Do you really care if gays get married or not?

[panamaican]

The current setup specifically screws over a minority based on a trait they cannot control (their sexual orientation). That is discrimination. Discrimination must be justified.



You need to stop acting like gay parents are equivalent to single-parent households. They're not.

The current set up wasn't created with that minority in mind (DOMA notwithstanding). There was no push for gay marriage when marriage tax credits and spousal pension benefits were invented. Gay people weren't marrying members of the same sex back then. They were marrying members of the opposite sex and living 2 lives or never marrying at all.

Now that there is a push for gay marriage, it makes sense to go back to these marriage based financial benefits and see if they're actually worth keeping.

And while same sex couples and single parent households aren't the same, there are plenty of studies on how the same sex parent is the strongest role model for children. In light of that, if the child is the opposite sex from the parents then same-sex parents are the equivalent of a single parent home purely in terms of providing role models for the child (only in that context - before anyone tries to expand that point to anything else).

 

[LilMountain]

Ok, but they're not necessarily not. Even then we all have different criteria for what we consider important. We are allowed to have different opinions on this subject and we don't have to justify our opinions to every single person in order hold them.

I'm pretty sure the only criteria is if they raise children to be law abiding productive members of society, right? I mean that's why the government is "encouraging" it, right?

 

[TheComebackKid]

He's right, a gay couple cannot make a traditional family portrait. An opposite-sex couple of convicted child abusers CAN make a traditional portrait, and that is why we allow the latter to marry and not the former.

At the end of the day, it's really just about the children.

Why are you bringing up child abuse? Try to stay on topic.

 

[TheComebackKid]

The current setup specifically screws over a minority based on a trait they cannot control (their sexual orientation). That is discrimination. Discrimination must be justified.

It all depends on your perspective I suppose. I don't view them as getting screwed over because they were never entitled to have their unions recognized by the state.

If they are being screwed over then so are polygomous unions.

You need to stop acting like gay parents are equivalent to single-parent households. They're not.

You need to stop acting like step mothers are equivalent to fathers or that step fathers are equivalent to mothers.

 

[TheBox]

It all depends on your perspective I suppose. I don't view them as getting screwed over because they were never entitled to have their unions recognized by the state.

So they're not getting jobbed because they've always been jobbed?

If they are being screwed over then so are polygomous unions.

I don't know why you keep bringing this up. It seems like almost every pro-gay-marriage person you talk to is ok with polygamous marriages. It's not working as a gotcha.

You need to stop acting like step mothers are equivalent to fathers or that step fathers are equivalent to mothers.

I wouldn't say equivalent, but the evidence shows they're AS GOOD.

The evidence also shows that single parent households do FAR WORSE.

 

[TheComebackKid]

So they're not getting jobbed because they've always been jobbed?

Nope, no jobbing going on here

I don't know why you keep bringing this up. It seems like almost every pro-gay-marriage person you talk to is ok with polygamous marriages. It's not working as a gotcha.

So you think polygamous unions are being discriminated against?

Is there any kind of marriage you do not think has automatic marital rights?

I wouldn't say equivalent, but the evidence shows they're AS GOOD.

The evidence also shows that single parent households do FAR WORSE.

Lol, and this is what makes you a silly poster. Those studies show that in isolated incidents kids can turn out fine without having a mother or father. It doesn't show that a society would be just as good if it were based on non-traditional families. Many people would tell you that society would be worse off. Therefore no reason to encourage a lifestyle that if too widely adopted would leave your society weaker.

*and for the slow people, I'm not suggesting legalizing gay marriage will lead to a breakdown of society.

 

[KennyNuncaMuere**]

FYI, if this wasn't illegal, then the school wouldn't have been able to request they move to a class room as that would have been a violation of their right to religious freedom, so yes it is illegal to lead a public prayer in school!

Now how each state interprets this, and how strictly they enforce this interpretation is very much up to debate!

They where asked to move to a room because they were holding their meetings in the cafeteria. Freedom of religion doesn't necessarily mean you can overrun a cafeteria that other students are using. They would've been asked to move even if it was a non religious meeting.

Groups of students can pray together in public school in every state. It's protected by the constitution.

___________________________

Some states have laws that make this very clear.

Gov. Rick Scott signed into law Friday a
controversial proposal authorizing school prayer.
Gov. Scott signs school prayer law - Florida - MiamiHerald.com
___________________________


This is the supreme court decision for Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe - 530 U.S. 290 (2000)

-----

The Religion Clauses of the First Amendment
prevent the government from making any law
respecting the establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof. By no means do these commands impose a prohibition on all religious activity in our public schools.....

Indeed, the common purpose of the Religion Clauses "is to secure religious liberty.".....

Thus, nothing in the Constitution as interpreted by this Court prohibits any public school student from voluntarily praying at any time before, during, or after the school day. But the religious liberty protected by the Constitution is abridged when the State affirmatively sponsors the particular religious practice of prayer.
Santa*Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe - 530 U.S. 290 (2000) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
_____________________________

According to the supreme court students can pray in public school as they please as long as the school doesn't sponsor it.

Are you saying the supreme court's decision is unconstitutional?

 

[TheBox]

Nope, no jobbing going on here

Of course there is. There is a government function which gives benefits and they're denied access to it without good reason.

So you think polygamous unions are being discriminated against?

I don't view it in the same way. I don't have a problem with polygamy and I don't think it should be restricted, but it's a different scenario.

Single Bob wants to marry Susie. He's able to.
Single Mary wants to marry Susie. She can't due to her gender (but functionally, her sexual orientation).
Married Joe wants to marry Susie. He can't because he's already married.

Susie is denied based on an uncontrolled trait. Joe is denied based on his current legal status.

Is there any kind of marriage you do not think has automatic marital rights?

I'd have to judge it based on the scenario.

Lol, and this is what makes you a silly poster. Those studies show that in isolated incidents kids can turn out fine without having a mother or father.

They're not isolated incidents. We're talking about studies of dozens or hundreds of kids, or even nation-wide studies like Rosenfield's one about education outcomes.

You act like they studied 6 kids.

And why can't you provide any evidence that gay parents perform poorly? It's YOUR CLAIM that they're not as good. Support it.

It doesn't show that a society would be just as good if it were based on non-traditional families.

So what? No one is proposing that nor would it ever happen. The only people who would be forming these types of families are gay people who make up < 5% of the population.

Many people would tell you that society would be worse off. Therefore no reason to encourage a lifestyle that if too widely adopted would leave your society weaker.

1) There's no risk of it becoming widely adopted because, again, gay people are a tiny portion of the population.

2) This argument doesn't work anyway. It's like saying we shouldn't encourage people to be doctors because if 80% of the population was doctors, society would fall apart due to lack of teachers/policeman/engineers/salesmen.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Of course there is. There is a government function which gives benefits and they're denied access to it without a reason good enough for me.

Fixed. I understand you don't agree with this view of what marriage is and why we encourage it. Thats ok. That is why we live in a republic and have free speech. If enough people agree with you then our representatives will legalize gay marriage. If not, you just have to live with it.

I don't view it in the same way. I don't have a problem with polygamy and I don't think it should be restricted, but it's a different scenario.

But what if I was born polygamisexual?

Single Bob wants to marry Susie. He's able to.
Single Mary wants to marry Susie. She can't due to her gender (but functionally, her sexual orientation).
Married Joe wants to marry Susie. He can't because he's already married.

Susie is denied based on an uncontrolled trait. Joe is denied based on his current legal status.

Ok. Well tell me this. What would happen if I tried to join the women's vollyball team? I probably would be denied. Why would I be denied?

I'm hoping I don't have to explain where I'm going with this. So, why would I be denied and do you agree or disagree with that reason?

I'd have to judge it based on the scenario.

Great, so we agree afterall. We have to take each form of marriage and evaluate it as a society based on the scenerio.

They're not isolated incidents. We're talking about studies of dozens or hundreds of kids, or even nation-wide studies like Rosenfield's one about education outcomes.

You act like they studied 6 kids.

When you're talking about 300 million people, dozens of people are isolated incidents.

And why can't you provide any evidence that gay parents perform poorly? It's YOUR CLAIM that they're not as good. Support it.

Because I'm not suggesting gay parents perform poorly. Gay people are individuals, not marriages. Even then I'm not suggesting gay marriages do not perform well. But on a large scale, its better for kids to have their mothers and fathers. Thus we encourage that.

So what? No one is proposing that nor would it ever happen. The only people who would be forming these types of families are gay people who make up < 5% of the population.


1) There's no risk of it becoming widely adopted because, again, gay people are a tiny portion of the population.

Again, you miss the point. This whole thread you miss the point. Many in this country think its best to have a traditional family based society therefore we encourage it with our money. A non-traditional family is the exact opposite, therefore we don't encourage that with our money.

