex, by the state. Those who are in favor of discrimination of all relationships besides hetero and same sex relationships, in contrast of discriminating against all except the present one, have so far made emotional arguments, false accusations, and fallacious reasons for their stance. Basically, a bunch of dudes jumping up and down saying it’s not fair while tears fall down their cheeks.
So, the assertion that I’m not going to listen to or be swayed by any argument no matter how compelling or logical is not logical itself, since you nor anyone else has provided a logical argument that isn’t filled with equivocation (seriously, study Aristotle so you can understand what people mean in Western Civilization, the fact that you can’t discern between the nature of something and what happens in nature is completely embarrassing) and non-sequitors. Again, I can only give you a lollipop in hopes of stoping the persistent bickering and whining from the liberal side because I can not hope that while you are able to, you will deliver a logical argument why we should discriminate against all relationships except heterosexual and homosexual relationships containing two people.
Of course it’s not, because you can’t produce a single logical point to counter the position that discrimination against all relationships besides hetero and homosexual relationships including only two people.
Yes, and a white supremacist only wants to take a jab.
This is a bald faced lie. Ask anyone that’s been on this forum for a catholic bashing session and you’ll known that I’ve been calling for the lynching of all child molesters and those who knowingly allowed them to molest children under their power since a long time ago. Almost all the Catholics on this board have advocated for the prosecution of ALL child molesters, ALL. However, most other people on this board that aren’t Catholic have advocated only for the prosecution of child molesters who are Catholic. The difference between me and you, is that you hate Catholics so you only care about priests getting it. I don’t hate Catholics so I want all child molesters to get it. From Hollywood, to your local classroom where both have far higher rates of child molesting than the Catholic Church.
[quote]but they get all up in arms when two men want to marry.
james
[/quote]
No one’s in arms in this thread except some of the liberals. Stop being an emotional little girl.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]atypical1 wrote:<<< It’s interesting (but totally unrelated…I just want a jab), I never hear the religious hard liners condemning their religious leaders for allowing their priests to molest boys >>>[/quote]Then you aren’t listening. Every persoin int his thread including all the Catholics (big C Chris), all of which I have history with, have repeatedly and unwaveringly denounced both the act and the perp.
[/quote]
He doesn’t care. He’s not going to listen to or be swayed by any arguments no matter how compelling or logical. You are essentially wasting key strokes.
Meanwhile, the rest of us will continue making cogent arguments and defining our premises.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Thanks for the response. I don’t think we’ll ever really agree on this, but it is good to try to understand your points. So thanks again. If I understand you, you believe state-sponsored marriage is ideal and necessary because it promotes the survival of society and the species. It does this by providing a model for the “best” method of raising children. Where I am confused is why you say this is not, in your opinion, an ideal but the law itself is ideal. I get more confused when you talk about homosexuality disappearing and being “only a blip.” To me, this sounds like an impossible dream.
I guess maybe I see myself as being a “realist” in that we as society(ies) have to deal with the reality that the “best” way to raise children OFTEN cannot be for a lot of reasons. And thus, “lesser goods” ARE good and have value to society that should be recognized.
To exemplify, a close family member work for a large southern state to place children in foster homes (and sometimes adopted homes). According to her, this job is extremely difficult, especially with abused children and children with other “issues” (mental/physical). She has had to send children to sort of institutions or out-of-state in order to place them at all. IMO, a homosexual married couple, even if you are correct and they are not “ideal” (or whichever word you would prefer), would be superior to institutionalization or abusive parents. Bluntly, IMO, in some cases, “two dads” or “two moms” might actually be superior for some children: A girl who was abused, for example; or a “large” 15 year old boy with mental and anger issues for a converse example. I hope I’m making sense here. WHile this is only a small example of what I see to be a number of societal benefits to the legalization of gay marriage, I hope I’m being clear.
Also, to continue the tangent a little further, this is one of the reasons I get so angry when “the left” attacks Michelle Bachmann (sp?) personally or calls her a bad person. She deserves a LOT of respect and admiration for what she has done with foster children. I don’t want her to be president, but I’m glad she has done all the good she has done.
–
Oh well, I’ve been off on a tangent for awhile now, my thoughts seem pretty scattered here, and the wife’s alarm clock just went off so I have no time to order them. I’m going to run over to the pow-wow thread quick before all my time is up. lol. Have a good one. [/quote]
In my formative years, my best friend’s dad was an openly gay man living with another man. He had weekend custody and my friend and I would often stay at his house. He was a caring, loving, generous, kind guy whom I truly loved. He died of AIDS when I was in college and I was very broken up about his passing. I miss him to this day. I say this to let you know that I am not removed from the situation. But the issue is beside the point.
It’s nice that they can take care of kids, particularly abused ones. But this is not some national crisis screaming out for a solution that is being blocked by atavistic Republican statesmen and their bible-thumping constituency.
In fact, it’s not even the reason that homosexuals want to get married AT ALL.
That’s the thing. [/quote]
Aren’t you shifting the goalposts a bit here though? If you want to talk about the primary reasons homosexuals want to marry we can (although I think we both know them). I had thought discussion has primarily been about the role of law and government in relation to homosexuals.
[/quote]
I am not shifting anything. This is a complex discussion and there are a lot of aspects to it. The discussion is about the efficacy of allowing a new group of people to enjoy the substantial rights and benefits that are presently available only to a certain group of people. In both cases, to the discrimination of all other groups. However, it is only in the case of heterosexual marriage that this discrimination is justified. Saying that gays can take care of kids is NOT justification for allowing them to marry, and to further assert that ONLY this group will be allowed this discrimination is certainly not justified. I can easily justify why hetero marriages are to be encouraged. It has been said already about 600 times in this thread, but once more: They produce babies. Produce being the key term.
Sure they can be loving and caring. But they are NOT in any way equivalent to a child’s having her biological mother and father raise her. They never will be. Ever. I don’t care how many studies are thrown around, kids do best with the the nurturing influence of a mother and the tempering influence of a father. As a father, I KNOW this now. There are certain times that I just could never demonstrate the patience and caring that my wife does, particularly after a full day of whining and demanding. There is also no way my wife could provide the very necessary tough love that hurts so much to give but that is so important. This issue is far more complex than this, but, in the simplest of terms, that’s what it boils down to. We want MORE relationships like this. Recognizing another group as somehow equal undermines this goal at best, and at worst strips it of any meaning or value at all.
[quote]
As far as the national crisis is concerned, I think we are close in America. Far too many children are growing up in single-parent households, without fathers, with abuse, and in horrible situations. I suppose it has always been this way. And I suppose the single-parent/without fathers issues is somewhat of a tangent. But I don’t really see any reason NOT to allow loving, supporting homosexuals to marry and raise kids (or, for that matter, loving supportive singles). Regardless of “crisis level” gay marriage is unquestionably being primarily blocked by “atavistic Republican statesmen and their bible-thumping constituency” isn’t it? (although I would certainly have worded it differently. “bible-thumping” seems somewhat pejorative). [/quote]
I agree that there is a big problem occurring with families in America. That is EXACTLY why we need to be doing everything in our power to ENCOURAGE relationships like the one I described above.
And again, all this talk about gays raising kids is really a distraction tactic (not that I feel you are intentionally equivocating, but that this is how the argument has been framed by guys like forlife, and it gets repeated as if it’s the truth). Gays are NOT interested in marriage so they can adopt abused kids and save the country. We both know the real reasons they want these privileges, and they are anything but selfless.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Razorslim wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Razorslim wrote:
Well how about this.
Why don’t you and your same sex partner go dress up in tuxedos and visit your local Unitarian Church and have the minister perform a marriage ceremony.
Have some pictures taken and take out an ad in the wedding section of your local newspaper to publicly announce your marriage.
Wouldn’t that be sufficient?
Certainly you would not need some piece of paper issued by your county clerk to make your marriage more legitimate than the love you two have for each other already makes it.
[/quote]
Every one of the items listed on that page are not met by the ritual you described.[/quote]
I understand now, as you are portraying it, the same sex marriage primary agenda is to qualify for more government handouts
Nice one - you really make a great case for your side
[/quote]
"joint parenting rights, such as access to children’s school records
family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison
next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims"
Yeah, handouts.[/quote]
So that’s what the fuss is all about. Thanks for clearing that up
[quote]Razorslim wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Razorslim wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Razorslim wrote:
Well how about this.
Why don’t you and your same sex partner go dress up in tuxedos and visit your local Unitarian Church and have the minister perform a marriage ceremony.
Have some pictures taken and take out an ad in the wedding section of your local newspaper to publicly announce your marriage.
Wouldn’t that be sufficient?
Certainly you would not need some piece of paper issued by your county clerk to make your marriage more legitimate than the love you two have for each other already makes it.
[/quote]
Every one of the items listed on that page are not met by the ritual you described.[/quote]
I understand now, as you are portraying it, the same sex marriage primary agenda is to qualify for more government handouts
Nice one - you really make a great case for your side
[/quote]
"joint parenting rights, such as access to children’s school records
family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison
next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims"
Yeah, handouts.[/quote]
So that’s what the fuss is all about. Thanks for clearing that up
[/quote]
There is an argument that can be made for how they can already do this, but it’s a long a painful process, and not everyone will have the legal papers on them in the case of emergencies.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
This is a bald faced lie. Ask anyone that’s been on this forum for a catholic bashing session and you’ll known that I’ve been calling for the lynching of all child molesters and those who knowingly allowed them to molest children under their power since a long time ago. Almost all the Catholics on this board have advocated for the prosecution of ALL child molesters, ALL. However, most other people on this board that aren’t Catholic have advocated only for the prosecution of child molesters who are Catholic. The difference between me and you, is that you hate Catholics so you only care about priests getting it. I don’t hate Catholics so I want all child molesters to get it. From Hollywood, to your local classroom where both have far higher rates of child molesting than the Catholic Church. [/quote]
To be honest Chris, all I remember from you is you telling us about how you’ve been calling for the lynching of child molesters as opposed to actually calling for it (I could be wrong though). When it comes to people calling out those among the Catholic Church who have abused children, there is a lot of “well other people do it too!” going on.
Abuse is abuse, Chris. Just talking about how “other people do it too” does nothing.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Razorslim wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Razorslim wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Razorslim wrote:
Well how about this.
Why don’t you and your same sex partner go dress up in tuxedos and visit your local Unitarian Church and have the minister perform a marriage ceremony.
Have some pictures taken and take out an ad in the wedding section of your local newspaper to publicly announce your marriage.
Wouldn’t that be sufficient?
Certainly you would not need some piece of paper issued by your county clerk to make your marriage more legitimate than the love you two have for each other already makes it.
[/quote]
Every one of the items listed on that page are not met by the ritual you described.[/quote]
I understand now, as you are portraying it, the same sex marriage primary agenda is to qualify for more government handouts
Nice one - you really make a great case for your side
[/quote]
"joint parenting rights, such as access to children’s school records
family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison
next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims"
Yeah, handouts.[/quote]
So that’s what the fuss is all about. Thanks for clearing that up
[/quote]
There is an argument that can be made for how they can already do this, but it’s a long a painful process, and not everyone will have the legal papers on them in the case of emergencies.[/quote]
Actually it’s not a long painful process. Quite short.
[quote]Razorslim wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Gay marriage is about one thing, and nothing else - cultural symbolism that gay relationships are finally “equal” to heterosexual ones. But with respect to the public policy of marriage, they aren’t equal, and they can’t be.[/quote]
[/quote]
It also not so much as seeing marriage as a beneficial institution, but thinly veiled Atheistic bigotry designed to destroy another pillar of our society. Their design is not to strengthen marriage but to destroy it by redefining it out of existence.[/quote]
Nonsense.
If that was the plan, welfare for single mothers achieved that goal already to a large degree.
Your pillar is all but gone in some strata of society and you quibble about names with people who honestly want to get married.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Thanks for the response. I don’t think we’ll ever really agree on this, but it is good to try to understand your points. So thanks again. If I understand you, you believe state-sponsored marriage is ideal and necessary because it promotes the survival of society and the species. It does this by providing a model for the “best” method of raising children. Where I am confused is why you say this is not, in your opinion, an ideal but the law itself is ideal. I get more confused when you talk about homosexuality disappearing and being “only a blip.” To me, this sounds like an impossible dream.
I guess maybe I see myself as being a “realist” in that we as society(ies) have to deal with the reality that the “best” way to raise children OFTEN cannot be for a lot of reasons. And thus, “lesser goods” ARE good and have value to society that should be recognized.
To exemplify, a close family member work for a large southern state to place children in foster homes (and sometimes adopted homes). According to her, this job is extremely difficult, especially with abused children and children with other “issues” (mental/physical). She has had to send children to sort of institutions or out-of-state in order to place them at all. IMO, a homosexual married couple, even if you are correct and they are not “ideal” (or whichever word you would prefer), would be superior to institutionalization or abusive parents. Bluntly, IMO, in some cases, “two dads” or “two moms” might actually be superior for some children: A girl who was abused, for example; or a “large” 15 year old boy with mental and anger issues for a converse example. I hope I’m making sense here. WHile this is only a small example of what I see to be a number of societal benefits to the legalization of gay marriage, I hope I’m being clear.
Also, to continue the tangent a little further, this is one of the reasons I get so angry when “the left” attacks Michelle Bachmann (sp?) personally or calls her a bad person. She deserves a LOT of respect and admiration for what she has done with foster children. I don’t want her to be president, but I’m glad she has done all the good she has done.
–
Oh well, I’ve been off on a tangent for awhile now, my thoughts seem pretty scattered here, and the wife’s alarm clock just went off so I have no time to order them. I’m going to run over to the pow-wow thread quick before all my time is up. lol. Have a good one. [/quote]
In my formative years, my best friend’s dad was an openly gay man living with another man. He had weekend custody and my friend and I would often stay at his house. He was a caring, loving, generous, kind guy whom I truly loved. He died of AIDS when I was in college and I was very broken up about his passing. I miss him to this day. I say this to let you know that I am not removed from the situation. But the issue is beside the point.
It’s nice that they can take care of kids, particularly abused ones. But this is not some national crisis screaming out for a solution that is being blocked by atavistic Republican statesmen and their bible-thumping constituency.
In fact, it’s not even the reason that homosexuals want to get married AT ALL.
That’s the thing. [/quote]
Aren’t you shifting the goalposts a bit here though? If you want to talk about the primary reasons homosexuals want to marry we can (although I think we both know them). I had thought discussion has primarily been about the role of law and government in relation to homosexuals.
[/quote]
I am not shifting anything. This is a complex discussion and there are a lot of aspects to it. The discussion is about the efficacy of allowing a new group of people to enjoy the substantial rights and benefits that are presently available only to a certain group of people. In both cases, to the discrimination of all other groups. However, it is only in the case of heterosexual marriage that this discrimination is justified. Saying that gays can take care of kids is NOT justification for allowing them to marry, and to further assert that ONLY this group will be allowed this discrimination is certainly not justified. I can easily justify why hetero marriages are to be encouraged. It has been said already about 600 times in this thread, but once more: They produce babies. Produce being the key term. [/quote]
Certainly production of children is not your sole criteria for discrimination. As has been said before, you are comfortable with many situations where production is impossible. You seem to be attempting to promote an ideal that you have, although you have claimed this is not a case of ideals. If you could elaborate on that, I would be very appreciative.
I’ll discuss motivations below as you continued your thoughts below as well.
[quote]
[quote]
We seem to agree that homosexuals can provide loving and caring homes for children. You seem to be arguing that that in-and-of-itself is not reason enough to legalize marriage, primarily because it is not the “ideal” situation for children. I think you used the word “model”. To me, this was the interesting part of our conversation. You seemed to be arguing that only your model was “worthy” of government acceptance.
Others, of course, disagree with your assessment that homosexuals can provide loving and caring homes. But it’s good to see that we can agree on this point. BTW, I don’t recall reading your opinion of civil unions. For or against? IMO, if they provide the same rights, benefits, and responsibilities as marriage, they are an acceptable compromise. That said, all too often, it seems people are using them to attempt to block certain rights from homosexuals (usually pertaining to child-rearing) or at least that is my impression. [/quote]
Sure they can be loving and caring. But they are NOT in any way equivalent to a child’s having her biological mother and father raise her. They never will be. Ever. I don’t care how many studies are thrown around, kids do best with the the nurturing influence of a mother and the tempering influence of a father. As a father, I KNOW this now. There are certain times that I just could never demonstrate the patience and caring that my wife does, particularly after a full day of whining and demanding. There is also no way my wife could provide the very necessary tough love that hurts so much to give but that is so important. This issue is far more complex than this, but, in the simplest of terms, that’s what it boils down to. We want MORE relationships like this. Recognizing another group as somehow equal undermines this goal at best, and at worst strips it of any meaning or value at all. [/quote]
This paragraph is what I had thought you were arguing for. You are promoting an ideal via the law. What’s “best” for children. I am attempting to argue that this push for “best” in-and-of-itself does not justify discrimination. I think this is where we both stand. Am I understanding you correctly?
Also, I noticed that you didn’t mention civil unions, may I ask again?
I agree that there is a big problem occurring with families in America. That is EXACTLY why we need to be doing everything in our power to ENCOURAGE relationships like the one I described above.[/quote]
By that you mean one man + one woman, correct? Certainly you can understand why people are ENCOURAGING other monogamous relationships, right? You simply feel that these relationships have not met an appropriate societal value that would warrant inclusion into marriage.
I don’t think it is a distraction tactic at all. It seems to me it is a direct counter-argument to many who are constantly saying that gays cannot and should not raise children. I haven’t read the thread, but I’m guessing posters here have even been arguing that homosexuals should not adopt or have children because they are deficient or somehow “bad,” am I right? People have probably been posting pseudo-science “studies” that show that homosexuals destroy kids or turn children gay, right? You have firmly stated that you believe homosexuals can provide good homes, but many others strongly disagree with you.
Also, simply put, child rearing and child producing are connected. Especially in a world where many “producers” are doing such a poor job of “rearing.” The primary argument that you are using to advocate for discrimination is one of “production.” Homosexuals are saying that while they cannot produce and do not fit your ideals for the “best” situation for children, they certainly can and do provide good homes. This has to be repeated so much because it is argued against so much. Also, if the argument is that discrimination is “for the children” or “what’s best for children,” it is an argument that shifts importance from ability to produce to ability to raise.
–
That said, you seem to want to discuss their motivations and, while I realize this medium is in many ways deficient, you seem to be implying nefarious motivations. It seems their primary motivation is to become openly and fully engaged with society. “We are here. We are queer. Get used to it.” (or is that and old slogan now?). Their secondary motivation is to receive the benefits and responsibilities of marriage. Some number keeps floating around of over 1000 benefits as I recall. As citizens our obligation is to discuss whether discrimination is justified, right? To me, their motivations for the claim seem almost tangential. What about them would you like to discus?
Thanks again for the conversation. Sorry I broke it up so much.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Where’s Thunderbolt’s denial? He knows better. [/quote]
Denial about what?
In any event, if we have a concern of underserved children, there is any easy fix - just incentivize current traditional marriage households to take on foster kids.
There are plenty of intact households. Just provide, for example, bigger (insanely bigger) tax deductions for taking on foster children, or even adopting. There are incentives now - double, triple down on them. There is more than enough “capacity” if we just wake folks up to participate. One way to do that - as we have always done in public policy - is to sweeten the incentive to act.
It’d be perfect, and it would help support the mission of traditional marriage. If we are truly at some “crisis” level on this issue, there are smarter, more practical ways to resolve it.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Nope, you’ve already identified the reason justfying all of them - consenting adults can’t have their relationships discriminated against. Period. You’ve identified it - you just can’t find a rabbit hole out of the obvious inconsistency of naming denial of gay marriage “bigotry” - that is a function of irrational hatred, rather than rational concern - and the denial of all others simply pragmatic or “arbitrary”. Polygamy has a much stronger case to make for legalization - after all, the relationships actually produce children. There is no useful reason to enact gay marriage, in that it had zilch to do with procreation.[/quote]
No, as I stated earlier every time you want to move the line you need to make a case for it first. Polygamy can produce children but there are still question marks on whether it can actually produce a stable household for children. Think about it for a second, in a polygamous relationship there is a real possibility of jealousy and discordancy over how a child should be raised. It’s hard enough to get two people to agree let alone 10. Until these fears can be put to bed through studies, one should be apprehensive about it’s legalization. Lastly, polygamy would not fit current marriage laws so if it were ever recognized, it would be as a completely different union.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
This is your funniest line among a group of funny lines which culminates in calling Sloth a bigot…LOL that’s the fall back line whenever the left is losing an argument. Anyway, there have been no long-term studies which have proved that two homosexuals provide a stable household environment for a child. [/quote]
Yes there is, I provided one. Go back a few pages.
[/quote]
Nonsense, there have been no long-term studies provided. No one has any idea how children brought up by two homosexuals will behave in 20 years time. In fact, no one actually knows why a person becomes a homosexual to begin with. There is so little known about this stuff yet the left is ready to run out approve gay marriage and have those two homosexuals adopt some helpless kid. The very thought of experimenting on children is unseemly.
[/quote]
Gay Parenting has been studied since the 1970’s. Study after study, case after case have all concluded children raised by homosexuals are just as emotionally stable as ones raised by heterosexuals.
"In the United States, studies on the effect of gay and lesbian parenting on children were first conducted in the 1970s, and expanded through the 1980s in the context of increasing numbers of gay and lesbian parents seeking legal custody of their biological children.[35] "
“Since the 1970s, it has become increasingly clear that it is family processes (such as the quality of parenting, the psychosocial well-being of parents, the quality of and satisfaction with relationships within the family, and the level of co-operation and harmony between parents) that contribute to determining childrenâ??s well-being and â??outcomesâ??, rather than family structures, per se, such as the number, gender, sexuality and co-habitation status of parents.[4][22] Since the end of the 1980s, as a result, it has been well established that children and adolescents can adjust just as well in nontraditional settings as in traditional settings.[22]”
And before you complain about sample size
“Michael J. Rosenfeld, associate professor of sociology at Stanford University, wrote in a 2010 study published in Demography that “[A] critique of the literatureâ??that the sample sizes of the studies are too small to allow for statistically powerful testsâ??continues to be relevant.” Rosenfeld’s study, “the first to use large-sample nationally representative data, shows that children raised by same-sex couples have no fundamental deficits in making normal progress through school. The core finding here offers a measure of validation for the prior, and much-debated, small-sample studies.”[33]”
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
What a transparent dodge. Do you or do you not support non-biogted laws to include all those other relationships. [/quote]
IF there is a good argument for the legalization for polygamy, I would support it yes. This isn’t an ‘all or nothing’ thing that you’re trying to peg it as. Look at gun laws, you can legalize certain weapons while keeping others illegal.[/quote]
Did you just compare humans to property? Talk about going back to the slave days.[/quote]
No, I compared policy formation and legislation.