Same Sex Marriage Thread - Part III - Page 52 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-11-2014, 04:04 AM   #766
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 01:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
So, nothing happened, then?

It does seem as if we've switched from viewing committed gay couples wishing to devote their loves to one another as the enemy to the minuscule number of TG children who simply need to pee as the new enemy.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-11-2014, 08:41 AM   #767
LJT
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
LJT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Belfast
Posts: 5,039
Local Time: 07:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I don't think we have any libertarians to defend themselves.
I suppose I should specify, since personally I can sympathise with the idea of a less intrusive form of government and there are many forms of libertarianism, I should be specifically referring to those that fall on the right, complete free market etc. Austrian School economists, Hayek, Rothbard...Ron Paul who I may agree on the role of the military with, but I don't hold much common ground beyond. To me this seems to be the mainstream of Libertarian thought at the moment and in general I find it extremely problematic.

Anyway this isn't the best place to respond and rather than sidetrack here I'm happy to, and probably best to, in the entropy thread.
__________________

__________________
LJT is offline  
Old 01-11-2014, 10:25 AM   #768
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,251
Local Time: 01:54 AM
Since Indy500 asked the Libertarian question here and it has been asked to me, I will try to answer.

Remember, I did not enter this discussion screaming for a ban on same sex marriage. I said SSM was not a good idea and I think it goes against the traditional view of marriage.

The following is quoted from a Christian Libertarian site:

Government definition of marriage is unnecessary.

Marriage did quite well for millennia without any government help or definition. Federal Government definition of marriage, in particular, is unconstitutional.

Constitutional conservatives, on their own terms, do not have the grounds for demanding the Federal Government step in and define marriage.

The power to define marriage is a power that no government should have.

A government powerful enough to define things the way you like is also powerful enough to take all your definitions away.

Moreover, it becomes precedent for all kinds of terrible positive law.

Libertarians in general should not think marriage “licensing” by the government is any better than occupation licenses by the government, and are not within the purview of governmental power.

If government has any purpose at all in this arena of life, it is to be a storehouse for consensually agreed upon contracts, of which Christian marriage or other arrangements such as those between homosexuals could be included.

However, it is not up to the state to decide how to regulate such contracts. Christian marriage is an institution of the church, not that of the government.

Therefore, the government should have no power to tell churches what they can and cannot do regarding Christian marriage. Similarly, it is not the right of Christians, regardless of their view of homosexuality, to tell others how they are to arrange their own consensual contracts.

Therefore, if a homosexual couple wishes to file a contract and they want to call it a “marriage contract,” then that is their prerogative and I have no right to forbid them from doing so. If they want to call it a “civil union” instead, that’s fine as well.

With regards to any tax benefits, of course I support any and all measures to reduce the sum total that the government steals from people, provided that spending is also reduced in corresponding measure rather than the shortfall being printed out of thin air. Taxation and government spending are always bad.

However, not forbidding certain behavior should not be conflated with not approving of certain behavior. Being permissive of lifestyle choices does not entail me agreeing that the lifestyle choice is morally right before God.

Such non-agreement is my religious perspective, and thus cannot be used as a rationale to coerce others. To me, this is the essence of being socially tolerant: though I disagree with a behavior I shall not raise an aggressive hand against it. I would use a similar argument to defend any non-aggressive behavior even if I believed it to be wrong.


http://libertarianchristians.com/
__________________
the iron horse is offline  
Old 01-11-2014, 12:08 PM   #769
Galeonbroad
 
Galeongirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Schoo Fishtank
Posts: 70,773
Local Time: 07:54 AM
If the government shouldn't have the power to define marriage, then who should?

We're talking about marriage here. Not Christian marriage. Marriage that is acknowledged via law and gives all the benefits straight marriages have too. Christian marriages are done in churches, and if someone wants to do that, by all means do it. But that is not the same.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraceRyan View Post
And if U2 EVER did Hawkmoon live....and the version from the Lovetown Tour, my uterus would leave my body and fling itself at Bono - for realz.
Don't worry baby, it's gonna be all right. Uncertainty can be a guiding light...
Galeongirl is offline  
Old 01-11-2014, 12:31 PM   #770
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,251
Local Time: 01:54 AM
[QUOTE=Galeongirl;7743859]If the government shouldn't have the power to define marriage, then who should?

We're talking about marriage here. Not Christian marriage. Marriage that is acknowledged via law and gives all the benefits straight marriages have too. Christian marriages are done in churches, and if someone wants to do that, by all means do it. But that is not the same.[/QUOTE

Did you read my post?

