Dude, you need to read more carefully. You will note that my personal experience has been that kids from gays were heteros and seemed well adjusted, but I assumed that that may not be the case for the majority.[/quote]
Reading more carefully is always good advice - thank you. I have noted that - also I noted your assumptions as problematic. I’m glad you’ve had positive experiences there - that’s normally what helped build confidence much better than just statistics. But, being a friend of a good internet research, I couldn’t resist adding a few anal…ytical numbers.
See my agreement above - with the nitpickish comment added that it’s not only two people a child needs; it’s a social environment with a lot of learning outside of the house. I’m really in doubt how well the nuclear family has worked out in general - cocooning into it may be more responsible for our social ills than we think.
Did this researcher bother to correlate these societies he surveyed with GDP per capita or the freedom index? He’s said that most cultures practice it, but he hasn’t said how many of these cultures are living in dollar a day poverty or under harsh rulers. In the West, where polygyny is uncommon, we also have lots of money and democracy.
Nope, I doubt that. I would also think that it’s a historical ethnographic mapping, rather than our current status quo. If you follow the source though, you’ll see that the library entry states that polygyny tends to be a feature of pre-industrialised societies. Availability of “money and democracy” has increased with industrialisation and the breakup of traditional agrarian societies. My main point was that what really tends to help societies is empowering women to decide about their lives and bodies - polygyny is more of a symptom than the problem itself.
Makkun[/quote]
Yes, I definitely agree that it’s more of a symptom. However, like I said, once you change the definition of what marriage is in the West, everyone else is entitled to their definition as well, including the Muslims we’ve imported. I know of know Islamic country where women are allowed to decide what to do with themselves, and the family structure plays a role in this. A daughter is born, her dad decides who to marry her off to. She has no freedom in how she lives her life and often can’t even go out in public without a male escort. If we’re going to allow everyone their definition of marriage and family, what basis do we have for denying this? After all, it’s just their culture.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Really, the issue of whether there is nothing to link them or not is unknown. That’s why you sample and correlate to see if there might be an indicator that a link exists. But I can tell I’m not dealing with a person who’s worked with a data set before.
Yes, but there is no obvious implication of polygamy (or lack thereof) being the cause of the Western domination. Spousal infidelity is pretty much the same thing as polygamy in a sense so should I argue that point?[/quote]
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
A daughter is born, her dad decides who to marry her off to. She has no freedom in how she lives her life and often can’t even go out in public without a male escort. If we’re going to allow everyone their definition of marriage and family, what basis do we have for denying this? After all, it’s just their culture. [/quote]
We have the basis to deny this by saying that basic human rights overturn any and all cultural values.
The main right I speak of would be the right to choose their own religion.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
A daughter is born, her dad decides who to marry her off to. She has no freedom in how she lives her life and often can’t even go out in public without a male escort. If we’re going to allow everyone their definition of marriage and family, what basis do we have for denying this? After all, it’s just their culture.
We have the basis to deny this by saying that basic human rights overturn any and all cultural values.
The main right I speak of would be the right to choose their own religion.[/quote]
Did you see the Islamic critique of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
Obviously, I agree with you. But we need some way of saying what is right and why in the case I’ve described. [/quote]
Fuck that, no human being is going to listen to that shit. It was made by sexist religious fundamentalists. State and religion do not mix. Although some of it seems well meaning, some of the archaic views on men & women and freedom of religion need to be changed.
Obviously, I agree with you. But we need some way of saying what is right and why in the case I’ve described.
Fuck that, no human being is going to listen to that shit. It was made by sexist religious fundamentalists. State and religion do not mix. Although some of it seems well meaning, some of the archaic views on men & women and freedom of religion need to be changed.
I guess we do agree on some issues.[/quote]
The problem is, Islam is, by nature, wrapped up in politics. That’s what Shari’ah is: an Islamic religious-political-legal system that’s all encompassing. Mohammed was a political ruler as much as he was a general and a religious leader.
[quote]905Patrick wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
I also don’t get why so many gays want to be married.
Gay people want it because they can’t have it. They are right in their belief that they are not equal until they can have everything that straight people have.
They are ramming it down our throats because pressing for an extreme position is the quickest way to gain a compromise.
I say let them be married and call it a marriage. It’s time to let people be equal REGARDLESS of what they are.[/quote]
That would be granting “special rights”. We aren’t in the business of “special rights” because that would give the group in question more than the rest of society, thus defeating the idea of equal rights.
[quote]Chewie wrote:
905Patrick wrote:
Gay people want it because they can’t have it. They are right in their belief that they are not equal until they can have everything that straight people have.
They are ramming it down our throats because pressing for an extreme position is the quickest way to gain a compromise.
I say let them be married and call it a marriage. It’s time to let people be equal REGARDLESS of what they are.
That would be granting “special rights”. We aren’t in the business of “special rights” because that would give the group in question more than the rest of society, thus defeating the idea of equal rights.[/quote]
If the right to marry someone of the same sex was granted, it becomes an equal right immediately. Straight people would very likely NOT exercise the right, but they still have it. It’s open to all people regardless of sexual orientation
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
The problem is, Islam is, by nature, wrapped up in politics. That’s what Shari’ah is: an Islamic religious-political-legal system that’s all encompassing. Mohammed was a political ruler as much as he was a general and a religious leader. [/quote]
I know plenty of Muslims that do not want to live in a religious state. There’s a reason why the Turkish courts overturned the head scarf reforms.
On the other hand, you have been known to spew about how the US government and church should take turns jacking each other off. Unless I’m confusing you with another hypocritical zealot (and, I’ll be frank, this could very well be the case. It gets heard keeping the hypocritical zealots straight around here).
[quote]905Patrick wrote:
Chewie wrote:
905Patrick wrote:
Gay people want it because they can’t have it. They are right in their belief that they are not equal until they can have everything that straight people have.
They are ramming it down our throats because pressing for an extreme position is the quickest way to gain a compromise.
I say let them be married and call it a marriage. It’s time to let people be equal REGARDLESS of what they are.
That would be granting “special rights”. We aren’t in the business of “special rights” because that would give the group in question more than the rest of society, thus defeating the idea of equal rights.
If the right to marry someone of the same sex was granted, it becomes an equal right immediately. Straight people would very likely NOT exercise the right, but they still have it. It’s open to all people regardless of sexual orientation [/quote]
No it isn’t and people voted on it.
Why are we trying to redefine something that has been defined for hundreds of years?
[quote]905Patrick wrote:
Chewie wrote:
905Patrick wrote:
Gay people want it because they can’t have it. They are right in their belief that they are not equal until they can have everything that straight people have.
They are ramming it down our throats because pressing for an extreme position is the quickest way to gain a compromise.
I say let them be married and call it a marriage. It’s time to let people be equal REGARDLESS of what they are.
That would be granting “special rights”. We aren’t in the business of “special rights” because that would give the group in question more than the rest of society, thus defeating the idea of equal rights.
If the right to marry someone of the same sex was granted, it becomes an equal right immediately. Straight people would very likely NOT exercise the right, but they still have it. It’s open to all people regardless of sexual orientation [/quote]
I just noticed something. By your logic, homosexuals will take over the concept of marriage and because of that heterosexuals would abandon in? What would follow after that?
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
The problem is, Islam is, by nature, wrapped up in politics. That’s what Shari’ah is: an Islamic religious-political-legal system that’s all encompassing. Mohammed was a political ruler as much as he was a general and a religious leader.
I know plenty of Muslims that do not want to live in a religious state. There’s a reason why the Turkish courts overturned the head scarf reforms.
On the other hand, you have been known to spew about how the US government and church should take turns jacking each other off. Unless I’m confusing you with another hypocritical zealot (and, I’ll be frank, this could very well be the case. It gets heard keeping the hypocritical zealots straight around here).[/quote]
Why’d they vote in the Islamist party in Turkey then?
You’re really starting to bore me. “Hypocritical zealots?” Yes, we’ve established that. However, my hypocrisy, whatever it may be, has nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of my claims. Moreover, you’re continued mention of it probably carries with it no small degree of hypocrisy itself. I’m sure you’re not a perfect angel, but then again, I wonder what your standard of “perfect” is, since you don’t seem to have any. At least my hypocrisy stems from a failure to perfectly conform my behavior to someone who advocated peace and neighborliness. Yours stems from holding me to that standard and then following a man that advocated the opposite, all the while pretending that your behavior is so much better than mine.
Perhaps we should just ignore one another from now on.
[quote]Chewie wrote:
905Patrick wrote:
If the right to marry someone of the same sex was granted, it becomes an equal right immediately. Straight people would very likely NOT exercise the right, but they still have it. It’s open to all people regardless of sexual orientation
I just noticed something. By your logic, homosexuals will take over the concept of marriage and because of that heterosexuals would abandon in? What would follow after that? [/quote]
People will have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex or someone of the same sex.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
The problem is, Islam is, by nature, wrapped up in politics. That’s what Shari’ah is: an Islamic religious-political-legal system that’s all encompassing. Mohammed was a political ruler as much as he was a general and a religious leader.
I know plenty of Muslims that do not want to live in a religious state. There’s a reason why the Turkish courts overturned the head scarf reforms.
On the other hand, you have been known to spew about how the US government and church should take turns jacking each other off. Unless I’m confusing you with another hypocritical zealot (and, I’ll be frank, this could very well be the case. It gets heard keeping the hypocritical zealots straight around here).
Why’d they vote in the Islamist party in Turkey then?[/quote]
Some people want a religious state, and some want a secular one. I don’t know what’s so hard about this. But obviously, your claim that Islam is inseparable from politics is wrong, since many, many people around the world want this.
That’s where you’re wrong. unlike you, I don’t follow any man. There’s good and bad in everyone, prophets included. One need only read the old testament for evidence of this. My standard of “perfect” is God, and it is unattainable. The best we can do is try.
However, unlike you, I don’t condemn entire religions. I don’t talk about the evils of christianity, even though I think that it was a religion hijacked by scum in its infancy (Paul, Augustine, I’m looking your way). Yes, I can easily quote arguments that the early “fathers” of the church had, where their disrespect for women, their contempt for god, and their lack of piety is revolting. But I know damn well that this doesn’t make christians evil, not by a long shot. There’s so much good and truth (left) in the bible that I’m happy and comfortable around good christians.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
my hypocrisy, whatever it may be, has nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of my claims.[/quote]
You false claims make it harder for people to keep an open mind. Claiming one thing whether it be right or wrong, should be backed up when asked for evidence. You seem to fail to do so for a lot of points and only submit selective, and usually biased evidence.
[quote]Chewie wrote:
905Patrick wrote:
Chewie wrote:
905Patrick wrote:
Gay people want it because they can’t have it. They are right in their belief that they are not equal until they can have everything that straight people have.
They are ramming it down our throats because pressing for an extreme position is the quickest way to gain a compromise.
I say let them be married and call it a marriage. It’s time to let people be equal REGARDLESS of what they are.
That would be granting “special rights”. We aren’t in the business of “special rights” because that would give the group in question more than the rest of society, thus defeating the idea of equal rights.
If the right to marry someone of the same sex was granted, it becomes an equal right immediately. Straight people would very likely NOT exercise the right, but they still have it. It’s open to all people regardless of sexual orientation
No it isn’t and people voted on it.
Why are we trying to redefine something that has been defined for hundreds of years?
[/quote]
Because hundreds of terms have been redefined for the better?
[quote]Chewie wrote:
905Patrick wrote:
Chewie wrote:
905Patrick wrote:
Gay people want it because they can’t have it. They are right in their belief that they are not equal until they can have everything that straight people have.
They are ramming it down our throats because pressing for an extreme position is the quickest way to gain a compromise.
I say let them be married and call it a marriage. It’s time to let people be equal REGARDLESS of what they are.
That would be granting “special rights”. We aren’t in the business of “special rights” because that would give the group in question more than the rest of society, thus defeating the idea of equal rights.
If the right to marry someone of the same sex was granted, it becomes an equal right immediately. Straight people would very likely NOT exercise the right, but they still have it. It’s open to all people regardless of sexual orientation
I just noticed something. By your logic, homosexuals will take over the concept of marriage and because of that heterosexuals would abandon in? What would follow after that? [/quote]
Err… he’s saying they won’t exercise the right to marry another member of their sex. Did you REALLY misread that that badly?
Oh, and I have a solution. We won’t redefine marriage.
We’ll make a new term, mariage, that is marriage, only allowing same sex couples. It will have the same rights and benefits as Married people, only they will be termed Maried instead.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Chewie wrote:
Why are we trying to redefine something that has been defined for hundreds of years?
Because hundreds of terms have been redefined for the better?[/quote]
For example, marriage for “love” is a fairly modern redefinition. Do you object to love-based marriages? Do you believe that marriage should be reserved for the financial or political unification of two families?
