martha
Blue Crack Supplier
Thanks Obama! 
Same Sex Marriage Thread - Part III
- Thread starter Axver
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
it's now legal in New Mexico. that's state #17.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/20/u...17th-state-to-legalize-gay-marriage.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/20/u...17th-state-to-legalize-gay-marriage.html?_r=0
Galeongirl
Galeonbroad
Great news.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
So, people on the interwebs are saying it's now legal in Utah? For real?
Poor Arizona. Surrounded by gay marriage and Mexico.
Poor Arizona. Surrounded by gay marriage and Mexico.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Well.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
It looks like The Court is tired of Utah telling people who they can love and live with.
Utah court ruling eases fear among polygamists - CBS News
Utah court ruling eases fear among polygamists - CBS News
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
"responsible procreation"??
PennyLanePHINS
Refugee
Hmm so maybe Utah gets added to the 2014 possibility list with Oregon, Ohio, Michigan, Virginia, PA.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Supposedly the unelected, appointed AG is going to appeal the decision in the whole "will of the people" spirit.
Irony abounds.
Galeongirl
Galeonbroad
Cause there is nothing to show!I wonder how the lovely Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints people will respond.
I'm sure it'll be lovely as usual.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
It will be interesting. The Mormons are quite different from a Baptist like the DD guy, or even your typical Peotestant evangelical. They could surprise us. Most Mormons seem to be lovely people.
PhilsFan
Blue Crack Addict
PA? Ha. The GOP owns this state government. I'd be stunned.
BonosSaint
Rock n' Roll Doggie
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2004
- Messages
- 3,566
^Yeah, I would be too. Not in 2014. Unless maybe the Marcellus shale people want it.
PhilsFan
Blue Crack Addict
They're still scrambling to figure out what to do now that everyone hates Corbett. I doubt they have time for any social issues.
the iron horse
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Same sex marriage is a bad thing. It is going to have very negative impacts on
on society. I don't care if homosexuals do civil contracts, but redefining the
definition of marriage is wrong.
Dennis Prager has written much on his opposition.
This is a Dennis Prager column from a 2004 article found at Townhall.com:
“Of all the arguments against same-sex marriage, the most immediately compelling is that it is hurts children. If children have a right to anything, it is to begin life with a mother and father.
Death, divorce, abandonment, a single parent’s mistakes — any one of these deprives children of a mother or father. But only same-sex marriage would legally ensure that children are deprived from birth of either a mother or a father.
Why, then, doesn’t a child’s right to begin life with a mother and father have any impact on the millions of people who either advocate same-sex marriage or can’t make up their minds on the issue?
Among gay activists the reason is narcissism. Though gays already have the right to raise children without an opposite-sex parent and the right to adopt children, gay activists want society to enshrine one-sex parenting with its highest seal of approval — marriage. For gay activists, the fact that a child does best with a good mother and good father is of no significance (or worse, denied). All that matters is what is good for gays.
And what about the heterosexuals who support same-sex marriage? They ignore the issue of its effects on children because they either do not want to confront the issue or because they are so intimidated by the liberation trinity — “equality,” “rights” and “tolerance” — that even children’s welfare becomes a non-issue.
Advocates of same-sex marriage have, therefore, many good reasons not to talk about issue of children. Even the most passionate advocate does not argue that it is better for a child to have two mothers and no father or two mothers and no father.
But, the same-sex marriage advocates will respond, while children may not be better off, they will be just as well off, with two fathers and no mother or two mothers and no father.
This claim, however, is dishonest. So dishonest that it leads to a certain cognitive dissonance among many of those who make it. On the one hand, they don’t really believe that mothers (or fathers) are useless, and they do not wish to lie. On the other hand, they know that they have to say that a mother and father are no better for children than two same-sex parents or they will lose the public’s support for same-sex marriage. Were they to admit the obvious truth — that same-sex marriage means that society will legally and deliberately deprive increasing numbers of children of either a mother or a father — few Americans would support the legal redefinition of marriage and family.
So, same-sex marriage advocates now argue that children do not do better with a mother and a father.
To buttress this absurdity, they repeatedly ask, “Where are the studies” that prove that children do better with a father and a mother? Not only are there no such studies, they claim, but in fact, “studies show” that that children raised with parents of the same sex do just as well as children raised by a father and a mother.
But this claim, too, is dishonest.
As Professor Don Browning of the University of Chicago recently wrote in The New York Times, “We know next to nothing” about the effects of same-sex parenting on children.
“The body of sociological knowledge about same-sex parenting,” he and his co-author wrote, “is scant at best. … There are no rigorous, large-scale studies on the effect of same-sex marriage on the couples’ children.
“Steven Nock, a leading scholar of marriage at the University of Virginia, wrote in March 2001 after a thorough review that every study on this question ‘contained at least one fatal flaw’ and ‘not a single one was conducted according to generally accepted standards of scientific research.’”
So the statement that “studies show” that children don’t do better with a mother and father is as factually mendacious as it is morally repugnant. Why then are so many fooled by it? Because “studies show” has become the refuge of those who do not wish to think. I hear this lack of thought regularly from college educated callers to my radio show who refuse to think an issue through, or to make a moral judgment, without first having seen what “studies show.”
But does anyone who thinks, rather than awaits “studies” to affirm their biases, really believe that a mother is useless if a child has two fathers, or that a father is unnecessary if a child has two mothers? The idea that men and women do not have entirely distinctive contributions to make to the rearing of a child is so absurd that it is frightening that many well educated — and only the well educated — believe it.
There are many powerful arguments against same-sex marriage, and in subsequent columns I will offer them. But if you have to offer only one, know that those who push for same-sex marriage base their case on something factually indefensible — that children do not benefit from having a father and a mother; and on something morally indefensible — ignoring what is best for children.”
on society. I don't care if homosexuals do civil contracts, but redefining the
definition of marriage is wrong.
Dennis Prager has written much on his opposition.
This is a Dennis Prager column from a 2004 article found at Townhall.com:
“Of all the arguments against same-sex marriage, the most immediately compelling is that it is hurts children. If children have a right to anything, it is to begin life with a mother and father.
Death, divorce, abandonment, a single parent’s mistakes — any one of these deprives children of a mother or father. But only same-sex marriage would legally ensure that children are deprived from birth of either a mother or a father.
Why, then, doesn’t a child’s right to begin life with a mother and father have any impact on the millions of people who either advocate same-sex marriage or can’t make up their minds on the issue?
Among gay activists the reason is narcissism. Though gays already have the right to raise children without an opposite-sex parent and the right to adopt children, gay activists want society to enshrine one-sex parenting with its highest seal of approval — marriage. For gay activists, the fact that a child does best with a good mother and good father is of no significance (or worse, denied). All that matters is what is good for gays.
And what about the heterosexuals who support same-sex marriage? They ignore the issue of its effects on children because they either do not want to confront the issue or because they are so intimidated by the liberation trinity — “equality,” “rights” and “tolerance” — that even children’s welfare becomes a non-issue.
Advocates of same-sex marriage have, therefore, many good reasons not to talk about issue of children. Even the most passionate advocate does not argue that it is better for a child to have two mothers and no father or two mothers and no father.
But, the same-sex marriage advocates will respond, while children may not be better off, they will be just as well off, with two fathers and no mother or two mothers and no father.
This claim, however, is dishonest. So dishonest that it leads to a certain cognitive dissonance among many of those who make it. On the one hand, they don’t really believe that mothers (or fathers) are useless, and they do not wish to lie. On the other hand, they know that they have to say that a mother and father are no better for children than two same-sex parents or they will lose the public’s support for same-sex marriage. Were they to admit the obvious truth — that same-sex marriage means that society will legally and deliberately deprive increasing numbers of children of either a mother or a father — few Americans would support the legal redefinition of marriage and family.
So, same-sex marriage advocates now argue that children do not do better with a mother and a father.
To buttress this absurdity, they repeatedly ask, “Where are the studies” that prove that children do better with a father and a mother? Not only are there no such studies, they claim, but in fact, “studies show” that that children raised with parents of the same sex do just as well as children raised by a father and a mother.
But this claim, too, is dishonest.
As Professor Don Browning of the University of Chicago recently wrote in The New York Times, “We know next to nothing” about the effects of same-sex parenting on children.
“The body of sociological knowledge about same-sex parenting,” he and his co-author wrote, “is scant at best. … There are no rigorous, large-scale studies on the effect of same-sex marriage on the couples’ children.
“Steven Nock, a leading scholar of marriage at the University of Virginia, wrote in March 2001 after a thorough review that every study on this question ‘contained at least one fatal flaw’ and ‘not a single one was conducted according to generally accepted standards of scientific research.’”
So the statement that “studies show” that children don’t do better with a mother and father is as factually mendacious as it is morally repugnant. Why then are so many fooled by it? Because “studies show” has become the refuge of those who do not wish to think. I hear this lack of thought regularly from college educated callers to my radio show who refuse to think an issue through, or to make a moral judgment, without first having seen what “studies show.”
