After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overturn

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

roguenuke said:

So basically you can't really argue much on my points?

Click to expand...

Said the person who refused to go point for point and quoted everything? Could you be a little more dishonest?

Are you going to argue that you have valid proof that all or even most homosexual couples do not make good parents? Keep in mind, that the research should focus on couples not raising children that are biologically the product of both partners, whatever their sexuality is. Otherwise, you are not arguing a 1 to 1 comparison.

Click to expand...

I said the studies were not conclusive. There is far more and better evidence of polygamists raising children but that doesn't justify changing the law for them either. Unless you want to dismiss entire countries who allow it now.

Also, so tell me what those combinations are that it opens marriage up to as legally accepted relationships currently in the US. They should meet the same scrutiny that homosexual relationships are providing proof for. The couples who would be restricted would need to show their need for legal recognition and why their being allowed to legally marry would provide benefits to society like those I have listed. The only one I can think of is polygamy, since the others normally listed already are part of each other's legal family or are not legal relationships anyway.

Click to expand...

Can you explain why you limit it to couples? What evidence are you using for that limitation or "discrimination"? Could it be a simple moral judgment on your part?

And since you kept it at couples that being your moral choice, why do you have the right to limit the age of marriage? If you point to age of consent, that is simply a law just like the law against gay marriage and you want to change that. Starting to pick up on the hypocrisy? You lambaste people against gay marriage claiming couples have the "right" to marry yet you want to limit that "right" only to homosexual couples of a certain age even though your justification could be used by many different groups you would continue to disallow from marriage. That is the hypocritical nature of your argument.

What is the harm in using civil unions to achieve the goal of state recognition?

Why are you and the far left so militant it must be called "marriage"?

Despite popular arguments from anti-gm side, there is an interest in limiting relationships that are proven to be harmful, so then it is necessary to prove that why it is not in the state's interest to limit those relationships. Lawrence v. Texas already established that what two consenting adults do in there bedroom is not in the state's interest.

Click to expand...

Which means nothing in this discussion but do continue.

There are even some good arguments against legalizing polygamy already.

Click to expand...

Not using the same arguments you are using for gay marriage absolutely not.

Whether it should be open or not, I am back and forth on, but realize the complications that come with making polygamous marriage legal. It is not something that is easy to compare like homosexual and heterosexual relationships.

Click to expand...

So you would discriminate based on personal opinion. Exactly how are you different from people opposed to gay marriage?

Since, the economic benefit is not my only argument, then it is worth it to mention. Of course it shouldn't be considered worth it for that alone. But considering the other benefits, it adds to those benefits. It helps to trump some of those perceived "harms" that the anti-gm side fears might happen, with no actual proof.

Click to expand...

You still don't understand that the same argument you are using for gay marriage can be used by the polygamists. Nothing in what you are arguing could stop polygamists for demanding the same "right" based on your arguments for gay marriage.

That is the reality you seem to want to avoid.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

digsbe said:

To mass reply to all the people that quoted me.

Even if gay marriage doesn't affect me directly, it does affect me indirectly and it goes against what I believe. It gay marriage is considered marriage then that means the state I live in recognizes a homosexual union as equal and as morally right as a heterosexual marriage. I have a right to stand up and vote for what I believe. Does this mean all middle class/poor people have no right to vote on candidates who want to raise taxes for the rich? After all, raising taxes on the rich doesn't affect them.

No one has replied to my point that overturning Prop 8 is a bigoted imposition of morals upon social conservatives. It's hypocrisy for them to say "no one has the right to impose their morals upon another" while they do the very thing. Not calling a homosexual union is not imposing anyone's morals upon another. No one is preventing homosexual sex or preventing them from living together or proclaiming themselves as partners. People are just not going to call what they have a marriage that is equal and morally acceptable like a heterosexual marriage. Now, Proposition 8 is a positive statement asserting that in California, the marital union is legally defined by the voters as a union between one man and one woman. If they repeal this they are telling the majority of voters that their opinion regarding marriage is illegal, that they have no right to vote regarding this social issue, and essentially that the state may impose liberal social values upon everyone that lives there against their will. They are imposing their definition of marriage upon everyone. The majority voted and said that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, many other states have done similar things and none have been shot down in court. When asked about a social issue, society decided and that decision was not in line with what many California Democrats wanted. It would be bigoted to tell the voters that their opinion is not only illegal, but that it doesn't count. It is bigoted to say "your definition of marriage is wrong, we are going to impose our definition upon you even though you voted as a majority to uphold the traditional definition of marriage."

Click to expand...

What you haven't shown is how it effects you. For some, drinking alcohol is against the beliefs, but we allow the consumption of alcohol. And the person who doesn't believe in partaking, simply doesn't partake. Some people frimly believe in celibacy, sex being against their personal morals, yet we don't outlaw sex or prevent heterosxuals from marrying to appease these people.

And definition of marriage is a personal thing. Do you believe you and I have the same definition? If not, who chooses? What allows you to decide for me what my definition of marriage is. I'm quite willing to let you define marriage for you as you see fit. You don't believe ins same sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. It is that simple. I won't prevent you from marrying someone of the opposite sex. Quite clearly, the imposition is coming from your side of this debate. You are telling others what they can and can't do, what they can define as what, and all without showing any just cause at all.

So, again I ask, exactly how does this effect you negatively? Be specific please.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

I shouldn't be forced to call a happy meal a happy meal!!!!!!! I will stand up and vote for it to be called a corporate money grabbing method meal!!!!!!

I don't agree with definitions of words, so I'll stand up and vote for my religious values to be reflected upon an institution that shouldn't even have anything to do with the state in the first place... RAR!!!!!!!!!

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

digsbe said:

No one has replied to my point that overturning Prop 8 is a bigoted imposition of morals upon social conservatives. It's hypocrisy for them to say "no one has the right to impose their morals upon another" while they do the very thing. Not calling a homosexual union is not imposing anyone's morals upon another. No one is preventing homosexual sex or preventing them from living together or proclaiming themselves as partners. People are just not going to call what they have a marriage that is equal and morally acceptable like a heterosexual marriage.

Click to expand...

Wrong.

Allowing same-sex marriage imposes nothing at all upon you. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero. Zilch.

Continuing to keep it banned DOES impose your warped morality on others. We are discriminated against, treated unequally by our own government. We are forbidden from entering into the same contract you can enter into.

So, try again with the whole "imposing" bull****. Nothing is imposed upon you if I'm allowed to marry a woman. Nothing at all. But something surely is imposed upon me by denying me the same right you have.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

texmaster said:

Said the person who refused to go point for point and quoted everything? Could you be a little more dishonest?



I said the studies were not conclusive. There is far more and better evidence of polygamists raising children but that doesn't justify changing the law for them either. Unless you want to dismiss entire countries who allow it now.



Can you explain why you limit it to couples? What evidence are you using for that limitation or "discrimination"? Could it be a simple moral judgment on your part?

And since you kept it at couples that being your moral choice, why do you have the right to limit the age of marriage? If you point to age of consent, that is simply a law just like the law against gay marriage and you want to change that. Starting to pick up on the hypocrisy? You lambaste people against gay marriage claiming couples have the "right" to marry yet you want to limit that "right" only to homosexual couples of a certain age even though your justification could be used by many different groups you would continue to disallow from marriage. That is the hypocritical nature of your argument.

What is the harm in using civil unions to achieve the goal of state recognition?

Why are you and the far left so militant it must be called "marriage"?



Which means nothing in this discussion but do continue.



Not using the same arguments you are using for gay marriage absolutely not.



So you would discriminate based on personal opinion. Exactly how are you different from people opposed to gay marriage?



You still don't understand that the same argument you are using for gay marriage can be used by the polygamists. Nothing in what you are arguing could stop polygamists for demanding the same "right" based on your arguments for gay marriage.

That is the reality you seem to want to avoid.

Click to expand...

First of all, I am replying to everything in one big post because my computer is being onery, and auto-scrolling on me. It is taking me long enough just to respond in this manner.

Okay, on to the debate.

As for the research, saying that it isn't conclusive, yet failing to provide any research that might prove it wrong, does nothing for your argument. You are essentially saying that the research can't prove to you that homosexuals can make good parents. There is no way that any research ever 100% proves that something actually occurs, which is generally why we have so many studies done on the same things. Logic says that where findings repeat themselves in research, once accounting for as many variables as possible, without evidence to refute a different reason for these findings happening, then the reasoning given is most likely true. So to refute the research that homosexuals can be good parents, you need to have sound research to suggest that all or most homosexuals don't make good parents.

As for polygamists raising children better than homosexuals, how about a little evidence? Links to studies? Without research, you can't compare how the two actually do raise children, so you can't really come to such a conclusion.

Moving on to other reasons outside childrearing. Age of consent is a law. It is really not the same thing as legalizing gay marriage. There are laws against an adult sleeping with a minor. The adult who sleeps with a minor could very likely face criminal charges and possibly punishment. This is not how marriage laws work. If a gay couple goes to try to obtain a marriage license, they are simply denied it. No one faces criminal charges for the attempt. In fact, there are cases right now, where some couples have their marriage in question, due to how their state recognizes their gender. If a state has rules that recognize gender as what the person is living their life as, and they changed their gender after marrying someone of the opposite sex, then would their marriage now be invalid or annulled automatically if their state does not recognize same sex marriages? This type of couple would not be arrested or face any kind of criminal charges for having a marriage license. The reason for age of consent laws deals with emotional maturity to be able to legally enter into contracts with another person. Civil marriage is a contract. In fact, many, if not all, states allow for at least some minors to legally marry if their parents consent. This argument is dishonest since you should be well aware of the reasoning behind age of consent laws, which do not follow the reasons in denying gays marriage.

Polygamy is different than opening up the current marriage rules to homosexual couples. This has been argued in a different thread. There could be benefits as well as harms to society for legalizing polygamy. Those possible benefits as well as possible harms must be studied before society should consider legalizing polygamy. If there is no evidence to suggest that polygamy will prove harmful to society but will provide benefits or even that the benefits will outweigh the harm, then it should be legal. The side for same sex marriage has listed tons of benefits and no one has provided evidence of any possible, quantifiable harm to society. When you can provide proof of potential harm to society because of homosexual marriage being legalized, then you will at least have a start for an argument against it.

I am not "militant" about it being called "civil union", however, I am against it. If the compromise was to call same sex marriage "civil union" and they had all the same benefits and privileges of marriage, I would consider it a huge victory. However, I would still be verbally fighting to have it called marriage. I would also be rather ticked off that our government wasted so much money just to appease the whining of a group of people who believe wrongly that they deserve the right to own a legal word and its meaning. Especially when I know that on a personal/private level all those couples in a "civil union" will consider and call themselves "married", just as I would if my own marriage was called a "civil union" on paper for whatever reason.

I do not discriminate on my opinion. I agree with most laws and limitations/restrictions that are based in research and can show a point that harm would reasonably be caused if the limitation did not exist or where something is not needed from a logical standpoint. I do not base discrimination on my own sense of what is or isn't right for me, or even my family. I consider the facts that go with the laws. For instance, I consider it wrong to preach hate speech against anyone or any group, but I am against laws that would make it illegal to preach such speech, because it could very likely lead to further restrictions on speech in the name of cutting down on hate. This is actually another big problem I have with DOMA, because if the government can enact a law that limits what couples it will accept as legitimate couples without a sound reason for why it is in the state's interest to do so, then what is to stop them from limiting marriage even further to couples who can only have their own children or to only couples who are religious?

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

All I have to say, roguenuke, is that you have high hopes if you think that your measured and reasoned response is going to get anything more than the same obtuse blather with no attempt at actually arguing against the points you made.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

jallman said:

All I have to say, roguenuke, is that you have high hopes if you think that your measured and reasoned response is going to get anything more than the same obtuse blather with no attempt at actually arguing against the points you made.

Click to expand...

LOL I know, but my mother always told me that I was stubbornly optimistic and could be way too positive for my own good. I just can't help it. I hate unfairness.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

roguenuke said:

LOL I know, but my mother always told me that I was stubbornly optimistic and could be way too positive for my own good. I just can't help it. I hate unfairness.

Click to expand...

I was speaking more about that one in particular. There are others to have great discussions about this with; he's just not one of them.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

digsbe said:

Even if gay marriage doesn't affect me directly, it does affect me indirectly and it goes against what I believe.

Click to expand...

Man! Living in a democracy sure is tough! People do things you don't agree with and you have to put up with it! Oh, if only America stood for the ideals that only one group got to decide everything -- why then the world would be perfect!

Hey, Digsbe: Did it ever occur to you that there are many things that people do that go against what I believe, too? I happen to be a vegetarian, but I'm not about to demand laws forcing everyone else to be one too (and my reasons for being a vegetarian are based in science and ethics, not religious books written thousands of years before any of us were born). You, on the other hand, see no problem with forcing your views on everyone else.

Oh, silly me -- here I go, debating after saying it was useless.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

digsbe said:

Even if gay marriage doesn't affect me directly, it does affect me indirectly and it goes against what I believe.

Click to expand...

have you considered that what you believe is wrong?

It gay marriage is considered marriage then that means the state I live in recognizes a homosexual union as equal and as morally right as a heterosexual marriage.

Click to expand...

They are equal in reality. And should be equal by law.

I have a right to stand up and vote for what I believe. Does this mean all middle class/poor people have no right to vote on candidates who want to raise taxes for the rich? After all, raising taxes on the rich doesn't affect them.

Click to expand...

False analogy.

No one has replied to my point that overturning Prop 8 is a bigoted imposition of morals upon social conservatives.

Click to expand...

Because it's not.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Redress said:

There are my first two posts in this thread, both from the first page, and I think they make clear that I am not arguing gay marriage based on genetics. My first mention of genetics/evolution is on page 5, and in response to some one else who failed to understand how evolution and genetics work. Correcting other people's mistakes is not the same as pushing the argument myself.

Click to expand...

Before I waste my time, are you going to deny you haven't made genetic arguments in past threads? Don't make me dig them up.

Gay Marriage should be legal for a number of reason. First and most importantly, gay couples are increasingly involved in raising children, with large numbers of them being primary caregivers for children. It is easier and easier for gay couples to have children through a variety of methods. For the benefit of society and those children, providing stable living arrangements is a positive.

Click to expand...

Large numbers? Do you have any evidence of that?

I would love to see how many homosexual couples for example actually have adopted and I'm sure the number doesn't even come to 5% of all adoptions so to claim the numbers are "large" is false. You can claim its because many states don't allow homosexuals to adopt but that doesn't change the numbers.

I can make the same argument for polygamists or any other group of people. There is nothing unique about that argument specifically for homosexuals.

Married people are more likely to own homes, are more stable in terms of jobs, and overall contribute more to their community than unmarried people.

Click to expand...

Again, I can make the same argument for any alternate lifestyle. By your arguments you could deny no couple or group of people from being married so the consequences go well beyond your target group of people.

There is no logical reason to deny marriage to gay people.

Click to expand...

Thats a personal opinion not an argument.

There is no logical reason to give gay people the same benefits, but call it something else.

Click to expand...

Sigh. Again, personal opinion not an argument.

Those are my arguments for gay marriage, and you have not argued against them. You have built your straw man and thought it meant something.

Click to expand...

Spare me the "straw man". Once you start trying to catagorize your oppoent's argument that way you've already lost. Its a painfully overused and inaccurate statement. Stick to the subject and the argument being made.

My argument to your claims is you have yet to establish the need for homosexuality to be equal to traditional marriage therefore civil unions best fit your description. And furthermore, using your arguments you could not deny any other alternative lifestyle the same privilege of marriage. Any alternative lifestyle can claim they can care for children then draw in the facts we know about traditional marriage and bastardize them for their own group as you have. That is what you keep failing to understand. You can't let in just 2 party homosexual marriage without simply drawing the same line you vilify those who are against gay marriage in a different place.

We have chosen a family unit that has served us very well for thousands of years and you are going to need more than your own personal desire for gay marriage to justify equal footing while at the same time producing an argument that cannot be used by any other alternative lifestyle to achieve the same goal.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

If it wasn't for having and raising children, would marriage have ever been created in the first place?

I doubt it.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Erod said:

If it wasn't for having and raising children, would marriage have ever been created in the first place?

I doubt it.

Click to expand...

Probably, although without kids, we really wouldn't have went very far as a species. Getting to that second generation without kids is pretty much impossible.

However, marriage has other purposes than just to make children. Marriage was often used, especially in the past before women were considered anything more than property, as a way to legally join families and even to make political alliances between countries. And besides, people really don't need marriage to procreate. Just like marriages don't need children to be valid.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

texmaster said:

Before I waste my time, are you going to deny you haven't made genetic arguments in past threads? Don't make me dig them up.

Click to expand...

Genetics is not a primary argument. There is evidence, but not proof, that homosexuality may be genetic. All this is unimportant though, since my argument against gay marriage is not based on genetics.

Large numbers? Do you have any evidence of that?

Click to expand...

http://www.law.ucla.edu/Williamsinstitute/publications/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.

About.com: http://www.enotalone.com/article/9874.html

"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.

I would love to see how many homosexual couples for example actually have adopted and I'm sure the number doesn't even come to 5% of all adoptions so to claim the numbers are "large" is false. You can claim its because many states don't allow homosexuals to adopt but that doesn't change the numbers.

Click to expand...

I have linked this source to you before: http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/FinalAdoptionReport.pdf

• More than one in three lesbians have given birth and one in six gay men have fathered or adopted a child.
• More than half of gay men and 41 percent of lesbians want to have a child.
• An estimated two million GLB people are interested in adopting.
• An estimated 65,500 adopted children are living with a lesbian or gay parent.
• More than 16,000 adopted children are living with lesbian and gay parents in California, the highest number among the states.
• Gay and lesbian parents are raising four percent of all adopted children in the United States.
• Same-sex couples raising adopted children are older, more educated, and have more economic resources than other adoptive parents.
• Adopted children with same-sex parents are younger and more likely to be foreign born.
• An estimated 14,100 foster children are living with lesbian or gay parents.
• Gay and lesbian parents are raising three percent of foster children in the United States.

Click to expand...

I can make the same argument for polygamists or any other group of people. There is nothing unique about that argument specifically for homosexuals.

Click to expand...

Feel free to provide data to back up that claim.

Again, I can make the same argument for any alternate lifestyle. By your arguments you could deny no couple or group of people from being married so the consequences go well beyond your target group of people.

Click to expand...

I don't have any data to prove or disprove your claim. Neither do you.

Thats a personal opinion not an argument.

Click to expand...

Then make a logical argument against gay marriage.

Sigh. Again, personal opinion not an argument.

Click to expand...

Make a logical argument for giving gays civil unions identical to marriage but calling it something else.

Spare me the "straw man". Once you start trying to catagorize your oppoent's argument that way you've already lost. Its a painfully overused and inaccurate statement. Stick to the subject and the argument being made.

Click to expand...

And yet that is exactly what you have been trying to do. You want me to argue based on genetics, so you keep saying that is the argument, when it is not. 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.

My argument to your claims is you have yet to establish the need for homosexuality to be equal to traditional marriage therefore civil unions best fit your description. And furthermore, using your arguments you could not deny any other alternative lifestyle the same privilege of marriage. Any alternative lifestyle can claim they can care for children then draw in the facts we know about traditional marriage and bastardize them for their own group as you have. That is what you keep failing to understand. You can't let in just 2 party homosexual marriage without simply drawing the same line you vilify those who are against gay marriage in a different place.

We have chosen a family unit that has served us very well for thousands of years and you are going to need more than your own personal desire for gay marriage to justify equal footing while at the same time producing an argument that cannot be used by any other alternative lifestyle to achieve the same goal.

Click to expand...

I 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.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Erod said:

If it wasn't for having and raising children, would marriage have ever been created in the first place?

I doubt it.

Click to expand...

And if it wasn't for our fear of death and the creative/imaginative parts of our brain, I guess they wouldn't have invented God and religions either...

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Erod said:

If it wasn't for having and raising children, would marriage have ever been created in the first place?

I doubt it.

Click to expand...

If that is the case, then it is a strong argument for gay marriage, since gays are in large numbers having and raising children. Thank you for your support.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

hazlnut said:

And if it wasn't for our fear of death and the creative/imaginative parts of our brain, I guess they wouldn't have invented God and religions either...

Click to expand...

Or maybe some of us just aren't arrogant enough to think all of this got here by complete accident. You'd have to have a soul to understand that though.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Erod said:

Or maybe some of us just aren't arrogant enough to think all of this got here by complete accident. You'd have to have a soul to understand that though.

Click to expand...

No Erod. Arrogance is man's foolish belief that he can understand the infinite with a finite brain.

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.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

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!!!!!

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Redress said:

Genetics is not a primary argument. There is evidence, but not proof, that homosexuality may be genetic. All this is unimportant though, since my argument against gay marriage is not based on genetics.

Click to expand...

Can you answer the question please? Third time. Have you used genetics as an argument for gay marriage?

http://www.law.ucla.edu/Williamsinstitute/publications/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.

About.com: http://www.enotalone.com/article/9874.html

"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.

Click to expand...

From the same articles you are quoting:

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.

Feel free to provide data to back up that claim.

Click to expand...

LOL Really? Ok then.

Here is the list of all countries that still allow pologamy.

* Polygamy in Afghanistan
* Polygamy in Algeria
* Polygamy in Angola
* Polygamy in Australia

B

* Polygamy in Bahrain
* Polygamy in Bangladesh
* Polygamy in Benin
* Polygamy in Bhutan
* Polygamy in Botswana
* Polygamy in Burma
* Polygamy in Burundi

C

* 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

D

* Polygamy in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
* Polygamy in Djibouti

E

* Polygamy in Egypt
* Polygamy in Equatorial Guinea
* Polygamy in Eritrea
* Polygamy in Ethiopia

G

* Polygamy in Gabon
* Polygamy in The Gambia


G cont.

* Polygamy in Ghana

I

* Polygamy in India
* Polygamy in Indonesia
* Polygamy in Iraqi Kurdistan

K

* Polygamy in Kazakhstan
* Polygamy in Kenya
* Polygamy in Kuwait
* Polygamy in Kyrgyzstan

L

* Polygamy in Laos
* Polygamy in Lesotho
* Polygamy in Libya

M

* 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

N

* Polygamy in Namibia
* Polygamy in Niger
* Polygamy in Nigeria
* Polygamy in Niue

P

* Polygamy in Pakistan


P cont.

* Marriage in the Palestinian territories
* Polygamy in Tunisia

R

* Polygamy in Russia
* Polygamy in Rwanda

S

* Polygamy in Saudi Arabia
* Polygamy in Somalia
* Polygamy in South Africa
* Polygamy in Sri Lanka
* Polygamy in Sudan
* Polygamy in Swaziland

T

* Polygamy in Tajikistan
* Polygamy in Thailand
* Polygamy in Turkey
* Polygamy in Turkmenistan

U

* Polygamy in Uganda
* Polygamy in the United Arab Emirates
* Polygamy in the United Kingdom
* Polygamy in the United States
* Polygamy in Uzbekistan

V

* Polygamy in Vietnam

Y

* Polygamy in Yemen

Z

* Polygamy in Zambia
* Polygamy in Zimbabwe

Categoryolygamy 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.

I don't have any data to prove or disprove your claim. Neither do you.

Click to expand...

Of course there is proof. Pologamy is just the easiest.

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.

Click to expand...

]

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

Make a logical argument for giving gays civil unions identical to marriage but calling it something else.

Click to expand...

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"

And yet that is exactly what you have been trying to do.

Click to expand...

Because you have. If you keep denying it, I'll be forced to look up your own posts.

You want me to argue based on genetics, so you keep saying that is the argument, when it is not.

Click to expand...

Then deny you have used it on other threads. Go ahead. I'll bury you in your own words quite easily

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.

Click to expand...

Wrong again. I've made my arguments quite clear multiple times. Please read more carefully.

I 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.

Click to expand...

Pologamists are raising children. Marriage is a part of a good, stable home for children. Therefore, polgamistists 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

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

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.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

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.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Erod said:

If it wasn't for having and raising children, would marriage have ever been created in the first place?

I doubt it.

Click to expand...

Marriage came about more or less as a business arrangement with the women being the property of the men.

Guess it's a good thing that we changed those definitions and practices over the years and that marriage evolved as society did.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

rivrrat said:

Marriage came about more or less as a business arrangement with the women being the property of the men.

Guess it's a good thing that we changed those definitions and practices over the years and that marriage evolved as society did.

Click to expand...

an old law book I read many years ago noted marriage was a contract with a man's benefit being access to children and sexual intercourse and the woman's benefit was being provided for by the man.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Groucho said:

Man! Living in a democracy sure is tough! People do things you don't agree with and you have to put up with it!

Click to expand...

That is obviously the situation with the pro-GM posters in this thread. They cherry pick the facts, then ignore the rest with a violent thrust of the head into sand. Like the guy who thinks so much of the Constitution, but ridicules the Bible as "fairy tales." It may interest you to know that many people ... billions of people ... find comfort and enlightenment in the Bible. I'm not one, though I respect its meaning to others.

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.