Thread: Gay marriage.

Page 3 of 23 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 230
  1. #21  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    11,370
    See the adjoining thread on the same topic for my answer to that. The fact is, there's precedent.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    Politically tired. Lanie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,341
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldwater View Post
    No it isn't, what explanation is that for people who aren't Christian or actually want a reason? I could just say in response that there are other species of animal that have homosexuality.
    That's not true. It has been recorded that other species have practiced homosexuality.

    I thought I got Jumpy's quote. Darn. Here's the thing about civil unions. They get the minister of their choice to perform a ceremony, and there's really no difference between it and a marriage EXCEPT from what I understand civil unions don't bring the same legal rights. I don't know that argument well and I'll admit it though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldwater View Post
    Well wait, I agree with you, equal rights but the distinction that marriage is a religious ceremony between a man and woman.

    Why, do they want to change the definition of the word or something?
    So what's up with atheists? Can they not get married?

    Quote Originally Posted by Space Gravy View Post
    I don't have a problem with it.
    Cool. :)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Politically tired. Lanie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,341
    Quote Originally Posted by Gingersnap1 View Post
    Leaving aside the religious arguments (and there are many), marriage is essentially a social/cultural institution for the creation and education of children and the welfare of the elderly. People who are tied by kinship have a vested interest in protecting other members of their family and a willingness to sacrifice for future generations or previous generations. This is good for them and it's good for society as a whole since families promote behavioral stability, economic protection, and some regard for the rule of law. This is true even when individual families don't produce children or take care of the elderly. Enough of the population do it to affect the entire group.

    When marriage breaks down due to high divorce rates, serial monogamy, cohabitation, and single-parenting there is a dramatic increase in child poverty rates, child abuse from parental sexual partners, and behavioral problems in children.

    Both gay marriage and cohabitation contribute to a general loss of status in the institution of marriage. If anybody can get married in any configuration then there's less reason to take the risk at all since the social benefits of being married have been diluted.

    In countries where gay marriage (or a legally identical contract) are in place, heterosexual marriage rates decline rapidly. Worse yet, gay marriages between men are often a non-monogamous arrangement involving numerous extramarital contacts. This further confuses the meaning and usefulness of marriage for heterosexuals.

    These are some of the purely secular reasons why marriage loses status and why gay marriage only adds to the problem.

    I think the strongest argument there is the kids. I do think it's important to have both a male and a female role model in their lives, preferably together. But I have to say I've known several people raised by single parents and turned out okay. I keep thinking another thing bad for kids is when they have two parents who are misrible together. That creates instability.

    As far as marriage itself goes, we're getting divorces at a 50/50 rate right now. There's a number of reasons for that. I suppose homosexuality is one of them, but that's because they're trying to go "straight" and can't seem to do it. Do you think people should force themselves to be with who they don't want to? Do you think a person wants to be with somebody when they know their partner wants to be somebody of the same gender? I keep thinking the immorality comes with trying to use somebody of the opposite gender to live a normal life. Other reasons for marriages falling apart are abuse, money disputes, people getting married too young, and people just not wanting to put as much effort into working it out. I think some people watched too many fairy tales and expect it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by Gingersnap1 View Post
    Leaving aside the religious arguments (and there are many), marriage is essentially a social/cultural institution for the creation and education of children and the welfare of the elderly. People who are tied by kinship have a vested interest in protecting other members of their family and a willingness to sacrifice for future generations or previous generations. This is good for them and it's good for society as a whole since families promote behavioral stability, economic protection, and some regard for the rule of law. This is true even when individual families don't produce children or take care of the elderly. Enough of the population do it to affect the entire group.

    When marriage breaks down due to high divorce rates, serial monogamy, cohabitation, and single-parenting there is a dramatic increase in child poverty rates, child abuse from parental sexual partners, and behavioral problems in children.

    Both gay marriage and cohabitation contribute to a general loss of status in the institution of marriage. If anybody can get married in any configuration then there's less reason to take the risk at all since the social benefits of being married have been diluted.



    In countries where gay marriage (or a legally identical contract) are in place, heterosexual marriage rates decline rapidly. Worse yet, gay marriages between men are often a non-monogamous arrangement involving numerous extramarital contacts. This further confuses the meaning and usefulness of marriage for heterosexuals.

    These are some of the purely secular reasons why marriage loses status and why gay marriage only adds to the problem.
    This is not true:

    Wikipedia:
    "On an international scale, the most comprehensive study to date on the effect of same-sex marriage / partnership on heterosexual marriage and divorce rates was conducted looking at over 15 years of data from the Scandinavian countries. The study (later part of a book), by researcher Darren Spedale, found that, 15 years after Denmark had granted same-sex couples the rights of marriage, rates of heterosexual marriage in those countries had gone up, and rates of heterosexual divorce had gone down - contradicting the concept that same-sex marriage would have a negative effect on traditional marriage.[75]"

    If you don't believe wikipedia, check out the book: Gay Marriage: for Better or for Worse?: What We've Learned from the Evidence
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    Patent Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    1,784
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...3/660zypwj.asp

    Check around, there are plenty of responses to Spedale's work. Wikipedia does not include critics of the book because they have an agenda. Wikipedia tends heavily towards liberal/libertarian thought, and they know how to manipulate the system to ensure that their point of view is properly shown.

    Gay marriage may have revived "marriage" in Denmark and Sweeden, but it has destroyed the concept of families and the social bedrock on which children depend.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by biccat View Post
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...3/660zypwj.asp

    Check around, there are plenty of responses to Spedale's work. Wikipedia does not include critics of the book because they have an agenda. Wikipedia tends heavily towards liberal/libertarian thought, and they know how to manipulate the system to ensure that their point of view is properly shown.
    I would wage, the wiki is less bias than weekly standard, and especially Stanley Kurtz.

    Gay marriage may have revived "marriage" in Denmark and Sweeden, but it has destroyed the concept of families and the social bedrock on which children depend.
    The vast majority of couples with children out of wedlock marry after their first child in these countries. The vast majority of children are growing up in two parent homes. Reality simply doesn't match the apocalyptic babble from Kurtz about the family unit being destroyed.

    Edit: Furthermore, those statistical patterns were already developing down that path well before gay marriage arrived. It had no effect.
    Last edited by wilbur; 06-03-2008 at 02:49 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    Patent Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    I would wage, the wiki is less bias than weekly standard, and especially Stanley Kurtz.
    So a pro-gay marriage professor publishing works supporting gay marriage is unbiased, while a pro-family author critiquing that work is biased?

    I suppose you would make a great editor at Wikipedia.

    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    The vast majority of couples with children out of wedlock marry after their first child in these countries. The vast majority of children are growing up in two parent homes. Reality simply doesn't match the apocalyptic babble from Kurtz about the family unit being destroyed.
    Actually the vast majority of homosexual couples get divorced in these countries, and eat babies at their second weddings.

    Man, political positions are easy to support when you don't have to worry about the facts. Thanks for the great debate tactic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    When you look at the statistical break down, gay marriage has not "revived" heterosexual marriage in Scandinavia. The slight uptick in heterosexual marriages for a brief period of time were coincidental. Some unmarried couples with children finally tied the know while some older people remarried after an earlier divorce. The generation for which these factors were true is going out and they don't pertain to younger Scandinavians.

    For Scandinavians under 50, marriage is seldom considered as necessary except by the handful of traditional Christians left and for the immigrant community. Most children are born out of wedlock and cohabiting couples with children break up at two to three times the rate of married couples with children.

    The development of gay marriage in Scandinavia is considered a major victory by radical feminists. Not because it offers gay couples the ability to normalize their relationship and create a family but because it further renders marriage irrelevant as an institution for heterosexual women. The gay marriage victory offered a platform for voices speaking out against heteronormative institutions and it divided the Lutheran church into weak factions. Since gay marriages by definition did not involve the power issues which "oppressed" women in heterosexual marriage, it appeared to be a superior relationship to many feminists. Feminists saw the destruction of heterosexual marriage as the next logical step to a free and empowered female populace.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by biccat View Post
    So a pro-gay marriage professor publishing works supporting gay marriage is unbiased, while a pro-family author critiquing that work is biased?
    The anti-gay marriage movement (fueled heavily by irrational religious bigotry) are the ones making extra-ordinary claims here, by tying gay marriage to every single social problem they can think of.. all with a bunch of rhetoric and a few factoids thrown in to make the appearance of an argument.

    All I am claiming is the common sense position anyone reasonable person would take by default (unencumbered with religious presuppositions about homosexuality) that letting a small fraction of an incredibly small fraction of the population (2-3%?) isn't going bring about the apocalypse or have any noticeable effect on anyone's life. Crazy, I know....

    Actually the vast majority of homosexual couples get divorced in these countries, and eat babies at their second weddings.
    Thats probably not too far off from what many gay marriage opponents think.

    Man, political positions are easy to support when you don't have to worry about the facts. Thanks for the great debate tactic.
    Yes, you also have been nothing but a fountain of well reasearched facts, journals and articles

    I'm generally am not going to take the time to write a thesis and bibliographies for message board posts about my claims, when google is right there for anyone to use... unless I happen to be looking at an article in question nor do I care to escalate the debate to that level.
    Last edited by wilbur; 06-03-2008 at 03:16 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    Patent Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    The anti-gay marriage movement (fueled heavily by irrational religious bigotry) are the ones making extra-ordinary claims here, by tying gay marriage to every single social problem they can think of.. all with a bunch of rhetoric and a few factoids thrown in to make the appearance of an argument.
    Gay marriage proponents are the ones attempting to change the norm, they should bear the burden of proof. Typical liberal trick to redefine the argument so that you don't have to actually support your own position.

    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    All I am claiming is the common sense position anyone reasonable person would (unencumbered with religious presuppositions about homosexuality) that letting a small fraction of an incredibly small fraction of the population (2-3%?) isn't going bring about the apocalypse or have any noticeable effect on anyone's life.
    So religious people have no common sense? That's nice of you to say.

    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    Thats probably not too far off from what many gay marriage opponents think.
    Again with the ad homonim arguments.

    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    Yes, you also have been nothing but a fountain of well reasearched facts, journals and articles
    Actually I have provided evidence contradicting your assertion that gay marriage helped society in northern Europe. I have shown evidence that homosexual marriage has a higher rate of divorce than real marriages. On the Constitutional/equal rights issue I provided a defense for my views based on established law. If you want proper citations, all you have to do is ask.

    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    I'm generally am not going to take the time to write a thesis and bibliographies for message board posts about my claims, when google is right there for anyone to use... unless I happen to be looking at an article in question nor do I care to escalate the debate to that level.
    As long as you're advancing your own views, you don't have to support them. But when you say things and then engage in attacks based on blind assertions, you are being dishonest.

    Honestly, this thread is going nowhere because you are failing to honestly consider counterarguments. Anyone who is against gay marriage is an irrational religious whacko, and that's the crux of your argument.

    You're sounding like the DUmp.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •