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]
What do you think that we’ve been doing for the past many years? We’ve been giving in to demands of various groups. ONE group of people called homosexuals are upset. Never mind that they only comprise about 2% of the population. We must change a 5000 year old institution to make that ONE group happy. Regardless of the potential consequences.
Yeah…you got it right!
ONE GROUP![/quote]
You share the world with other people.
“Democracy is not about majority rule; it is about minority rights. If there is no culture of not simply tolerating minorities, but actually treating them with equal rights, real democracy can’t take root.” - Thomas L. Friedman
[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.
–
I can’t remember if I deleted this above or not, but I’m not sure the state should be involved in marriages beyond property issues. But given that it is and how strongly it is now involved, I think marriage or civil unions (with equal rights…which may be difficult to obtain) are necessary.
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]thunderbolt23 wrote:
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]
For some reason I feel like having money being the motivating factor, especially when the lives of young children are involved, is not a good idea. In principal it seems like it would work, but in practice it would probably attract the type of people you wouldn’t trust to raise a pet rock.
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]
Well, no - you established a principle (consenting adults shouldn’t have their relationships discriminated against) and now that you have seen there is no legitimate reason to exclude polygamists under this principle of “equality”, you try and find an exception for “practical” reasons.
You can’t have it both ways - either it is a matter of civil rights, or it is a matter of creating institutions for the beneficial practical effect. It can’t be both. If it is a matter of creating institutions for beneficial practical effects, then, yes, we can discriminate against certain kinds of consenting adult relationships if we decide they don’t particularly have any beneficial practical effects.
You’re trying phony arguments and you’ve got yourself in a bind - deny marriage to gays and it is “bigotry!”, deny it to everyone else and it might be fine on a case by case evaluation, and it certainly isn’t “bigotry”.
You’re shamelessly transparent. Oh, and completely irrational.
And your “wait and see, evaluate the facts on polygamy” is just as telling. On one hand, we have polygamy - been around for thousands of years, across cultures, across different religions, has a historical predicate, and involves procreation - and you say “need more information, let’s not jump to any conclusions on whether granting marriage under these circumstances.”
On the other, we have gay cohabitation - brand new, no legimitate historical predicate, no presence across multiple cultures, no ability to procreate, and barely any research or data over any durable period of time - and you breathlessly endorse it as “good to go! It’s proved it belongs! Oh, and if you don’t think so, you’re motivated by bigotry!”.
Curious. No, not really, it’s hypocritical, and your own statements have outed your irrational prejudices in the debate.
Either it’s a civil rights issue - in which case, all consenting adult relationships deserve the same protection of the “right” be recognized under the exact same overarching principle - or it is matter of practical public policy - does enactment advance some legitimate and rational public policy goal? - but not both.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
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]
This is going off topic so I’ll make one more post and then we’ll have to start another thread:
You are right, abuse is abuse. That’s why Catholics ask why nothing is being done or said about the huge child molestation problem in public schools while the media seems to put all their attention on a handful of decades old cases within the CC. State judicial systems have suspended the statute of limitations in order to prosecute child molesters, who have they prosecuted during this suspension? Catholic priests, all while the current and bigger problem is ignored in the public schools.
This has nothing to do with shifting blame, it has to do with justice and bigotry. The media doesn’t care about stopping child molesters, otherwise if they did proportionally they wouldn’t have had 2000 articles about catholic priests while having a measly 4 (I think) articles about the far larger problem of child molesters in public schools.
Well, no - you established a principle (consenting adults shouldn’t have their relationships discriminated against) and now that you have seen there is no legitimate reason to exclude polygamists under this principle of “equality”, you try and find an exception for “practical” reasons.
You can’t have it both ways - either it is a matter of civil rights, or it is a matter of creating institutions for the beneficial practical effect. It can’t be both. If it is a matter of creating institutions for beneficial practical effects, then, yes, we can discriminate against certain kinds of consenting adult relationships if we decide they don’t particularly have any beneficial practical effects.
You’re trying phony arguments and you’ve got yourself in a bind - deny marriage to gays and it is “bigotry!”, deny it to everyone else and it might be fine on a case by case evaluation, and it certainly isn’t “bigotry”.
You’re shamelessly transparent. Oh, and completely irrational.[/quote]
I also think it’s a civil rights issue, however your opposition to it’s legalization is based on it being useless to the public and this slippery slope argument w/ regards to polygamy. I am pointing out those argument hold NO water.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And your “wait and see, evaluate the facts on polygamy” is just as telling. On one hand, we have polygamy - been around for thousands of years, across cultures, across different religions, has a historical predicate, and involves procreation - and you say “need more information, let’s not jump to any conclusions on whether granting marriage under these circumstances.” [/quote]
Show me studies indicating children are no worse off growing up in houses with polygamous relationships. I have made the case for LGBT parenting.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
On the other, we have gay cohabitation - brand new, no legimitate historical predicate, no presence across multiple cultures, no ability to procreate, and barely any research or data over any durable period of time - and you breathlessly endorse it as “good to go! It’s proved it belongs! Oh, and if you don’t think so, you’re motivated by bigotry!”.
Curious. No, not really, it’s hypocritical, and your own statements have outed your irrational prejudices in the debate.[/quote]
You’re wrong there has been plenty of research done on the topic and I’ve pointed this out SEVERAL times.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Either it’s a civil rights issue - in which case, all consenting adult relationships deserve the same protection of the “right” be recognized under the exact same overarching principle - or it is matter of practical public policy - does enactment advance some legitimate and rational public policy goal? - but not both.[/quote]
It’s a civil rights issue because it’s banned on the basis of bigotry. However it is ALSO practical to have gay marriage.
It doesn’t matter what type of issue it is labeled as. What matters is what arguments there are for and against it. So far no good against arguments have been presented
[quote]kamui wrote:
I will probably never get married because
-i live in a polyamorous relationship
but
-i’m against the legalization of polyamorous marriage
Am i bigoted against myself ?
[/quote]
So now its LGBTP
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 childrenÃ?¢??s well-being and Ã?¢??outcomesÃ?¢??, 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 literatureÃ?¢??that the sample sizes of the studies are too small to allow for statistically powerful testsÃ?¢??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]
Nonsense to your foolish studies which do not go nearly far enough and are certainly not conclusive. How many studies have followed children into early adult hood?
ZIP!
No one can say for sure if these kids will turn out normal or turn into freaks with even more emotional problems than their same sex parents.
You believe what you want to believe because you have an agenda. If someone offered this flimsy nonsense as actual proof of something that were fundamentally against you would laugh them off the forum.
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]
Hypocrite!
The same thing can be said of two men or two women living together.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:Where’s Thunderbolt’s denial? He knows better. [/quote]Denial about what?[/quote]From a couple pages ago when I couldn’t take any more reading through this thread.[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The marriage of one man and one woman for life is the earthly illustration if Christ’s love for his church bride. (Ephesians 5) THAT is what makes it the one and only legitimate expression of sex and family. All this bickering about how socially and economically expedient it is(which it is) will go nowhere for the rest of our natural lives. Not even the people in this thread claiming the name of Jesus as their own will defend the actual godly meaning of marriage and family. No wonder the world doesn’t give a flyin fart about the gospel. The visible church (little c Christopher) doesn’t even care. Why should they?.
Anybody who thinks the people who founded this country recognized the marriage of one man and one woman as the only acceptable model primarily because of the societal benefit is deluded. Thunderbolt you oughta know better. They believed the protestant biblical prescription of new covenant family was the only moral one. Deny that. Go ahead. [/quote]
[quote]Makavali wrote:
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]
This is going off topic so I’ll make one more post and then we’ll have to start another thread:
You are right, abuse is abuse. That’s why Catholics ask why nothing is being done or said about the huge child molestation problem in public schools while the media seems to put all their attention on a handful of decades old cases within the CC. State judicial systems have suspended the statute of limitations in order to prosecute child molesters, who have they prosecuted during this suspension? Catholic priests, all while the current and bigger problem is ignored in the public schools.
This has nothing to do with shifting blame, it has to do with justice and bigotry. The media doesn’t care about stopping child molesters, otherwise if they did proportionally they wouldn’t have had 2000 articles about catholic priests while having a measly 4 (I think) articles about the far larger problem of child molesters in public schools. [/quote]
Going off my own recollection of a child molesting teacher (male in his 40’s, molested an 11 year old girl in my school), he was metaphorically strung up and castrated. Last I heard he was homeless after getting out of prison. His wife left him and took his kids, and he has no shot in hell of getting a job.
I don’t know about where you live, but where I grew up, there was no hiding school teachers who were child abusers.
Can’t say the same for Catholic priests (and other denominations).
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]
What do you think that we’ve been doing for the past many years? We’ve been giving in to demands of various groups. ONE group of people called homosexuals are upset. Never mind that they only comprise about 2% of the population. We must change a 5000 year old institution to make that ONE group happy. Regardless of the potential consequences.
Yeah…you got it right!
ONE GROUP![/quote]
You share the world with other people.
“Democracy is not about majority rule; it is about minority rights. If there is no culture of not simply tolerating minorities, but actually treating them with equal rights, real democracy can’t take root.” - Thomas L. Friedman[/quote]
Nonsense, when we started catering to the minority we began the slow downhill slide.
We’ll see how interested you are in serving the minority when polygamists demand “qual rights.”
I also think it’s a civil rights issue, however your opposition to it’s legalization is based on it being useless to the public and this slippery slope argument w/ regards to polygamy. I am pointing out those argument hold NO water.[/quote]
False, because if it is a civil rights issue - and marriage must be granted on the basis that these newcomers to marriage cannot have their relationships discriminated against, that rule of non-discrimination must be applied to other newcomers as well.
It’s not a slippery slope, because it isn’t a slope at all. If the principle exists that you say exists, it applies right now to all other alternative marriage arrangements, like polygamy.
You haven’t done anything but demonstrate you have no idea what you’re talking baout.
No, you haven’t, and you still can’t have it both ways. If it is a civil rights issue, then polygamist marriages are presumed to be valid. And I don’t need to show you studies backing that up - I don’t support polygamy.
But then, I am not trying to have it both ways.
False, there has been no studies done over any durable period of time, and there certainly hasn’t been “plenty” of it.
Answer one question, Raraj - do you think children raised by their biological parents are no better off than those raised by a gay couple? Yes or no?
No, it isn’t and such a statement is dumb as hell - traditional marriage laws have been on the books for millenia, and not a one of them was passed to privilege heterosexuals at the expense of gays. Not one. That was never the motive for creating a public policy of marriage - tradtional marriage laws have never been motivated by “bigotry”.
Anybody who thinks the people who founded this country recognized the marriage of one man and one woman as the only acceptable model primarily because of the societal benefit is deluded. Thunderbolt you oughta know better. They believed the protestant biblical prescription of new covenant family was the only moral one. Deny that. Go ahead. [/quote]
Incorrect, and this is further evidence why I don’t read your posts and was unaware you’d made this statement.
The enactment of marriage laws early in the republic was based on their perceived social benefit, as the institution - the public version of it - was very much a civil arrangement. Not all of the perceived benefits were pleasant or politically correct - sometimes marriages to women were auctioned off (early on). But the point is, as an instrument of the state, the policy was enacted for the social benefits it provided.
Your fantasy that the early American Republic was a glorious Calvinist utopia where all the laws enacted were extensions of calvinist dogma passed by True Believers is false and ahistorical. Give it a rest. I’m not interested in it.
