View Poll Results: What is same sex marriage?

Voters
192. You may not vote on this poll
  • A special right

    109 56.77%
  • Equal protection

    62 32.29%
  • Other

    21 10.94%
Page 14 of 98 FirstFirst ... 412131415162464 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 976

Thread: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

  1. #131
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,781

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    It's a good strategy. When you get those members who aren't here to debate but just post the same debunked crap over and over again and run from threads when they realize they are losing, then by posting the same rebuttals it shows that nobody is taking them seriously anymore and that they are actually going to have to justify their opinions with valid evidence. Most of them just give up and go away, which is fine by me.
    Yup. That's why I have about 6 of my most effective posts bookmarked so I can repost them at a moment's notice if need be.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  2. #132
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch View Post
    Adoption isn't exactly "producing children." You do know that don't you?
    No, however the presence of kids needing adoptive parents leads to a conundrum for your suggestion that government has an interest in marriage due to a desire for them to produce off spring because its essential to our continuation as a society. As a society, we have such an abundance of produced off spring currently that we do not have enough family units to properly care for them all. There is no risk to society failing because people aren't being produced anytime in the near future as we are running at a significant surplus currently.

    The general fall back is that its not to PRODUCE children, but to create a healthy environment for raising said children. Again, this fails to work as documented by the studies from CC that shows such an environment can be produced.

    I've already provided an article that suggested some 50% of gays think marriage shouldn't be be limited to monogamy.
    You linked to an article that made a statement about a report that hadn't been issued yet and thus had no information regarding the actual question asked, the potential answers, the percentage chance of error, or a legitimate chance to be peer reviewed. Its rather worthless.

    And...even if it was legitimate, which is highly dubious, it would still not change the fact that it also means 50% of them believe it SHOULD be monogamous. Taking your ridiculous rampant sex for all homosexual notion, then that means that 50% less would be engaging in such should they be able to enter into an official and beneficial monogamous relationship.

  3. #133
    Professor
    Dutch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northern Arkansas
    Last Seen
    08-23-17 @ 09:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,808

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Looks like the APA changed their site and didn't update the links. I'll have to go look for them. You can read what I wrote, however, I summarized each study with both an abstract and commentary.
    go ahead, I'll read them next week. but the fact of the matter is all of these studies essentially reach the same conclusion; gays produce children as well adjusted as straight parents or better adjusted. Nice. Gay parents produce better adjusted children than straights all the time. Quite remarkable when you think of it.

    Most of these studies seem to have similar problems;
    -most of these studies concentrate on lesbians.
    -most of these studies concentrate on whites.
    -control groups tend to be based on gays with children from previous hetero marriages, just how do you factor out the effects of divorce on the children? Just how do divorced children show no problems from divorce when most studies show the children of divorce more often than not develop emotional and developemental problems from divorce. Could it be lesbians can mysteriously overcome all those developmental problems simply because their gay?
    -just why are there so few longitudal studies of gay parenting?
    -representative samples of parents in studies are still mostly very small.
    -most reprresentative sample of parents are from urban areas. Are they really representative of the rest of the country?
    -virtually all the studies I've read, that includes some of yours the reasearchers have come to eerily similar results......gays, lesbians anyway, tend to produce children as well adjusted as hetero couple, or better! Are there no red flags here for you at all?
    -What, exacty qualifies as "well adjusted?"
    -if these studies are anything to go by we no longer need men to raise children, unless they're gay of course. So much for all that research that suggests children actually need fathers in order to develop properly.
    Last edited by Dutch; 01-02-11 at 02:57 AM.
    He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire. ~ Winston Churchill

  4. #134
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    As to the answer to this question, it depends what you mean by a special right really.

    I, personally, do not believe that marriage is a "right"...not in the sense that its viewed today, with some kind of government sponsored benefit status. However, what I personally believe is rather useless in this context. The courts have ruled it a right and until such time as that's over turned its the basis for which we need to work.

    If its a Right, then said right needs to be equally protected per the EPC clause of the 14th amendment.

    Currently, there is a legitimate argument based on gender that the discrimination currently being employed by the government...wherein men can marry women but women can't marry women and vise versa...does not show that such discrimination serves an "important" state interest that "substantially" requires said discrimination to properly perform as would be required for a "Middle-Tier Scrutiny" situation.

    As such, it is an equal protection issue based on gender under the 14th amendment that I believe is currently unconstitutional.

    Now, with that said...more often then not when people reference EPC its with regards to discrimination against sexual preference, not gender. Sexual preference, currently, is at the minimum tier level of scrutiny and I believe there's enough there to meet that level of scrutiny. As such, until such a time that precedent happens that sets sexual preference as a middle or strict level of scrutiny, I would have to say it doesn't fall under EPC when using that argument. However, there is always the chance that if challenged in that way it may cause the court to evaluate what level of scrutiny such needs to fall under.

    As I have said in a number of threads, the best option that is realistic (realizing that the government is never going to fully get out of the marriage business) is to abolish the term "marriage" from the law books and replace it with "civil union" country wide. Allow marriage to firmly and completely fall only within one realm, the private realm, rather than straddling both private and public with duel meanings and thus issues revolving around both.

  5. #135
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch View Post
    go ahead, I'll read them next week. but the fact of the matter is all of these studies essentially reach the same conclusion; gays produce children as well adjusted as straight parents or better adjusted. Nice. Gay parents produce better adjusted children than straights all the time. Quite remarkable when you think of it.

    Most of these studies seem to have similar problems;
    -most of these studies concentrate on lesbians.
    -most of these studies concentrate on whites.
    -control groups tend to be based on gays with children from previous hetero marriages, just how do you factor out the effects of divorce on the children? Just how do divorced children show no problems from divorce when most studies show the children of divorce more often than not develop emotional and developemental problems from divorce. Could it be lesbians can mysteriously overcome all those developmental problems simply because their gay?
    -just why are there so few longitudal studies of gay parenting?
    -representative samples of parents in studies are still mostly very small.
    -most reprresentative sample of parents are from urban areas. Are they really representative of the rest of the country?
    -virtually all the studies I've read, that includes some of yours the reasearchers have come to eerily similar results......gays, lesbians anyway, tend to produce children as well adjusted as hetero couple, or better! Are there no red flags here for you at all?
    -What, exacty qualifies as "well adjusted?"
    -if these studies are anything to go by we no longer need men to raise children, unless they're gay of course. So much for all that research that suggests children actually need fathers in order to develop properly.
    Seriously...you're going to come up with that laundry list of complaints while a few dozen posts backs claim you "proved" something by posting an article that talked about a then unpublished study?

  6. #136
    Dungeon Master
    Somewhere in Babylon
    Jetboogieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Babylon...
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,322
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    As I have said in a number of threads, the best option that is realistic (realizing that the government is never going to fully get out of the marriage business) is to abolish the term "marriage" from the law books and replace it with "civil union" country wide. Allow marriage to firmly and completely fall only within one realm, the private realm, rather than straddling both private and public with duel meanings and thus issues revolving around both.
    Zyphlin..........

  7. #137
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,827

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    I'm guilty of posting these threads myself, two of them to be exact. One was locked due to reaching 2000 posts and they are both very entertaining but in the end there are no good reason to stop gay marriage, none as an American. They have all be thoroughly debunked but they are fun discussing but at the same time its kind of unfair, its an argument the other side cant win.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  8. #138
    Professor
    Dutch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northern Arkansas
    Last Seen
    08-23-17 @ 09:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,808

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    No, however the presence of kids needing adoptive parents leads to a conundrum for your suggestion that government has an interest in marriage due to a desire for them to produce off spring because its essential to our continuation as a society. As a society, we have such an abundance of produced off spring currently that we do not have enough family units to properly care for them all. There is no risk to society failing because people aren't being produced anytime in the near future as we are running at a significant surplus currently.
    this is completely off topic. BTW you should be aware we have a growing population by virtue of the fact we've managed to rob mexico, among other countries, of something like 10% of it's native born population. (also off topic)

    The general fall back is that its not to PRODUCE children, but to create a healthy environment for raising said children. Again, this fails to work as documented by the studies from CC that shows such an environment can be produced.
    I firmly believe a tradional family unit composed of two parents, male and female, is the best possible combination to accomplish that goal. Just why do you insist on lowering the bar?


    You linked to an article that made a statement about a report that hadn't been issued yet and thus had no information regarding the actual question asked, the potential answers, the percentage chance of error, or a legitimate chance to be peer reviewed. Its rather worthless.
    It was an article, not a study. It did however, support my contention monogamous behavior isn't exactly the goal of a great number of homosexual couples, something that has been pointed out in other studies. Would you like for me to produce one? I understand you don't approve of the article. It doesn't fit your political perspective. That still doesn't make it wrong. It just shows you have a bias you want to keep.

    And...even if it was legitimate, which is highly dubious, it would still not change the fact that it also means 50% of them believe it SHOULD be monogamous. Taking your ridiculous rampant sex for all homosexual notion, then that means that 50% less would be engaging in such should they be able to enter into an official and beneficial monogamous relationship.
    That would amount to only 50% and that before the trials and tribulations of marriage. Hetero couples usually go into marriage with somelike a 95% expectation of monogomy. Something like 25% eventually stray. Do the math.
    He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire. ~ Winston Churchill

  9. #139
    Professor
    Dutch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northern Arkansas
    Last Seen
    08-23-17 @ 09:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,808

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Seriously...you're going to come up with that laundry list of complaints while a few dozen posts backs claim you "proved" something by posting an article that talked about a then unpublished study?
    Well, yes, much of the "research" I've seen have problems. We're all aware not all research is valid. Not all research is reproducable. Reseachers do have biases. Several of you have objected to my new york times article. Am I not allowed to object to some of these studies? Are liberals/leftists the only ones allowed to object to sources? Walter shumm has pointed out some of these in a recent study of his. I could provide that. I wouldn't even object if you disagreed with his findings, unlike yourself, of course.

    In regards to my article. I provided support for an assertion I made. Gay coupling tends to be short and often non monogamous. I've made no claims to "proving" anything. I have notice a tendancy among my erstwhile liberl/leftist brothers and sisters to some rather remarkable claims themselves tho. Have you not noticed yourself? You have the capacity to read.
    Last edited by Dutch; 01-02-11 at 03:25 AM.
    He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire. ~ Winston Churchill

  10. #140
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,827

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    As to the answer to this question, it depends what you mean by a special right really.

    I, personally, do not believe that marriage is a "right"...not in the sense that its viewed today, with some kind of government sponsored benefit status. However, what I personally believe is rather useless in this context. The courts have ruled it a right and until such time as that's over turned its the basis for which we need to work.

    If its a Right, then said right needs to be equally protected per the EPC clause of the 14th amendment.

    Currently, there is a legitimate argument based on gender that the discrimination currently being employed by the government...wherein men can marry women but women can't marry women and vise versa...does not show that such discrimination serves an "important" state interest that "substantially" requires said discrimination to properly perform as would be required for a "Middle-Tier Scrutiny" situation.

    As such, it is an equal protection issue based on gender under the 14th amendment that I believe is currently unconstitutional.

    Now, with that said...more often then not when people reference EPC its with regards to discrimination against sexual preference, not gender. Sexual preference, currently, is at the minimum tier level of scrutiny and I believe there's enough there to meet that level of scrutiny. As such, until such a time that precedent happens that sets sexual preference as a middle or strict level of scrutiny, I would have to say it doesn't fall under EPC when using that argument. However, there is always the chance that if challenged in that way it may cause the court to evaluate what level of scrutiny such needs to fall under.

    As I have said in a number of threads, the best option that is realistic (realizing that the government is never going to fully get out of the marriage business) is to abolish the term "marriage" from the law books and replace it with "civil union" country wide. Allow marriage to firmly and completely fall only within one realm, the private realm, rather than straddling both private and public with duel meanings and thus issues revolving around both
    .
    "I" personally wouldn't have a problem with this but you have to see that changing the name could easily be argued discrimination.

    Theres no need to change the name because no matter what anybody says, that TRIES to use "religion" as an excuse they are wrong. Marriage already has NOTHING to do with religion RIGHT NOW. Religion ONLY plays a role in marriage if the people involved want it to, I can get married by a magistrate tomorrow if I want or go to Vegas and get married at a freaking drive up window and RELIGION will play NO ROLE.

    I know you Zyphlin aren't saying this Im just making a general statement and pointing out the HUGE hypocrisy that "most" people have that try and use religion. When people get married without religion or with a DIFFERENT religion very very few cry about that but if its same sex all of sudden they act like they car about that word, give me a break, its a joke.

    But like I said, it wouldn't both me to call them all civil unions IF they were made equal, currently they all are NOT, but I would definitely understand and support the people that would say its discrimination because it is.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

Page 14 of 98 FirstFirst ... 412131415162464 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •