[Sonics2k]

Originally Posted by philologos

Firstly, I don't "dislike" homosexuals. I don't go out of my way to dislike anyone. In fact the Gospel would encourage me to do otherwise.

All I do is disagree. I don't agree with same-sex marriage, because I genuinely believe that a child is better off with a mother and a father. Despite continued attempts to ignore the fact that there's been quite a lot of research done into the significance of parental gender roles since 1980 and even before then - it is not a lie to say that there is quite a bit to suggest that children raised with both mothers and fathers benefit as a result. I'm not going to deny that.

As a Christian, I also believe that the right place for sexual expression is within a marriage, but ultimately that has as much significance for me as a single heterosexual male as it does on anybody else. I need to live as God has called me to, and I believe that God has commanded us as He did for good reason, and that He has our best intentions in heart.

I can hold these views without "disliking" anyone. I find it bizarre that some people think that if I don't applaud their views that I'm intolerant. It's bizarre because if I said that if atheists don't applaud the fact that I believe the Bible, and I go to church that they were bigots, people would regard that at best as silly.

Or even on this issue, if I said that if you don't applaud what the Gospel says concerning marriage, or if you don't applaud the reasons why I think marriage should remain between a man and a woman that you are a bigot or intolerant. You'd say that was silly at best surely?

The same applies to this issue. Just because I believe that marriage should remain between a man and a woman, and indeed I think this is beneficial to society doesn't mean that I "dislike" homosexuals. Or indeed that I'm unwilling to accept that others disagree with me.

I can't and won't applaud what I don't agree with, and I don't see why that makes me a bigot or how it makes me intolerant.

I'm sorry Phil.

I'm wondering where -exactly- anyone, anywhere, ever asked for you to applaud this.

What we are saying is this. Homosexuals are people too. And they have every right to the exact same rights as you or I.

Do I applaud the Gospel or other Holy Texts. Nope, I never have and I probably never will.
Do I agree with racism, Nazis or even quite a lot of the overly 'feminazi' types (as they are known), not a chance.
But, I do respect your, and their, right as a human being to be who you are, freedom of speech and treated as an equal even if I don't personally agree with it.

And -that- is what it's about Phil. Equality, and the right to be treated as an human being.

[philologos]

Originally Posted by oldrnwisr

OK, my patience is wearing thin. Don't think I didn't notice the veiled attack, Phil although I shouldn't have expected different.

I think it's put up or shut up time. Stop commenting that there is research and actually present it. Proper peer-reviewed evidence that actually supports the idea that gender-based characteristics influence child outcomes. All you're doing is making brazen assertions with nothing to back it up.

You are wrong about the mother-father family form and it is a lie to suggest that the research supports your view.

It's not a lie. Take even a cursory look on Google Scholar as to the roles that mothers and fathers have in respect to their children, and you'll find plenty.

I'm done anyway because it isn't as if people are actually interested in considering that there is more to the argument than meets the eye.

[PDN]

Originally Posted by oldrnwisr

OK, my patience is wearing thin. Don't think I didn't notice the veiled attack, Phil although I shouldn't have expected different.

I think it's put up or shut up time. Stop commenting that there is research and actually present it. Proper peer-reviewed evidence that actually supports the idea that gender-based characteristics influence child outcomes. All you're doing is making brazen assertions with nothing to back it up.

You are wrong about the mother-father family form and it is a lie to suggest that the research supports your view.

Moderator's Instruction
Please don't whine about 'veiled attacks' while simultaneously accusing another poster of lying.

Posters should refrain from personal attacks or abuse on each other. If anyone feels they are being abused or personally attacked then please use the Reported Post button rather than responding inthread.

[PDN]

Originally Posted by twinQuins

Just like people of different races marrying "bastardised" the meaning of the word?

So, where can I find a dictionary reference that defines marriage as being a relationship between two people of the same race?

(I thought Ernie was very appropriate given his longstanding cohabitation with Bert).

[Sonics2k]

Originally Posted by philologos

It's not a lie. Take even a cursory look on Google Scholar as to the roles that mothers and fathers have in respect to their children, and you'll find plenty.

I'm done anyway because it isn't as if people are actually interested in considering that there is more to the argument than meets the eye.

No Phil. That is not how it works.

You made a claim, now back it up with evidence.

I will not take a look through thousands of posts on Google Scholar to find evidence to back up your statements, that is what you (or someone else who agrees with you) has to do.

Show us the verifiable proof. Or am I (and the millions of others) just a freak outcome?

[oldrnwisr]

Originally Posted by philologos

It's not a lie.

So you keep saying.

Originally Posted by philologos

Take even a cursory look on Google Scholar as to the roles that mothers and fathers have in respect to their children, and you'll find plenty.

I have used Google Scholar and Scirus and have read as many papers as I could find and all the papers that cited those papers and the relevant books on the subject. That is how I have formed my view on the subject.

Originally Posted by philologos

I'm done anyway because it isn't as if people are actually interested in considering that there is more to the argument than meets the eye.

Fair enough. Doesn't seem much point in continuing this line of argument. You know something, as much as the "God said it, I believe it, that settles it' argument is not a rational argument, at least it honestly represents the views of those who proclaim it. This attempt to drum up evidence to support a view grounded in religious bias is far more annoying.

[Benny_Cake]

A few points. One thing I've noticed on this thread is a tendency to make comments along the lines of "As Christians, we believe that.." and so on. Now clearly, not all Christians believe the same thing on same sex marriage. In fact a number of denominations allow the blessing of same-sex unions or marriages where allowed to by the law of the land (the United Church of Christ, United Church of Canada, Mennonite Church in the Netherlands etc) and other churches, while not allowing for full same sex marriage in their churches, do provide blessings for same-sex couples. Like it or not, Christians who love and follow Jesus as Lord have reached different conclusions on this matter.

The question of whether heterosexual or homosexual relationships are better for raising children is something of a dead end in terms of a debate. Even if there were better outcomes on average for the children of heterosexual couples (and I have no idea whether this is the case or not), it would seem unjust to deny the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples simply based on a statistic. In any case, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence, not least in this forum, that plenty of kids turn out just fine.

So are we reduced to some squabble over ownership of the word "marriage"? It seems rather small-minded if that is the case. In earlier times of social change, such as in the 60s, marriage was increasingly looked upon as a dated, patriarchal institution which stood in the way of "free love". In comparison with that, the campaign for marriage equality is a deeply conservative (with a small-c) movement in many ways, which far from denigrating marriage, or devaluing it, actually attaches real value and meaning to the word - seeing it as a foundation for human relationships and love, best realised in committed, monogamous relationships. Finally I would say that opposing same-sex marriage on the grounds of conscience does not make one a bigot, but just as churches should be free to take up their own positions on the matter, society as a whole should be able to provide a legal framework for people who live in such relationships - and marriage is such a legal framework.

[twinQuins]

Originally Posted by PDN

So, where can I find a dictionary reference that defines marriage as being a relationship between two people of the same race?

(I thought Ernie was very appropriate given his longstanding cohabitation with Bert).

I'm afraid you won't! Though that may have something to do with those "pressure groups" who set about changing the definition.

Guess they should've just left things as they were, huh? After all, who did they think they were "bastardising" the definition of marriage like that by affording others equal rights! The nerve of some people, wanting to be treated like equals; awful isn't it?

[tommy2bad]

Originally Posted by PDN

So, where can I find a dictionary reference that defines marriage as being a relationship between two people of the same race?

(I thought Ernie was very appropriate given his longstanding cohabitation with Bert).

No, you probably couldn't find a dictionary definition but their must be several old legal documents that define marriage as valid only between same race couples.

Love Ernie, and rubber duckie

[PDN]

There is now a Megathread on Homosexuality open for business. So, in order to stop the Forum being overrun by one subject, other threads dealing with all matters gay are being locked.