But does anyone who thinks, rather than awaits “studies” to affirm their biases, really believe that a mother is useless if a child has two fathers, or that a father is unnecessary if a child has two mothers? The idea that men and women do not have entirely distinctive contributions to make to the rearing of a child is so absurd that it is frightening that many well educated — and only the well educated — believe it.
There are many powerful arguments against same-sex marriage, and in subsequent columns I will offer them. But if you have to offer only one, know that those who push for same-sex marriage base their case on something factually indefensible — that children do not benefit from having a father and a mother; and on something morally indefensible — ignoring what is best for children.”
PhilsFan
Blue Crack Addict
You are going to make a blanket statement based on one staunchly conservative idiot's column from ten years ago? Go away.
INDY500
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Actually, the belief that children benefit from having both a mother AND and father is based on:
1) observation
2) common sense
3) experience and wisdom
4) the acknowledgment that men and women are indeed different
Go away Iron Horse. Go away Phil Robertson. Go away Dennis Prager.
Empericalism is out and emotionalism now rules our minds.
1) observation
2) common sense
3) experience and wisdom
4) the acknowledgment that men and women are indeed different
Go away Iron Horse. Go away Phil Robertson. Go away Dennis Prager.
Empericalism is out and emotionalism now rules our minds.
Its been mentioned many times in this thread, and others, that children of same sex parenting turn out just fine. The only time it is "proven" that those children do not turn out well is when a conservative writes a biased piece or does a biased study that has little research or support by psychologists and sociologists.
Also, its ridiculous to rely on a 10 year old article as proof when same sex marriage and parenting has gotten more support and legalization - and the world has not fallen into anarchy or chaos, as predicted by some.
Also, its ridiculous to rely on a 10 year old article as proof when same sex marriage and parenting has gotten more support and legalization - and the world has not fallen into anarchy or chaos, as predicted by some.
Galeongirl
Galeonbroad
Yeah, uhm, dudes, we're discussing same sex MARRIAGE here. Marriage does not imply having children. So why the fuck are children an argument for marriage?
Grasping at straws there?
Grasping at straws there?
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
Also, who the hell cares?
Galeongirl
Galeonbroad
I kinda do... don't really like it when people tell me I can't get married.
Then again I live in a country where I can get married, so yea... but I feel sorry for the people who aren't allowed to get married because someone else claims a book doesn't allow them to.
Then again I live in a country where I can get married, so yea... but I feel sorry for the people who aren't allowed to get married because someone else claims a book doesn't allow them to.
PhilsFan
Blue Crack Addict
"Allow me to frame this argument in a way that allows me to ignore evidence!" Your logic is a plague on society.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
I know. I wasn't thinking of that. I was thinking about who the hell cares about the same old non-arguments trotted out occasionally by the same old frightened people who think that their "experience and wisdom" somehow gets to determine the course of your private life.
Galeongirl
Galeonbroad
Well sadly there's still people who believe those same old bullshit non-arguments.... and it's scary how much of those believers influence the people with power.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
Their days are coming to an end.
At least in the civilized world. They'll always be able to find homes in Russia or Uganda.
At least in the civilized world. They'll always be able to find homes in Russia or Uganda.
Galeongirl
Galeonbroad
True that, even in the US people are starting to realise that LGBT people are, just that, people.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
I know several children who benefit greatly from having two mothers or two fathers.
It seems that parenting isn't contingent upon having opposite genitals.
IH also mentions that, somewhere, there are all these bad things that are happening now due to SSM. no specifics, just bad things.
List them.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
you see the irony here?
you just listed emotional, "we know 'cause we know," "i just feel it in my gut" reasons than actual empirical facts based on studies and the actual lived in experiences of LGBT families and their children.
the Prager "column" is emotionalist nonsense, ignorant of reality, and designed to accomplish his real goal -- to make money.
i was reading the "Sunday Dispatch" thread earlier.
Iron Horse posts some really beautiful things in there.
it's a shame that kind words aren't for gay people, or their children.
and, finally, SSM and SSA (adoption) have nothing to do with one another. sure, it's likely that with more SSM, more children will be adopted -- which i guess is worse than abortions -- but there are lots of married people with no children, and lots of unmarried SS couples who have had children for years.
so, yes, "go away" is really the best response to self-interested idiots like Prager.
- Status
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
3 Irishmen and a Dutchman Walk Into A Sphere - General Discussion Thread Part III- Latest: Headache in a Suitcase
-
-
-
Hello everyone I'm years late but at least I've found you now!!
- Latest: Headache in a Suitcase
-
-
-
-