"Therefore, if a homosexual couple wishes to file a contract and they want to call it a “marriage contract,” then that is their prerogative and I have no right to forbid them from doing so. If they want to call it a “civil union” instead, that’s fine as well. "
__________________
the iron horse is offline  
Old 01-11-2014, 12:57 PM   #771
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 10:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
It does seem as if we've switched from viewing committed gay couples wishing to devote their loves to one another as the enemy to the minuscule number of TG children who simply need to pee as the new enemy.
It seems so simple when you put it this way, doesn't it.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 01-11-2014, 01:18 PM   #772
Galeonbroad
 
Galeongirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Schoo Fishtank
Posts: 70,773
Local Time: 07:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galeongirl View Post
If the government shouldn't have the power to define marriage, then who should?

We're talking about marriage here. Not Christian marriage. Marriage that is acknowledged via law and gives all the benefits straight marriages have too. Christian marriages are done in churches, and if someone wants to do that, by all means do it. But that is not the same.
Did you read my post?

"Therefore, if a homosexual couple wishes to file a contract and they want to call it a “marriage contract,” then that is their prerogative and I have no right to forbid them from doing so. If they want to call it a “civil union” instead, that’s fine as well. "
I did read it, but that wasn't quite clear for me. So in essence, you're not per se against SSM, as long as it's the legal marriage and not the church wedding?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraceRyan View Post
And if U2 EVER did Hawkmoon live....and the version from the Lovetown Tour, my uterus would leave my body and fling itself at Bono - for realz.
Don't worry baby, it's gonna be all right. Uncertainty can be a guiding light...
Galeongirl is offline  
Old 01-11-2014, 01:37 PM   #773
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,251
Local Time: 01:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galeongirl View Post
I did read it, but that wasn't quite clear for me. So in essence, you're not per se against SSM, as long as it's the legal marriage and not the church wedding?
Thank for your reply and question.

From my post and another comment:

"However, not forbidding certain behavior should not be conflated with not approving of certain behavior. Being permissive of lifestyle choices does not entail me agreeing that the lifestyle choice is morally right before God."

I am against SSM based on my Christian faith, historical traditional definitions, and the harm that, I think, will and have occurred to children and society.

My main view I have been trying to point out here is that I disagree with the Federal government and courts forcing the baker (who views his works as expressions of speech) to bake the cake or face a fine or jail time. He believes to do that would force him to go against his religious beliefs. Even if one disagrees with him, shouldn't he have that freedom? The U.S. Bill of Rights, I think, allows him and all of us this freedom.
__________________
the iron horse is offline  
Old 01-11-2014, 02:20 PM   #774
Galeonbroad
 
Galeongirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Schoo Fishtank
Posts: 70,773
Local Time: 07:54 AM
Why would SSM pose a thread to children and society?

We're talking about a marriage between two people who love each other here. Nobody is saying anything about the couple having children or not. That's not the question. The marriage alone is the quesion.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraceRyan View Post
And if U2 EVER did Hawkmoon live....and the version from the Lovetown Tour, my uterus would leave my body and fling itself at Bono - for realz.
Don't worry baby, it's gonna be all right. Uncertainty can be a guiding light...
Galeongirl is offline  
Old 01-11-2014, 02:51 PM   #775
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 01:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse View Post
Thank for your reply and question.



From my post and another comment:



"However, not forbidding certain behavior should not be conflated with not approving of certain behavior. Being permissive of lifestyle choices does not entail me agreeing that the lifestyle choice is morally right before God."



I am against SSM based on my Christian faith, historical traditional definitions, and the harm that, I think, will and have occurred to children and society.



My main view I have been trying to point out here is that I disagree with the Federal government and courts forcing the baker (who views his works as expressions of speech) to bake the cake or face a fine or jail time. He believes to do that would force him to go against his religious beliefs. Even if one disagrees with him, shouldn't he have that freedom? The U.S. Bill of Rights, I think, allows him and all of us this freedom.



Again, please let me know, how will my impending SSM harm children, both today and in the future?

I love children. We may or may not have one someday. I'd like to keep them all from harm.

How will my getting married harm anyone?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-11-2014, 04:52 PM   #776
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,251
Local Time: 01:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galeongirl View Post
Why would SSM pose a thread to children and society?

We're talking about a marriage between two people who love each other here. Nobody is saying anything about the couple having children or not. That's not the question. The marriage alone is the quesion.
I have answered the question, I think, on why I am against SSM. Children and society are a part of this.

Previously I posted this link to help answer that question:
Growing Up With Two Moms: The Untold Children’s View | Public Discourse

Here is a passage:

Forty-one years I’d lived, and nobody—least of all gay activists—had wanted me to speak honestly about the complicated gay threads of my life. If for no other reason than this, Mark Regnerus deserves tremendous credit—and the gay community ought to be crediting him rather than trying to silence him.

Regnerus’s study identified 248 adult children of parents who had same-sex romantic relationships. Offered a chance to provide frank responses with the hindsight of adulthood, they gave reports unfavorable to the gay marriage equality agenda... Each of those 248 is a human story, no doubt with many complexities.

Here is the study he is commenting on:
The Kids Aren’t All Right: New Family Structures and the “No Differences” Claim | Public Discourse

It's a long read, but here is a part of the concluding remarks:
Taken together, the findings of the NFSS disprove the claim that there are no differences between children raised by parents who have same-sex relationships and children raised in intact, biological, married families when it comes to the social, emotional, and relational outcomes of their children.
__________________
the iron horse is offline  
Old 01-11-2014, 04:55 PM   #777
Galeonbroad
 
Galeongirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Schoo Fishtank
Posts: 70,773
Local Time: 07:54 AM
Sorry but as I said in my previous post, marriage has nothing to do with children. WE're discussing marriage here, with the benefits that come with it. Not children. There's a SSadoption thread somewhere that might suit your fears more. But why do you have to incorporate children into it? What if I want to get married and never have children? Should I still not be allowed to because of 'the children'?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraceRyan View Post
And if U2 EVER did Hawkmoon live....and the version from the Lovetown Tour, my uterus would leave my body and fling itself at Bono - for realz.
Don't worry baby, it's gonna be all right. Uncertainty can be a guiding light...
Galeongirl is offline  
Old 01-11-2014, 05:26 PM   #778
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 01:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse View Post
I have answered the question, I think, on why I am against SSM. Children and society are a part of this.



Previously I posted this link to help answer that question:

Growing Up With Two Moms: The Untold Children’s View | Public Discourse



Here is a passage:



Forty-one years I’d lived, and nobody—least of all gay activists—had wanted me to speak honestly about the complicated gay threads of my life. If for no other reason than this, Mark Regnerus deserves tremendous credit—and the gay community ought to be crediting him rather than trying to silence him.



Regnerus’s study identified 248 adult children of parents who had same-sex romantic relationships. Offered a chance to provide frank responses with the hindsight of adulthood, they gave reports unfavorable to the gay marriage equality agenda... Each of those 248 is a human story, no doubt with many complexities.



Here is the study he is commenting on:

The Kids Aren’t All Right: New Family Structures and the “No Differences” Claim | Public Discourse



It's a long read, but here is a part of the concluding remarks:

Taken together, the findings of the NFSS disprove the claim that there are no differences between children raised by parents who have same-sex relationships and children raised in intact, biological, married families when it comes to the social, emotional, and relational outcomes of their children.


First, same-sex parenting and same-sex marriage are different things. One does not have to be a parent to get married, and vice versa.

Second, going to The Witherspoon Institute for "research" is a bit like asking the KKK for research on black people.

Got any mainstream, non-religious sources?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-11-2014, 05:28 PM   #779
LJT
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
LJT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Belfast
Posts: 5,039
Local Time: 07:54 AM
The Mark Regnerus study has many problems, the least of which is whom he defines as being homosexual. Basically any parent who had at any time a relationship or one night stand fell within the gay father or lesbian mother categories, the parents were specifically never asked to qualify their sexual orientation. The majority of the children did not live with the gay couple for the majority of their childhood. Only 2 I believe spent their whole childhood with their gay parents. I'd say the study looked more at family breakup than anything to do with gay parenting. Plus while he accounted for state gay friendliness, we are talking about interviewing grown children from 18 to I think 39. Nowhere was particularly gay friendly nearly 40 years ago.

Lastly one study does not proof make, what you need is many likely on an international scale to control for local attitudes and the like.
__________________
LJT is offline  
Old 01-11-2014, 05:40 PM   #780
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,251
Local Time: 01:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
First, same-sex parenting and same-sex marriage are different things. One does not have to be a parent to get married, and vice versa.

Second, going to The Witherspoon Institute for "research" is a bit like asking the KKK for research on black people.

Got any mainstream, non-religious sources?
To be fair and balanced, as some say, here is the CBS news coverage of the study and the fire it has drawn from some of today's experts.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kids-of-...-from-experts/


And yes, there are dozens of new studies, by experts, that claim there are not any differences or harm to children raised by SS couples. A few sites even claim the children fare better in a SS family.

I'm positive the KKK could not do a nonbiased study, but I guess we can trust studies conducted by Left institutions and GL studies.

This is not the first time in history studies and surveys have contradicted each other.
__________________

__________________
the iron horse is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com