Post Reply
Page 42 of 47  •  Prev 1 ... 40 41 42 43 44 ... 47 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Strong Support for Gay Marriage Now Exceeds Strong Opposition
2 years ago  ::  Jun 11, 2012 - 10:30PM #411
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Jun 11, 2012 -- 10:31AM, TPaine wrote:


Jun 11, 2012 -- 12:43AM, mytmouse57 wrote:



Once again, I'm not the one trying to deny something obvious. (that gays can raise children)


I'm pointing out that I'm incredulous -- and for good reason -- about the flippant dismissal of something equally obvious -- those above four points.


In specific instance, gays make great parents.


In specific instance, step/adoptive parents are great too. (Thanks for the compliment, btw, I hope I'm doing some good, and making a difference. Like any parent, I go day by day.)


As are grandparents, aunts, uncles or family freinds who might end up raising kids if Mom and Dad are completely inept or horrible parents, get killed in a car wreck... and so on and on.


However, again, if you're trying to claim that in the general sense, that children being raised by happily married, biological mother-father parents don't have advantages that others do not..


... then all I can say is, I've got a bridge for sale.



All I'm saying is that actual studies done by medical professionals have found that children raised by loving, committed same-sex couples turn out no differently than children raised by loving, committed male-female couples. If you can show studies done by actual professionals that refute those findings, please share them.





A: We're splitting hairs. Gay people will continue to have, or adopt, children and raise them, regardless of what you, me or anybody thinks.


I've already told you, as a matter of specifics, as an alternative family structure, I have no beef with that.


B: Once more, citing soft-science "studies" done on sample populations does not impress me. It's a pretty steep call to suggest those four points either simply don't exist, or don't really matter.


In the absence of rational, reasoned arguments and long term, universal proof, simply citing the results of softball studies isn't going to convince many reasonable people of such a sweeping, radical claim.


Again, that strikes me as a quite naive appeal to dubious authority.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 11, 2012 - 10:32PM #412
mountain_man
Posts: 39,650

Jun 11, 2012 -- 7:57PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:

...The people have spoken, democracy works?


That's not how democracy works. Human rights are not dependent upon election results. In the USA we have a way to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority; it's called "The Constitution."

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 11, 2012 - 10:35PM #413
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Jun 11, 2012 -- 6:49PM, Amycain wrote:


Jun 11, 2012 -- 12:48AM, mytmouse57 wrote:
 an example of a guy (or 1,000 guys) doing something horrible isn't really relevant to the main point -- general principle of the importance of both a mother and a father.



well you don't always have a mom and a dad with heterosexual parentage, plenty of women get pregnant from one night stands or etc., and like my mom pointed out in her case her mother died when she was 8 so she didn't have a mother most of her childhood and my point about what a total jackass my daughters father was is relevent she is much better off without him and with her outstanding grandfather as her male influence she'd be in worse shape would be having another totally negative influence if her real father was in her life, it would be a hindrance not a help.




Yes, the biological Mom and Dad aren't always available. Sometimes they die, sometimes they go away, or a thousand other things could happen.


Also, some people who produce children, aren't fit parents. Or, at least aren't interested enough in being parents at that particular time.


As I already told TPaine, I am helping to parent five children. Only one is biologial. Trust me, I know all about heterosexual parents who don't give a sh*t about their kids.


I realize, as well as you do, the world is a messy place. And "Ward and June Cleaver," so to speak, doesn't always work out.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 11, 2012 - 10:35PM #414
mountain_man
Posts: 39,650

Jun 11, 2012 -- 10:30PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

...Once more, citing soft-science "studies"...


Again, poisoning the well. Just because you do not like what the study says does not mean it is "soft" or in any way wrong. You have provided nothing in the way of facts or contemporary counter studies that support your beliefs in any way.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 12, 2012 - 12:09AM #415
Ebon
Posts: 10,148

Jun 11, 2012 -- 7:57PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:

While it appears to be true that the majority of people in the U.S.  support gays getting married when the issue has come to a vote among the people in 32 states they all failed to pass.


The people have spoken, democracy works?



Not really, the problem with democracy is that a good portion of the electorate are just plain dumb. Your Founders were wary of direct democracy and rightly so because "the will of the people" is just another way of saying "the whim of the mob".


If same sex marriages-civil unions are a human-cival right(and I think it is)then I see a problem with such rights being subject to votes and popularity contests-polls.  



Loving V. Virginia defined marriage as a "fundemental right" (whether human or civil is beside the point here). I don't know how much legal theory you know but that decision creates what is called a binding precedent. That means that every court below the one that made that decision (so every court below the Supreme Court) is supposed to treat it the same way. In fact, by strict application of legal principle, they are obliged to treat it the same way. The refusal to do so thus far seems based partly on deference to Congress's legislative power and partly on the assumption that there is something so unique about same-sex marriage that the Loving decision would have had to mention it (there isn't and that's a very dodgy legal assumption anyway).


Since a federal judge has declared a law prohibiting same sex marriage-civil unions as being un-constitutional  it appears that the question will go to the Supreme Court.   I have my doubts has to wether the current Supreme Court will rule to uphold the federal court decision.



I have my doubts as to whether the current Supreme Court (or the 5-justice majority, anyway) actually gives a damn about the law but that's a matter for another time.


And then there is the Defense Of Marriage Act. 


The law passed both houses of Congress by large majorities and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. 


I am not postive but I do believe that the Democrats had majority in both the Senate and the House.  But to pass by a large majority would mean that more than one Democrap voted for the bill.  


However I am fairly certain tha Bill Clinton who signed the bill is a Democrat.



I honestly can't remember if Clinton had a Democratic Congress at the time or not but really, all it proves is that a good president (and Clinton was pretty good overall) can still make bad mistakes. Also, while I don't wish to excuse the moral lapse of signing the damn thing, he was under a lot of pressure from the religious right.


So it is not just slack jawwed, inbreed, right-wing, homophobic Christianist Republicans who want to protect the civil-human right of hetro-sexual marriage.  



Heterosexual marriage doesn't go away if same-sex marriage becomes legal. And opponants of gay marriage come from all social strata sadly. But, as more people become more familiar with gay people, the discrimination will fade.


It is my understanding that Mitt Romney has said:


"I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. This has been my long-standing position, and it is not being reviewed or reconsidered."[


Which is not suprising since he is a right-wing Mormon.



I'm half-convinced he's an android. He speaks in this incredibly stiff way, like he's got a censor sat behind his eyes, editing every line that comes out of his mouth. And he still makes gaffes anyway. Now, anyone in the public spotlight is going to put their foot in their mouth on occasion (I vivedly recall the time Bush Sr. accidently said that he and Reagan had sex) but Romney seems to do it nearly once a week.

He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. ~ Proverbs 14:31

Fiat justitia, ruat caelum

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 12, 2012 - 2:52AM #416
karbie
Posts: 3,329

Clinton only had a Democratic Congress the first 2 years of his Administration. After that, it was Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich out to prove that he was more powerful than the President. It back-fired. He sent Clinton a budget with so much pork it dripped grease, and had been told if it that if the budget wasn't reduced it would not be signed. As a result, the Federal government and all of the branches sent their employees home for a day because there was no money to pay them. Gingrich proved he was powerful enough to shut down things, but he never thought the Republicans would start distancing themselves from after that stunt.


Even back when my son was in elementary school, there were books in the library about "I have two Dads" "I have Two Moms" and "Dad and his Boyfriend". There was a counselor that kids could ask to see or be sent to see, and the idea was to mainstream the idea that it was okay if your family wasn't exactly like everyone else had.


Or the boy in kindergarten who complained when they were supposed to draw a picture of their family--he was one of 16 kids. What was "normal" for their family wouldn't be the same as one with just one child.


Now that gays can adopt in most states, it seems logical to allow them to marry. If you want marriage to have any sanctity in those homes, allow the child's parents to marry. There's your "family values" and "morality'--otherwise you are showing it's okay to just shack up.


the gay community should be allowed to marry and be in a relationship that gives stability to the lives of the children.


They should be allowed marriage if they are allowed civil unions. It's hypocritical not to. It's none of my business how they consummate their marriage, any more than it's my business how a straight couple consummates their marriage.


I have seen some of the same sad arguments dragged out an quoted ad nauseum. None of them have come down to more than hiding bigotry behind "morality" by refusing to give U.S. citizens the same human rights the rest of us have simply because they prefer same-sex partners.

"You are letting your opinion be colored by facts again."
'When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you."
these are both from my father.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 12, 2012 - 10:26AM #417
Do_unto_others
Posts: 8,939

Jun 11, 2012 -- 10:35PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Yes, the biological Mom and Dad aren't always available. Sometimes they die, sometimes they go away, or a thousand other things could happen.


Also, some people who produce children, aren't fit parents. Or, at least aren't interested enough in being parents at that particular time.