Why encourage something that is the exact opposite of what you're looking for? Why doesn't that register?

Thats not to say people can't have non-traditional family scenerios, or that its wrong, or that sometimes shit happens and families get broken up. Its just saying the ideal scenerio is a family sticks together.

Think about what happens when a women goes to get artificially inseminated by some random sperm for her and her partner and then the kid grows up wondering who their real dad is, what thier roots are, and where they comes from. The kid is looking at all his/her friends who have dads and have the kind of relationship he could never have with his moms. Thats not the ideal scenerio man, so why encourage it?

Then the little girl goes to her mom and asks 'mommy, why don't have I have a dad?'. Then the mom goes 'You see honey, you don't have a dad because you were created in a lab. But thats ok. You don't need one. You have two mommys!! Those other kids could only hope for more mommys!'. Lol, c'moooon man.

2) This argument doesn't work anyway. It's like saying we shouldn't encourage people to be doctors because if 80% of the population was doctors, society would fall apart due to lack of teachers/policeman/engineers/salesmen.

No, if doctors were the exact opposite of what we considered to be in our best interests then maybe you'd have a point.

 

[Gandhi]

Lol, and this is what makes you a silly poster. Those studies show that in isolated incidents kids can turn out fine without having a mother or father. It doesn't show that a society would be just as good if it were based on non-traditional families. Many people would tell you that society would be worse off. Therefore no reason to encourage a lifestyle that if too widely adopted would leave your society weaker.

Where are you getting this twisted logic from. The studies show gay parents performing as well as straight ones. That's it, your insertion of terms like, whole societies, too widely, CAN turn out fine, is just the bigot it in you moving the goal post. You said you provided evidence, you get called on it, and respond with arguments that are based on single parent hood, and appeals to "what many people would say". What many people would say is not evidence and has no place in a post asking for evidence. You phail hard here.

 

[88]

Well let me first say I personally don't care if we recognize gay marriage or not. I have my idea of what a marriage is and its not dependent on what the rest of society thinks. My argument is that if society decides not to then gay couples need to respect that. Their rights are not being infringed upon.

Society decided not to treat blacks equally at one time but the rights of the minority prevailed.

Secondly, I wouldn't ever suggest denying a gay couple to have a marriage. If they want to have a ceremony, change their names, combine their money and property, make each other their benefactors, go adopt kids where its allowed and have a fantastic life. I'm just saying society at large is not obligated to call it a marriage and give them money.

This is the kind of shit that makes me think you're just thick on this particular issue. How can you not see the bullshit in this proposal of "marriage" for gays?

Lol, you think its any easier dealing your av? I don't know who that is but he kind of looks like a dick. Just sayin.

It's Hannibal, and he is a smug prick if you're a badguy.

 

[TheBox]

Fixed.

You didn't fix it. If there's a good reason, it hasn't been presented. All I've heard is various unevidenced claims about traditional families being awesome-sauce.

But what if I was born polygamisexual?

What is a polygamisexual?

Ok. Well tell me this. What would happen if I tried to join the women's vollyball team? I probably would be denied. Why would I be denied?

Because woman are typically inferior athletically and allowing men in women's leagues would ruin the competitive balance of said leagues.

Does allowing gay people to get married have a negative effect on straight peoples' marriages? Nope.

When you're talking about 300 million people, dozens of people are isolated incidents.

Uh, why did you ignore the part of my post that said hundreds or the study that examined kids nation-wide? That's a sample size of thousands upon thousands.

Because I'm not suggesting gay parents perform poorly. Gay people are individuals, not marriages. Even then I'm not suggesting gay marriages do not perform well. But on a large scale, its better for kids to have their mothers and fathers. Thus we encourage that.

By saying it is better for kids to have straight parents, you are saying it is worse to have gay parents. You need to evidence this claim.

Again, you miss the point. This whole thread you miss the point. Many in this country think its best to have a traditional family based society therefore we encourage it with our money. A non-traditional family is the exact opposite, therefore we don't encourage that with our money.

Yes, and in the 1950s, many in this country thought it best to have a traditional family based society and that included people staying with their own race. So what?

Think about what happens when a women goes to get artificially inseminated by some random sperm for her and her partner and then the kid grows up wondering who their real dad is, what thier roots are, and where they comes from. The kid is looking at all his/her friends who have dads and have the kind of relationship he could never have with his moms. Thats not the ideal scenerio man, so why encourage it?

