Gay marriage

oeb · 12-11-2008 04:07PM

Jakkass wrote: »

There are also conflicting studies that show that there is a higher percent of people with university degrees amongst people in religious congregations in the United States, and Australia, than the average. So, again conflicting studies suggest, that is entirely false.

In one of the studies claiming that atheists are more intelligent, the researcher had previous works which said 1) women were less intelligent than men, 2) black people are less intelligent than whites. Now how likely do you think the other two are of being true?

Either way, my point is valid. That was just an example I thought would hit closer to home.

oeb · 12-11-2008 04:09PM

Jakkass wrote: »

They are both less than optimal. I would agree that a family with a mother and a father, are better than both the single parent structure, or the same sex structure.

What about a family where the husband beats the wife vs a gay couple or single mother?

What about a family who are so poor they can barely afford food vs a comfortable gay couple or single parent?

My sons life is better now than it was when me and his mother were still together. The constant bickering is gone (for one)

MagicMarker · 12-11-2008 04:14PM

Jakkass wrote: »

They are both less than optimal. I would agree that a family with a mother and a father, are better than both the single parent structure, or the same sex structure.

What are you basing this on? Can you provide evidence to suggest that a mother and father is optimal over same sex couples?

And can you explain the contradictions in your argument please, why is it wrong for same sex couples to marry (who cannot 'naturally' procreate) and ok for heterosexual couples (who for some reason or another cannot procreate) to marry?

Also, do you think it's ok for a female couple, whereby natural procreation is possible via fertility services, to marry?

philologos · 12-11-2008 04:29PM

oeb wrote: »

What about a family where the husband beats the wife vs a gay couple or single mother?

What about a family who are so poor they can barely afford food vs a comfortable gay couple or single parent?

My sons life is better now than it was when me and his mother were still together. The constant bickering is gone (for one)

That's a minority situation which is regrettable, but I do think the Government should be striving for what is best for future generations of children in the majority of cases, that is ensuring that they will be in a loving family with both a mother and a father. Anything else isn't the best. Unless anyone has anything to suggest otherwise.

I understand that in divorces they can be tough, but we need to make sure that people consider marriage as being very very important, and as something not to rush into. That sense I think is lost today in modern Ireland.

Edit: MagicMarker, I provided a link which had references to studies done, a few posts ago. Look back and find it.

4red · 12-11-2008 04:29PM

There are 2 reasons gay people want Gay Civil Partnership (under discussion by the govt.) or Gay Marriage (not under discussion by the govt. as would involve constiutional change):

1. To secure their legal rights in terms of taxes, inheritance, property and health issues like hospital visitation rights.

2. To declare their commitment to each other, before their friends and family.

Gay Civil Partnership hurts nobody. It will help tens of thousands of gay people. It will cause Ireland to seem one of the more progressive nations. Can we have it now please?

Gay and waiting....

MagicMarker · 12-11-2008 04:33PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Edit: MagicMarker, I provided a link which had references to studies done, a few posts ago. Look back and find it.

I'll do that, can you explain your contradictions?

Are you ignoring questions on purpose? Because this is not the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th or probably even 5th time asking.

*edit* I really hope you weren't refering to the following link you posted?

Jakkass wrote: »

http://www.afajournal.org/2006/june/0606marriage.html

Sorry, but if you want me to find your argument credible, then i'd rather you didn't post links to back it up, of articles that were written by a minister! :rolleyes:

Zillah · 12-11-2008 05:35PM

Jakkass wrote: »

There are also conflicting studies that show that there is a higher percent of people with university degrees amongst people in religious congregations in the United States, and Australia, than the average.

Rich Protestants

Nerin · 12-11-2008 06:42PM

Jakkass wrote: »

They are both less than optimal. I would agree that a family with a mother and a father, are better than both the single parent structure, or the same sex structure.

Sorry i took so long to reply,i was in work. Yes,a person raised by a single mother has a steady job. Shock horror indeed. Your arguements are foolish. Years ago single mothers were stepped on and insulted. By whom you may ask,well,by many christians. Now that its not ok to bitch about single mums,you lump them into the same category (your own i may add) as gay couples. If youre worried about animosity leveled at children because they've two moms or dads,maybe change the attitudes of fundamentalists in these enlightened religions. Oh,and idiots too,never forget secular idiots too.

Nerin · 12-11-2008 06:43PM

Oh,and for the record,imo single parenting works better than having two parents. And the kids seem to turn out better too. Rant complete

javaboy · 12-11-2008 06:56PM

thelordofcheese wrote: »

This is about the 11 billionth time that it's been mentioned, but jakkas seems to be content to ignore it whenever it's brought up.

I know the feeling. I've asked how the pro-gay marriage people feel about childless incestuous relationships a good few times and only MagicMarker actually responded.

Most people here probably have no problem with homosexuality and may have homosexual friends. It's no big deal to most people. It's not hurting anyone after all.
I'd say a huge proportion of those people also oppose incest and would be shocked if one of their close friends was having a sexual relationship with their mother. If they ensure that no kids are ever going to result from the relationship then there's no issue with birth defects. So who here can honestly say they wouldn't find that wrong/weird/immoral or whatever? What would you honestly think of someone who was having sex with their own mother or sister? It's between two consenting adults and it's not harming anyone after all.

The way I see it people draw arbitrary lines about what behaviour is socially acceptable and what is not. Some people just draw their lines in different places.

thelordofcheese · 12-11-2008 07:14PM

javaboy wrote: »

I know the feeling. I've asked how the pro-gay marriage people feel about childless incestuous relationships a good few times and only MagicMarker actually responded.

Childless incestuous relationships? Fine by me.

javaboy · 12-11-2008 07:18PM

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Childless incestuous relationships? Fine by me.

Really? So if say your brother was marrying your sister or your father was marrying his daughter, it wouldn't bother you? You wouldn't prefer if they didn't "keep it in the family" so to speak?

Fair enough. Anybody here pro-gay marriage but anti-incest?

thelordofcheese · 12-11-2008 07:54PM

javaboy wrote: »

Really? So if say your brother was marrying your sister or your father was marrying his daughter, it wouldn't bother you? You wouldn't prefer if they didn't "keep it in the family" so to speak?

Fair enough. Anybody here pro-gay marriage but anti-incest?

I don't have to like it (i'm far better looking than my brother anyway), but i don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to.

I don't even have to like the thought of rampant bumlove but i can still recognise that gay people have the same right to marriage that straight people do.

Ziggurat · 12-11-2008 08:00PM

While I don't particularly like the idea of incest (that's another discussion), I don't feel it's my place to tell two consenting adults what they can and cannot do.

Look at Loving vs Virginia. I'm sure there were plenty that felt people of different ethnicities marrying was wrong. That "the definition of marriage would be changed".
There is no place, in a modern society for such small-minded bigotry. Which is all it is.

We hear time and again how free we are and how we should be thankful for those who were willing to give their lives for such a noble cause. I take the vote on Prop. 8 in California as a slap in the face to that cause.
Because it's not about preserving marriage or any other bull**** excuse like that. And it's not about denying two people the right to express their love.
It's about denying people freedom. It's about saying "No, as far as we're concerned, you are not deserving of the same freedoms we enjoy. In the eyes of the law, you are less than us."

I stayed out of this discussion until now because it's something I feel very strongly about and was afraid I'd say something I'd regret.

KnifeWRENCH · 12-11-2008 08:12PM

javaboy wrote: »

I know the feeling. I've asked how the pro-gay marriage people feel about childless incestuous relationships a good few times and only MagicMarker actually responded.

Most people here probably have no problem with homosexuality and may have homosexual friends. It's no big deal to most people. It's not hurting anyone after all.
I'd say a huge proportion of those people also oppose incest and would be shocked if one of their close friends was having a sexual relationship with their mother. If they ensure that no kids are ever going to result from the relationship then there's no issue with birth defects. So who here can honestly say they wouldn't find that wrong/weird/immoral or whatever? What would you honestly think of someone who was having sex with their own mother or sister? It's between two consenting adults and it's not harming anyone after all.

The way I see it people draw arbitrary lines about what behaviour is socially acceptable and what is not. Some people just draw their lines in different places.

Incest is another matter, you'd get a whole other big long thread out of it.
Discussing homosexuality is much more acceptable these days - discussing incest is still seen as a bit of a taboo. Being sexually attracted to someone who shares your bloodline - it sounds a lot stranger than homosexuality to me.
I have no problem with people not related to me comitting incest - doesn't affect me in the slightest. If I found out relatives of mine were in an incestuous relationship I would be very shocked, and maybe a little disgusted. But I would still acknowledge that they are consenting adults and what they get up to is really none of my business.
So while I may not like it, I'd be able to accept it.

Nevyn · 12-11-2008 08:21PM

Nerin wrote: »

Oh,and for the record,imo single parenting works better than having two parents. And the kids seem to turn out better too. Rant complete

I would say only if there is are other role models to form postivie relationships with the children.

nacho libre · 12-11-2008 08:33PM

Gummy Panda wrote: »

So he oblivous had a reason for making gay people so shouldn't we let them run their course which has come to them demanding the same rights as hetero people?

of course. you see people with religious views don't like to admit that homosexuality is not a recent phenomenon, by acknowledging that homosexuality has been around as long as mankind has is not something religious bigots like to acknowledge for obvious reasons. that was what i was getting at. i don't believe in a God - nor would i want to believe in a god who would discriminate against part of his own creation. it sickens me how some christians who preach about love and tolerance on the one hand then discriminate against other people because they are gay. we all deserve the same rights.

philologos · 12-11-2008 08:35PM

Nerin wrote: »

Sorry i took so long to reply,i was in work. Yes,a person raised by a single mother has a steady job. Shock horror indeed. Your arguements are foolish. Years ago single mothers were stepped on and insulted. By whom you may ask,well,by many christians. Now that its not ok to bitch about single mums,you lump them into the same category (your own i may add) as gay couples. If youre worried about animosity leveled at children because they've two moms or dads,maybe change the attitudes of fundamentalists in these enlightened religions. Oh,and idiots too,never forget secular idiots too.

Well I disagree with you totally.

http://cpaulsmith.blogspot.com/2007/09/traditional-marriage-is-best-for.html wrote:

In 1984 Greenberger confirmed and bolstered Baumrind’s 1982 study; Greenberger’s study found that the optimal development of children requires gender-specific and gender-complementary contributions that a mother or a father cannot do alone.14 The difference between mothers’ and fathers’ parenting styles have been confirmed by studies, including studies by Rossi (1987)15 and Shapiro (1994)16. A study by Clarke-Stewart (1980) concluded that fathers’ play and mothers’ play with their children are different, and that each offers distinct benefits to the children.17 Studies by Rohner and Veneziano (2001)18 and by Diener (2002)19 documented the unique contribution that fathers make in the development of a child. The absence of a father in the home has been linked to teenage pregnancy, child abuse, domestic violence and the need for psychiatric care.

Although that came from a blog it is heavily cited, if you want to research the basis behind those footnotes. Here they are.

http://cpaulsmith.blogspot.com/2007/09/traditional-marriage-is-best-for.html wrote:

[14] Greenberger, E. (1984). Defining psychosocial maturity in adolescence. In P. Karoly & J.J. Steffans, (Eds.) Adolescent behavior disorders: foundations and temporary concerns. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books., cited in Byrd, p. 3.

[15] Rossi, A..S. (1987) Parenthood in transition: From lineage to child to self-orientation. In J.B. Lancaster, J. Altman, A.S. Rossi, and L.R. Sherrod, eds., Parenting across the life span: Biosocial dimensions. New York: Aldene De Gruyter, 31-81.

[16] Shapiro, J. L. (1994). Letting dads be dads. Parents, June, 165, 168.

[17] Clarke-Stewart, K.A. (1980). The father’s contribution to children’s cognitive and social development in early childhood. In F.A. Pedersen, ed., The father-infant relationship: observational studies in the family setting. New York: Praeger, cited in Byrd, p. 4

[18] Rohner, R. P. & Veneziano, R.A. (2001). “The importance of father love: history and contemporary evidence,” Review of General Psychology 5.4, 382-405, cited in Byrd, p.4.

[19] Diener, M.L., Mangelsdorf, S.C., McHale, J.L. & Frosch, C.A. (2002). Infancy, 3(2), 153-174; and Masser, A. (1989). Boys’ father hunger: The missing father syndrome. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 23(1), 44-50. Both of these are cited in Byrd, p. 5.

I'm not going to deny that families with a loving mother and father, are optimal in the development of children when there is a vast array of studies to suggest so. Question is do you want me to deny this to please you or do you want to actually see the case?

I don't do this to "step on" or "insult" single mothers. Infact I sympathise with them having to fight it out alone. This doesn't negate that families with a loving mother and father, are optimal. I don't intend to lump them in the same category, the optimal however is a loving mother and father both genders have roles in bringing up children and fathers and mothers operate in very different ways. This is why I suggest that a woman cannot ever replace a father, and a man cannot replace a mother. Surely this is as reasonable assertion.

FatherTed · 12-11-2008 08:38PM

Glad to say that Gay Marriage became offical today in my state of Connecticut (only other state currently is Mass.):
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081112/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage

I went to a Civil Union ceremony a few years ago for two friends of ours and I think they will be marrying each other soon.

oeb · 12-11-2008 08:49PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't do this to "step on" or "insult" single mothers. Infact I sympathise with them having to fight it out alone. This doesn't negate that families with a loving mother and father, are optimal. I don't intend to lump them in the same category, the optimal however is a loving mother and father both genders have roles in bringing up children and fathers and mothers operate in very different ways. This is why I suggest that a woman cannot ever replace a father, and a man cannot replace a mother. Surely this is as reasonable assertion.

Stop dodging the point.

Are a stable gay couple more likely to raise a 'better' child than a dysfunctional straight couple?

FatherTed · 12-11-2008 09:04PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't do this to "step on" or "insult" single mothers. Infact I sympathise with them having to fight it out alone. This doesn't negate that families with a loving mother and father, are optimal. I don't intend to lump them in the same category, the optimal however is a loving mother and father both genders have roles in bringing up children and fathers and mothers operate in very different ways. This is why I suggest that a woman cannot ever replace a father, and a man cannot replace a mother. Surely this is as reasonable assertion. [/size]

Single parent families don't need "sympathy" from anybody.

Regarding Gay parenting, I used to be on the fence about this. But as an adoptive parent, I have come to meet a number of Gay couples who have also adopted kids and they have certainly changed my mind. It takes a lot of dedication and perseverance to go through the adoption process and doubly more so for Gay families. So that in itself shows how committed they are to becoming parents. As much as I hate to say this but they are better parents to their kids as some of my siblings are to theirs.

Who are we to judge who should be a parent and who should not?

MagicMarker · 12-11-2008 09:07PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

I'll do that, can you explain your contradictions?

Are you ignoring questions on purpose? Because this is not the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th or probably even 5th time asking.

MagicMarker wrote: »

And can you explain the contradictions in your argument please, why is it wrong for same sex couples to marry (who cannot 'naturally' procreate) and ok for heterosexual couples (who for some reason or another cannot procreate) to marry?

Also, do you think it's ok for a female couple, whereby natural procreation is possible via fertility services, to marry?

MagicMarker wrote: »

Saying it isn't a ''marriage'' is really a total cop out man. Give me an actual reason, marriage and children are totally different entities, you can't seem to grasp that very simple concept. Not everyone who marries has or wants children and not everyone who has children is married.

You think it's wrong for gays to marry because they can't naturally have kids together and that goes against YOUR definition of marriage, but you think it's fine that heterosexuals can marry even in situations where they are unable to naturally have children, which again, goes against YOUR definition of marriage.

Your whole argument is one giant contradiction.

MagicMarker wrote: »

Optimal compared to what?

Seeing as you're now basing your argument on marriage leading to children. Do you think it's ok for gays to marry so long as they are prevented from adopting?

MagicMarker wrote: »

So it would be ok for gays to marry so long as they were prevented from adopting?

MagicMarker wrote: »

Also, do you think only couples capable or reproducing should be allowed to marry?

MagicMarker wrote: »

Not really. Just because you're a hetro couple doesn't mean you can naturally 'bring forth life'. Do you suggest that only those capable of having children should be allowed to marry?

MagicMarker wrote: »

So is it okay for gay people to marry if they don't want children?

Once again, I will ask, and I would really appreciate an answer.

1) Do you think gay people should be allowed to marry if they were prevented from adopting?
2) Why do you believe that hetero couples who are unable to have children should be allowed marry when it goes against your definition of marriage?
3) Seeing as you believe a child with a mother and father is the 'optimal' scenario, compared to same sex couples and single parents, do you believe that hetero single people shouldn't be allowed to adopt?
4) Do you think a gay individual should be prevented from adopting?

Please explain your answers.

philologos · 12-11-2008 09:19PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

Once again, I will ask, and I would really appreciate an answer.

1) Do you think gay people should be allowed to marry if they were prevented from adopting?
2) Why do you believe that hetero couples who are unable to have children should be allowed marry when it goes against your definition of marriage?
3) Seeing as you believe a child with a mother and father is the 'optimal' scenario, compared to same sex couples and single parents, do you believe that hetero single people shouldn't be allowed to adopt?
4) Do you think a gay individual should be prevented from adopting?

Please explain your answers.

1) If the majority of people voted to support gay marriage, I would have to accept it. Otherwise no, I'd prefer the definition would be kept as is, civil partnerships are sufficient. Civil partnerships basically offer about the equivalent of marriage without adoptive rights I thought? Correct me if I am wrong.

2) Those who cannot conceive can provide the optimal for children who have been left in orphanages, so yes I would encourage that.

3) I would support a measure similar to the one Arkansas passed on Nov 4th, in that there would be a marriage requirement to adopt.

4) As in number 3.

MagicMarker · 12-11-2008 09:34PM

Jakkass wrote: »

1) If the majority of people voted to support gay marriage, I would have to accept it. Otherwise no, I'd prefer the definition would be kept as is, civil partnerships are sufficient. Civil partnerships basically offer about the equivalent of marriage without adoptive rights I thought? Correct me if I am wrong.

I'm sure they are given similar legal rights, however denying them the right to marry in and of itself is denying them their human right.

And once again, marriage & children are two very different things, your whole definition of marriage is wrong, this is why your argument is completely void, because you're basing it on a fantasy.

Jakkass wrote: »

2) Those who cannot conceive can provide the optimal for children who have been left in orphanages, so yes I would encourage that.

What if the hetero couple do not want children?

Jakkass wrote: »

3) I would support a measure similar to the one Arkansas passed on Nov 4th, in that there would be a marriage requirement to adopt.

4) As in number 3.

So, you would also support a law against having a child out of wedlock?

Danimalito · 12-11-2008 09:44PM

oeb wrote: »

Stop dodging the point.

Are a stable gay couple more likely to raise a 'better' child than a dysfunctional straight couple?

Excellent question. Depends really:

- do you think the ghey is due to genetic makeup? In this case, the answer would probably be the gays .They'd presumably be very motivated parents due to the hoops they have to jump through to rear a child (adoption, or in the case of femme lesbos - a proper roide with me)

- If you believe the ghey virus is airborne, your average sheriff str 15 year old pram pusher would be the better parent. Gotta stop the ghey infection before we all stop procreating ya know.

philologos · 12-11-2008 09:48PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

I'm sure they are given similar legal rights, however denying them the right to marry in and of itself is denying them their human right.

And once again, marriage & children are two very different things, your whole definition of marriage is wrong, this is why your argument is completely void, because you're basing it on a fantasy.

What if the hetero couple do not want children?

So, you would also support a law against having a child out of wedlock?

I disagree with you on marriage and children, I'd say it's a very small minority of cases in which people do not see marriage as a step along the way on forming a family unit. It'd be interesting if we had a survey on the matter. However I think it's relatively clear in society if you think about the secondary reasons why most people get married.

As on heteros getting married, I don't have an issue. I don't suggest that you must have children to be married, but in the vast majority of cases it is a factor.

As for legislating against having children out of wedlock, it wouldn't be as effective as giving extra tax benefits for married couples. Incentives are far more effective in cases like these than legislation, because it's on an opt-in basis, and most people act positively to incentives. I think in many European states where there is a low birth rate governments are giving extra child benefit if they have more children. Now, do you think that is a better solution than saying you will be arrested if you don't have more than x amount of children.

javaboy · 12-11-2008 09:53PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

And once again, marriage & children are two very different things, your whole definition of marriage is wrong, this is why your argument is completely void, because you're basing it on a fantasy.

Jakkass was criticised for basically saying the same thing earlier. His definition of marriage isn't wrong and neither is yours. You don't have to agree on the definition of marriage. That's the thing about opinions.

If he can't impose his definition of marriage on you, you don't get to impose yours on him.

MagicMarker · 12-11-2008 09:59PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I disagree with you on marriage and children, I'd say it's a very small minority of cases in which people do not see marriage as a step along the way on forming a family unit. It'd be interesting if we had a survey on the matter. However I think it's relatively clear in society if you think about the secondary reasons why most people get married.

You can disagree with me all you want, you're wrong. Marriage and having children are two different things, whether one leads to the other or not is irrelevant. That's a fact.

Jakkass wrote: »

As on heteros getting married, I don't have an issue. I don't suggest that you must have children to be married, but in the vast majority of cases it is a factor.

Again with the contradictions, by your definition marriage is all about having children and raising a family! You said yourself that if you don't have kids it's not a 'real' marriage. So why is it ok for everyone except the gays?

Jakkass wrote: »

As for legislating against having children out of wedlock, it wouldn't be as effective as giving extra tax benefits for married couples. Incentives are far more effective in cases like these than legislation, because it's on an opt-in basis, and most people act positively to incentives. I think in many European states where there is a low birth rate governments are giving extra child benefit if they have more children. Now, do you think that is a better solution than saying you will be arrested if you don't have more than x amount of children.

Oh yeah, and it really works too, after all, single parent families have almost been eradicated in Ireland:rolleyes:

MagicMarker · 12-11-2008 10:04PM

javaboy wrote: »

Jakkass was criticised for basically saying the same thing earlier. His definition of marriage isn't wrong and neither is yours. You don't have to agree on the definition of marriage. That's the thing about opinions.

If he can't impose his definition of marriage on you, you don't get to impose yours on him.

I haven't said what my definition of marriage is, only that it does not necessarily concern children.

javaboy · 12-11-2008 10:13PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

I haven't said what my definition of marriage is, only that it does not necessarily concern children.

No you haven't but you have said that Jakkass' definition is wrong. Who decides? What gives you the right to say his definition is wrong?

Gay marriage

Comments