As I already told TPaine, I am helping to parent five children. Only one is biologial. Trust me, I know all about heterosexual parents who don't give a sh*t about their kids.


I realize, as well as you do, the world is a messy place. And "Ward and June Cleaver," so to speak, doesn't always work out.




Too bad that, yet AGAIN, you fail to devote ONE WORD to the topic - marriage. You harp on parenthood as if it were a requirement for marriage, when it is not.


Can you NOT even speak to the issue at hand? If you can't, I'm going to ask the mods to delete any/all posts that ony talk about parenthood instead of the topic.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 12, 2012 - 10:33AM #418
mountain_man
Posts: 39,650

Jun 12, 2012 -- 10:26AM, Do_unto_others wrote:

Too bad that, yet AGAIN, you fail to devote ONE WORD to the topic - marriage. You harp on parenthood as if it were a requirement for marriage, when it is not.


Can you NOT even speak to the issue at hand? If you can't, I'm going to ask the mods to delete any/all posts that only talk about parenthood instead of the topic.


That just shows how desperate they are to find something to use against marriage equality. They have nothing to argue directly against gay marriage so they have to derail the topic with irrational side arguments.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 12, 2012 - 10:41AM #419
Do_unto_others
Posts: 8,939

Jun 11, 2012 -- 7:57PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:

While it appears to be true that the majority of people in the U.S.  support gays getting married when the issue has come to a vote among the people in 32 states they all failed to pass.


The people have spoken, democracy works? 



First off, America is NOT a democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic. IOW, The Constitution rules. And, the Constitution says that ALL citizens have the right to Equal Protections under the law. Your glib post simply ignores the affront to the Constitution that voting on SOME citizens' rights and freedoms is. They're supposed to be 'guaranteed'. Subjecting SOME citizens' rights and freedoms to a popularity contest is an obscenity unworthy of America and its promises. Can you say, "Liberty and Justice for ALL"? Can you say, "the INALIENABLE right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?


Jun 11, 2012 -- 7:57PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:

If same sex marriages-civil unions are a human-cival right(and I think it is)then I see a problem with such rights being subject to votes and popularity contests-polls.  



Ahhh, perhaps you DO 'get' it.


Jun 11, 2012 -- 7:57PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:

Since a federal judge has declared a law prohibiting same sex marriage-civil unions as being un-constitutional  it appears that the question will go to the Supreme Court. 



Several Federal Appeals Courts have also done just this as well.


Jun 11, 2012 -- 7:57PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:

I have my doubts has to wether the current Supreme Court will rule to uphold the federal court decision.



All sane people would have such doubts, after Citizens United.


Jun 11, 2012 -- 7:57PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:

So it is not just slack jawwed, inbreed, right-wing, homophobic Christianist Republicans who want to protect the civil-human right of hetro-sexual marriage.  



Mind if I ask you: "protect" it ... from WHAT, exactly? Heterosexuals can still get married now that gay couples can. Heterosexuals have lost no rights or freedoms (to marry the person of their mutual choosing) since gay couples have been allowed to do the exact same thing. (Plus, the Loving v. Virginia decision did not say heterosexual marriage was a right - it said marriage is a fundamental right.) So, please, please explain what heterosexual marriage needs 'protecting' FROM. It's a mystery to me.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 12, 2012 - 1:29PM #420
mainecaptain
Posts: 21,786

Jun 12, 2012 -- 10:41AM, Do_unto_others wrote:



Jun 11, 2012 -- 7:57PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:

So it is not just slack jawwed, inbreed, right-wing, homophobic Christianist Republicans who want to protect the civil-human right of hetro-sexual marriage.  



Mind if I ask you: "protect" it ... from WHAT, exactly? Heterosexuals can still get married now that gay couples can. Heterosexuals have lost no rights or freedoms (to marry the person of their mutual choosing) since gay couples have been allowed to do the exact same thing. (Plus, the Loving v. Virginia decision did not say heterosexual marriage was a right - it said marriage is a fundamental right.) So, please, please explain what heterosexual marriage needs 'protecting' FROM. It's a mystery to me.




He won't be able to answer this. His description of the people trying to "protect" hetero marriage is an apt one, since there is nothing to protect it from.


The hate and bigotry is so strong, they(generic they) can not think clearly enough to know, that there is nothing to be protected from.

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. Aristotle
Never discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow. Plato..
"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives" Jackie Robinson
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 42 of 47  •  Prev 1 ... 40 41 42 43 44 ... 47 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook