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 18 of 98 FirstFirst ... 816171819202868 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 976

Thread: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

  1. #171
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:58 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,299
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Dutch, you have 3 big problems with your posts.

    1) You are now using FRC. They have zero credibility. What you are doing would be akin to me using the Democratic National Committee Website to prove republicans are wrong.

    2) You are still comparing married strait people to unmarried gay people. It's not a valid comparison for what you are trying to do.

    3) You still have not countered the argument that gays being allowed to marry would promote stability, a better environment for children, reduced promiscuity and lower STD rates.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  2. #172
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,967

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Centrist77 View Post
    again I dont think it would bother me either but I bet it would bother people because we would all know that it was changed because of gays and that could easily be argued as discrimination.

    If you dont think so just apply it to race or gender. Heres a funny example I like to use.

    Congrats Mr. Obama/ Mrs Clinton! you won! uhm listen, see the thing is we aren’t going to call you the President, see well, uhm , you are half black/a woman and we just cant call you THE PRESIDENT, that’s a “sacred" word based on MY opinion, even though we have used it for all others we are going to change it NOW, we are going to call you aaaaaah . . . . uhm . . . The CEO if the United States of America, yeah thats it.

    Now mind you, you'll still have the same "full rights/privileges" and powers and decisions to make has the president we just cant call you that or use that word anymore because of you.


    Like I said I dont think it would bother me but if someone wanted to argue discrimination based on the example above id have a tough time arguing against them.

    Just saying
    I think you're missing something Centrist.

    What you are suggesting above is not what I'm proposing, but what we have now in some states. Separate but equal type of thing.

    I'm saying remove "marriage" COMPLETELY as a legal term, for ANYONE, and simply make civil union between two people the only government sponsored coupling. Two same sex people? Civil union. Two opposite sex people? Civil Union.

    So if people want they could be "Married" in their church, but not form a civil union under the government to have it legally recognized and be given the extra privileged associated. Conversely, two people could choose to forgo a religious "marriage" but simply go and get a civil union. Or they could be married by a church and sign the documents needed to form a civil union.

    What it essentially does is allow you to have two COMPLETELY separate things...legally, the civil union, privately, the marriage.

    There can be no legitimate claims of discrimination because it would be the status applied to all individuals.

  3. #173
    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 CriticalThought View Post
    Evidence and reality prove your opinion wrong.

    I wonder what you call it when you hold to an erroneous belief in the face of evidence to the contrary?

    Oh that's right! It's called a delusion!
    Believing men and women to be equally important in raising both boys and girls makes me "delusional?" If that's what you wish to believe, go ahead. I simply disagree with you. I have already linked one article that referenced one study that refutes your assertion. Would you like for me to point it out, again? Would you?source

    .....Can the "second mommy" compensate for the absence of a father? There is substantial evidence that children benefit from having a second sex represented in the home -- not just a second person. Developmental psychologist Norma Radin and her colleagues studied the relationship between grandparents and grandchildren born to adolescent unwed mothers living with their parents. The young children who had positively involved grandfathers displayed more competence than those with an absent or uninvolved grandfather. The presence of the grandmother, on the other hand, did not have a clear-cut impact, suggesting a redundancy between the two forms of maternal influence.(11) Children, especially boys with involved grandfathers, showed less fear, anger, and distress.(12)

    Even gay-affirming therapists are noting the problem. In an article entitled, "A Boy and Two Mothers", Toni Heineman reports that in spite of the pretence that two "mothers" were the same as a mother and father, families had to cope with the reality of an absent father.(13)

    Men and women grow up with certain natural expectations about what it means to be a man or a woman. Although activists may claim that these feelings are mere social constructions which they can overcome, in practice nature will always have its way....

    The very idea, the very concept that children actually develop, grow, mature better in environments that include both their fathers and mothers was actually, once, a very commonly held belief. Honest. Naturally, you can disagree with the article. You can object to the premis of the study. You can even continue to call me "delusional" for my long held beliefs. Better yet why don't you reference some more studies that support your contention that both male and females are not really needed in order to raise competent adults of both sexes. Please, feel free to, or you can just sit there and make silly claims or send me some more snotty pm's. The choice is yours.
    He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire. ~ Winston Churchill

  4. #174
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:58 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,299
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    And now you are using a blog as a source. Keep up the good work Dutch.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  5. #175
    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 Redress View Post
    Dutch, you have 3 big problems with your posts.

    1) You are now using FRC. They have zero credibility. What you are doing would be akin to me using the Democratic National Committee Website to prove republicans are wrong.
    .......and the studies contained therein? Naturally, you don't approve of the sources but that's how this works. You provide a source I provide an alternative one. We both know that. If I am only limited to sources that you approve then you should only use those I approve of. Otherwise this doesn't work. Debate is impossible.

    2) You are still comparing married strait people to unmarried gay people. It's not a valid comparison for what you are trying to do.
    I've provided articles suggesting gays presently view marriage from a different perspective than I do. I view it as an insitution that requires monogamy as essention in order to be effective. I have provided articles that suggest "many" in the gay community do not believe marriage requires monogamy, at all. This is a cultural difference. It's to be expected. It's at the heart of my argument. It's your culture that determines the institution, not the institution that determines your culture.



    3) You still have not countered the argument that gays being allowed to marry would promote stability, a better environment for children, reduced promiscuity and lower STD rates.
    I believe I have. I have already provided two articles that suggest indicate homosexual relationships tend to be less stable than heterosexual ones now. I have also linked an article in the new york times (many disagree with) that suggests many gays don't view monogamy important for a marriage.

    Unless monogamy becomes a priority in gay relationships, unless the nature of gay relationships change for the majority of the community they will continue to remain shortlived, and unstable by definition.

    In some ways we are at an impass. You are suggesting the institution of marriage will change the gay community. I am suggesting the gay community will have to change in order for the institution of marriage to work for them. What comes first the chicken or the egg.

    At any rate the very best environments for children are those that are stable, and longterm. Feel free to call me "delusional" for thinking this way as critical thinking has already branded me as such.

    I tell ya' what why don't you references support for your contention that the gay community will change their cultural mores and their views of marriage.........just because. You see the problem, don't ya?

    Last edited by Dutch; 01-02-11 at 01:12 PM.
    He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire. ~ Winston Churchill

  6. #176
    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 Redress View Post
    And now you are using a blog as a source. Keep up the good work Dutch.
    Please provide a source that references support for your contentions. I'm right here. I'll wait for ya'.
    He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire. ~ Winston Churchill

  7. #177
    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 Singularity View Post
    Can you provide some unbiased, scientific studies please? I was interested in reading what I thought was going to be accredited research supporting your side. I clicked on one link, and it took me to the Family Research Council, and another took me to Mercatornet. I'm not interested in reading opinions, but facts, and these two sources are about as unscientific and biased as you can get (and wasn't the Family Research Council actually listed as a hate group this year?) The Slate article was a good start, but it's 6 years old, and with all the new unbiased scientific and psychiatric evidence coming out over the last few years that shows support for same sex couples and child rearing, I am looking for something reputable that supports the other side's arguments.
    You don't like my source, ok. That source did reference studies that support my contentions. Better yet just what is your premis? I mean other than complaining of my sources. Then provide sources that support your contentions. That would be nice.
    Last edited by Dutch; 01-02-11 at 01:31 PM.
    He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire. ~ Winston Churchill

  8. #178
    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 CriticalThought View Post
    So once again you don't compare unmarried homosexual couples to unmarried heterosexual couples, you compare unmarried homosexual couples to married heterosexual couples. You really don't see the obvious flaw in doing that?
    I'll tell ya' what critic thinking why don't you provide a study, an article, anything from anywhere that suggests that just as many members of the gay community view the importance of monogamy in the institution of marriage as the straight community. Why don't you do that. That would be very helpful.
    He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire. ~ Winston Churchill

  9. #179
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:58 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,299
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch View Post
    .......and the studies contained therein? Naturally, you don't approve of the sources but that's how this works. You provide a source I provide an alternative one. We both know that. If I am only limited to sources that you approve then you should only use those I approve of. Otherwise this doesn't work. Debate is impossible.
    You have yet to provide a real source. Try finding some actual studies, not some website that talks about studies. I again point out that FRC has a long history of slanting badly what they present and flat out dishonesty.

    I've provided articles suggesting gays presently view marriage from a different perspective than I do. I view it as an insitution that requires monogamy as essention in order to be effective. I have provided articles that suggest "many" in the gay community do not believe marriage requires monogamy, at all. This is a cultural difference. It's to be expected. It's at the heart of my argument. It's your culture that determines the institution, not the institution that determines your culture.
    You are still repeating the same mistake. You are still comparing married people to single people. You want results that mean something, compare married gay people in the US with strait married people in the US. Saying unmarried people are more less monogamous than married people, and since gays cannot marry, they are more promiscuous, so gays should not be married because they are too promiscuous is an obviously flawed premise.


    I believe I have. I have already provided two articles that suggest indicate homosexual relationships tend to be less stable than heterosexual ones now. I have also linked an article in the new york times (many disagree with) that suggests many gays don't view monogamy important for a marriage.
    You have shown that relationships outside of marriage are less stable. You have presented an article which is based on a study that was not yet published, and which also uses anecdotes to show something. Your problem is that, in fact, you have presented no actual evidence to back up your point.

    Unless monogamy becomes a priority in gay relationships, unless the nature of gay relationships change for the majority of the community they will continue to remain shortlived, and unstable by definition.
    Then you promote monogamy by the best method...marriage.

    In some ways we are at an impass. You are suggesting the institution of marriage will change the gay community. I am suggesting the gay community will have to change in order for the institution of marriage to work for them. What comes first the chicken or the egg.
    I am not saying marriage will change the gay community in any way other than it does for the strait community. You are expecting gays to do more than you expect straits to have ever done.

    At any rate the very best environments for children are those that are stable, and longterm. Feel free to call me "delusional" for thinking this way as critical thinking has already branded me as such.
    No one has argued otherwise, but this is an argument for gay marriage, to promote those long term stable relationships, and you have yet to counter this argument.

    [quoteI tell ya' what why don't you references support for your contention that the gay community will change their cultural mores and their views of marriage.........just because. You see the problem, don't ya? [/QUOTE]

    Because that is not what I am arguing. I am merely arguing that marriage leads to longer term, more stable relationships. Are you suggesting this is not true?
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  10. #180
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:58 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,299
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch View Post
    Please provide a source that references support for your contentions. I'm right here. I'll wait for ya'.
    So you don't think marriage promotes monogamy?
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

Page 18 of 98 FirstFirst ... 816171819202868 ... 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
  •