IMO - mythologies and religion represent man's attempt to understand something infinite by giving a form and function we can visualize and conceptualize.
I believe in a Higher Power... just not in a fearful and close-minded way.
The Bible contains many great and universal truths. For example:
He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind:
and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart.
The new far-right would be smart to take that to heart, less they corrupt their own souls with fear and bigotry.
No government in peoples lives! People should be free to do what they want! Unless I disagree with them filthy faggots...
There is no logical reason to deny a group of people equal rights under the law... Unless of course you disagree with them LOL!!!!!
From the same articles you are quoting:http://www.law.ucla.edu/Williamsinst...s/USReport.pdf
"More than 39% of same-sex couples in the United States aged 22-55 are raising children; they are raising more than 250,000 children under age 18."--This is taken from the 2000 census data.
"In 1976, there were an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 gay and lesbian biological parents; as of 1990, an estimated 6 to 14 million children have a gay or lesbian parent. And, between 8 and 10 million children are being raised in gay and lesbian households."--different methodology. The 2000 census numbers are suspected low in terms of representation of gays.
An estimated 65,500 adopted children are living with a lesbian or gay parent.
That is the accurate quote. You are trying to lump in children living with parents who divorced with those who were actually adopted.
Now lets look at the actual number of children adopted currently in the U.S.
There are 1.5 million adopted children in the United States, over 2% of all U.S. children
ADOPTION INSTITUTE: FACT OVERVIEW
So 65,000 being adopted by gay couples vs 1.5 million adopted accross the us. Hardly a large number. Its not even 5%.
Stay on point. The subject was adoption.
Now lets look at the "estimated" numbers your articles point to:
In 1976, there were an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 gay and lesbian biological parents; as of 1990, an estimated 6 to 14 million children have a gay or lesbian parent. And, between 8 and 10 million children are being raised in gay and lesbian households.
There is no backing for this claim at all. In fact, the entire article here gives zero backing to any of the numbers its proclaiming.
But the number we were talking about was what you considered "large" 4% of the population of adopted children is hardly large nor have you proven a beneifit would be gained beyond civil unions for the same goal.
LOL Really? Ok then.Feel free to provide data to back up that claim.
Here is the list of all countries that still allow pologamy.
* Polygamy in Afghanistan
* Polygamy in Algeria
* Polygamy in Angola
* Polygamy in Australia
* Polygamy in Bahrain
* Polygamy in Bangladesh
* Polygamy in Benin
* Polygamy in Bhutan
* Polygamy in Botswana
* Polygamy in Burma
* Polygamy in Burundi
* Polygamy in Cameroon
* Polygamy in the Central African Republic
* Polygamy in Chad
* Polygamy in Comoros
* Polygamy in the Republic of the Congo
* Polygamy in Côte d'Ivoire
* Polygamy in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
* Polygamy in Djibouti
* Polygamy in Egypt
* Polygamy in Equatorial Guinea
* Polygamy in Eritrea
* Polygamy in Ethiopia
* Polygamy in Gabon
* Polygamy in The Gambia
* Polygamy in Ghana
* Polygamy in India
* Polygamy in Indonesia
* Polygamy in Iraqi Kurdistan
* Polygamy in Kazakhstan
* Polygamy in Kenya
* Polygamy in Kuwait
* Polygamy in Kyrgyzstan
* Polygamy in Laos
* Polygamy in Lesotho
* Polygamy in Libya
* Polygamy in Malawi
* Polygamy in the Maldives
* Polygamy in Mali
* Polygamy in Mauritania
* Polygamy in Mauritius
* Polygamy in France
* Polygamy in Mongolia
* Polygamy in Morocco
* Polygamy in Mozambique
* Polygamy in Namibia
* Polygamy in Niger
* Polygamy in Nigeria
* Polygamy in Niue
* Polygamy in Pakistan
* Marriage in the Palestinian territories
* Polygamy in Tunisia
* Polygamy in Russia
* Polygamy in Rwanda
* Polygamy in Saudi Arabia
* Polygamy in Somalia
* Polygamy in South Africa
* Polygamy in Sri Lanka
* Polygamy in Sudan
* Polygamy in Swaziland
* Polygamy in Tajikistan
* Polygamy in Thailand
* Polygamy in Turkey
* Polygamy in Turkmenistan
* Polygamy in Uganda
* Polygamy in the United Arab Emirates
* Polygamy in the United Kingdom
* Polygamy in the United States
* Polygamy in Uzbekistan
* Polygamy in Vietnam
* Polygamy in Yemen
* Polygamy in Zambia
* Polygamy in Zimbabwe
Category:Polygamy by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now are you going to claim that all children who are raised in these countries are raised poorly? If not then this establishes far beyond any study of homosexuality that pologamy can raise well adjusted and happy children in numbers that dwarf any homosexual figures.
Of course there is proof. Pologamy is just the easiest.I don't have any data to prove or disprove your claim. Neither do you.
