| ||||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 right |
|||||||||
|
ZL.... -------------------- How could it not? It clearly does so on two levels: 1) Homosexual families. Women and men are emotionally quite different. They approach life differently. When a child grows up in homosexual home we deny them parental diversity. Furthermore, we deny them an up close view of a critical model of male/female relationship interaction. 2) Heterosexual families. Society benefits when we encourage women to wait till they get married before having children. Off-hand I can think of few things that will so readily impoverish two individuals (mother and child) than when a young female makes the decision to have an out-of-wedlock child. By allowing homosexual marriage we forever sever the link between marriage and childbirth. Marriage suddenly has nothing to do with procreation and is only about how two people feel about each other. ZL: those who think it harms kids, in my opinion, are simply rationalizing their fear and bigotry against gays. ----------------------- This reasoning gets back to what I said on several other threads about how liberals tend to feel their way through social issues more than conservatives. Everyone loves to support the underdog, and when it comes to underdogs Gays and Lesbians are right there at the top of the list (HB53’s comment highlights this point). In any case your “he-hate-them” attitude is not unique and is no doubt a major stumbling block to a fair examination of the issue by individuals and social scientists alike. I could also talk about projection, but I will leave that to another thread. ZL: there is no, to my knowledge, research that indicates that the children of gay couples (or any kids) are harmed by allowing gays to marry or raise kids. do you? ----------------------- Of course: “According to Jeffrey Satinover, M. D., a psychiatrist and member of the Department of Politics at Princeton University, there is no more important reason to prohibit same-sex marriage than the effects it would have on children. And he doesn't say this for sentimental reasons. He says it because it's sound science. "In every area of life, cognitive, emotional, social, developmental ... at every phase of the life cycle ... social evidence shows that there are measurable effects when children lack either a mother or a father. ... The evidence is overwhelming. Mountains of evidence, collected over decades, show that children need both mothers and fathers." (To view some of this evidence, go to the Family Research Web site and read the report entitled "Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples." The report lists 56 such studies, including research done by the National Center for Health Statistics, the U.S. Department of Justice, University of Chicago and peer-reviewed publications that appeared in the Archives of General Psychiatry, Journal of Social Services Research, and the American Sociological Review.)” www.catholiceducation.org Also European studies: “Proponents of gay marriage frequently argue that allowing for it would have no affect whatsoever on the institution of marriage itself. Former Harvard anthropologist Stanley Kurtz, writing in the current issue of the Weekly Standard, reports on various European studies that challenge this argument. Kurtz reports that in those countries where full homosexual marriage rights have been granted, marriage and indeed concrete family structures have been considerably weakened.” “These studies also show that the traditional function of marriage as the basis for stable family environments and parenthood is now no longer considered necessary. Rather, "same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage. gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable." www.freerepublic.com That last study is a little old, but sure hit’s the nail on the head. ZL: i believe in freedom. do you? --------------------------- Of course I do. I believe in giving homosexuals all the rights of heterosexuals (with the possible exception of making adoption more difficult) via civil unions. It’s important to not allow homosexuals marriage because, with a little examination of current events, its easy to see that many homosexuals use their ability marry to gain standing within the judicial process. They use this standing (i.e. being married) to interfere with the right of others to freely practice their first amendment right to religious freedom. I also believe in scientific freedom. More specifically he freedom of psychologists and social scientists to research topics of great social concern free from pressure by others within there field who have a fundamental desire to limit outcomes to those that don’t conflict with their core values. ZL: i believe that my belief system should not be the final arbiter of what others get to do. can you say the same? -------------------------- I have judged 100’s of rounds of oxford and LD debate at both high school and college levels. Frequently, when judging at a tournament, I am saved for the later elimination rounds when a fair decision is most critical. When judging debate the standard is “tabla rosa” which is Latin for black slate. So I can not only make the claim that I am not encumbered by a belief system but I can also offer you creditable evidence that I am practiced at neutrality. |
|||||||||
|
bill however, even if one were to agree that gay marriage harms kids, i cannot see why the would suggest the prohibition of gay marriage. alcohol and its abuse harms kids in a demonstrable manner - are you prepared to prohibit alcohol? guns kill kids everyday, but you seem somewhat against the idea of banning guns. i think that, as i said before, you, and many others, have a negative visceral reaction to the idea of gay sex, and gay marriage, and are just finding ways to rationalize your animosity to it. otherwise, to be consistent, you would also want to ban guns and alcohol which have clear, demonstrable, and profound negative effects on kids. |
|||||||||
|
pecosbill |
|||||||||
|
ZL.... ------------------------- My contention is that men and women are different and that children fare better when they live in a household in which they are raised by both. What’s yours? That people in Sweden the UK and Denmark live longer than people living in Papua New Guinea, Swaziland, Liberia and Lesotho because of longer maternity leave?… Lol, give me a break, there are obviously a thousand different reasons why the former live longer than the latter. ZL: <however, even if one were to agree that gay marriage harms kids, i cannot see why the would suggest the prohibition of gay marriage. alcohol and its abuse harms kids in a demonstrable manner - are you prepared to prohibit alcohol? guns kill kids everyday, but you seem somewhat against the idea of banning guns.> ----------------------- No, you can’t ban guns or alcohol, it just doesn’t work. History is clearly demonstrates this. Ban guns and/or alcohol and you just help the criminals. In short, it is counter-productive. Keeping homosexual marriage illegal clearly is a much different breed of cat because if you want to get married you are, by definition, required to go through the government so it is absolutely controllable. ZL: <i think that, as i said before, you, and many others, have a negative visceral reaction to the idea of gay sex, and gay marriage, and are just finding ways to rationalize your animosity to it. otherwise, to be consistent, you would also want to ban guns and alcohol which have clear, demonstrable, and profound negative effects on kids.> ----------------------- Yes, yes… clearly you are clinging to your “he-hate-them” position, and you are free to think what you please and to offer your distant amateur psychological evaluations. I prefer standing behind positions based on carefully considered logic and clear evidence. I invite any new readers of this thread to re-read my previous post and ask themselves: “who is reasoning logically and who is shooting from the hip?” BTW: “Tabla Rosa” stands for “blank slate” not “black slate.” Sorry for the typo. |
|||||||||
|
Changling Hope that helps. |
|||||||||
|
pecosbill Are you suggesting here that single lesbians who wish to marry are having babies out of wedlock? What, out of spite or something? You make two entirely separate points here that do not necessarily go hand in hand. |
|||||||||
|
CL.... ------------------ I am not aware that lesbians are proliferating out-of-wedlock births. If this is an issue perhaps you could enlighten me... lol |
|||||||||
|
pecosbill Going through this reasoning, I'm curious as to how you would react to a heterosexual couple in their 70s getting married? Surely that can only be about how two people feel about each other, since the procreation ship will have most certainly sailed? |
|||||||||
|
bill |
|||||||||
|
itchy and ZL.... |
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Itchy |
|||||||||
|
and gay marriage you are inconsistent. |
|||||||||
|
pecosbill |
|||||||||
|
ZL... --------------------- 1) I never said that my goal was to foster long term relationships for there own sake. My goal, all along, has been to encourage heterosexuals to wait till they are ready for marriage before they have a child. 2) Homosexuals can still have a long-term relationship without marriage. And they can codify their love via civil unions if they so choose. Its not a question of me being inconsistant ZL... its a question of you having a huge blind spot when it comes reasoned thinking that does not conform to your liberal political agenda. rmannstaedt.... you are on the wrong thread.... go to a gun control thread... there are plenty. |
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
bill |
|||||||||
|
ZL.... ---------------- OK.... let's compare your concept of "individual freedom" with my concept of "individual freedom," Your concept: A homosexual's individual freedom is violated if their relationship with another is called a "civil union" instead of a "marriage." My concept: A Christians individual freedom is violated if the government forces them to ignore basic tenants of their scripture." I am having a dual of wits with an unarmed man! |
|||||||||
|
BTW... others following this thread should note: ZL: <also models long-term committed relationships. but it seems you would prefer to ban them and let gay people model short-term relationships. you are inconsistent.> --------------------- 1) I never said that my goal was to foster long term relationships for there own sake. My goal, all along, has been to encourage heterosexuals to wait till they are ready for marriage before they have a child. 2) Homosexuals can still have a long-term relationship without marriage. And they can codify their love via civil unions if they so choose. |
|||||||||
|
bill and even more laughable that you think a christians individual freedom is violated by allowing spmeone else to get married. that is akin to claiming a vegetarians rights are trampled if you are allowed to eat a burger. you can also have a long term relationship without marriage. but you have a legal right to call it a marriage. equal rights means that a gay person should have the same right. except in your world (and george orwell's) where equal rights means all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others. fortunately, the us population is awakening to this basic fairness, and in ten years it will be federal law that gays can marry. and archaic dinosaurs will have to get used to it. |
|||||||||
|
bill |
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
ZL... ---------------------------- Here is my previous comment: “I believe in giving homosexuals all the rights of heterosexuals (with the possible exception of making adoption more difficult) via civil unions.” 05-Feb-13, 10:13 ZL: <you have no right to decide what they get to call their union, any more than i could tell you your marriage cannot be called a marriage, but instead a civil union.> --------------------------- I would readily sacrifice terminology if it helped society reinforce the idea that women should only have children once they are committed to a lasting union. ZL: <it is really laughable how you have rationalized your idea that you have the right to decide what others call their union.> ----------------------------- I really don’t care what they call their union so long as they don’t use it to gain legal standing to violate the first amendment liberties of others. ZL: <and even more laughable that you think a Christians individual freedom is violated by allowing someone else to get married. that is akin to claiming a vegetarians rights are trampled if you are allowed to eat a burger.> ---------------------------- No, using your example, a better illustration would be a meat-eater going into a vegetarian restaurant demanding that he get a steak…. And going to court if they don’t get it. ZL :you can also have a long term relationship without marriage. but you have a legal right to call it a marriage. ------------------------- That is so liberal an attitude: “I have a legal right to do whatever I want (even if it tramples the rights of others)!” ZL: equal rights means that a gay person should have the same right. except in your world (and George Orwell’s) where equal rights means all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others. -------------------------- Uhmm…. ZL… the basis of my argument is based on procreation… I am hoping you know where baby’s come from. ZL: Fortunately, the us population is awakening to this basic fairness, and in ten years it will be federal law that gays can marry. and archaic dinosaurs will have to get used to it. ---------------------------- Yes… the “archaic dinosaurs” that believe in religious freedom…. One of our founding principles. |
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
pecosbill 09-Feb-13, 05:05 |
Deleted by pecosbill on 09-Feb-13, 05:09.
|
|||||||||
|
CL... -------------------- For the record, I am a Unitarian. There is no moral bias here... just simple logic. |
|||||||||
|
ZL... or as my wife just succinctly put it, you believe your individual freedom is dependent on restricting someone else's individual freedom. ----------------- If the cause is noble (such as encouraging better child support via families), and the cost is low (such as recognizing that homosexuals can't procreate) I support it. Shame on pro-homosexuals for not recognizing this obvious contrast. |
|||||||||
|
bill as for the vegetarian restaurant analogy, it is false because you make the entire country your vegetarian restaurant. and would place your dietary restrictions on everyone, not just those who chose to enter your restaurant. |
|||||||||
|
bill "In every area of life, cognitive, emotional, social, developmental ... at every phase of the life cycle ... social evidence shows that there are measurable effects when children lack either a mother or a father. ... The evidence is overwhelming. Mountains of evidence, collected over decades, show that children need both mothers and fathers." “Proponents of gay marriage frequently argue that allowing for it would have no affect whatsoever on the institution of marriage itself. Former Harvard anthropologist Stanley Kurtz ... reports on various European studies that challenge this argument. Kurtz reports that in those countries where full homosexual marriage rights have been granted, marriage and indeed concrete family structures have been considerably weakened.” “These studies also show that the traditional function of marriage as the basis for stable family environments and parenthood is now no longer considered necessary. Rather, "same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage. gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable." " - Now, would it be a fair summation of your arguments to say that: 1. Children need both a father and a mother to have the best chance of a psychologically healthy upbringing. 2. Allowing gay marriage weakens the institution of marriage itself, which in turn allows for a greater proportion of single mothers. ? - I am not going to argue point 1: it is my belief that you are entirely right about that. - But point 2 is dubious. What we do have are statistics which shows the number of single parents with children is (slowly) rising, but ... why does that happen? You do not have the statistical evidence to draw the conclusion that gay marriage is a factor. What you do have is statistical evidence showing, that gay marriage is getting more accepted in the same period - but that does not allow you to draw the conclusion that those trends are actually related. It is equally possible and, I would say, equally reasonable to make the point that gay marriage is getting more accepted in this period precisely because the traditional view of marriage - as a religious ceremony binding two people together - is slowly dissolving, thus leaving space for alternate family types to gain acceptance. We have just had a rather intense debate, here in Denmark, about whether to actually allow gay marriage in the churches. I have been following this, and there has been absolutely no mention of any kind of study showing that allowing gay marriage will dissolve the bonds of traditional marriage in any way - because, such a study does not exist, in Denmark. What we do have are numbers showing a correlation, not a cause-and-effect relation. - PS (Off topic): I am curious - what exactly are you speaking about here: "I have judged 100’s of rounds of oxford and LD debate at both high school and college levels. Frequently, when judging at a tournament..." ? I know this isn't likely to have anything to do with the debate at hand, so feel free to message me instead of answering in the thread, if you feel like it. |
|||||||||
| ||||||||||
Log in 
