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 24 of 98 FirstFirst ... 1422232425263474 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 976

Thread: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

  1. #231
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:10 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    63,851

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch View Post
    [SIZE="3"][FONT="Book Antiqua"]That depends on your culture. Most adherents of traditional culture have expectations of what constitute a good marriage. Sometimes it doesn't happen. People stray. Most heteros don't. However, what if you belonged to a culture that wasn't traditional? What if you went into marriage without an expectation of fidelity? If that's the case the institution of marriage, the idea of marriage won't promote monogamy. It's really quite simple when you think about it.
    Yeah, it is pretty simple and that is why I am astounded that you are missing the point. Gays aren't allowed to be married, so any study or observation off of their relationship is skewed, that is the whold point that I was adderssing. Single Heteros shift relationships as much as single homos shift relationships. That is the point. Of course married heteros maintain longer lasting relationships that married homos, and that is becauuse, until very recently, there have been no married homos. The point is that not allowing homos to marry forced them into single like relationships and they acted accordingly. Once two people are "married" legally, it changes the very nature of their relationship to a very stable one. Marriage promotes unity and stability... Do ya follow?

    Originally Posted by Blackdog
    If this were true the divorce rate would not be up wards of 33 - 50%. It has little affect if any on the length of time. Children have some effect, but according to the 50% rate, not much and almost never good.
    The stats are being skewed since people are viewing marriage in a different light now-a-days... but not most people. If you look further, you would find that there is a small minority out there that is having 3 and 4 marriages like my ex-wife and others like me who probably won't get married again. She, and my uncle who married 5 times and my grandma who married three times are skewing the stats. Also, many people divorce and then remarry each other, and that affects the stats too...
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have pooped in public, even in public neighborhoods.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  2. #232
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Centrist77 View Post
    LMAO change gears all you want, your arguments have no merit for GAY marriage, only MARRIAGE.
    Like I said if you want to change marriage in general that's fine I have no problem with that but you dont discriminate against gays while doing so you bring them for the ride so we ALL improve.

    Also your example is dumb for 2 reasons, CWPs what I call them and have, do not discriminate against gays.
    Secondly since the MARRIAGE license isn't called a RIGHT TO BARE CHILDREN license it makes no sense what so ever. LMAO
    Where have I discriminated against gays?

    Quote with link, please.

  3. #233
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:10 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    63,851

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Originally Posted by Centrist77
    LMAO change gears all you want, your arguments have no merit for GAY marriage, only MARRIAGE.
    Like I said if you want to change marriage in general that's fine I have no problem with that but you dont discriminate against gays while doing so you bring them for the ride so we ALL improve.

    Also your example is dumb for 2 reasons, CWPs what I call them and have, do not discriminate against gays.
    Secondly since the MARRIAGE license isn't called a RIGHT TO BARE CHILDREN license it makes no sense what so ever. LMAO
    LMAO LMAO LMAO Emotional instability? ...and where has he discriminated against gays?
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have pooped in public, even in public neighborhoods.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  4. #234
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,782

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Where have I discriminated against gays?

    Quote with link, please.
    quote the link where i said YOU specifically did, I was simply stating that no matter your approach, which is IMPROVING MARRIAGE, you cant leave gays out LMAO What that means is what ive been stating to you the whole time. What ever you want to do to improve marriage has nothing to do with gay marriage so your points are moot, any changes must include them.

    Now use an arguments against GAY marriage lol
    Last edited by AGENT J; 01-02-11 at 06:34 PM.
    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

  5. #235
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,782

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    LMAO LMAO LMAO Emotional instability? ...and where has he discriminated against gays?
    See my reply to him LMAO
    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

  6. #236
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:10 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    63,851

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Centrist77 View Post
    See my reply to him LMAO
    I don't get it? ... and it appears you meant "you" in the plural sense.

    An argument against gay marriage? Ok, it will lead to marriage between humans and dogs...
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have pooped in public, even in public neighborhoods.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  7. #237
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,782

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    I don't get it? ... and it appears you meant "you" in the plural sense.

    An argument against gay marriage? Ok, it will lead to marriage between humans and dogs...
    What it meant was all his arguments are for another topic and no matter what people want to do in improving marriage YOU can't discriminate against gays. Its a general statement.

    Just like saying, no matter how mad people get about <insert topic here> YOU can't just murder everybody.

    Also I know you are joking about Gay Rights leading to legal animal marriage.
    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. #238
    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?

    source

    Marriage, Divorce, and Single Parenthood

    Encouraging and supporting healthy marriages is a cornerstone of the Bush Administration's proposed policies for addressing the poverty-related woes of single-parent households and, importantly, for improving the well-being of low-income children. The rationale is reasonably straightforward: About a third of all children born in the United States each year are born out of wedlock. Similarly, about half of all first marriages end in divorce, and when children are involved, many of the resulting single-parent households are poor. For example, less than 10 percent of married couples with children are poor as compared with about 35 to 40 percent of single-mother families. The combination of an alarmingly high proportion of all new births occurring out of wedlock and discouragingly high divorce rates among families with children ensures that the majority of America's children will spend a significant amount of their childhood in single-parent households. Moreover, research shows that even after one controls for a range of family background differences, children who grow up living in an intact household with both biological parents present seem to do better, on average, on a wide range of social indicators than do children who grow up in a single-parent household (McLanahan and Sandefur, 1994). For example, they are less likely to drop out of school, become a teen parent, be arrested, and be unemployed. While single parenthood is not the main nor the sole cause of children's increased likelihood of engaging in one of these detrimental behaviors, it is one contributing factor. Put another way, equalizing income and opportunity do improve the life outcomes of children growing up in single-parent households, but children raised in two-parent families still have an advantage.If the failure of parents to marry and persistently high rates of divorce are behind the high percentage of children who grow up in a single-parent family, can and should policy attempt to reverse these trends? Since Daniel Patrick Moynihan first lamented what he identified as the decline of the black family in his 1965 report, The Negro Family: The Case for National Action, marriage has been a controversial subject for social policy and scholarship. The initial reaction to Moynihan was harsh; scholars argued vehemently that family structure and, thus, father absence was not a determinant of child well-being. But then in the 1980s, psychologists (Wallerstein and Kelly, 1980; Hetherington, 1982) began producing evidence that divorce among middle-class families was harmful to children. Renewed interest among sociologists and demographers (Furstenberg and Cherlin, 1994) in the link between poverty and single parenthood soon emerged, and as noted above, that work increasingly began building toward the conclusion that family structure did matter (McLanahan and Sandefur, 1994). Of course, the debate was not just about family structure and income differences; it was also about race and gender. When Moynihan wrote in 1965, 24 percent of all births among African-Americans occurred outside of marriage. Today, the black out-of-wedlock birthrate is almost 70 percent, and the white rate has reached nearly 24 percent. If single parenthood is a problem, that problem cuts across race and ethnicity.

    But the story has nuance. Yes, growing up with two parents is better for children, but only when both mother and father are the biological or “intact” (as opposed to remarried) parents. In fact, there is some evidence that second marriages can actually be harmful to adolescents. Moreover, marriage can help children only if the marriage is a healthy one. While the definition of a “healthy marriage” is itself subject to debate, it is typically characterized as high in positive interaction, satisfaction, and stability and low in conflict. Unhealthy marriages characterized by substantial parental conflict pose a clear risk for child well-being, both because of the direct negative effects that result when children witness conflict between parents, and because of conflict's indirect effects on parenting skills. Marital hostility is associated with increased aggression and disruptive behaviors on the part of children which, in turn, seem to lead to peer rejection, academic failure, and other antisocial behaviors (Cummings and Davies, 1994; Webster-Stratton, 2003).

    Critical thinkin' skills made the statement that I was "delusional" for suggesting that the very best possible environment for children was with a two parent home with biological parents on post 167. He also went on to explain that "evidence" and "reality" didn't support my assertion that "intact families" with "biological parents, one male one female" were the best of all possible combinations for raising children. He did not provide a single link supporting his "evidence" and no rational for his "reality."

    The idea that the best possible arrangement for the procreation and rearing of children is the male/female/long term pairing isn't something new. It is the very basis for family structures in traditional western european culture, my culture. Is stability important to the welfare of children. Yes. This article states flat out stability is important and points to some rather sobering statistics of the results of instability in family pairings. We all know the results of broken family units, crime, drugs, promiscuity, out of wedlock births and a cycle of poverty that is almost impossible to break. I've related some of my personal and professional experiences with just this on post 213 are anectdotal, but they are directly in line with this article and the research it it's based on.

    I have been criticized for comparing married couples and the unmarried white lesbian couples most often mentioned in the new studies being touted by capn crunch. Children don't necessarily know if their parents have a legal marriage licence. What they do know is if their parents are providing a stable environment for them. They damn well know if their perceived parents have stable long term relationships.

    According to this article from the catholic education organization (feel free to hate the source, they're only christians after all) 75% of gay males have more than 100 partners in a lifetime. 28% of gay males claim more than 1,000 partners in a lifetime. Does having several hundred sexual partners during one's lifetime constitute stability? It's a judgement call on your part. I say no. It's been suggested by several of you that the idea of marriage will change gay lifestyles and provide the stability needed to raise children. Again, it's a judgement call, and again, I say no.

    How do gays feel about monogamy? This sfgate article (also refered to by my new york times article btw) references a study by colleen hoff found some 47% believe in open relationships, 45% believe in monogamy and 8% couldn't seem to agree about what they were (). How does that compare to hetero feelings about monogamy? According to this wiki article something like between 1.7 and 7% of married people have open relationships.

    What does all of this have to do with all those peer reviewed studies referenced but not still not linked by capn crunch? I can already tell you what they say. They all say one of two things; a: there is absolutely no differences between children raised in (primarily) white college educated lesbian households or b: children raised in (primarily) white college educated lesbian households are better adjusted than those raised in hetero (unknown) combination homes. Isn't that nice. White college educated lesbians (primarily) parents do as good or better a job at raising children than intact/biological/parents/male/female pairings. Wow!! That would mean that these new studies completely negate all of those earlier studies referenced in this article an and all of those other ones preceeding this one for boot! Just how is that possible? According to this article from slate the author, ann hullbert suggests, strongly, weak science and bias on the part of the researchers. Really, bias on the part of researchers in peer reviewed studies? Is that even possible? According to the article, yes.

    I offered a list of possible problems with these peer reviewed offered by capn crunch still without functioning links and was criticized for doing so on post 135 by zyflis for "a laundry list of complaints" about a series of studies that fairly scream "bias?" Curses, foiled again.

    Has there been a double standard on this thread? I'll leave that up to you but I know what my father would have said "don't piss on me and then tell me it's rainin"
    Last edited by Dutch; 01-02-11 at 07:16 PM.
    He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire. ~ Winston Churchill

  9. #239
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,647

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Firstly, you can read my username. Do not post it incorrectly again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch View Post
    Gee capt curious just when did you do that? Would that be that list of studies that seemed to arrive at the same eerily similar findings, gay parents, all gay parents raise children superior in every way to the children raised in two parent homes? Repeatable results in a petrie dish is one thing but just when did any study of human behavior provides such splendidly pristine results?
    I know it demonstrates that your position is wrong, and I know that you don't like that. Too bad. Doesn't alter facts. I suppose that means that you will either have to re-evaluate your position or continue to support things that are erroneous... just to avoid cognative dissonance. Gee... I wonder which one you'll do.





    Pardon me, you destroyed schumm's study......really? Ok, you approve of those studies that support your bias and "destroy" those that don't support them. I suppose it would just be plain bad form to simply disagree with your assertion you have "destroyed" schumm's study. I'll simply have to take your word schumm's study is.........not credible.
    No, I demonstrate when a study has methodological flaws that show it has no validity. That's what I did with Schumm's study in the thread that Your Star linked. I'm certain I wasn't the first person to do so. Maybe just the first person, HERE. Now, you could go and read my posts in that thread... so we would have a frame of reference to discuss. Or, you could continue to discuss what you don't know anything about. Gee... I wonder which one of THESE you'll choose.



    You mean unlike telling me you've destroyed schumm's study and it isn't credible because.........you said so? I'm sorry capt curious but your hypocracy is showing. I am well aware shumm's study isn't popular but I hardly think your opinion qualifies as fact in this case. I have some rather serious doubts about those studies you've provided. That amounts to my opinion, not fact. I believe you to be in the same boat as I, mearly providing an opinion based on research data neither of us actually posses. I told you to expect this.
    Poor Dutch. You have nothing. Go read the othe thread. It's not "just my opinion". I gave plenty of evidence and infrormation. I purchased the study and examined the data. That trumps anything you've done by a huge margin. You, on the other hand have provided nothing to support your opinions. Not surprisingly. That's why their value is quite questionable.
    "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"

  10. #240
    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 Bodhisattva View Post
    Yeah, it is pretty simple and that is why I am astounded that you are missing the point. Gays aren't allowed to be married, so any study or observation off of their relationship is skewed, that is the whold point that I was adderssing. Single Heteros shift relationships as much as single homos shift relationships. That is the point. Of course married heteros maintain longer lasting relationships that married homos, and that is becauuse, until very recently, there have been no married homos. The point is that not allowing homos to marry forced them into single like relationships and they acted accordingly. Once two people are "married" legally, it changes the very nature of their relationship to a very stable one. Marriage promotes unity and stability... Do ya follow?
    Several people have made the same assertion as you are making now. Tell me just how is it that a gay community that views monogamy in a much different light than the hetero community will simply adopt hetero views on monogamy simply because of a marriage licence? It's not that people can't or won't change behavior. It's a matter of just why a licence, one many humanists don't place much value on anyway will stimulate that change.

    You are entitled to your opinion, skippy, but neither you nor anyone else here has even tried to explain just how this one is supposed to work or even why it would happen. Saying it smugly and pretending it's the end of the matter isn't enough. I humbly suggest this is far more likely projection on your part than anything else.

    For my part I'm not interested in any social engineering schemes to change the gay community. I'm all about leaving them the hell alone. That's what I would like for myself. I should think you would too. This isn't projection on my part, it's just wishful thinking. Do you follow, skippy?
    Last edited by Dutch; 01-02-11 at 07:44 PM.
    He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire. ~ Winston Churchill

Page 24 of 98 FirstFirst ... 1422232425263474 ... 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
  •