Obama Supports Gay Marriage

Brother_Chris · May 10, 2012, 5:33pm

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

…From what I’ve read children reared by gay couples do pretty well.

[/quote]

Tell us all about that. Let’s hear it.[/quote]

Scientific research has been generally consistent in showing that gay and lesbian parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.[3][4][5] Major associations of mental health professionals in the U.S., Canada, and Australia have not identified credible empirical research that suggests otherwise.[5][6][7][8][9]

Based on the robust nature of the evidence available in the field, Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida was satisfied in 2010 that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise; the best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption.[10]

[/quote]

Uh, cereal? Lol. Wikipedia. Great.

Anyway, so I skimmed a few of those little sources…the first one I read didn’t even quote actual studies. They just said “when we look at the research”…great. I can do that all day long, please site source. Second one I read…bashed family research that showed that LGBT parenting is inferior (didn’t actually give proof, just said well it’s prejudice), then provided no actual research themselves.

I stopped after that because I have to eat breakfast and it’s going to be safe to assume it’s all the same crap, since there isn’t much research in the field about this issue except anecdotal evidence and research showing the negative effects of LGBT marriage.

Brother_Chris · May 10, 2012, 5:35pm

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
You should know better than to use the slippery slope argument, only a dull edge knife can do that.[/quote]

Why it’s a viable argument as long as it is not a fallacy.[/quote]

Yes I know in this 1 case its not a fallacy, traditional marriage IS a slippery slope that has opened the door for all types of other unconventional marriages.[/quote]

Lol. Well, since there is only one kind of marriage, what you call “traditional” marriage, then there is no slippery slope to unconventional marriages. Just people that do not understand what marriage actually is in the first place.[/quote]

People do understand, and understand that there is no non-religious reason it cannot be changed.[/quote]

Really, then what in the world are Children? There is a inherent purpose of marriage, gay people cannot fulfill that purpose.

But, you haven’t stated why the religious reason isn’t a good reason. Please explain.

therajraj · May 10, 2012, 5:37pm

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

…From what I’ve read children reared by gay couples do pretty well.

[/quote]

Tell us all about that. Let’s hear it.[/quote]

Scientific research has been generally consistent in showing that gay and lesbian parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.[3][4][5] Major associations of mental health professionals in the U.S., Canada, and Australia have not identified credible empirical research that suggests otherwise.[5][6][7][8][9]

Based on the robust nature of the evidence available in the field, Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida was satisfied in 2010 that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise; the best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption.[10]

[/quote]

Uh, cereal? Lol. Wikipedia. Great.

Anyway, so I skimmed a few of those little sources…the first one I read didn’t even quote actual studies. They just said “when we look at the research”…great. I can do that all day long, please site source. Second one I read…bashed family research that showed that LGBT parenting is inferior (didn’t actually give proof, just said well it’s prejudice), then provided no actual research themselves.

I stopped after that because I have to eat breakfast and it’s going to be safe to assume it’s all the same crap, since there isn’t much research in the field about this issue except anecdotal evidence and research showing the negative effects of LGBT marriage.[/quote]

A list of all the studies referenced on the first few pages

sufiandy · May 10, 2012, 5:38pm

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
You should know better than to use the slippery slope argument, only a dull edge knife can do that.[/quote]

Why it’s a viable argument as long as it is not a fallacy.[/quote]

Yes I know in this 1 case its not a fallacy, traditional marriage IS a slippery slope that has opened the door for all types of other unconventional marriages.[/quote]

Lol. Well, since there is only one kind of marriage, what you call “traditional” marriage, then there is no slippery slope to unconventional marriages. Just people that do not understand what marriage actually is in the first place.[/quote]

People do understand, and understand that there is no non-religious reason it cannot be changed.[/quote]

Really, then what in the world are Children? There is a inherent purpose of marriage, gay people cannot fulfill that purpose.

But, you haven’t stated why the religious reason isn’t a good reason. Please explain.[/quote]

You know people get married who don’t plan on having children, I’ve never seen attempts to outlaw that. The reason is sarcastically stated on #8 in the list I posted higher up in this page.

want2getlean · May 10, 2012, 5:46pm

All the worst posters are also homophobic hicks, amazing.

Cortes · May 10, 2012, 6:08pm

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

It’s only wishy washy if you do what you and raj are apparently doing and read into my original statement meanings that were never intended.

I am speaking in purely utilitarian terms, for the moment. In this case, “socially favored” would be that marriage arrangement that serves to replenish and regrow the population, provide new, productive taxpayers to support the upside down triangle of a welfare based infrastructure we have here, and has the highest likelihood of producing a child that will turn into a law-abiding, productive member of society who goes on to form a family of his own and not a criminal baby-daddy or similar who will tend to drain resources rather than augment them.

Speaking honestly, I really do not understand what you and raj are trying to demonstrate.

Is this society racist? Youbetcha. Do I care? Sure as hell do, particularly with a son being born into it. Does it have anything at all to do with my point? Not one thing. The nuclear family unit of a single mother and a father happens to be the most beneficial arrangement overall, for this society or America, racist or not racist. [/quote]

You’ve conveniently defined “socially favoured” in a manner to fit your argument. If we were to define the “greater good” as maintaining a homogeneous population and preventing the dilution of Japanese bloodlines, then your argument falls apart.

Why is it okay for you to acknowledge certain societal preferences while ignoring others?

[/quote]

Stop, please. This isn’t 1941. I live in a country with a genuine welfare crisis on its hands. They care enough about the problem to subsidize the birth and health of my children, and to provide a monthly stipend for each child that increases for every child born. And believe it or not, they didn’t make us fill out one single extra form to receive these benefits. So me, my wife, and about 150,000,000 Japanese people have decided that this IS what is important. And anything that detracts from solving this problem can be viewed as dilution, at best, and outright sabotage, at worst.

And trust me, my analogy carries over to the western hemisphere fully intact.

Superior to a broken household? Sure. From what I’ve read children reared by gay couples do pretty well.

[/quote]

No. Superior in that there is a MOTHER and a FATHER, one of each, to raise the child. What is so difficult to grasp about this? Broken homes have NOTHING, ZERO to do with the issue. Now, please answer my question instead of dodging it.

Sentoguy · May 10, 2012, 6:15pm

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:<<< Because we are governed by laws, the discussion of whether or not gay marriage should be legal must be one of legal matters, not of moral matters. >>>[/quote]This is untrue. Just the opposite. We were founded as a nation of private morality that facilitated public liberty. We agreed on what that morality was. To a man the delegates to our first constitutional convention professed some form of Christianity. Most my exact form actually. It is simply and demonstrably false to deny that. Those men would weep if they could see that what they left us is being perverted to countenance the union of members of the same sex as a “marriage” and potential “family”.
[/quote]

Several of the constitutional delagates and several of the signers of the declaration of independence were actually diests and some were very wary (and even critical) of any type of organized religion. That is why article 6 of the constitution states

“No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

And why the 1st Amendment to the constitution states

“The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.”

That to me is the single greatest hit to the argument that the US was founded as a Christian nation. I do agree that many of the values that those who stated this nation held were in keeping with Christian values though. Things like not murdering, stealing, adultering, and lying.

At the same time though, these founding fathers owned slaves, treated them like less than humans (heck, they were pretty much bought, sold, and treated as livestock), and did not afford any types of equal rights to women (in fact women were the material property of their husbands). Can we really say that they were so much more pious than us in this age (where perhaps the family unit is not as “stable” as it was at that time and yes perhaps some states have afforded equal civil rights to homosexual couples)?

Can we really say that society is less moral or civilized than it was then? Can we really say that they were more in keeping with Jesus’s teachings than us?

Brother_Chris · May 10, 2012, 6:48pm

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
You should know better than to use the slippery slope argument, only a dull edge knife can do that.[/quote]

Why it’s a viable argument as long as it is not a fallacy.[/quote]

Yes I know in this 1 case its not a fallacy, traditional marriage IS a slippery slope that has opened the door for all types of other unconventional marriages.[/quote]

Lol. Well, since there is only one kind of marriage, what you call “traditional” marriage, then there is no slippery slope to unconventional marriages. Just people that do not understand what marriage actually is in the first place.[/quote]

People do understand, and understand that there is no non-religious reason it cannot be changed.[/quote]

Really, then what in the world are Children? There is a inherent purpose of marriage, gay people cannot fulfill that purpose.

But, you haven’t stated why the religious reason isn’t a good reason. Please explain.[/quote]

You know people get married who don’t plan on having children, I’ve never seen attempts to outlaw that. The reason is sarcastically stated on #8 in the list I posted higher up in this page.[/quote]

Okay, let’s try this: planning and having the functional ability is not the same thing.

Brother_Chris · May 10, 2012, 6:49pm

[quote]want2getlean wrote:
All the worst posters are also homophobic hicks, amazing.[/quote]

I’m not aware of anyone here that is afraid of homos.

Brother_Chris · May 10, 2012, 6:59pm

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:<<< Because we are governed by laws, the discussion of whether or not gay marriage should be legal must be one of legal matters, not of moral matters. >>>[/quote]This is untrue. Just the opposite. We were founded as a nation of private morality that facilitated public liberty. We agreed on what that morality was. To a man the delegates to our first constitutional convention professed some form of Christianity. Most my exact form actually. It is simply and demonstrably false to deny that. Those men would weep if they could see that what they left us is being perverted to countenance the union of members of the same sex as a “marriage” and potential “family”.
[/quote]

Several of the constitutional delagates and several of the signers of the declaration of independence were actually diests and some were very wary (and even critical) of any type of organized religion. That is why article 6 of the constitution states

“No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

And why the 1st Amendment to the constitution states

“The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.”

That to me is the single greatest hit to the argument that the US was founded as a Christian nation.[/quote]

Well, guess there goes all those history classes. I would have sworn the reason why that was made sure to be in there was because it was an English tradition, developed because of Christian mores. I’m sure it had nothing to do with seeing the persecution and having in the back of their mind the persecution of puritans and catholics in England.

Even today the PM cannot be Catholic, that’s why Tony Blair waited until after leaving the office of PM to join the RCC.

Had no clue that it meant that religious folks couldn’t be politicians and couldn’t rule according to their conscious. Thank you JFK for making up shit.

sufiandy · May 10, 2012, 7:02pm