Jun 8, 2012 -- 10:35AM, mytmouse57 wrote:

First, the argument is not that "homosexuals aren't equal to heterosexauls[sic]." As people, all individuals have an intrinsic equality.

The argument is, there is no objective equality between a homosexual union, and man-woman marriage.

In order for that to be true you have to first show that anyone is making such an argument and then define "objective equality." Then you have to prove there is no differences in their marriages. You have neglected to do any of that and instead just repeat the argument ad nauseum.

You need to quit getting hung up on religion....

Religion is irrelevant to this discussion.

The point is -- gay marriage activism has essentially tried to hijack the civil rights narrative, in order to give itself credibility.

Marriage equality is a civil right. You, nor anyone else, has come up with a rational reason why gays should not be allowed to marry.

I'm not saying a case simply can't be made for some sort of gay union -- and perhaps even legal marriage. What I'm saying is, the "equality" narrative is mere propoganda[sic].

Poisoning the well?

You can't understand why marriage, as the basic building block of the family, is important?....

SFW! Allowing gays to marry will not change that at all.

Once again, you have failed to demonstrate how marriage to a sexually attractive or pleasing partner is a fundamental right.

You have failed to prove it is not a fundamental, civil, right.

This cannot be reasonably framed as a matter of "equality."

Your equivocation using several different meanings of 'equality' at the same time is not working.

It can be reasonably framed as a matter of freedom of choice, self-determination and tolerance.

Then show some.

Jun 8, 2012 -- 1:18PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

The truth isn't determined by personal stories, or appeals to authority.

Nor is it determined by swamis from India making things up.

Much of what is claimed by the current, afore-mentioned[sic] narrative appears to be irrational and untenable.

Poisoning the well? Again, you accused others of doing exactly what your whole argument is based on; poisoning the well.

I'm not calling people "liars." I'm saying, some things are being stated as if they were axiomatic, or foregone conclusions, when rational backing for those ideas seems to be sorely lacking.

Just because you petulantly refuse to accept the findings of science (psychology and biology) doesn't mean what you refuse to acknowledge is wrong. You've not provided any science to back up your claims; just denials.;

Jun 8, 2012 -- 5:39PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Does that mean you believe that you have a better grasp on what is real or that matters than actual professionals in the applicable medical professional fields such as the American Academy of Pediatrics Link 1, the American Academy of Child Adolescent Psychiatry Link 2, the American Psychological Association Link 3, the American Psychoanalytic Association Link 4, and the Child Welfare League of America Link 5?

I understand that people are skeptical about this subject, but I sure would like to know why they are?

Tpaine, 

A couple of things.

I've never said gay parenting would be overtly harmful. Nor do I deny that in specific instances, it can be just as good, or even better, than instances of heteorsexual parenting. 

Nor did I deny that it isn't a viable alternative family structure. Since I am living in an alternative family structure (blended family), I'm obviously all for alternative family structures. 

What I'm saying is, there is good, intelligent reason to be highly skeptical that in the universal sense, gay marriage and parenting is anywhere on par with man-woman marriage and biological, mother-father parenting. 

As I noted, every one of those studies involves a "soft" science. There are too many variables to accept it with the same weight as, say, research in chemistry or physics.

Having a mentally ill son, who has undergone extensive treatment, I know exactly how arbitrary psychology and psychiatry can be, and how flexible "facts" can be in those fields.

Also, the research "truths" of today have a tendancy to be turned on their heads tommorow.

But even beyond that, in order to accept that "universal" claim, one has to accept some dubious underlying implications, that being:

•The differences between men and women, especially in relation to how they might compliment each other in a parenting team -- either aren't real, or don't matter. (Bear in mind, psychology and psychiartry, the very fields you cite, have noted those differences, and their effects in parenting.)

•Having both a mother and father doesn't really isn't important. (Please note... as I said above, those same fields have also produced volumes of research on related subjects, such as the vital importance a father plays in the healthy development of a girl, and her relationships with men later on.)

•The biological parent-child bond either isn't real, or really doesn't matter. (Please note... okay, no sense in being repetitive...)

So yes, I think you are making an appeal to authority, and resting some broad assumptions on it. At the end of the day, I think all the relevant fields of study have "proven" is that gay parenting can work, and that it does not seem to destroy children. 

That's not the same as saying it's on universal par with biological mother-father parenting, nor would I hesitate to debate and question any expert making such a steep claim.

One reason might be that the child abuse rate in lesbian households is zero percent.Link 6

Lesbian households represent only a tiny percentage of all households. The simple weight of sheer odds dictates there will be "less to zero" of a whole number of things in such households.

 Also, that relates to reported incidents of abuse in the lesbian households we know about and/or were investigated. It in no way proves that all lesbian households everywhere are free of abuse.

Nor, does it change the fact that said households simply can't have the elements of mother-father parenting, a constanly present, directly involved opposite-gender parent for girls, or father for boys.

Again, nice appeals to authority, but there are intelligent reasons to not simply accept those claims at face value as you have presented them. 

Every single 'point' you make is about PARENTING, not MARRIAGE.

Being a parent is NOT a requirement of marriage - which is the actual topic of this thread no matter how many times you attempt to make it otherwise.

Jun 8, 2012 -- 5:49PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

 I forgot to add "who are not direct blood relatives." (Therefore, for example, a brother and sister who wanted to get married could not ride in on the coat-tails of an approval of legal same-sex marriage.)

You didn't need to add it. The brother and sister example is irrelevant since the only purpose of marriage in the eyes of the law is to establish legal kinship where none previously existed. The brother and sister are already legal kin and thus have no need to establish kinship.

Jun 8, 2012 -- 5:49PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

 If you are talking about it as a matter of principle and values, then please provide some rational backing for this notion of objective, universal "equality" between a homosexual union and man-woman marriage and mother-father parenting. 

Because "parenting" - of ANY kind - is not a requirement of marriage. What part of that do you not understand?

Jun 8, 2012 -- 6:13PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

If one thing simply does not work as well as another thing, then why should the law regard them on equal terms?

You haven't proved that same-gender marriages 'do not work as well as' opposite-gender marriages. You haven't even tried to. You've merely repeatedly asserted that they do not. Which is why we dismiss your claim as nothing more than your opinion. Which you're entitled to, of course. But you're not entitled to your own 'facts'.