Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can't speak for anyone else but the people on "the other side" of this issue has been talking about wanting AIDS to kill gays, when not calling gays perverts so how is that not prejudice?
It's prejudice, and worse. In a way I find Some of the anti-ssm arguments can't be discussed. What's there to say if the bible tells you so ? Or abominations, or it's yucky, makes one sick ? That doesn't mean I need to conclude that All anti-ssm views are from bigoted, hateful, ignorant people.
Let's just take an argument that you and others use all the time. Social science studies 'prove' children raised in ss households do just fine or better than in woman-man parent households. You consider it 'unfound bias' to question or doubt the validity of those studies.
No, I consider discrimination against homosexual couples by saying they shouldn't be allowed to adopt proof of an unfounded bias, given the lack of consistent and credible evidence to support it. And I think to doubt the validity of so many studies telling of a bias as well. Can you even provide two or three studies (that haven't been refuted) that find gay parenting to be harmful? (Hint: The Regnerus study of just a few months ago is both the most recent and most recently refuted study arguing against gay marriage.)
And nevermind adoption; can anyone show how gay marriage is harmful? I think not.
Doubting something is all fine and good. Doubting it for no reason you care to give is downright suspicious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama
My doubts are because of a bias against the credibility of this type of research, not a bias against homosexuals. I can easily see why parents for whom it is difficult to have children/become parents will be wonderful parents. Though I support ssadoption, I'm simply not as eager as you to say people who have doubts are hateful bigots.
If it's for no other identifiable reason... it's for no other reason at all. People who oppose gay marriage are every bit as loudmouthed as those who support it. They have given all their reasons by now, and none of them stand in the face of the evidence. Or, if you'd prefer, none of them are supported by the evidence. So basically, they would limit the freedoms of gay people... just because.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama
I don't agree with you that all reasons for being against gay marriage and adoption have been shot down with logic revealing a rather undeniable prejudice.
Oh really, I don't think so. Marriage predates reliable recorded history. But in 1563, the sacramental nature of marriage was written into canon law by the Roman Catholic Church. Did the Jews do something before that?
read the torah the jewish bible it states that marriage was started at the beginning of time and the human race...adam and eve......remember those two..a man and ...a woman....
But wasn't it a moral issue not allowing blacks and whites to marry. It was certain people principles of right and wrong that prevented them to marry. Thank god for civil rights
whites never stopped blacks from marrying whites..it was only illegal in some states...and in the other situation blacks and whites found churchs to marry them " outside of the government official approval "
so they did live together as man and wife , but didn't have equal heterosexuals rights granted to them by the city , state and federal government......
No, I consider discrimination against homosexual couples by saying they shouldn't be allowed to adopt proof of an unfounded bias, given the lack of consistent and credible evidence to support it. And I think to doubt the validity of so many studies telling of a bias as well. Can you even provide two or three studies (that haven't been refuted) that find gay parenting to be harmful? (Hint: The Regnerus study of just a few months ago is both the most recent and most recently refuted study arguing against gay marriage.)
And nevermind adoption; can anyone show how gay marriage is harmful? I think not.
Doubting something is all fine and good. Doubting it for no reason you care to give is downright suspicious.
If it's for no other identifiable reason... it's for no other reason at all. People who oppose gay marriage are every bit as loudmouthed as those who support it. They have given all their reasons by now, and none of them stand in the face of the evidence. Or, if you'd prefer, none of them are supported by the evidence. So basically, they would limit the freedoms of gay people... just because.
Care to give a reason that hasn't?
I've given secular reasons to oppose ssm in the past, though you might not remember. You refute them to your own satisfaction using your form of logic and rationality, not mine.
Same with not relying on the social science research. “These children do just fine,” says Abbie E. Goldberg, an assistant professor in the department of psychology at Clark University..., Her new book, “Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children,” is an analysis of more than 100 academic studies, most looking at groups of 30 to 150 subjects, and primarily on lesbian mothers, though of late there is a spike in research about gay fathers.
Why should any reasonable person accept research of children raised by Married gay parents, or of ssm itself when marriage for them In The U.S. began in 2004 and is so limited.
It's ok by me when you and others call opponents hateful, bigoted, ignorant; some are, as are some supporters. Which is one reason I don't identify with either 'side.'
I've given secular reasons to oppose ssm in the past, though you might not remember. You refute them to your own satisfaction using your form of logic and rationality, not mine.
I didn't ask for secular reasons; I asked for reasons (whether religious or secular) that are supported by roughly as much evidence or more as the evidence which refutes them, and do not reveal a bias.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama
In a way I find Some of the anti-ssm arguments can't be discussed. What's there to say if the bible tells you so ?
There's the pointing out that the bible tells us many things, but this is the "sin" they feel should preclude someone from getting married or adopting. You can break every commandment and commit every other sin in the book, and the so-called "Christians" have no voice on file saying you shouldn't be allowed to get married, or do anything most people are allowed to do for that matter. There's even biblical scripture (quoting both God AND Jesus) against remarriage if you divorced your former spouse for reasons other than infidelity. Does that stop anyone from getting remarried? When's the last time the church held up a picket sign trying to keep these people from marrying or adopting? If the bible was their motivation, they would at least spend as much time and effort trying to control who gets remarried (since the "sin" of getting remarried in many cases is spelled out word for word) as they do trying to keep gays from marrying, which is only reasoned to be a "sin", technically, since homosexuality is believed to be.
None of this is to mention that there is a biblical precedent of God in his dealings with Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden allowing sin while not approving of it. Did he try to physically prevent them from taking the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or did he just give them a verbal warning? The latter. In fact, he set the tree right in front of them and even let the snake encourage them to eat from it. No part of this "We must keep them from doing it or punish them when they do it!" mentality is biblical, unless you count promotion of the death penalty for this "sin" (at which point you'd have to explain why, again, it's only this "sin" that should preclude someone from getting married or adopting). In what verse of the bible does it say to discriminate against gays any more than psychics, adulterers, or promoters of other religions? Well, nowhere. So no matter how you slice it, this is nothing but homosexuals being singled out. There is no other logical explanation, but prejudice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama
or it's yucky, makes one sick ? That doesn't mean I need to conclude that All anti-ssm views are from bigoted, hateful, ignorant people.
Those who say "it's yucky and it makes me sick" are called heterosexuals. The thought of one guy being sexual with another seems "yucky" to me too, but then that's pretty much how they feel about heterosexuality. Being uneasy around something/someone doesn't automatically make you hateful. Saying they shouldn't be allowed to do this or that because you're uneasy with it/them does.
It's called adoption. There are waaayyy too many orphans in this country because everyone wants some designer immigrant baby. If Gays were allowed to marry, varying by participation, the max number of adoptions in the first year ALONE would be around 150,000. Plenty of gigs out there
in california gay (wo)men can adopt children as singles..so you aren't talking about california are you?
civil rights
plural noun ( often initial capital letters )
1.
rights to personal liberty established by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. constitution and certain Congressional acts, especially as applied to an individual or a minority group.
2.
the rights to full legal, social, and economic equality extended to blacks.
: the nonpolitical rights of a citizen; especially : the rights of personal liberty guaranteed to United States citizens by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution and by acts of Congress
1658
Personal liberties that belong to an individual, owing to his or her status as a citizen or resident of a particular country or community.
The most common legal application of the term civil rights involves the rights guaranteed to U.S. citizens and residents by legislation and by the Constitution. Civil rights protected by the Constitution include Freedom of Speech and freedom from certain types of discrimination.
Not all types of discrimination are unlawful, and most of an individual's personal choices are protected by the freedoms to choose personal associates; to express himself or herself; and to preserve personal privacy. Civil rights legislation comes into play when the practice of personal preferences and prejudices of an individual, a business entity, or a government interferes with the protected rights of others. The various civil rights laws have made it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, handicap, or national origin. Discrimination that interferes with voting rights and equality of opportunity in education, employment, and housing is unlawful.
The term Privileges and Immunities is related to civil rights. Privileges and immunities encompass all rights of individuals that relate to people, places, and real and Personal Property. Privileges include all of the legal benefits of living in the United States, such as the freedom to sell land, draft a will, or obtain a Divorce. Immunities are the protections afforded by law that prevent the government or other people from hindering another's enjoyment of his or her life, such as the right to be free from illegal searches and seizures and the freedom to practice religion without government persecution. The Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article IV of the U.S. Constitution states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." The clause is designed to prevent each state from discriminating against
the people in other states in favor of its own citizens.
Though I support ssm, I don't tend to associate myself with a 'side,' particularly the typical advocates on message boards who toss around words like bigots, haters, ignorant, delusional sky daddy worshippers to anyone who disagrees.
Those words aren't generally used for people who "merely disagree". Those are the people who call gays disgusting, unnatural, abominations, or who constantly pull the gays aren't a real family and don't deserve marriage card.
There honestly is very little rationality or logic behind disapproving of gays or same-sex marriage. It is a purely religious, "tradition", or "icky" argument with no evidence supporting itself.
Factually incorrect. A marriage performed in a church has absolutely no legal standing. Marriage did not come under the purview of the Church until the 16th Century, and most of the world's Protestants opposed it during the reformation. Marriage has always been a legal construct in the United States since the Puritans brought it here in the 17th Century.
incorrect didn't you hear about JESUS first miracle of turning the water into wine ( at a wedding celebration ) that was two thousand years ago give or take a few......weddings were always under the jewish temple or the christian church...thousands of years ago......
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
