This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="alexside1"][QUOTE="scorch-62"] I stopped reading here. In your exact words: "It's their culture and country and if they agree with it they can do whatever they want."scorch-62This doesn't mean that he him self agrees with it. Read my edit.
I think he's more incllned to not caring due to majority's support instead of excusing, no?
I'm almost certain no one here support homosexual-based genocide.
Read my edit.[QUOTE="scorch-62"][QUOTE="alexside1"] This doesn't mean that he him self agrees with it.Victorious_Fize
I think he's more incllned to not caring due to majority's support instead of excusing, no?
I'm almost certain no one here support homosexual-based genocide.
Except this discussion happened in a topic about Uganda's serious consideration of implementing the death penalty for homosexuals.
Read my edit.scorch-62
I think he's more incllned to not caring due to majority's support instead of excusing, no?
I'm almost certain no one here support homosexual-based genocide.
Except this discussion happened in a topic about Uganda's serious consideration of implementing the death penalty for homosexuals. Exactly. I would say it might be nice to see that kept there, since if people who are aligned a certain way cannot without getting badgered post in new threads, then we might have a problem. Spending page after page telling someone that they have already shown their colors and.. just continue to do so...wut wut wut? I must be in the future! It's still 5/19/11 where I am.
On Topic: Legalize it, why not? An orphan gets a home, instead of growing up in poverty. 2 people become very happy. Anyone who feels less of a man for allowing gay people to become married in "their" country is an idiot. People may argue marriage is based on religion. Well religion is speculation, and faith, so if 2 men or 2 women want to get married then why would you stop them
Ohh yeah I forgot, American "Patriots" and others whom are biased don't have their own opinions. A country is nothing without its people. Think for yourself. Do you honestly think outlawing it is good in anyway, shape, or form?
This is a pretty horrible thing. I can't believe Americans are becoming more and more susceptible the liberal dogma here - that country's morals are going down the gutter.
You may ask me why I say this. Here's the truth of the matter:
1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, birth control and air conditioning.
2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
4. Marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all: women are property, matches are arranged in childhood, blacks can't marry whites, Catholics can't marry Jews, divorce is illegal, and adultery is punishable by death
5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
9. If we look to the word of God, His punishment for sexual immorality is equal to that of murder. Therefore, teaching kids to tolerate homosexuality is equal to teaching them to tolerate murder.
10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy (insurance, government, tourism, banking, retail, education, and social services), suburban malls, or longer life spans.
12. Gay marriage should be decided by people not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.
13. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "seperate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Seperate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as seperate marriages for gays and lesbians will.
14. There is no separation between religious marriage and legal marriage, because there is no separation of church and state.
15. Devout, faithful Anglicans should never accept same-sex marriage, because it is an affront to the traditional family values upheld by Henry VIII and his wife, Catherine of Aragon, and his wife, Anne Boleyn, and his wife, Jane Seymour, and his wife, Anne of Cleves, and his wife, Catherine Howard, and his wife, Catherine Parr. They all knew the meaning of marriage and none of them lost their heads over the matter.
16. Married gay people will encourage others to be gay in a way that unmarried gay people do not.
17. Legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalizing dog marriage. This can be inferred from the history of other political initiatives for gender equality. For example, when American women got the right to vote in 1920, it led to terriers voting in 1925, and when Title IX was passed in 1972 to prevent sex discrimination in any federally-funded school, resulting in the creation of athletic opportunities for girls, it led to Bichon Frises on the basketball court during the Reagan administration.
18. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to legislative change in general, which could possibly include the legalization of polygamy, incest, medical marijuana, and unmuzzled pit bulls. Because we don't know what might come down the next slippery slope, we should never change any law.
19. Legal marriage will inspire gays to mimic straight traditions, such as spiritual commitment ceremonies and celebratory parties, which is currently impermissible for them to do and which they have never done before.
20. Marriage is designed to protect the well-being of children. Gay people do not need marriage because they never have children from prior relationships, artificial insemination, surrogacy, or adoption.
21. Civil unions are a good option because "separate but equal" institutions are always constitutional. In fact, compared with marriage, civil unions are so attractive that straight people are calling dibs on them.
22. A man should not be able to marry whomever a woman can marry, and a woman should not be able to marry whomever a man can marry, because in this country we do not believe in gender equality.
23. If gays marry, some of straight people's tax dollars would end up supporting families whose structure they may find morally objectionable. Clearly, it is more just to continue taking gay people's tax dollars to support straight families, who are going to heaven regardless of what anyone else thinks of them.
24. Gays should hold off on the marriage question until society is more accepting of them, because they are not part of society.
25. The people's voice must be heard on this issue. Therefore, we must have a vote on a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, because we can't think of any other way to discuss the issue.
26. Each state should decide for itself whether gay marriage will be recognized, because there is no "full faith and credit" clause that requires states to recognize each other's institutions.
27. Gay marriage attempts to replace natural heterosexual instinct with a cultural institution. Morality demands that we subordinate institutionalized commitment to raw, unfettered, biological impulse.
28. Gay marriages could very well suffer maladies like domestic violence and substance abuse. That's why we invented the Quality Control department to pre-approve the righteousness of all marriage applicants.
29. Those who support gay marriage aim to overthrow the dominant culture, as evidenced by their enthusiasm to participate in it.
30. If the state performs gay marriages, Christians might become more liberal and divide into more mutually opposed parties. Since the government is an arm of the church and is responsible for keeping the peace in Christian leadership councils, it should not get involved with gay marriage.
31. After gay marriage was legalized in Scandinavian countries in 2004, more heterosexual couples realized they wanted to live together and bear children without marrying first. Banning gay marriage is a good way to prevent this practice, as is banning independent thought and mandating straight marriage by age 21.
32. Heterosexual marriage was invented in the Biblical book of Genesis. Written somewhere between 1500 and 500 BCE, Genesis came as a great relief to people in many cultures, such as China, who, prior to 1500 BCE, sat around waiting for the Mesopotamians to invent the family unit.
33. Gay marriage would allow more partners and children to sign onto the family breadwinner's healthcare plan. Given that 44 million Americans do not have health insurance, it is safe to say that health insurance is not an American value.
34. The possibility of getting a gay marriage might encourage some married heterosexuals to divorce and seek a gay union instead. These marriages were obviously happy and successful, and the justices who provide gay second marriages should be charged with alienation of affection.
35. Gay marriage may hurl the populace into existential crisis and cause spontaneous divorces. Divorce triggers our moral hemorrhaging, but we will keep it legal. It is easier to seek the criminalization of gay marriage than the criminalization of divorce, particularly because most of us have had a few divorces.
36. Gay marriage is tainted because some of the applicants might be divorcees marrying for the second time. We oppose remarriage, and would like to ensure that no one marries more than once; therefore we will oppose the entire institution of marriage, to ensure that no one ever marries at all. That casts the net wide enough to catch all the would-be second-timers.
37. The people have the right to demand to vote on a Massachusetts constitutional amendment against gay marriage. There is no reason for proposed amendments to go through the state Legislature first, as is constitutionally required, because the Legislature doesn't spend all that many paid hours sitting around discussing the legal ramifications on behalf of ordinary citizens who are too busy with their own jobs to figure out everything at stake.
38. The arguments for gay marriage are flawed because Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry has made inconsistent statements about gay marriage, and he is known for his consistency on other issues.
39. Married gay couples will find it easier to adopt children, who might then be bullied and teased by other children for who their parents are. This reflects poorly on the judgment of gays who adopt children with the risk that their child could possibly be teased. It does not, of course, imply anything about the responsibilities of heterosexual parents, whose children only pick up rocks for geological interest and couldn't have been listening when their parents made those comments about their neighbors.
40. Children of married gay couples might suffer bullying and teasing more often than children of unmarried gay couples, because playground bullies are sensitive to the nuances of contract law.
41. It is reasonable and fair to institute "civil unions" that provide all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, but we cannot apply the holy, mystical word "marriage" to this contract. Deriving from the Latin maritare, "marriage" evokes the dignity of the typical Roman man who engaged in licentious sex with both sexes until he reached middle age, at which time he maritared a teenage girl to bear his children.
42. According to the three proposed "compromise" Massachusetts constitutional amendments defeated by the Legislature on Feb. 11 and 12, 2004, the best way to "protect the unique relationship of [heterosexual] marriage" is to institute civil unions that are in every way identical to it.
43. God created the institution of marriage, just after he created 2.9% APR automobile financing, student loans, HMOs, and divorce.
44. We must defer to the President's opinion on gay marriage, since the Republican party was given its authority by God. As it is written: "Republican and Democrat created He them." Paul elaborated: "Democrats, submit to the Republican."
45. In San Francisco, where renegade officials have married same-sex couples for the past several weeks, experts suggest that the city may suffer an earthquake in about ten years. Geological experts, that is. But good Christians don't recognize the opinion of Earth scientists, who falsely claim the Earth is 4.5 billion years old; they get their seismic information from their preachers, who say the earthquake's coming next week.
46. Allowing same-sex marriage could increase gay public displays of affection, because marriage has historically been proven to stimulate couples' interest in sex.
47. Making civil marriage available to same-sex couples could spur the wedding industry, and businesses would sure hate to pay taxes on all that profit.
48. Straight men are opposed to gay marriage because they would prefer that gay men try to be straight and compete with them for access to women, trimming down the pool of eligible dates to make courtship more challenging and exciting.
49. The country can't afford to provide benefits for any more married couples. That's why President Bush would never consider spending $150 million on programs that encourage more straight people to get married.
50. Gay marriage is wrong because children might be led to think that it is right and that would clearly be wrong.
[QUOTE="Barbariser"]
*epic sarcastic list*
Half-Way
im impressed sir. 10+ Internets, you just became my personal hero
*goes back to read the rest*
I can't take credit for that. I didn't come up with any of it.
And will continue to be "worn thin" as long as our society has such utterly backwards laws.This topic is wearing thin.
KH-mixerX
Honestly this topic is so old we should just use this picture as to why the debate is silly:
Yet every time gay marriage referendums are put on a ballot they fail :?
why shouldn't we support.
If a child needs a family and if someone is willing to give them a family, so be it.
reason support gay marriage is because two people want to live rest their lives together also get the same benefits has a man/woman would receive by the government
[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]
Yet every time gay marriage referendums are put on a ballot they fail :?
GreySeal9
You do realize that it is just recently that gay marriage has started to get majority support, right?
Win a vote or it didn't happen.[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]
Yet every time gay marriage referendums are put on a ballot they fail :?
YellowOneKinobi
You do realize that it is just recently that gay marriage has started to get majority support, right?
Win a vote or it didn't happen.What kind of logic is that?
Win a vote or it didn't happen.[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
You do realize that it is just recently that gay marriage has started to get majority support, right?
GreySeal9
What kind of logic is that?
It's not that hard to understand. People like to cite polls that support their point of view/opinion. However, polls can be manipulated in so many ways. Questions can be phrased in certain ways to nudge people to answer one way or another. Surveys can be made (or calls placed to) certain areas that are known to be either liberal or conservative. Further, I am of the belief that often people are likely to not be completely honest with a pollster for fear of being labeled a racist or a biggot..... but when they are alone in a voting booth they feel free to express their true feelings. Of course, that is just something I think as opposed to something that is proven.The only "poll" that matters is the one where citizens go and vote. So when a referendum gets passed by the public, I'll totally agree that "majority of Americans" (in that state) support whatever it is that is being voted on.
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"] Win a vote or it didn't happen.
YellowOneKinobi
What kind of logic is that?
It's not that hard to understand. People like to cite polls that support their point of view/opinion. However, polls can be manipulated in so many ways. Questions can be phrased in certain ways to nudge people to answer one way or another. Surveys can be made (or calls placed to) certain areas that are known to be either liberal or conservative. Further, I am of the belief that often people are likely to not be completely honest with a pollster for fear of being labeled a racist or a biggot..... but when they are alone in a voting booth they feel free to express their true feelings. Of course, that is just something I think as opposed to something that is proven.The only "poll" that matters is the one where citizens go and vote. So when a referendum gets passed by the public, I'll totally agree that "majority of Americans" (in that state) support whatever it is that is being voted on.
So, if you think that all these factors you listed might influenced the poll, how do you account for the change in opinion that has taken place? Surely when th majority didn't support it, these same factors were in place. So what do you think has changed?