This is extremely speculative on your part. On the same note, a child of straight kids would never experience having 2 mothers.

Let's even say (without any evidence) that having gay parents is 10% worse than having straight parents. I'd bet that having poor parents is a bigger disadvantage than 10%. I'd bet having sickly parents is a bigger disadvantage than 10%. I'd bet that having really young teenager parents is a bigger disadvantage than 10%. Yet none of these less-than-ideal groups are punished, are they?

Again, I must point out the huge double standards constantly being applied here.

No, if doctors were the exact opposite of what we considered to be in our best interests then maybe you'd have a point.

No, the point was you can't say something is bad at small levels just because it would be bad when you expand it out to absurd, unrealistic levels.

 

[elmo_1968]

Why are you bringing up child abuse? Try to stay on topic.

I'm illustrating the bankruptcy of the argument that insisting on a traditional marriage is to benefit children.

If we wrote marriage laws with an eye to who would make desirable parents, denying it to child abusers would be a far higher priority than to same sex couples.

 

[pimptight***]

According to the supreme court students can pray in public school as they please as long as the school doesn't sponsor it.

Are you saying the supreme court's decision is unconstitutional?

No see, this is where interpretation comes in. If a prayer is publicly lead, and the school allows this, then this is school sponsorship. You keep trying to avoid the issue of public prayer, while posting sources that show prayer is OK in school that doesn't differentiate between public and private prayer.

You couldn't allow a priest to visit a school, and say what he wants, because he doesn't work for the school. Allowing the priest onto school grounds to speak to kids, makes the school responsible for what the priest says! Allowing a student to lead a public prayer at school is sponsorship of religion.

 

[KennyNuncaMuere**]

No, I thought that you thought sexual orientation is a lifestyle, I don't think we have a choice, we can dabble, but heart wants what the heart wants.

Do we have a choice?

Rates of different types of sexual behavior in a population aren't fixed. They can fluctuate for various reasons. There's more types of sexuality than just gay, straight or bi. Ideas and attitudes in any population are going to be particular to that population. Changes in social policy and culture can have many unintended consequences. The capacity of human sexuality is extremely broad and varied.


_______________________________

This is part of a report from Save the Children which did research in Pakistan.

----

At a Focus Group Discussion at Karachi, journalists and other key informants revealed that the a similar practice also exists in rural Sindh, particularly in Dadu, Jacobabad and Sukker areas. Not even rich, but also not so rich men keep boys for sexual services to boost their social status. Most of these boys (12-18 years old) are well looked after and pampered by their keepers. Some times, these boys may even serve as active partners in homosexual relationship with the elderly men. It is a Rawait (custom) in some areas of the rural Sindh (particularly the upper Sindh) and is not considered some thing bad or a sin. More than 50 percent household has a male child in the house as a

 

[KennyNuncaMuere**]

No see, this is where interpretation comes in. If a prayer is publicly lead, and the school allows this, then this is school sponsorship. You keep trying to avoid the issue of public prayer, while posting sources that show prayer is OK in school that doesn't differentiate between public and private prayer.

You couldn't allow a priest to visit a school, and say what he wants, because he doesn't work for the school. Allowing the priest onto school grounds to speak to kids, makes the school responsible for what the priest says! Allowing a student to lead a public prayer at school is sponsorship of religion.

TALLAHASSEE -- The burden is now on school
districts to decide whether to allow students to
pray or deliver

 

[Jcnz13]

If it doesn't affect your life why do you care? doesn't bother me in the slightest.

 

[elmo_1968]

Do we have a choice?

Rates of different types of sexual behavior in a population aren't fixed.

The question was about orientation, but your answer is about behavior, and they aren't the same thing. If armed guards forbid me to touch women and are vigilant enough, they might change my behavior, but not my orientation.

 

[TheComebackKid]

I'm illustrating the bankruptcy of the argument that insisting on a traditional marriage is to benefit children.

If we wrote marriage laws with an eye to who would make desirable parents, denying it to child abusers would be a far higher priority than to same sex couples.

Im pretty sure we don't let convicted child abusers raise kids. Cmon elmo.

 

[TheBox]

Im pretty sure we don't let convicted child abusers raise kids. Cmon elmo.

Right...despite having no chance of being allowed to have kids and being the least ideal child raising situation possible, child molesters can still get married.

Why? Another free pass?