- Joined
- Jun 13, 2010
- Messages
- 22,676
- Reaction score
- 4,282
- Location
- DC Metro
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
I may disagree with your position, overall, but what you say above is entirely logical.
You, Sir, have rendered me speechless.
I may disagree with your position, overall, but what you say above is entirely logical.
The fact that people in America and all around the world think they a have a right to tell people who they can get married to is absolutely ridiculous.
So it's your assertion that the government has no right to regulate what people do? Society sets standards on quite a few issues, marriage is just one of them. Let me ask you a question: If you're walking through the park with your kids and you turn a corner to discover some people having sex on a park bench. Does that affect you? Does that affect your kids? Do you have any right in saying that it is wrong for people to have sex in public? Say you're sitting down to dinner and some folks at the table next to you are speaking loudly using words you find offensive. Does that affect you?
There are a huge number of mental conditions and disorders that are considered by the mental health community to be directly caused by entirely external factors. To say that gay marriage WILL NOT have an affect on people is an assumption and only an assumption. You have no proof to back that up. There are all kind of things I could dream up based on the outcomes of other major changes in society that had results no one expected.
The majority of the worlds population has been opposed to gay marriage throughout the history of the species. Marginalizing their beliefs and opinions on the issue makes you every bit as bigoted and ignorant as you claim they are.
This is simply false. The evidence in most studies says no such thing.
You, Sir, have rendered me speechless.
First off if one is effected by a Gay couple it is more than likely because they are intolerant of their life style. Of course if I see a couple having sex on a bench it is going to effect me but to compare that to homosexuality is completely illogical. It can be said some people are effected by interacial marriage but that doesn't make it wrong, I think it goes the same for gay marriage. I would also like to here what your explanation is for Gay children and the cases where twins were seperated at birth to only be reunited 21 years later, also they are gay what a crazy coincidence. For you to say I am as bigoted as the opposers for marginalizing others beliefs is also ridicoulous. When one's beliefs have a negative effect on a whole other populations life, that's when there is a problem and gay marriage fits into this case.
I corrected myself in my latest post "I suppose it is better to say your sexuality is something that is more than likely out of your control. " I would like you to find me a study that goes against what I said.
Please show me a study that says sexuality is "more than likely" to be out of your control.
Of course I've made a claim. My claim is that there is a difference between reading God's word and understanding God's word. And without context, words and concepts are meaningless.
Are you seriously insinuating that people are in control of their sexuality? Because I'd love to hear about your thought process during the moment when you CHOSE to be attracted to whichever sex you're attracted to. I never chose that. Instead, I simply found myself experiencing attraction. Whether that was caused by genes, pre-natal hormones, environmental factors, brain structure, or any of the other possible factors is irrelevant. I had no control over it.
I never said it was a study..I actually saw it on 20/20. ( When I say this I am speaking of the two brothers who never knew each other.)
YouTube - 20/20- Gay Gene
I think it is obvious these people are gay because of a reason out of their control. If this is so, which it looks like it is then it doesn't matter what the majority feels or if it effects a large amount of the religions beliefs., it ought to be legalized.
Also my mistake, they were not twins but brothers who never knew each other.
Are you seriously insinuating that people are in control of their sexuality? Because I'd love to hear about your thought process during the moment when you CHOSE to be attracted to whichever sex you're attracted to. I never chose that. Instead, I simply found myself experiencing attraction. Whether that was caused by genes, pre-natal hormones, environmental factors, brain structure, or any of the other possible factors is irrelevant. I had no control over it.
Indeed. I don't care if homosexuality is genetic or not. I just feel it's something that the government should have no say over.
I read and understand the words just fine. Please feel free to point out where I have misunderstood or misquoted scripture without context? I can point out specific instances where others have.
How about polygamy or other forms of plural marriage? Should the government have a say in that?
I believe that the government should have the right to regulate all forms of marriage based on the following factors... in no particular order:
1) Voter beliefs/desires.
2) Empirical evidence.
3) Benefit/cost to society, considering both quantitate and qualitative factors.
In MY world, numbers 1 and 3 will be based on number 2. In that scenario, GM has been shown to be equal to straight marriage. Also, in that scenario, plural marriage has been shown to be sorely lacking.
I'm not going to dismiss this out of hand, but when the only person that they interviewed in opposition was an evangelical, you have to understand that there is some bias there....There were no real details of the the lives of the brothers discussed so that tells me that those details would have altered a pretty biased approach to the issue. Also, no scientific proof was offered.
Sorely lacking what? Polygamists tend to be very family oriented....what's wrong with it? It's not my thing, I've got my hands full with one wife and frankly, the idea of a second is terrifying. But just because it's not good for my family, who am I to say it can't work for someone else?
But, you see, this entire, "if we allow homosexual marriage, polygamy is next" argument is extraordinarily weak, considering that the similarities between the two do not exist. Allow me to explain from both an individual and a societal standpoint.
First. let us take a look at the difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. The striking difference is obvious. Homosexuals have a sexual orientation towards those of the same sex, whereas heterosexuals have a sexual orientation towards those of the opposite sex. Why would a heterosexual woman want to marry a man? Sexual orientation. Why would a homosexual man want to marry a man? Sexual orientation. Clearly, from an individual standpoint, this is a, if not the main reason for one wanting to marry a specific other. Love, attraction, emotion. Now, this does not justify gay marriage being validated, and, in fact is a weak argument that I never make. Love, attraction, and emotion does not benefit the state, which is why marriage exists. However, polygamy does not fit well in the criteria that I have identified. There is no polygamous sexual orientation. Polygamy is, typically, a heterosexual orientation, covered already. However, being that there is no polygamous sexual orientation, using this, a mainstay of the individual reason for marriage, will not work or apply. Therefore, polygamy from an individual standpoint, does not meet the same criteria for marriage as do homosexuals or heterosexuals. Lack of orientation.
Now, we move into the societal realm. Government supports marriage for a few reasons. The productive rearing of children is most important. Creating a stable family life is also key: it adds to the positive potential for healthy children, but it also creates healthy adults. There is plenty of evidence to support the theory that those who live in a healthy, stable, committed relationship, are happier, healthier, and are more productive members of society. These are all things that benefit the state. Research shows that, regardless of sexual orientation, gay or straight, folks who live in these kinds of committed relationships, do better, and rear children better, than those who do not. This is regardless of sexual orientation. This is the second piece of the argument that will, eventually win the day for gay marriage. Polygamy does not offer the same benefits. And the answer to "why" is simple, and is psychological in nature. Jealousy, rivalry, and inconsistency. Just like my argument that psychology cannot be separated from economics, hence, because of greed, pure forms of both socialism and libertarianism are destined to be complete failures, neither can human psychology be separated from this issue. What is the number one cause of divorce? Adultery. Why? Jealousy and rivalry. In a multi-partner marriage, it would be impossible for their not to be some sort of hierarchy, and even if this is agreed upon, one cannot eliminate one's emotions. With this type of emotional instability at the familial structure's core, a healthy, committed relationship, similar to that of a single partner marriage, could not be obtained. Further, the inconsistency in caretaking responsibilities and in child rearing responsibilities, compounded by the hierarchies and rivalries will harm the children, affecting their functioning. We already see some of this in divorced families, where inconsistent rules, non-existent co-parenting, and rivalries, negatively affect children.
Lastly, though there is plenty of research that supports both heterosexual and homosexual unions as being beneficial, there is none that supports polygamy.
All of this shows how there is not correlation nor slippery slope from homosexual to polygamous marriage. Polygamy, for the reasons I identified, is not only a very different animal than homosexual marriage, but has none of the similar benefits to the state that the government currently sees marriage as.
Polygamy as a reaction to homosexual marriage is a smokescreen and an invalid comparison.
I need to consolidate my posts into one thread. Someone on the other GM thread was questioning whether there was more than one study on the effects of gay parents on children... all which I posted here. Now you are wondering about the negatives of polygamy... of which I posted on the other thread. I'll repost it here for your perusal.
Now, also remember. We have research that demonstrates the benefits of gay partnerships both to the individuals and children. There is no such research that demonstrates the same for plural marriage.
I don't argue the research that you posted regarding homosexual child rearing. I'm wondering a bit about your conclusions on polygamy though? Is this based on research and studies as your stance on gm is? Or are they your own assumptions?
I'm not saying that in reality gm and pm are in the same boat, however, as an argument to what the government should have a role in it is a valid point. There are certainly those that would want pm legalized and I am sure that they will use gm as precedence for redefining marriage.
How about polygamy or other forms of plural marriage? Should the government have a say in that?
I don't think so. I'm all for polygamous and polyandrous marriages being allowed. People should be able to have whatever kind of relationships they are comfortable with. And, should someone in a relationship ever become uncomfortable with it, they should be able to leave it easily.
You are implying that you take the literal word of scripture and apply it to today. I am saying that I take the literal word of scripture, understand the historical context and, with that in mind, apply it to today. We interpret the bible differently.
In short: Marriage to whoever is none of the governments business, church doctrines is none of the governments business. The constitution is everyone's business.