It's not that hard to understand. People like to cite polls that support their point of view/opinion. However, polls can be manipulated in so many ways. Questions can be phrased in certain ways to nudge people to answer one way or another. Surveys can be made (or calls placed to) certain areas that are known to be either liberal or conservative. Further, I am of the belief that often people are likely to not be completely honest with a pollster for fear of being labeled a racist or a biggot..... but when they are alone in a voting booth they feel free to express their true feelings. Of course, that is just something I think as opposed to something that is proven.[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
What kind of logic is that?
GreySeal9
The only "poll" that matters is the one where citizens go and vote. So when a referendum gets passed by the public, I'll totally agree that "majority of Americans" (in that state) support whatever it is that is being voted on.
So, if you think that all these factors you listed might influenced the poll, how do you account for the change in opinion that has taken place? Surely when th majority didn't support it, these same factors were in place. So what do you think has changed?
To make sure I understand your question............... You are asking me to explain why polls that I don't find reliable go one way or another?[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"] It's not that hard to understand. People like to cite polls that support their point of view/opinion. However, polls can be manipulated in so many ways. Questions can be phrased in certain ways to nudge people to answer one way or another. Surveys can be made (or calls placed to) certain areas that are known to be either liberal or conservative. Further, I am of the belief that often people are likely to not be completely honest with a pollster for fear of being labeled a racist or a biggot..... but when they are alone in a voting booth they feel free to express their true feelings. Of course, that is just something I think as opposed to something that is proven.
The only "poll" that matters is the one where citizens go and vote. So when a referendum gets passed by the public, I'll totally agree that "majority of Americans" (in that state) support whatever it is that is being voted on.
YellowOneKinobi
So, if you think that all these factors you listed might influenced the poll, how do you account for the change in opinion that has taken place? Surely when th majority didn't support it, these same factors were in place. So what do you think has changed?
To make sure I understand your question............... You are asking me to explain why polls that I don't find reliable go one way or another?Considering that this is the first time that we're actually seeing polls that show majority support for gay marriage, what do you thinkis causing that change if you agree that the same factors (the ones you listed) were part of the equation when the polls showed the majority opposing.
After all, this is not a case of polls going back and forth.Up until recently, polls consistenly showed that the majority opposed. So why do you think polls are showing the opposite results now? What do you think accounts for this change ifthe opinion shift is not real?
To make sure I understand your question............... You are asking me to explain why polls that I don't find reliable go one way or another?[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
So, if you think that all these factors you listed might influenced the poll, how do you account for the change in opinion that has taken place? Surely when th majority didn't support it, these same factors were in place. So what do you think has changed?
GreySeal9
Considering that this is the first time that we're actually seeing polls that show majority support for gay marriage, what do you thinkis causing that change if you agree that the same factors (the ones you listed) were part of the equation when the polls showed the majority opposing.
After all, this is not a case of polls going back and forth.Up until recently, polls consistenly showed that the majority opposed. So why do you think polls are showing the opposite results now? What do you think accounts for this change ifthe opinion shift is not real?
I agree with this. Even though what Yellow said was true and it happens, everyone knows polls are not perfect. Yet they serve as good indicators of tendencies. We can see a tendency of people becoming more tolerant about gay people here clearly and those problems with polls don't really change that.As morbid as it sounds, the only thing that's holding back the full legalization of gay marriage in America at this point is old people not dying. :P
GabuEx
this this this this this this this
[QUOTE="STAR_Admiral"]I am fine with gay marraige, i still don't agree with the adoption part. You chose to marry someone of the same gender as you and that is that. You must accept the consequences of your decision, which means no children since the two of you cannot reproduce. If you want a child then by all means go ahead and make one with the opposite sex. "people wanna have their cake and eat it too" May I remind you that adoption is not a right. You are not entitled to adopt children. No one is. Even straight couples must prove to the adoption agency that they are competent or no child for you. If I were head of an adoption agency, before I pass a child to a gay couples they must explain and prove to me how they will fill the gap in their child's upbringing, maybe a nanny of the opposite sex? TheokhothThere is no "gap in the child's upbringing." You have absolutely no basis to make such an assertion. And there is no right to adopt; there is, however, the right to be considered for adoption regardless of race, gender, religion or sexual orientation. Just because you're gay doesn't mean you're disqualified for adoption. the lack of a mother/father figure is a gap. Men and women are different. There are some aspects of parenting that simply cannot be provide by either sex. Obivously teaching, playing can be done by either. but what if a son needs a father's advice about dating girls.. , or the chats that can only happen between a mother and daughter. etc.
I am fine with gay marraige, i still don't agree with the adoption part. You chose to marry someone of the same gender as you and that is that. You must accept the consequences of your decision, which means no children since the two of you cannot reproduce. If you want a child then by all means go ahead and make one with the opposite sex. "people wanna have their cake and eat it too" STAR_Admiral
well, that line of thinking is arbitrary as ****
i guess if a guy is sterile and he gets married to a fertile woman, he and his wife cant adopt kids. they made their choice to get married. they knew the consequences. they dont have a right to work around this situation. they dont have a right to use a system that is specifically intended to fix this kind of dilemma. why? BECAUSE WE SAY SO,THATS WHY!
That is strange.Surprisingly, more people support gays adopting than gays marrying.
Theokhoth
Though I'm doubtful about these polls, considering the fact that every time a state's citizens voted on gay marriage, gay marriage lost. In light of that these polls "require the willing suspension of disbelief".
[QUOTE="STAR_Admiral"]I am fine with gay marraige, i still don't agree with the adoption part. You chose to marry someone of the same gender as you and that is that. You must accept the consequences of your decision, which means no children since the two of you cannot reproduce. If you want a child then by all means go ahead and make one with the opposite sex. "people wanna have their cake and eat it too" arbitor365
well, that line of thinking is arbitrary as ****
i guess if a guy is sterile and he gets married to a fertile woman, he and his wife cant adopt kids. they made their choice to get married. they knew the consequences. they dont have a right to work around this situation. they dont have a right to use a system that is specifically intended to fix this kind of dilemma. why? BECAUSE WE SAY SO,THATS WHY!
sterility is not a decision, neither is who you are attracted to I know that. but who you marry is. The sterile man was born with his scenario. the gay man made a decision.[QUOTE="STAR_Admiral"]I am fine with gay marraige, i still don't agree with the adoption part. You chose to marry someone of the same gender as you and that is that. You must accept the consequences of your decision, which means no children since the two of you cannot reproduce. If you want a child then by all means go ahead and make one with the opposite sex. "people wanna have their cake and eat it too" May I remind you that adoption is not a right. You are not entitled to adopt children. No one is. Even straight couples must prove to the adoption agency that they are competent or no child for you. If I were head of an adoption agency, before I pass a child to a gay couples they must explain and prove to me how they will fill the gap in their child's upbringing, maybe a nanny of the opposite sex? TheokhothThere is no "gap in the child's upbringing." You have absolutely no basis to make such an assertion. And there is no right to adopt; there is, however, the right to be considered for adoption regardless of race, gender, religion or sexual orientation. Just because you're gay doesn't mean you're disqualified for adoption.
however is this right to be considered binding on the state only or on private adoption agencies as well?
for instance, by law (i.e. the Civil Rights act)religious organizations are exempted from non-discrimination law regarding religion and the CT law that codified gay marriage after the Kerrigan case specifically exempted (over the objections of some gay rights" activists) religious and religiously affiliated organizations (I think mentioning by name Catholic Charities and the Knights of Columbus) from having to recognize gay marriage in anyway or having to allow gay adoptions.
[QUOTE="arbitor365"][QUOTE="STAR_Admiral"]I am fine with gay marraige, i still don't agree with the adoption part. You chose to marry someone of the same gender as you and that is that. You must accept the consequences of your decision, which means no children since the two of you cannot reproduce. If you want a child then by all means go ahead and make one with the opposite sex. "people wanna have their cake and eat it too" STAR_Admiral
well, that line of thinking is arbitrary as ****
i guess if a guy is sterile and he gets married to a fertile woman, he and his wife cant adopt kids. they made their choice to get married. they knew the consequences. they dont have a right to work around this situation. they dont have a right to use a system that is specifically intended to fix this kind of dilemma. why? BECAUSE WE SAY SO,THATS WHY!
sterility is not a decision, neither is who you are attracted to I know that. but who you marry is. The sterile man was born with his scenario. the gay man made a decision.And sterility may be treatable in some cases. Yet a man will never be able to impregnate a man through the conjugal act.
[QUOTE="TommyWieseau81"]Meh, I disagree with same-sex marriages as I think it is against what the church stands for, no problem with gays adopting though.HNNNGHIt doesn't matter what the church stands for.
Maybe not for you but for some people it does. I for one take more credence in what the Church stands for than say what the party (whether it be Democrat, Republican, Communist or what have you) stands for.
There is no "gap in the child's upbringing." You have absolutely no basis to make such an assertion. And there is no right to adopt; there is, however, the right to be considered for adoption regardless of race, gender, religion or sexual orientation. Just because you're gay doesn't mean you're disqualified for adoption. the lack of a mother/father figure is a gap. Men and women are different. There are some aspects of parenting that simply cannot be provide by either sex. Obivously teaching, playing can be done by either. but what if a son needs a father's advice about dating girls.. , or the chats that can only happen between a mother and daughter. etc. Once again, you have no basis to make such an assertion. EVERY SINGLE STUDY on the matter says that there is no difference in parenting between gay couples and straight couples. My dad died when I was eight; I learned about sex, dating, and girls (and boys) from my (female) mother. I turned out just fine.[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="STAR_Admiral"]I am fine with gay marraige, i still don't agree with the adoption part. You chose to marry someone of the same gender as you and that is that. You must accept the consequences of your decision, which means no children since the two of you cannot reproduce. If you want a child then by all means go ahead and make one with the opposite sex. "people wanna have their cake and eat it too" May I remind you that adoption is not a right. You are not entitled to adopt children. No one is. Even straight couples must prove to the adoption agency that they are competent or no child for you. If I were head of an adoption agency, before I pass a child to a gay couples they must explain and prove to me how they will fill the gap in their child's upbringing, maybe a nanny of the opposite sex? STAR_Admiral
You can't judge public opinion by results at the ballot. Referendums are not scientific polls - they are open-access. and because of that they suffer from sampling bias. Moreover, majority support for gay marriage is a very recent development.Yet every time gay marriage referendums are put on a ballot they fail :?
YellowOneKinobi
It doesn't matter what the church stands for.[QUOTE="HNNNGH"][QUOTE="TommyWieseau81"]Meh, I disagree with same-sex marriages as I think it is against what the church stands for, no problem with gays adopting though.whipassmt
Maybe not for you but for some people it does. I for one take more credence in what the Church stands for than say what the party (whether it be Democrat, Republican, Communist or what have you) stands for.
No, I mean it objectively doesn't matter. The church has nothing of value to contribute to ethical debate whatsoever.That is strange.[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
Surprisingly, more people support gays adopting than gays marrying.
whipassmt
Though I'm doubtful about these polls, considering the fact that every time a state's citizens voted on gay marriage, gay marriage lost. In light of that these polls "require the willing suspension of disbelief".
Um, or they just suggest that gay marriage opponents have higher turnout than gay marriage supporters or something. Jumping to the conclusion that the polls must be wrong is stupid and premature.[QUOTE="STAR_Admiral"]the lack of a mother/father figure is a gap. Men and women are different. There are some aspects of parenting that simply cannot be provide by either sex. Obivously teaching, playing can be done by either. but what if a son needs a father's advice about dating girls.. , or the chats that can only happen between a mother and daughter. etc. Once again, you have no basis to make such an assertion. EVERY SINGLE STUDY on the matter says that there is no difference in parenting between gay couples and straight couples. My dad died when I was eight; I learned about sex, dating, and girls (and boys) from my (female) mother. I turned out just fine.[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] There is no "gap in the child's upbringing." You have absolutely no basis to make such an assertion. And there is no right to adopt; there is, however, the right to be considered for adoption regardless of race, gender, religion or sexual orientation. Just because you're gay doesn't mean you're disqualified for adoption.Theokhoth
Studies are limited by the bias of those doing the study and by the very nature of studies which can't examine everything.
But if there was "no difference" betwixt gay couples and straight couples, then wouldn't the gay couples consist of a gay man and lesbian (say Rosie O'Donell and Elton John) and not two men (Elton and his man) or two women (Ella and Portia, who should really leave Ellen and go back to her rightful husband).
[QUOTE="whipassmt"]
[QUOTE="HNNNGH"]It doesn't matter what the church stands for.HNNNGH
Maybe not for you but for some people it does. I for one take more credence in what the Church stands for than say what the party (whether it be Democrat, Republican, Communist or what have you) stands for.
No, I mean it objectively doesn't matter. The church has nothing of value to contribute to ethical debate whatsoever. Why is that. Doesn't the Church have moral teachings. But does Human Rights Campaign have nothing of value to contribute to ethical debate?Once again, you have no basis to make such an assertion. EVERY SINGLE STUDY on the matter says that there is no difference in parenting between gay couples and straight couples. My dad died when I was eight; I learned about sex, dating, and girls (and boys) from my (female) mother. I turned out just fine.[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="STAR_Admiral"] the lack of a mother/father figure is a gap. Men and women are different. There are some aspects of parenting that simply cannot be provide by either sex. Obivously teaching, playing can be done by either. but what if a son needs a father's advice about dating girls.. , or the chats that can only happen between a mother and daughter. etc.
whipassmt
Studies are limited by the bias of those doing the study and by the very nature of studies which can't examine everything.
But if there was "no difference" betwixt gay couples and straight couples, then wouldn't the gay couples consist of a gay man and lesbian (say Rosie O'Donell and Elton John) and not two men (Elton and his man) or two women (Ella and Portia, who should really leave Ellen and go back to her rightful husband).
The American Psychological Association is the single most qualified organization ON EARTH in regards to psychological study. Calling them "bias" and "they might still be wrong" is quite sad.No, I mean it objectively doesn't matter. The church has nothing of value to contribute to ethical debate whatsoever. Why is that. Doesn't the Church have moral teachings. But does Human Rights Campaign have nothing of value to contribute to ethical debate? The Church's moral teachings have no basis in the law. We don't make it legal or illegal simply because the Pope says so.[QUOTE="HNNNGH"]
[QUOTE="whipassmt"]
Maybe not for you but for some people it does. I for one take more credence in what the Church stands for than say what the party (whether it be Democrat, Republican, Communist or what have you) stands for.
whipassmt
[QUOTE="whipassmt"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"] Once again, you have no basis to make such an assertion. EVERY SINGLE STUDY on the matter says that there is no difference in parenting between gay couples and straight couples. My dad died when I was eight; I learned about sex, dating, and girls (and boys) from my (female) mother. I turned out just fine.Theokhoth
Studies are limited by the bias of those doing the study and by the very nature of studies which can't examine everything.
But if there was "no difference" betwixt gay couples and straight couples, then wouldn't the gay couples consist of a gay man and lesbian (say Rosie O'Donell and Elton John) and not two men (Elton and his man) or two women (Ella and Portia, who should really leave Ellen and go back to her rightful husband).
The American Psychological Association is the single most qualified organization ON EARTH in regards to psychological study. Calling them "bias" and "they might still be wrong" is quite sad.Ah its politicized and overrated just like the American Medical Association. Associations are only as good as their members.
but you do agree that Portia should return to her husband no? and by definition there are differences betwixt gay and straight couples.
I don't see a problem with homosexual marriage, but there may be issues with adoption i.e. social ostracization of the child
The American Psychological Association is the single most qualified organization ON EARTH in regards to psychological study. Calling them "bias" and "they might still be wrong" is quite sad.[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="whipassmt"]
Studies are limited by the bias of those doing the study and by the very nature of studies which can't examine everything.
But if there was "no difference" betwixt gay couples and straight couples, then wouldn't the gay couples consist of a gay man and lesbian (say Rosie O'Donell and Elton John) and not two men (Elton and his man) or two women (Ella and Portia, who should really leave Ellen and go back to her rightful husband).
whipassmt
Ah its politicized and overrated just like the American Medical Association. Associations are only as good as their members.
But the Catholic Church is just the most unbiased organization out there.[QUOTE="whipassmt"]Why is that. Doesn't the Church have moral teachings. But does Human Rights Campaign have nothing of value to contribute to ethical debate? The Church's moral teachings have no basis in the law. We don't make it legal or illegal simply because the Pope says so. Nor do we do so merely to go against the Pope.[QUOTE="HNNNGH"]No, I mean it objectively doesn't matter. The church has nothing of value to contribute to ethical debate whatsoever.
Theokhoth
Nor for that matter do we make our laws based on what Joe Solomonese says or Ban Ki Moon over miami or Kofi Annan or Barack Hussein Obama.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment