<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Research studies, often conducted by individuals or organizations with a vested interest in the outcome, are contradictory. Studies linked to conservative political and religious groups show negative effects on children of **** and lesbian parents; while, studies which support homosexual parenting are said to reflect the bias of those who are themselves **** or who support **** rights. Clearly, what are needed are definitive studies that would follow larger numbers of children over a long period of time. That research, when completed, will provide more definitive information for the debate.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Research studies, often conducted by individuals or organizations with a vested interest in the outcome, are contradictory. Studies linked to conservative political and religious groups show negative effects on children of **** and lesbian parents; while, studies which support homosexual parenting are said to reflect the bias of those who are themselves **** or who support **** rights. Clearly, what are needed are definitive studies that would follow larger numbers of children over a long period of time. That research, when completed, will provide more definitive information for the debate.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Discusion Forum Rule Number 5.: Respect other peoples newssources. It is so tempting. Tell someone that you don't believe the newspaper they cited articles from, and the uncomfortably consistent argumentation they built up falls together, leaving you and your notion secure again. Don't ever try that. Discrediting a newssource requires more than that one article from three years ago that wasn't entirely correct, or an obvious political bias - you'll find few newssites without one. Accept that Leftys will often quote facts found on Salon.org, while Conservatives will cite FOX. Unless you can find contradicting factual data, you will have to accept the newssources validity and instead go the hard way, argumentatively tackling the points based upon those articles.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unless you have some hard data at hand that contradicts the studies I cited, lets move on.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
Okay.. that's almost funny. You look at 11 male pairs and 47 female pairs... and ask why the kids are on average less-interested in sports? </stereotype>
Also, the social studies rating was higher than either of the two groups, which could be construed as a greater level of empathy, meaning that the kids would be *more* likely to be well-adjusted individuals.
And as for the 'three times as likely', there /are/ a few aspects to that... obviously, the 'nurture' aspect will be leant toward an acceptance of homosexual activity as the norm, rather than the (accepted?) exception. That with a combination of acceptance toward it rather than stigmatization and repression would make sense that it occurred more often. Admittedly some were likely to be seeking parental approval, but I'd guess that more often it would be that they were allowed to actually think about how they felt and who they were attracted to.
Here's the thing guys. Looking at the situation regarding whether or not children raised by homosexual couples are themselves likely to lean towards homosexuality:
1) If you believe that sexual preference is solely genetics based then the sexual orientation of the parents is irrelevant.
2) If you believe that sexual preference is made up of a number of factors including things such as genetics and environmental components, then :
What is wrong - aside from religious beliefs - with homosexuality anyway ?
3) If you believe that ultimately homosexuality is a "choice" then the children of homosexual parents are free to decide things for themselves now aren't they ?
So really, the only reasoning against homosexual parenting is religious in origin. This is hardly surprising given the outcome of the last major discussion on this topic.
More on topic: Again, the only reasoning for not allowing homosexual marriage is religious in origin.
<!--QuoteBegin-FilthyLarry+Feb 21 2004, 02:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ Feb 21 2004, 02:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> More on topic: Again, the only reasoning for not allowing homosexual marriage is religious in origin. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ok. If we're going to go that far, why not go all the way? See my topic here: <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=63576' target='_blank'>http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/in...showtopic=63576</a> .
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+Feb 22 2004, 01:24 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Feb 22 2004, 01:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Problem, Legionnaired. It's called 'seperation of church and state'. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> To furthur that, Laws shouldn't have anything to do with morality at all. They should be merely the minimum of required rules for people to live peaceably and safely together
<!--QuoteBegin-FilthyLarry+Feb 21 2004, 02:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ Feb 21 2004, 02:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 1) If you believe that sexual preference is solely genetics based then the sexual orientation of the parents is irrelevant.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Perhaps I've forgotten my biology, but if it's based on genetics, the parents genetics related to homosexuality is related a lot. It could be a recessive gene.
Don't get me started on seperation of church and state. It a trite statement almost all the time that's only been misused more and more. The original purpose is to seperate the state from the church. If you remember the Anglican church and the Roman Catholic Church during many periods of time you would understand why. It doesn't mean disallowing prayer in schools et cetera.
<!--QuoteBegin-MrMojo+Feb 22 2004, 10:22 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MrMojo @ Feb 22 2004, 10:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-FilthyLarry+Feb 21 2004, 02:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ Feb 21 2004, 02:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 1) If you believe that sexual preference is solely genetics based then the sexual orientation of the parents is irrelevant.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Perhaps I've forgotten my biology, but if it's based on genetics, the parents genetics related to homosexuality is related a lot. It could be a recessive gene. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> To clarify my statement: I meant in the context of homosexual couples adopting a child. Hence if homosexuality is solely genetic then being raised by homosexual parents will not make any difference to the eventual outcome of said sexual preference of the child.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-Sirus+Feb 22 2004, 12:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sirus @ Feb 22 2004, 12:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Don't get me started on seperation of church and state. It a trite statement almost all the time that's only been misused more and more. The original purpose is to seperate the state from the church. If you remember the Anglican church and the Roman Catholic Church during many periods of time you would understand why. It doesn't mean disallowing prayer in schools et cetera. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> This is getting a little off topic, but isn't separation a symmetric relationship? A is separated from B => B is separated from A. You can't have the state separated from the church without having the church separated from the state by definition, so what exactly are you arguing?
No not necessarily, it's not saying that the church can't be in the government (Christian groups on schools, teaching creation as well as evolution), but rather that the government can't be in the church. Government can't regulate the church, (Roman Catholic church), Anglican Church (Government officials being the upper-tier of the church), not only that but in order to get any good occupations you had to be a part of the government church.
Seperation of church and state isn't even part of the constitution. Only establishment of a religion by the government. The whole thing is really messed up with the Supreme Court dictating things that they really don't have power over and people confused over what it really was. Originally, the term of seperation of church and state originated in a letter by someone who escapes my memory right now. I'll even note the book and the person who it originated it later.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited February 2004
Regardless of its constitutional backing, that doesn't fit the definition of separation. If that's what you believe, that's fine, but it means that you disagree with the concept of "separation of church and state".
Alright, it was in the letter of the Danbury Baptist from Jefferson assuring the baptist church that the government would not control what they taught because they were recieving money from the government. (This is during the time of church taxes in the US). Anyways, Jefferson said there was an inherent wall of seperation of church and state so that the Baptist need not worry that the government start controlling what they taught because they were accepting taxes.
Moultano, the whole "seperation of church and state" is a trite cliche. I think it's odd that you're calling me incorrect because the actual meaning doesn't fit a political cliche. That the origination of seperation of church and state and the actual meaning, if you want to disagree then fine by me, but that doesn't mean you're correct.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sirus+Feb 22 2004, 02:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sirus @ Feb 22 2004, 02:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Seperation of church and state isn't even part of the constitution. Only establishment of a religion by the government. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That right there is what is forgotten... Or not even known.
Its sad people don't really know what's in the Constitution.
May I start by saying that I'm not ****. I don't want people to think my post is somehow biased for that reason. What reason might you have to keep **** marriage from happening?
Argument #1: Marriage is the sanctity of religion. Counterpoint: People get married all the time. It's called a civil marriage and it doesn't involve religion. Nobody said it had to be under your religion.
Argument #2: The plumbing is wrong. It's obviously unnatural to let this happen. Counterpoint: All I have to say to that is, only 50 years ago, blacks dating whites was considered horribly wrong simply because "God didn't mean for blacks to date whites." If you asked why, their reasoning would have simply been "They're apes, we're humans. You can't date different species."
If that makes you angry, GOOD! This was what was wrong with this country 50 years ago, and it is still going on but in a different way. Just because you might feel "the plumbing is wrong" doesn't mean your opinion should deprive millions of people of something that would make them happy.
Argument #3: Just 'cause I hate ***. Counterpoint: People won't admit this is their argument, so they try to use arguments #1 and #2 to sway their point, but they know they have no argument. Their real argument for not letting *** get married is because they simply don't like them, and they dislike the idea of what it might imply. Is not liking something really reason enough to keep many others unhappy? I don't think so. Then, try telling this to people who vouche for argument #3. They have no evidence to support their argument, because none is required for them to hate ***.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-Sirus+Feb 22 2004, 04:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sirus @ Feb 22 2004, 04:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Moultano, the whole "seperation of church and state" is a trite cliche. I think it's odd that you're calling me incorrect because the actual meaning doesn't fit a political cliche. That the origination of seperation of church and state and the actual meaning, if you want to disagree then fine by me, but that doesn't mean you're correct. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I wasn't saying you were incorrect. I was just saying that what you were saying is inconsistent with the idea of separation of church and state. I wasn't arguing with any regard to it's basis in the constitution or common law. I was just claiming that the words "separation of church and state" imply that church and state are separate as in "Set or kept apart; disunited", which isn't what you were proposing. Whether or not this separation is neccessary and appropriate in our government should be the subject of another thread.
I do think people are misled when they talk about marriage. You fail to realize that women weren't even considered equal for what seems to be forever. Marriage was never the "2.5 children with a house and two cars" picture perfect dream.
Here is the big question reguarding some of these 'so called' studies.
First off, how do you KNOW that the kids of **** famlies are doing worse in school BECAUSE of their **** parents?
Has anyone ever begged the question that perhaps, the kids of **** children are a little more open minded then that of the straight parents, and because of their more objective thinking they simply don't see the point in school, or rebel because they have a REASON?
No one has even thought of the possibility that the problem isn't the **** parents, but perhaps the thinking or mindset of the kids? For all we know, the kids in **** famlies could be remarkably more intellegent than straight famlies, but don't score as high because of some conflict of interest they say (perhaps sitting in a classroom for 3 hours straight isn't a kid's idea of fun, especialy not one thinking in more rational terms then the average child). Speaking of which, perhaps too many kids are perscribed with ADD because they simply don't want to sit in a chair till their butts go numb.
So, all these 'studies' anti-**** people are posting are saying is, that in straight famlies kids score higher, and in **** ones they score lower. HOWEVER, none of them actualy say WHY it is. They basicly just say "well, kids score lower when the parents are ****" and says nothing about WHY that is. Untill these studies make a DIRECT connection between something the **** parents are doing, or not doing, that is either causing them to be **** themselves (the kids) or score lower in school, I will reguard such studies as unfounded, illogical, peices of garbadge (as they should be treated untill they make a rational connection).
As I said earlier, kids in **** famlies may become **** on a greater percentage NOT because of their parents, but because they feel being **** is acceptable. In a straight family, there may be just as many **** kids, but a lower percentage 'come out of the closet' because they feel it isn't acceptable by their parent's terms. Getting the possible connection?
If anything, the straight parents are the wrong and oppressive ones if you look at it from that point of view (they exert pressure on their kids to not come out of the closet, social pressure).
-----
When you make an argument, you make a direct connection between A and B and explain the relationship between A and B. Saying "with A, B happens X amount of times" doesn't tell me WHY B occours X amount of times, only that it will accour X amount of times. It lacks reason, and should only be looked upon for what it is... a study of frequency and NOT a proof.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
edited February 2004
Seperation of church and state does not mean that prayer at school is disallowed. It's quite permitted, most places. However, a teacher cannot <i>require</i> a student to participate; regardless of if it is a student leading the prayer, or the teacher themself. Note that this only holds true for public, federally-funded schools, and not privately-owned/operated. It's the same reason the President can *ask* for a moment of prayer, but not demand it.
This leads to a corrollary. If the government cannot force religion on people, they are not permitted to impose a particular religion's belief system on the people.
Meaning, if the Christian church does not want to allow homosexual marriages, they don't have to. HOWEVER. It also means that the government is not permitted to ban religions from allowing homosexual marriages.
As well, if they deny those marriages under religions which permit them as legal, they are imposing the morality of a belief system on the people. AKA, telling them how to worship. Which violates the seperation of church and state.
Now then. That 'trite phrase' requires a bit more thought on your part. I choose my words carefully, and think out my arguments. I would suggest that you consider the other aspects before making a knee-jerk response, assuming that is what you had done when you saw the phrase used.
Over to you, to make a case for why and how a full moral system can exist without religion. More specifically why homosexual marriages are immoral under that non-denominational moral code.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Bush calls for ban on same-sex marriages</span></b> Democrats: President using amendment issue for re-election bid
<b>WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush said Tuesday that he supports a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage to prevent what he calls "the meaning of marriage from being changed forever." </b>
His comments were swiftly condemned by Democratic Party leaders as an attempt to write discrimination into the U.S. Constitution and by a **** civil rights group as **** bashing.
Criticizing San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and officials in a New Mexico county who moved to let same-sex couples receive marriage licenses, Bush said that in recent months "some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage."
"And unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty," he said.
"After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity."
Bush said states might be forced to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states that allow them.
"On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. Activist courts have left the people with one recourse. If we're to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country."
He called on Congress to "promptly pass and send to the states for ratification" an amendment that would specifically define marriage as the union of a "husband and wife."
But Bush also said state legislatures should be left to define "legal arrangements other than marriage," suggesting that such an amendment would do nothing to stop states from allowing civil unions for same-sex couples.
"Our government should respect every person and protect the institution of marriage," he said. "There is not a contradiction between these responsibilities."
**** group calls act 'desperate' Democrats quickly accused Bush of using the issue for political gain and of trying to draw attention away from his record as president.
In a statement, Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe said the Democratic Party is opposed to such an amendment.
"It is wrong to write discrimination into the U.S. Constitution, and it is shameful to use attacks against **** and lesbian families as an election strategy. It appears that the conservative compassion he [Bush] promised to deliver in 2000 has now officially run out."
U.S. Sen. John Kerry's campaign spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said Tuesday's announcement makes it clear that Bush's re-election strategy is to "use wedge issues and the politics of fear to divide the nation."
Kerry has said he supports civil unions and equal protection for *** and lesbian but that he opposes marriage for them. He also said he believes the matter should be an issue for the states.
"All Americans should be concerned when a president who is in political trouble tries to tamper with the Constitution of the United States at the start of his re-election campaign," Kerry said in a statement.
"While I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, for 200 years this has been a state issue. I oppose this election-year effort to amend the Constitution in an area that each state can adequately address, and I will vote against such an amendment if it comes to the Senate floor."
The leader of the nation's largest **** and lesbian political organization called Bush's support for such an amendment a desperate attempt to help his re-election bid and accused him of wanting to bash **** and lesbian families.
"These are the desperate acts of a desperate president who is going to try and drag this country through a cultural war to jump-start a failing campaign," said Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign.
Jacques said such an amendment would have broader ramifications than the ones Bush described.
"Leading constitutional law scholars have come out and said that what the president is supporting ... would indeed strike at the heart of any state's ability to pass domestic partnership benefits [and] civil unions," she said.
A call for civil debate In his announcement, the president called for a civil debate on the controversial issue.
"We should also conduct this difficult debate in a matter worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger," he said. "In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and good will and decency."
Bush said the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act and laws banning same-sex marriage in 38 states "express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage."
But he said, "There is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not itself be struck down by activist courts. In that event, every state would be forced to recognize any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage."
As recently as last week, Bush repeated his belief that marriage should be restricted to heterosexual couples.
He added he was troubled by legal decisions in Massachusetts that could clear the way for same-sex marriage -- and the decision by San Francisco's mayor this month to order the county clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
More than 3,000 same-sex couples have taken advantage.
In his State of the Union speech last month, Bush addressed same-sex marriage, saying, "our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage."
He stopped short then of endorsing a constitutional amendment that would ban marriages for **** and lesbian couples.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
G4y Marriage? I don't see any problem with it, it's not harming anyone. I have yet to see a good reason for banning it, and amending the Constitution to ban it is ridiculous, though I guess the President has already proven he doesn't care about the Constitution (cough *Patriot Act* cough).
G4y adoption, on the other hand, does seem wrong to me - as that study has proven. Most of the people I know would commit suicide when they got into high school if they had been adopted by g4ys. One of my best friends has moved to 3 different homes, he started with a junkie mom and a dead-beat dad, then went into a foster home for a while, and at 6 was moved to his final home with a 50-year-old single woman who'd already adopted 2 other boys. Now, at 6 years of age, how do you think he would've taken it if he had been adopted by homosexuals? Think of the child. Homosexuality may not be unnatural, but homosexuals with kids is most definitely unnatural (obviously it's simply impossible in nature). However, with new technology emerging every day I wonder how far off a technique that could combine the chromosomes in the g4ys gametes to produce a "test-tube baby" that truly is their child is.
For me it may be a problem of relation - since I'm a heterosexual male, I can relate to lesbians, and I think that maybe they would make better parents. It would be quite interesting to see a study that compares the parenting of lesbians and g4ys.
To sum it up: I believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry, but not to have kids unless the child(ren) have only the couples' genes.
<!--QuoteBegin-TommyVercetti+Feb 24 2004, 07:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TommyVercetti @ Feb 24 2004, 07:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> To sum it up: I believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry, but not to have kids unless the child(ren) have only the couples' genes. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> does that mean you're against adoption in general? and how exactly would having loving, successful g4y parents be worse than having junkie parents or one over-the-hill parent ill-equipped to raise 3 young kids?
believe it or not, g4ys are people too. They can think and feel. They know they're hated and oppressed, and they're used to taking all necessary means to avoid being accosted, lynched, etc. What am I saying? that most g4y parents would not show up at their kid's school going up to all the bullies saying, "hey, we're g4y, you hate us, we're Billy's parents! He's right over there!! Do what you gotta do." And if you meant they'd commit suicide because there's no way they could possibly love g4y parents... that would involve us being pre-programmed to think g4ys are unlovable... which is obviously not the case... some of us are just re-programmed that way, usually not until AT LEAST our teenage years, unless our parents are EXTREME bigots...
You wanna know the reason they're not allowed to marry, one word: Religion.
We may have a separation of church with the state but that doesn't mean the original rules weren't taken from the bible. Not to mention the political reasons behind disallowing it, what senator who wants to be re-elected would want to be know as the person that passed such a thing? Being known as the person that stopped homosexual marriages does help getting religious(intolerant religious) voters.
Religion has absolutely no part in marriage nowadays. You can get married and be an athiest. Perhap this wasn't the case 100 years ago, but it isn't so now. Under law, you can get married. Religion argument doesn't work, sorry.
You could say you're religion requires a male to have at least 10 wives, and try to argue everyone should change to the way your religion is, but I dont' think you'd have much validity considering everybody's religions are different. Likewise, in a less obvious fashion, you cannot expect the world to conform to opposite sex marriages because your religion prohibits otherwise.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
edited February 2004
And I'm still waiting for Legionnaired's response to my above post, or perhaps Othell's. Either care to respond?
(edit) And Tommy, why would you believe a lesbian couple to be more adept parents than a homosexual male couple? Because one of them could have had a child? There are services extant that match males who want children of their own with willing females for-pay... usually through artificial insemenation. So, would that make it 'all right' for homosexual males to have a child?
Of course, basing on your argument, NO ONE should adopt children. Ever. After all, their genes aren't in them. Then again, I've been around a number of happy g*y pairings... the longest of which has been intact for over 37 years. No strife, and a hell of a lot more stable than most American families. If I was asked for a character reference, I would recommend them as adoptive parents without hesitation.
And 'as a heterosexual male' you can accept lesbian pairings more easily? Meaning....? (/edit)
Whether you'd like to admit it or not, I believe that if you are opposed to g4y marriage, you simply don't like g4ys.
Can you honestly say that if your religion, government, whatever other arguments you might want were fulfilled entirely, that you'd say it were okay for g4y marriage to take place? I doubt it. These aren't reasons, they are excuses.
I am talking about nobody inparticular, of course. I mean generally.
Comments
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Research studies, often conducted by individuals or organizations with a vested interest in the outcome, are contradictory. Studies linked to conservative political and religious groups show negative effects on children of **** and lesbian parents; while, studies which support homosexual parenting are said to reflect the bias of those who are themselves **** or who support **** rights. Clearly, what are needed are definitive studies that would follow larger numbers of children over a long period of time. That research, when completed, will provide more definitive information for the debate.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Research studies, often conducted by individuals or organizations with a vested interest in the outcome, are contradictory. Studies linked to conservative political and religious groups show negative effects on children of **** and lesbian parents; while, studies which support homosexual parenting are said to reflect the bias of those who are themselves **** or who support **** rights. Clearly, what are needed are definitive studies that would follow larger numbers of children over a long period of time. That research, when completed, will provide more definitive information for the debate.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Discusion Forum Rule Number 5.: Respect other peoples newssources.
It is so tempting. Tell someone that you don't believe the newspaper they cited articles from, and the uncomfortably consistent argumentation they built up falls together, leaving you and your notion secure again.
Don't ever try that.
Discrediting a newssource requires more than that one article from three years ago that wasn't entirely correct, or an obvious political bias - you'll find few newssites without one. Accept that Leftys will often quote facts found on Salon.org, while Conservatives will cite FOX. Unless you can find contradicting factual data, you will have to accept the newssources validity and instead go the hard way, argumentatively tackling the points based upon those articles.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unless you have some hard data at hand that contradicts the studies I cited, lets move on.
Also, the social studies rating was higher than either of the two groups, which could be construed as a greater level of empathy, meaning that the kids would be *more* likely to be well-adjusted individuals.
And as for the 'three times as likely', there /are/ a few aspects to that... obviously, the 'nurture' aspect will be leant toward an acceptance of homosexual activity as the norm, rather than the (accepted?) exception. That with a combination of acceptance toward it rather than stigmatization and repression would make sense that it occurred more often. Admittedly some were likely to be seeking parental approval, but I'd guess that more often it would be that they were allowed to actually think about how they felt and who they were attracted to.
1) If you believe that sexual preference is solely genetics based then the sexual orientation of the parents is irrelevant.
2) If you believe that sexual preference is made up of a number of factors including things such as genetics and environmental components, then :
What is wrong - aside from religious beliefs - with homosexuality anyway ?
3) If you believe that ultimately homosexuality is a "choice" then the children of homosexual parents are free to decide things for themselves now aren't they ?
So really, the only reasoning against homosexual parenting is religious in origin. This is hardly surprising given the outcome of the last major discussion on this topic.
More on topic: Again, the only reasoning for not allowing homosexual marriage is religious in origin.
Ok. If we're going to go that far, why not go all the way? See my topic here: <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=63576' target='_blank'>http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/in...showtopic=63576</a> .
To furthur that, Laws shouldn't have anything to do with morality at all. They should be merely the minimum of required rules for people to live peaceably and safely together
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perhaps I've forgotten my biology, but if it's based on genetics, the parents genetics related to homosexuality is related a lot. It could be a recessive gene.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perhaps I've forgotten my biology, but if it's based on genetics, the parents genetics related to homosexuality is related a lot. It could be a recessive gene. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
To clarify my statement: I meant in the context of homosexual couples adopting a child. Hence if homosexuality is solely genetic then being raised by homosexual parents will not make any difference to the eventual outcome of said sexual preference of the child.
This is getting a little off topic, but isn't separation a symmetric relationship?
A is separated from B => B is separated from A.
You can't have the state separated from the church without having the church separated from the state by definition, so what exactly are you arguing?
No not necessarily, it's not saying that the church can't be in the government (Christian groups on schools, teaching creation as well as evolution), but rather that the government can't be in the church. Government can't regulate the church, (Roman Catholic church), Anglican Church (Government officials being the upper-tier of the church), not only that but in order to get any good occupations you had to be a part of the government church.
Seperation of church and state isn't even part of the constitution. Only establishment of a religion by the government. The whole thing is really messed up with the Supreme Court dictating things that they really don't have power over and people confused over what it really was. Originally, the term of seperation of church and state originated in a letter by someone who escapes my memory right now. I'll even note the book and the person who it originated it later.
Moultano, the whole "seperation of church and state" is a trite cliche. I think it's odd that you're calling me incorrect because the actual meaning doesn't fit a political cliche. That the origination of seperation of church and state and the actual meaning, if you want to disagree then fine by me, but that doesn't mean you're correct.
That right there is what is forgotten... Or not even known.
Its sad people don't really know what's in the Constitution.
Argument #1: Marriage is the sanctity of religion.
Counterpoint: People get married all the time. It's called a civil marriage and it doesn't involve religion. Nobody said it had to be under your religion.
Argument #2: The plumbing is wrong. It's obviously unnatural to let this happen.
Counterpoint: All I have to say to that is, only 50 years ago, blacks dating whites was considered horribly wrong simply because "God didn't mean for blacks to date whites." If you asked why, their reasoning would have simply been "They're apes, we're humans. You can't date different species."
If that makes you angry, GOOD! This was what was wrong with this country 50 years ago, and it is still going on but in a different way. Just because you might feel "the plumbing is wrong" doesn't mean your opinion should deprive millions of people of something that would make them happy.
Argument #3: Just 'cause I hate ***.
Counterpoint: People won't admit this is their argument, so they try to use arguments #1 and #2 to sway their point, but they know they have no argument. Their real argument for not letting *** get married is because they simply don't like them, and they dislike the idea of what it might imply. Is not liking something really reason enough to keep many others unhappy? I don't think so. Then, try telling this to people who vouche for argument #3. They have no evidence to support their argument, because none is required for them to hate ***.
I pity such people.
I wasn't saying you were incorrect. I was just saying that what you were saying is inconsistent with the idea of separation of church and state. I wasn't arguing with any regard to it's basis in the constitution or common law. I was just claiming that the words "separation of church and state" imply that church and state are separate as in "Set or kept apart; disunited", which isn't what you were proposing. Whether or not this separation is neccessary and appropriate in our government should be the subject of another thread.
**** marriage won't ruin it.
First off, how do you KNOW that the kids of **** famlies are doing worse in school BECAUSE of their **** parents?
Has anyone ever begged the question that perhaps, the kids of **** children are a little more open minded then that of the straight parents, and because of their more objective thinking they simply don't see the point in school, or rebel because they have a REASON?
No one has even thought of the possibility that the problem isn't the **** parents, but perhaps the thinking or mindset of the kids? For all we know, the kids in **** famlies could be remarkably more intellegent than straight famlies, but don't score as high because of some conflict of interest they say (perhaps sitting in a classroom for 3 hours straight isn't a kid's idea of fun, especialy not one thinking in more rational terms then the average child). Speaking of which, perhaps too many kids are perscribed with ADD because they simply don't want to sit in a chair till their butts go numb.
So, all these 'studies' anti-**** people are posting are saying is, that in straight famlies kids score higher, and in **** ones they score lower. HOWEVER, none of them actualy say WHY it is. They basicly just say "well, kids score lower when the parents are ****" and says nothing about WHY that is. Untill these studies make a DIRECT connection between something the **** parents are doing, or not doing, that is either causing them to be **** themselves (the kids) or score lower in school, I will reguard such studies as unfounded, illogical, peices of garbadge (as they should be treated untill they make a rational connection).
As I said earlier, kids in **** famlies may become **** on a greater percentage NOT because of their parents, but because they feel being **** is acceptable. In a straight family, there may be just as many **** kids, but a lower percentage 'come out of the closet' because they feel it isn't acceptable by their parent's terms. Getting the possible connection?
If anything, the straight parents are the wrong and oppressive ones if you look at it from that point of view (they exert pressure on their kids to not come out of the closet, social pressure).
-----
When you make an argument, you make a direct connection between A and B and explain the relationship between A and B. Saying "with A, B happens X amount of times" doesn't tell me WHY B occours X amount of times, only that it will accour X amount of times. It lacks reason, and should only be looked upon for what it is... a study of frequency and NOT a proof.
However, a teacher cannot <i>require</i> a student to participate; regardless of if it is a student leading the prayer, or the teacher themself. Note that this only holds true for public, federally-funded schools, and not privately-owned/operated.
It's the same reason the President can *ask* for a moment of prayer, but not demand it.
This leads to a corrollary. If the government cannot force religion on people, they are not permitted to impose a particular religion's belief system on the people.
Meaning, if the Christian church does not want to allow homosexual marriages, they don't have to. HOWEVER. It also means that the government is not permitted to ban religions from allowing homosexual marriages.
As well, if they deny those marriages under religions which permit them as legal, they are imposing the morality of a belief system on the people. AKA, telling them how to worship.
Which violates the seperation of church and state.
Now then. That 'trite phrase' requires a bit more thought on your part. I choose my words carefully, and think out my arguments. I would suggest that you consider the other aspects before making a knee-jerk response, assuming that is what you had done when you saw the phrase used.
Over to you, to make a case for why and how a full moral system can exist without religion. More specifically why homosexual marriages are immoral under that non-denominational moral code.
just a little on-topic animation I enjoyed.
<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.marriage/index.html' target='_blank'>http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/...iage/index.html</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Bush calls for ban on same-sex marriages</span></b>
Democrats: President using amendment issue for re-election bid
<b>WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush said Tuesday that he supports a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage to prevent what he calls "the meaning of marriage from being changed forever." </b>
His comments were swiftly condemned by Democratic Party leaders as an attempt to write discrimination into the U.S. Constitution and by a **** civil rights group as **** bashing.
Criticizing San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and officials in a New Mexico county who moved to let same-sex couples receive marriage licenses, Bush said that in recent months "some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage."
"And unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty," he said.
"After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity."
Bush said states might be forced to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states that allow them.
"On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. Activist courts have left the people with one recourse. If we're to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country."
He called on Congress to "promptly pass and send to the states for ratification" an amendment that would specifically define marriage as the union of a "husband and wife."
But Bush also said state legislatures should be left to define "legal arrangements other than marriage," suggesting that such an amendment would do nothing to stop states from allowing civil unions for same-sex couples.
"Our government should respect every person and protect the institution of marriage," he said. "There is not a contradiction between these responsibilities."
**** group calls act 'desperate'
Democrats quickly accused Bush of using the issue for political gain and of trying to draw attention away from his record as president.
In a statement, Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe said the Democratic Party is opposed to such an amendment.
"It is wrong to write discrimination into the U.S. Constitution, and it is shameful to use attacks against **** and lesbian families as an election strategy. It appears that the conservative compassion he [Bush] promised to deliver in 2000 has now officially run out."
U.S. Sen. John Kerry's campaign spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said Tuesday's announcement makes it clear that Bush's re-election strategy is to "use wedge issues and the politics of fear to divide the nation."
Kerry has said he supports civil unions and equal protection for *** and lesbian but that he opposes marriage for them. He also said he believes the matter should be an issue for the states.
"All Americans should be concerned when a president who is in political trouble tries to tamper with the Constitution of the United States at the start of his re-election campaign," Kerry said in a statement.
"While I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, for 200 years this has been a state issue. I oppose this election-year effort to amend the Constitution in an area that each state can adequately address, and I will vote against such an amendment if it comes to the Senate floor."
The leader of the nation's largest **** and lesbian political organization called Bush's support for such an amendment a desperate attempt to help his re-election bid and accused him of wanting to bash **** and lesbian families.
"These are the desperate acts of a desperate president who is going to try and drag this country through a cultural war to jump-start a failing campaign," said Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign.
Jacques said such an amendment would have broader ramifications than the ones Bush described.
"Leading constitutional law scholars have come out and said that what the president is supporting ... would indeed strike at the heart of any state's ability to pass domestic partnership benefits [and] civil unions," she said.
A call for civil debate
In his announcement, the president called for a civil debate on the controversial issue.
"We should also conduct this difficult debate in a matter worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger," he said. "In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and good will and decency."
Bush said the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act and laws banning same-sex marriage in 38 states "express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage."
But he said, "There is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not itself be struck down by activist courts. In that event, every state would be forced to recognize any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage."
As recently as last week, Bush repeated his belief that marriage should be restricted to heterosexual couples.
He added he was troubled by legal decisions in Massachusetts that could clear the way for same-sex marriage -- and the decision by San Francisco's mayor this month to order the county clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
More than 3,000 same-sex couples have taken advantage.
In his State of the Union speech last month, Bush addressed same-sex marriage, saying, "our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage."
He stopped short then of endorsing a constitutional amendment that would ban marriages for **** and lesbian couples.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
G4y adoption, on the other hand, does seem wrong to me - as that study has proven. Most of the people I know would commit suicide when they got into high school if they had been adopted by g4ys. One of my best friends has moved to 3 different homes, he started with a junkie mom and a dead-beat dad, then went into a foster home for a while, and at 6 was moved to his final home with a 50-year-old single woman who'd already adopted 2 other boys. Now, at 6 years of age, how do you think he would've taken it if he had been adopted by homosexuals? Think of the child. Homosexuality may not be unnatural, but homosexuals with kids is most definitely unnatural (obviously it's simply impossible in nature). However, with new technology emerging every day I wonder how far off a technique that could combine the chromosomes in the g4ys gametes to produce a "test-tube baby" that truly is their child is.
For me it may be a problem of relation - since I'm a heterosexual male, I can relate to lesbians, and I think that maybe they would make better parents. It would be quite interesting to see a study that compares the parenting of lesbians and g4ys.
To sum it up: I believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry, but not to have kids unless the child(ren) have only the couples' genes.
does that mean you're against adoption in general? and how exactly would having loving, successful g4y parents be worse than having junkie parents or one over-the-hill parent ill-equipped to raise 3 young kids?
believe it or not, g4ys are people too. They can think and feel. They know they're hated and oppressed, and they're used to taking all necessary means to avoid being accosted, lynched, etc. What am I saying? that most g4y parents would not show up at their kid's school going up to all the bullies saying, "hey, we're g4y, you hate us, we're Billy's parents! He's right over there!! Do what you gotta do." And if you meant they'd commit suicide because there's no way they could possibly love g4y parents... that would involve us being pre-programmed to think g4ys are unlovable... which is obviously not the case... some of us are just re-programmed that way, usually not until AT LEAST our teenage years, unless our parents are EXTREME bigots...
We may have a separation of church with the state but that doesn't mean the original rules weren't taken from the bible. Not to mention the political reasons behind disallowing it, what senator who wants to be re-elected would want to be know as the person that passed such a thing? Being known as the person that stopped homosexual marriages does help getting religious(intolerant religious) voters.
You could say you're religion requires a male to have at least 10 wives, and try to argue everyone should change to the way your religion is, but I dont' think you'd have much validity considering everybody's religions are different. Likewise, in a less obvious fashion, you cannot expect the world to conform to opposite sex marriages because your religion prohibits otherwise.
Drop the religion argument please.
(edit)
And Tommy, why would you believe a lesbian couple to be more adept parents than a homosexual male couple? Because one of them could have had a child? There are services extant that match males who want children of their own with willing females for-pay... usually through artificial insemenation. So, would that make it 'all right' for homosexual males to have a child?
Of course, basing on your argument, NO ONE should adopt children. Ever. After all, their genes aren't in them.
Then again, I've been around a number of happy g*y pairings... the longest of which has been intact for over 37 years. No strife, and a hell of a lot more stable than most American families. If I was asked for a character reference, I would recommend them as adoptive parents without hesitation.
And 'as a heterosexual male' you can accept lesbian pairings more easily? Meaning....?
(/edit)
Can you honestly say that if your religion, government, whatever other arguments you might want were fulfilled entirely, that you'd say it were okay for g4y marriage to take place? I doubt it. These aren't reasons, they are excuses.
I am talking about nobody inparticular, of course. I mean generally.
Othell, same questions?
C'mon, guys. Don't slink off just as the conversation starts to get <i>interesting</i>!