Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

JimiTime wrote: »

If people want to have sex with whatever, thats their prerogative. Thats not the issue. The issue is demanding that we all agree that its perfectly fine, and in the context here, insist that they teach our children that its perfectly fine. You will notice that the man in questions sexual behaviour is not my issue, but rather his insistance on preaching to children that its perfectly fine. I am fully aware that I live in a world of various views and beliefs, some I agree with, others I don't. Being a tolerant guy, I accept it. However, there is a difference between accepting that a teachers sexual preference is his business, and a teacher insisting on teaching pupils that his sexual behaviour is perfectly fine.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

NOTE: Thanks to a heads-up from NuMarvel it seems that some of the links in the post below are now broken or out-of-date so I have updated the list with new links and added relevant papers published since I posted this originally.


Stock arguments

1. If we legalise gay marriage then we'll have to legalise polygamy, incest, bestiality, (other random taboo activity) too.

Slippery slope fallacy


2. Same-sex marriage is unnatural

Forgetting for a second that marriage itself is a human construct and therefore unnatural yet again we have another fallacy.

Appeal to nature


3. Same-sex marriage will lead to the breakdown of society.

Appeal to consequences of a belief


4. Marriage is built on the idea of one man and one woman and should not be redefined.

Appeal to tradition


5. Same-sex marriage is harmful to children.

Aside from being demonstrably wrong, this argument is yet another fallacy.

Appeal to fear


I have omitted the appeal to religion from this list because it should be obvious that expecting a particular religious viewpoint regarding, well, anything to be enshrined in law has no place in democracy. Any way, the links above should explain why these arguments for marriage are fallacious but if you'd like me to clarify further just ask.


Now, as for the adoption question, both the phrasing of the constitution and the perspective of certain religions considers marriage to be the basis of family and that it is impossible to extricate the two. (Personally I think that argument is baseless but it's more useful to deal with it for the moment). You have described gay adoption as a "definite line which shouldn't be crossed". The thing is you're wrong. And here's why:


Key papers:

• Biblarz, T., Stacey, J. (2010). How does the gender of parents matter? Journal of Marriage and Family, 72,3-22.
• Bos, H. M. W., Gartrell, N. K., van Balen, F., Peyser, H. and Sandfort, T. G. M. (2008), Children in Planned Lesbian Families: A Cross-Cultural Comparison Between the United States and the Netherlands. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 78: 211–219
• Henny M. W. Bos, Frank van Balen, Children in planned lesbian families: Stigmatisation, psychological adjustment and protective factors, Culture, Health &Sexuality, Vol. 10, Iss. 3, 2008. [ABSTRACT ONLY]
• Gartrell, N. and Bos H., (2010), US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Psychological Adjustment of 17-Year-Old Adolescents , Pediatrics, 126(1), 28-36
• Bos, Henny M. W., Hakvoort, Esther M., (2007), Child adjustment and parenting in planned lesbian families with known and as-yet unknown donors Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology, 28, 121-129 [ABSTRACT ONLY]
• Gartrell, N., Bos, H., Goldberg, N., (2010) Adolescents of the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Sexual Orientation, Sexual Behavior, and Sexual Risk Exposure Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40:1199–1209
• Bos H., and Sandfort T.G.M., (2010), Children’s Gender Identity in Lesbian and Heterosexual Two-Parent Families Sex Roles, 62, 114-126
• Farr, R. H., & Patterson, C. J. (2009). Transracial adoption among lesbian, gay, and heterosexual couples: Who completes transracial adoptions and with what results? Adoption Quarterly, 12, 187–204.
• Biblarz, T.J., Savci, Evren (2010) Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Families, Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 480-497
• Bos, H. M. W., van Balen, F., & Van den Boom, D. C. (2007). Child adjustment and parenting in planned lesbian-parent families. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77, 38–48.
• Gartrell, N., Deck, A., Rodas, C., Peyser, H., & Banks, A. (2005). The National Lesbian Family Study: 4. Interviews with the 10-year-old children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 75, 518–524.
• Perrin,E.C. (2002). Technical report: Coparent or second-parent adoption by same-sex parents. Pediatrics, 109, 341–344.Vanfraussen, K., Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, I., & Brewaeys, A. (2002).What does it mean for youngsters to grow up in a lesbian familycreated by means of donor insemination? Journal of Reproductiveand Infant Psychology, 20, 237–252. [ABSTRACT ONLY]
• Farr, R.H., Forssell, S.L., Patterson, C.J., (2010), Parenting and Child Development in Adoptive Families: Does Parental Sexual Orientation Matter? Applied Developmental Science Vol. 14, Iss. 3.
• Family Structure and Children's Health in the United States: Findings from the National Health Interview Survey, 2001-2007
• Rosenfeld, M.J., (2010), Nontraditional families and childhood progress through school Demography, 47(3), 755-775
• Crouch, S. R., Waters, E., McNair, R., Power, J., & Davis, E. (2012). ACHESS–The Australian study of child health in same-sex families: background research, design and methodology. BMC public health, 12(1), 646.
• Crouch, S. R., Waters, E., McNair, R., Power, J., & Davis, E. The Australian Study of Child Health In Same-Sex Families (ACHESS) - Interim report

Books, Reviews, Meta-Analyses

The Role of the Father in Child Development, Michael E. Lamb

Tasker, F. (2005). Lesbian mothers, gay fathers and their children: A
review. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 26,
224–240.

Tasker, F. (2010) Same-sex parenting and child development: Reviewing the contribution of parental gender, Journal of Marriage and Family



Consensus Positions


American Psychological AssocationSexual Orientation, Parents, & Children

Amicus brief submitted in support of 9th Circuit Court of Appeals challenge to California Prop 8

Lesbian and Gay Parenting Resource Publication


Canadian Psychological Association

Brief presented to the Legislative House of Commons Committee on Bill
C38


American Academy of Pediatrics

Policy statement - Coparent or second-parent adoption by same-sex parents

American Academy of Pediatrics Supports Same Gender Civil Marriage

Australian Psychological Society

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) parented families - A literature review


American Psychoanalytic Association

Position statement on Gay and Lesbian Parenting


American Psychiatric Association

Position Statement in Support of Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Civil Marriage


North American Council on Adoptable Children

Gay and Lesbian Adoptions and Foster Care


Royal College of Psychiatrists

Submission to the Church of England's Listening Exercise on Human Sexuality


American Academy of Child & Adolescent Pscyhiatry

Children with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender parents


American National Association of Social Workers

Amicus brief - California Supreme Court - Case No. S147999


Legal Decisions

Third District Court of Appeal, State of Florida, Docket No. 3D08-3044
"As a result, based on the robust nature of the evidence available in the field, this Court is satisfied 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."

old hippy wrote: »

Unfortunately, those attitudes are widespread. This other site I post on is looking for new members, a bit of diversity, perhaps some of you might like to tackle ignorance by joining?

http://metrogees.myfastforum.org/Is_it_possible_to_be_bisexual__about3716.html

Pherekydes wrote: »

Meh. I looked in the Football forum and they were discussing nothing but Soccer. :mad:

Pherekydes wrote: »

Meh. I looked in the Football forum and they were discussing nothing but Soccer. :mad:

Links234 wrote: »

Hmmm...



Except, it wasn't. Quinn might want to believe that life is simple and always has been and that things just one or the other, but that's not the case, and for poor children who were born with ambiguities... well, people who held fast to the idea that the world should be simple and there should be only one or the other took upon themselves to perform unnecessary surgeries on these children without their consent, because the world is simple damnit.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Well, there isn't a biblical justification for opposing SSM. Or to be correct, there is no biblical justification for opposing SSM which won't leave you looking like a complete hypocrite and douchebag.

There are only a finite number of references to homosexuality in the Bible and even combined, they don't add up to an argument against gay marriage.

Obviously the most oft-quoted passage in the Bible concerning gay marriage is Leviticus 18:22, and by extension Leviticus 20:13. However, two things are already apparent.
Firstly, Leviticus is a penal code listing offences and their accompanying sentences. The two can't really be divorced from each other. So if you're going to advocate homosexuality as bad on the basis of 18:22, then you should also advocate the punishment in 20:13, otherwise you're just a hypocritical douchebag.
Secondly, there are other offences and punishments in Leviticus which the overwhelming majority of Christians completely ignore while loudly shouting about 18:22, prohibitions against planting two different crops side by side (19:19), divination (19:26), eating pork (11:7), eating shellfish (11:12), eating blood (17:10), tattoos (19:28).
Also, while we're on the subject of Leviticus, just how bad exactly can homosexuality be? After all, only two verses in the entire book are devoted to it. Mould is obviously far more dangerous and offensive to God's sensibilities since a whopping 36 verses are devoted to dealing with it.

For the moment we'll move to the New Testament but we'll get back to it in a bit.
So what prohibitions are in the NT against homosexuality. Well, unsurprisingly most of the noise against homosexuality. Unsurprising not only because of Paul's significant contribution to the NT in terms of volume but also because of Paul's pretty warped sense of morality.
He outlines his stance in several verses but particularly:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
Romans 1:26-27

"But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust."
1 Timothy 8:11

Of course, just like Leviticus above, most people don't put a lot of stock in what Paul has to say about morality. After all, how many Christians really follow Pauline doctrines like:

" A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."
1 Timothy 2:11-12

"Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."
Ephesians 5:22-24

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters in every respect, not only when they are watching – like those who are strictly people-pleasers – but with a sincere heart, fearing the Lord."
Colossians 3:22

"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."
1 Corinthians 14:34-35

So again, by all means shout about how the NT opposes SSM. But be prepared to look like a complete hypocritical douchebag.

Now, to turn to the one story which is referenced in both the New and Old Testaments as a commentary against homosexuality: the sin of Sodom. Many modern Christians interpret the sin of Sodom as homosexuality. However, this is not explicitly stated in the story. Moreover, we have passages like this:

"Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good."
Ezekiel 16:49-50

and this:

"The owner of the house went outside and said to them, “No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this outrageous thing. Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But as for this man, don’t do such an outrageous thing.”
Judges 19:23-24

show that the authors of the OT meant to describe inhospitality and rudeness to guests as the sin of Sodom and not homosexuality. Indeed the passage from Judges above is a close parallel of Genesis 19.

After all, this there doesn't seem to be much of a solid justification for opposing SSM in the bible. But wait there's more. We also have to consider the inherently contradictory nature of the Bible. Take this passage for example:

"And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. "
1 Samuel 18:1

or this:

"I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women."
2 Samuel 1:26

The story of David and Johnathan is widely regarded (or at least was by early Jewish oral tradition) as a homosexual relationship, one which seemed to find some degree of acceptance within the society of the time. It is commented in the Mishnah:

“Whenever love depends on some selfish end, when the end passes away, the love passes away; but if it does not depend on some selfish end, it will never pass away. Which love depended on a selfish end? This was the love of Amnon and Tamar. And which did not depend on a selfish end? This was the love of David and Jonathan."

So, is there a solid justification for opposing SSM in the bible? Well as I said no unless you wish to come across as a hypocrite. But then that doesn't stop some Christians.