Same-sex marriage CXVI...

Sigh. I don't know why those who disagree with me pretend to not understand when I know you do.

There are reams of statistics out there showing that children are far more likely to be poor in a single-family home than they are in a two-parent home.

Therefore, yes, marital instablity could certainly be a factor in begetting poverty. That however is a separate discussion and not relevant to this one, and I would hope we won't highjack this thread.

The discussion that is happening is one that has to happen hopefully without emotional extremism and militant advocacy. Both sides have valid needs, wants, wishes, desires here. The best possible outcome will come from the best possible decision being made.

I passionately believe to just say okay, a gay marriage should be recognized no differently from a heterosexual marriage will have serious unintended consequences that I believe can be avoided if everybody sits down and reasons this through together.

0 Replies

Foxy, this was your own statement:

Quote:

Further in societies where strong two-parent families (mother and father) are the norm, there is less poverty, less crime, and a better quality of life by most people's standards.

...so I don't see it as derailing to address this. Honestly, I see a lot of factors that aren't relevant to so-called gay marriage, but I thought I'd address it anyway. To say that two things happen together is not to say that one causes the other. There is a lot of very bad science -- and especially very bad social science -- based on this sort of reasoning.

0 Replies

Quote:

I passionately believe to just say okay, a gay marriage should be recognized no differently from a heterosexual marriage will have serious unintended consequences that I believe can be avoided if everybody sits down and reasons this through together.

Yes, I believe this, but what do you base that passionate belief on? First-hand experience? Rational arguments built upon solid, non-biased logical premesis? Or do you base it upon tradition, morality, fear of change?

Please note that I mean this in no way to be a personal attack, I'm just trying to understand.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I have a little news flash for you: America is not a Christian nation. Your values are great, for you, but we shouldn't run our nation, and limit people's freedoms, because something makes you uncomfortable.

Cycloptichorn

Where did you get this figure? From the resources that I have found, 77% classify themselves as Christian (thats from religioustolerance.org)

81% of adults identify with one religion or another leaving only 19% without religious beleifs. While that number is staggering to me, I don't see where you get the idea that America is not a Christian nation. This country was founded on Christian beleifs (In God we Trust and all) so sell that crazy some where else.

As for parenting. I am sure that there are gay couples who make wonderful parents. But, they should not get priority regardless over heterosexual parents.

Two gay parents are better than one parent as long as they are actually raising the children. Personally I don't beleive in Day Care. I think if you are going to take the time to give birth or adopt a child, you should take the time to be with them as much as you can. Bringing a child in the world only to have it raised by some one else doesn't make much sense. But I digress.

I don't think the nation as a whole would have a problem passing "Civil Union" laws to have these unions recognized in every state and have the same "benefits" (and penalties) as a regular marriage. I have said it before and I will say it again. The true test of gay marriage will be the first gay divorce.

0 Replies

America is not a Christian nation. It is a neutrally religious nation that happens to have a large amount of Christians living in it. It was specifically and intentionally designed to be that way.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cyclop - America was designed to be Neutrally Religious? You are kidding right? The framers of the constitution plainly put their religious beleifs all over that document. What they intended was that everyone was free from religious persectution.

The Bill of Rights -

Amendment 1 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

And lest we forget the Declaration of Independence -

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator[/b] with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

This country was most assuredly based on strong Christian values. Like it or not you cannot deny that.

As for the prosecution of people that had different religious values - did you ever hear of the Salem Witch Trials? Little girls were able to get people killed simply by calling them a witch.

Oh well, I have a nice bucket of sand if you would like to hide your head in it in hopes that the "Religious Right" will go away!

0 Replies

Dear Homosexuals

Thank you for diverting attention away from the way me and my cronies are raping and pillaging the USA and the world. I know I pretend not to like you, but you are great.

Sincerely,
george w bush

0 Replies

Since when was the current administration Raping and Pillaging - oh wait, you are thinking about William Jefferson Clinton aren't you?

0 Replies

Okay guys. Now that the thread has been effectively derailed I'll go back to work and will hope somebody (else) will get it back on track.

0 Replies

Aww fox? I seriously would like to know the basis of your beliefs on this subject, when ya get a chance to write them.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Not going to respond to my comments about this country and religion Cyclops.

0 Replies

No, that's not the topic of this thread, which as Fox pointed out, is getting derailed.

Start up a new thread on the topic and I will be happy to debate you point for point on the issue, tho Smile

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Done - I await your response to the questions that I asked here and over there.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I think thoughtful, intelligent people do not rant and rave but enter into discourse to find the best solutions for problems we have and to ensure that public policy, however well intentioned, does not have unintended negative consequences.

If what I have said here makes me homophobic in Angie's (or anybody else's) eyes, so be it.

It is statements such as this that make you appear to be homophobic.

Foxfyre wrote:

It is no more reasonable for gay persons to ask the heterosexuals to dismantle a useful and effective cultural institution to include them when they technically do not qualify for it than it is for heterosexuals to say homosexuals should not enjoy the rights of inheritance, hospital visitation, shared insurance, etc. enjoyed by married couples.

The implication is that your marriage will be ruined just because someone different than you can also be married. Not much different than not so long ago some thought their lunch would be ruined if a black was allowed in the same restaurant.

Sometimes I don't know if you actually believe this nonsense, or just like to engage.

0 Replies

Just a quick note because I do have to get back to work:
Be sure the studies you call up Cyclop are broad-based and conducted by a competent group that does not have an agenda. I would be suspicious of any study conducted by a gay-advocate group for instance or a study conducted by an anti-gay relgiious group. There are dozens of studies out there that support an idea that the family structure makes no difference to the kids, but these samples are so small as to make statistical significance difficult to support.

0 Replies

I guess we could snipe back and forth about the veracity of the studies, Fox, but that really wouldn't get us anywhere. Suffice it to say that there is a disagreement in the medical community on this one.

Now, what are YOUR personal beliefs based on? Studies that you yourself have done? Extensive research, first-hand experience? Reasonable arguments built upon sound logical premises? Or something else, something more basic in your life, like tradition, religion, morals, or fear of change?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Only the parties themselves can have a marriage annuled. You can't have your neighbor's marriage annuled. Lot of control freaks around here.

0 Replies

"Popcornreligion, I call it. We have a television-culture, people look at life through the eyes of television. We think life has to be lived as portrayed in a TV-show. If our problems aren't solved in a show of one hour, we get frustrated. There are even TV-clergymen who proclaim: act so-and-so and there you are, miracle of miracles, your prayer will be heard! Join hands, and pray. God, if you love me, let me win the lottery. But that's not the way it works".

- Reverent Paul Akers, Holland, Nebraska.

I read this in a book and I had to share it with you. I hope there aren't many mistakes in it, I translated it from Dutch so...

0 Replies

But anyway, I'm off topic.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Just a quick note because I do have to get back to work:
Be sure the studies you call up Cyclop are broad-based and conducted by a competent group that does not have an agenda. I would be suspicious of any study conducted by a gay-advocate group for instance or a study conducted by an anti-gay relgiious group. There are dozens of studies out there that support an idea that the family structure makes no difference to the kids, but these samples are so small as to make statistical significance difficult to support.

Foxfyre - this is your point to substantiate.

0 Replies

Same-sex marriage CXVI...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know