Take a child marrying a grownup and having a child of their own. People began having children in their early teens for thousands of years especially in arranged marriages. If a child or young teenager wishes to marry an adult the precendent for raising children is alread there and I could point to your own claims that marriage is benifical to children. How would you stop them from getting married? Are you going to cite age of concent? How is that law any different from the one that doesn't allow gay marriage? Aren't both a decesion based on morality?
In less than a minute I've already proven how your loose arguyment to allow gay marriage would fit easily to just two other alternative lifestyles.
]Then make a logical argument against gay marriage.
I already have. Your arguyment for gay marriage could never exclude any othe alternative lifestyle. I've already proven that quite easily and there is zero evidence of homosexuality being genetic so there goes that and the civil rights argument.
The trick is you are using your own personal defintion of what is logical and let's not pretend you aren't
Because it is not the chosen family unit we as a society base our society on. By your own numbers, less than 5% of all children are adopted by homosexual couples and homosexuality alone at best is 10% which is being very generous. It is not the norm and should not be treated as such. But you cannot accept that and I'm sure your next argument is going to be back to the genetics argument in the form of "civil rights"Make a logical argument for giving gays civil unions identical to marriage but calling it something else.
Because you have. If you keep denying it, I'll be forced to look up your own posts.And yet that is exactly what you have been trying to do.
Then deny you have used it on other threads. Go ahead. I'll bury you in your own words quite easilyYou want me to argue based on genetics, so you keep saying that is the argument, when it is not.
Wrong again. I've made my arguments quite clear multiple times. Please read more carefully.You are telling us what we are arguing, when we are not arguing that at all. You have yet to offer a single actual counter to any of my arguments here.
Pologamists are raising children. Marriage is a part of a good, stable home for children. Therefore, polgamistists should be allowed to marryI have in fact provided those arguments. Gays are raising children. Marriage is a part of a good, stable home for children. Therefore, gays should be allowed to marry.
Brothers and sisters are raising children. Marriage is a part of a good, stable home for children. Therefore, brothers and sisters should be allowed to marry.
Underage women and adult men are raising children. Marriage is a part of a good, stable home for children. Therefore, underage women and adult men should be allowed to marry.
Thank you for providing the example that shows how easily your argument can be used for all alternative lifestyles
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
Again, I just make a mass general reply to each person who quoted me.
Does it matter if gay marriage personally affects me? My analogy regarding taxes still stands. If one is middle class/poor why should they be allowed to voice an opinion that the rich must pay higher taxes? Is that bigotry and do they have no right to hold their belief? They are financially oppressing a group of people and pushing for higher taxes on the rich that will not affect them personally in any way. So because of that is their opinion invalid? I have stated many times how as a member of society I don't want my society/state to legally recognize something I believe it to be sinful perversion as an equal union to marriage. I have every right to hold my belief and every right to vote on it. I live in my state and in my society, and I do not want my state and society to view gay unions as equal to marriage. Should anyone who isn't directly affected by the War on Terror not be allowed to have an opinion? Are they bigoted for supporting/not supporting the war if they do not/have not served or know someone close (direct) to them that is serving? Many positions and polls we have and vote on do not affect us directly.
Now, if Prop 8 is overturned it will be hypocritical bigotry as I have stated. I'll say it again. California voted to define marriage with a legal amendment. Proposition 8 passed, and it legally defined marriage in the state of California as a union between one man and one woman. The citizens have voted and society has voiced the popular opinion that gay unions do not fit the definition of marriage. The socially liberal community is absolutely imposing their morals upon everyone by essentially telling the majority that their opinion is illegal and unconstitutional. They impose their moral belief that a homosexual union is equal to a heterosexual union and that both may be defined as "marriage." It is absolutely an imposition of morals to tell someone that they are wrong and to impose one set of morals upon the majority who legally and democratically voted to define marriage. Many states have done this, mine included. Before the amendment in Tennessee was voted on, the ACLU took it to court to challenge the legality of it. There was nothing illegal about it and their case was shot down. The amendment passed, and now marriage is legally defined in Tennessee as a union between one man and one woman.
Now for California. The citizens have spoken and marriage has been defined and ratified through an amendment to say that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. What this means is anything outside this definition is not legally a marriage in California, including homosexual unions. They may not wed, they may not call their union a marriage, but they may receive some form of civil union that is not legally marriage.
If a politician stood up and said "We will not allow gays to be married, and you will all have to like it!" Does this make him a bigot? Is he out of line with this comment? Please answer this for me.
Last edited by digsbe; 06-21-10 at 05:52 PM.
Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
Only ion this thread would be listing countries that allow polygamy be cited as evidence that polygamy provided a stable environment for children. Good job there Tex.
I've seen nothing from the pro-GM side except, "I want it, I must have it, therefore it's mine." Sorry but life doesn't work that way. Sure there are plenty of good reasons for GM, and plenty of bad ones. I haven't seen anything that rates a redefinition of marriage.
Here's your litmus test. Give gays every benefit of marriage, but call it a "union" and that's just not satisfactory to them. They want ME to call it a marriage, because they know that gay marriage is a sham. Better to have everyone follow along like the Emperor's New Clothes and nobody better dare state the obvious: union between two men is not a marriage.
Last edited by StevenA59; 06-21-10 at 09:06 PM.