I also think it’s a civil rights issue, however your opposition to it’s legalization is based on it being useless to the public and this slippery slope argument w/ regards to polygamy. I am pointing out those argument hold NO water.[/quote]
False, because if it is a civil rights issue - and marriage must be granted on the basis that these newcomers to marriage cannot have their relationships discriminated against, that rule of non-discrimination must be applied to other newcomers as well.
It’s not a slippery slope, because it isn’t a slope at all. If the principle exists that you say exists, it applies right now to all other alternative marriage arrangements, like polygamy.
You haven’t done anything but demonstrate you have no idea what you’re talking baout.
No, you haven’t, and you still can’t have it both ways. If it is a civil rights issue, then polygamist marriages are presumed to be valid. And I don’t need to show you studies backing that up - I don’t support polygamy.
But then, I am not trying to have it both ways.
False, there has been no studies done over any durable period of time, and there certainly hasn’t been “plenty” of it.
Answer one question, Raraj - do you think children raised by their biological parents are no better off than those raised by a gay couple? Yes or no?
No, it isn’t and such a statement is dumb as hell - traditional marriage laws have been on the books for millenia, and not a one of them was passed to privilege heterosexuals at the expense of gays. Not one. That was never the motive for creating a public policy of marriage - tradtional marriage laws have never been motivated by “bigotry”.
What a clown.[/quote]
I’ve never debated a pro gay marriage person yet who could give a reasonable answer to why society should then not accept polygamous unions as well.
They simply want to draw the line one step further down the road and rationalize not going any further than that.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:<<< Your fantasy that the early American Republic was a glorious Calvinist utopia where all the laws enacted were extensions of calvinist dogma passed by True Believers is false and ahistorical. Give it a rest. I’m not interested in it.[/quote]Do I really have to dig up one of the hundred places where I denied this? Again? So you are saying that the founders(on the whole) would have sanctioned any social/family paradigm that they saw as useful regardless of whether it aligned, even generally, with Christian values? That’s what you’re saying? I’m asking.
So you are saying that the founders(on the whole) would have sanctioned any social/family paradigm that they saw as useful regardless of whether it aligned, even generally, with Christian values? That’s what you’re saying? I’m asking.[/quote]
You’re asking what the Founders would have done when faced with that situation? Seriously?
Setting that aside, you set it up as a false “either-or”. The Founders did/sanctioned lots of things they saw as useful that didn’t align with your understanding of Christian values, but they may very well have been aligned with the Founders’ understanding of Christian values - and their sense of practical policy. In other words, both.
EDIT: oh, and to be clear in answering your question, no, I don’t think that. But that doesn’t mean that the Founders were in one camp (following the iron dictates of unblinking Calvinism) or the other (secular rationalists only interested in utilitarianism). It means that often times, values and “what works best” were one and the same, which is not at all unusual.
So you are saying that the founders(on the whole) would have sanctioned any social/family paradigm that they saw as useful regardless of whether it aligned, even generally, with Christian values? That’s what you’re saying? I’m asking.[/quote]
You’re asking what the Founders would have done when faced with that situation? Seriously?
Setting that aside, you set it up as a false “either-or”. The Founders did/sanctioned lots of things they saw as useful that didn’t align with your understanding of Christian values, but they may very well have been aligned with the Founders’ understanding of Christian values - and their sense of practical policy. In other words, both.
EDIT: oh, and to be clear in answering your question, no, I don’t think that. But that doesn’t mean that the Founders were in one camp (following the iron dictates of unblinking Calvinism) or the other (secular rationalists only interested in utilitarianism). It means that often times, values and “what works best” were one and the same, which is not at all unusual.[/quote]Calvinism has nothing to do with this. Edwards and Wesley were in one accord here.(as were the Catholics for that matter) Would they have(on the whole) sanctioned New testament marriage alone were it not for the New Testament? EDITED