Same Sex Marriage Thread - Part III

[anitram]

Yes, this was INDY's answer:

Who said the earth was going to open up and swallow the population or whatever you expect to occur in ten years. But we could start with this; even though many people including yourself are sincere about SSM and the want for fairness in marriage, SSM is only one part of a larger agenda to the radical left. That agenda being making sex (gender) inconsequential and meaningless.

That is why any argument that men and women are different must be rejected despite its obviousness to the vast majority of the population. And that is why this is now the law in Massachusetts and California and will proceed after legalization of SSM in other states.

Transgender Access to Public School Bathrooms Now Required in MA by Commissioner - Massachusetts Family Institute

So I'm guessing the bad things that have happened is that the radical left has been emboldened?

Like up here in Canada where we have a Conservative federal government in place...

[martha]

So, nothing happened, then?

And last time I looked, I was still quite different from my husband, and the gays have been legally married here for a while now.

[ImOuttaControl]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

do you guys not understand how anti-discrimination laws work?

Yes I do.

You do not understand how the 1st Amendment works. The Constitution is supreme to any state law. These laws are in conflict. Which is why I said the Supreme Court will eventually have to decide this issue.

[digitize]

Originally Posted by INDY500

I don't think we have any libertarians to defend themselves.

I'm pretty busy now, but as someone who is fairly sympathetic to libertarianism, I'll probably try to write a libertarian response soon.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by ImOuttaControl

Yes I do.

You do not understand how the 1st Amendment works. The Constitution is supreme to any state law. These laws are in conflict. Which is why I said the Supreme Court will eventually have to decide this issue.

This is not an issue of speech, I posted the judge's clear remarks on that. The laws are not in conflict -- this is no different than refusing to let blacks at Woolworth's sit at the lunch counter. One's "religious convictions" to be a bigot do not allow you to refuse to sell a product to someone because of their membership in a group of people clearly protected by state law. In some states you get to fire people for being gay, "your existence offends me, you're fired." You can't do that in CO

Given the example you cited before -- a Kosher deli and pork -- it really sounded as though you hadn't a clue how the laws worked.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by martha

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.

[LJT]

Originally Posted by INDY500

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.

[the iron horse]

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/

[Galeongirl]

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.

[the iron horse]

[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. "

[martha]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

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.

[Galeongirl]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

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?

[the iron horse]

Originally Posted by Galeongirl

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.

[Galeongirl]

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.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

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?

[the iron horse]

Originally Posted by Galeongirl

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.

[Galeongirl]

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'?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

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?

[LJT]

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.

[the iron horse]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

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.