| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Ossian
Sweden88 Posts
On July 16 2010 00:43 JWD wrote: Sure he does, that's a religious matter (in fact the US government couldn't tell him he had to marry the couple, separation of church and state). but the US government CAN tell him he CAN'T marry a couple? how does that not come in between seperation of church and state lol | ||
Empyrean
16950 Posts
On July 16 2010 00:54 Offhand wrote: It's quite possibly true if you live in a society that violently hates same-sex relationships for no apparent reason. People have done studies showing that there are pretty much no indications, social or otherwise, that children of same-sex households are different from their peers in any way. EDIT: On July 16 2010 00:54 Hynda wrote: I've been to the south of america many times in my life and I can tell you right now, they have alot of people that are socially maladjusted and really weird, but very few gays. I wonder why. They may only be weird from your perspective. It's fallacious (from a debating perspective) to categorize bible-thumping, ultra-conservative people as "weird" in any way, especially if it's the societal norm. To them, it may be normal, and gay people are the weird ones. | ||
|
Hynda
Sweden2226 Posts
On July 16 2010 00:52 Empyrean wrote: Indeed I see the point being made, but if you are going to make that point you better have something to back it up with. Were do you draw the line here? Should we not let black people have adopt, because of racism? should we not let people of other religions adopt, because of them having diffrent views of raising children? Or just other ethnicities. I think his point was that children who have two parents of the same gender are more likely to be maladjusted to society (this is actually false). It's a valid point to raise, however. What's the diffrence? | ||
|
Empyrean
16950 Posts
On July 16 2010 00:58 Hynda wrote: Indeed I see the point being made, but if you are going to make that point you better have something to back it up with. Were do you draw the line here? Should we not let black people have adopt, because of racism? should we not let people of other religions adopt, because of them having diffrent views of raising children? Or just other ethnicities. What's the diffrence? There is no difference. I was just saying that I could see where he was coming from, but that I disagreed with it (and provided my counterargument). | ||
JWD
United States12607 Posts
On July 16 2010 00:56 Ossian wrote: but the US government CAN tell him he CAN'T marry a couple? how does that not come in between seperation of church and state lol Yeah I can see why you are confused. No the government can't tell a priest whether he can or cannot marry a couple. However it can render the priest's marriage somewhat empty by saying that "ok, you may have 'married' that gay couple but we are not going to recognize them as legally married." Whether the fact that legal marriage of gays is not allowed in a state would discourage/prevent a church from performing a same-sex marriage ceremony I do not know. I guess that would be up to the particular church. The distinction here is that there is religious marriage or personal marriage, that's what you do at the church or with your family or whatever, and then there's legal marriage, which is the government acknowledging that you are married. Different things. Right now American gays can have religious marriage all over the place, there are many churches / institutions that will marry same-sex couples. The trouble is the legal marriage bit. Here is something that I wrote in another thread which is relevant and may be useful to you: On June 28 2010 14:40 JWD wrote: One more thing on this issue: "marriage" is something between two people and their church / family / the marrying institution. It's only the bundle of rights and privileges that come with marriage that are government business at all. Proposing that the government can control whether people marry is like proposing that the government can control whether my favorite color is green. The government might be able to deny me some rights if I say my favorite color is green, but no law is going to change the fact that I like green. Similarly no law is going to change the fact that gay couples are married, and believe they are married, when they undergo a certain ceremony / make a commitment / whatever. Put another way: you can't tell me that two people who commit to be together exclusively until the day they die (in a marriage ceremony) are "not married" simply because some elected dudes across the country said so. Any gay couple that's been married is married, the government can pretend they're not but that's farcical. The only real issues here are 1) will the government give that couple the rights a straight couple could have and 2) a purely cultural / political one: will the government sanction their marriage by referring to it as such. This is why "civil unions" (answering yes to question 1 but no to question 2) are unsatisfying: a "civil union" scheme says "ok gays, you can have your rights, but just as a fuck you to you guys, we're not going to call it marriage. ppbbbbbbbbtttt." Seems like a really low, unnecessary, purely animus-motivated blow to gays: simply refusing to acknowledge that they are married. | ||
|
Hynda
Sweden2226 Posts
On July 16 2010 00:59 Empyrean wrote: I do realise what he is comming from but it's just taken right out of the blue, and that requires the burden of proof to even be considered.There is no difference. I was just saying that I could see where he was coming from, but that I disagreed with it (and provided my counterargument). | ||
|
Empyrean
16950 Posts
On July 16 2010 01:10 Hynda wrote: I do realise what he is comming from but it's just taken right out of the blue, and that requires the burden of proof to even be considered. Right, I agree. | ||
|
keV.
United States3214 Posts
On July 16 2010 00:44 Magic84 wrote: It's you who missed mine. Such limited hand picked comparisons are never the answer. As for so called leading experts in a quote from wiki, who are these experts? You know in some places circumcision of babies is considered a good idea, nobody asks them. Most destructive harms in the world were all the works of the "experts". If experts are not to be trusted then how do you know anything about the subject yourself? If you can't trust studies how do you know straight parents are the better option? I'm starting to think Magic is just trolling. As for you missing his point, you still don't get it seems. That's OK, take all the time you need. | ||
|
Magic84
Russian Federation1381 Posts
On July 16 2010 00:52 JWD wrote: Dude, go read the studies yourself. If the argument you are making is really just that "we can't trust experts"...that's ridiculous. Why wouldn't you just show raw data and list the people from complied it? If you go reading articles to educate yourself over every debate you stumble upon, it would eat too much time. For balanced profound opinion you need to know everything and you need to take data from multiple sources including the whole absolute of negative data and opinions of all opposition. In the end, it's an amazing, astonishing amount of work, that needs to be done, done by unbiased people too and who can measure bias? Currently it looks like an attempt to dissolve and ridicule a concept of marriage and whole of society and risks with lives of children to me. It's not just about the interactions with parents, it's about how other kids of same age would take that, how that would alter kid's social status and mental well being, what difference that would make? No expert can dig there in a mind and make indeniable conclusions. And I surely don't want solid cultural foundations to make steps into vague status. | ||
|
Offhand
United States1869 Posts
On July 16 2010 00:57 Empyrean wrote: People have done studies showing that there are pretty much no indications, social or otherwise, that children of same-sex households are different from their peers in any way. I agree with you, but I just wanted to point out that most "sanctity of marriage" rhetoric is based on self reinforcing facts that have no actual bearing in the debate. A few examples: Gays can't raise children as well as straight couples can. Obviously an unfounded statement, and largely pushed because there's little evidence in either direction (largely due to the fact that gays are often prevented from adopting). Correlation does not imply causation. If you have gay parents and a fucked up childhood, it might have had more to do with the burning cross on your lawn not your parents having the same set of genitalia. Most studies that I've seen put a definite correlation between the number of parents and the quality of an upbringing. The gender of either parent doesn't seem to play any significant role. There's no measurable proof of the necessity for a "strong paternal role" or "strong maternal role". These studies included non-traditional parenting such as being raised by grandparents or even good friend of the parents, who had a significant part in a child's life. If we legalize gay marriage, then there will be more gays. Self-reinforcing idea. If we make it socially more acceptable to be openly gay, closeted gay people might not be closeted anymore! Ya think? There's an estimated 4-5% of the total population that falls into the LGBT catagory, plenty of these people aren't public about for the simple fact that they don't want the social stigma attached to them. Make homosexuality social acceptable, and yes more people will be open about it. | ||
|
Yerneh
United States5 Posts
What's next, marriage with female goats? Zoophiles have rights too. I hope you won't claim that's it's improper comparison, we talk about sexual orientations here, and those are notably common. So what if one is not human, the brain consists of pretty much same neural connections, dogs have feelings and love too. You won't believe how many people would marry a dog, and why would society deprive those people of their rights? And this married couple can always adopt a kid. How can people automatically assume that such environment is healthy for the child? Healthy for his interaction with other kids and social life? Isn't it taking human's life worth of a risk for the sake or your own fun and pride? Then there's some dude in Japan that married a pillow with anime face on it, let's just make marriage a joke, a vague concept just so everybody can have pride and equality, hell, just abolish marriage, this concept is outdated and unfair. So this is actually a textbook example of a logical fallacy known as the slippery slope argument. This is an argument that uses the threat of future possible (and usually negative) events to impose fear on others and get them to see your side of the issue. For example: If X happens, then what is stopping Y and Z from happening? To protect ourselves against Y and Z, we shall therefore not allow X. While it is important to define boundaries in what’s socially or legally ok or not ok in any given society, we must keep in mind that some things change over time. It may one day be ok to legally marry a goat or pillow. As creepy or scary as that may seem, we must always consider the possibility. The correct response to such a possibility is not to prevent events that may lead to such a future, but instead examine things independently on a case by case basis. Homosexuality was originally frowned upon in certain sects simply because a strong family foundation was better for survival. Adoption or marriage laws didn’t exist, and societies needed people to marry so they may reproduce and create a strong family structure. Today we no longer have a need for such restrictions. In addition, our philosophical views and civil laws have evolved to a point where it makes sense to allow homosexuals to marry. I would argue that there no longer exists any rational reason that homosexuals couldn’t marry, other than personal or religious views (which we know is not strong enough grounds to base laws upon). The reason that we don’t allow Zoophiles to marry animals (or Japanese guys to pillows) is because, at this current point in time, we don’t view animals or pillows as consenting or law abiding parties. This may sound very silly, but it’s the truth. In addition, the argument that such a union is disrespectful to the institution of marriage is a bit more valid, as human beings are seen to have more value than an animal or pillow. Things in life aren’t often in black and white, but the logical or strongly supported arguments against gay marriage are running low. Very often people involuntarily use logical fallacies in trying to create a persuasive point, and we must be careful of that. It's not just about the interactions with parents, it's about how other kids of same age would take that, how that would alter kid's social status and mental well being, what difference that would make? This was actually an argument used when inter-racial marriages started to become more popular. We know that if we show acceptance towards homosexuals and their views toward marriage, and raise our children with these values, then things will improve over time. Yes, things may be difficult at first, but we can't let social obstacles stop the spread of civil rights. It's a battle we've fault before, and we can fight it again. | ||
|
BillyMole
United States118 Posts
On July 16 2010 01:18 Magic84 wrote: Why wouldn't you just show raw data and list the people from complied it? If you go reading articles to educate yourself over every debate you stumble upon, it would eat too much time. For balanced profound opinion you need to know everything and you need to take data from multiple sources including the whole absolute of negative data and opinions of all opposition. In the end, it's an amazing, astonishing amount of work, that it needs to be done, done by unbiased people too and who can measure bias? Currently it looks like an attempt to dissolve and ridicule a concept of marriage and whole of society and risks with lives of children to me. It's not just about the interactions with parents, it's about how other kids of same age would take that, how that would alter kid's social status and mental well being, what difference that would make? No expert can dig there in a mind and make indeniable conclusions, And I surely don't want solid cultural foundations to make steps into vague status. Any argument based on social acceptance by peers during childhood is fundamentally flawed. Children do not utilize adult social concepts, and adhere to their own social constructs, especially during high school. It has been shown time and time again that adults can exert only minor influence on these social constructs. The bottom line is, kids are bastards, and will treat each other very poorly given the slightest reason. Saying that having two same-sex parents will adversely effect a child's social acceptance during the school years is not a good argument, and moreover, can be applied to many, many things. By this same logic, you should not allow: - Males to be cheerleaders - Anyone to join the band - Anyone to perform significantly better in classes than others - Anyone ugly to attend school at all - Anyone to join any chess, math, debate, etc club, basically any pursuit seen as nerdy should not be allowed I could go on, but you get the point. Any of the above things can easily cause a child to be a social outcast, and nothing, I repeat, NOTHING that adults do will force that child's peers to accept them. (Note: school social constructs are highly varied, and in some places these things are acceptable, other places will cause you to be outcast) The only arguments that can carry any weight must be based on the child's state of being upon entering the adult world. In that aspect, it has never been shown that having same-sex parents will adversely effect your adult life in any way. I am sure there are exceptions, since just as terrible straight parents exist, I'm sure there are terrible same-sex parents. | ||
|
ggrrg
Bulgaria2715 Posts
It would seem to me that part of his post was the doubt that same-sex couples could be as good parents as heterosexual couples. However, it also includes the fear that the child's "social life" could suffer from having homosexual parents. This is actually a pretty valid point. Aseq wrote: If you ask me, having gay parents isn't really the best situation for kids either (gl in high school, son of a fairy ), but it can be a lot better than the situation they would be in otherwise. Children can be pretty mean: there you are the only child that has two daddies and everybody makes fun of you. How do you make friends? In high school you will inevitably meet people, who will be incredibly close-minded and being called "son of a fairy" and ostracized is perfectly possible. The fact that you and I view same-sex parents as unproblematic doesn't mean that everybody does. These children will most certainly encounter a lot of people, who will be appalled by the idea that there are gays and that such individuals are actually allowed to have children. In fact, kids with homosexual parents will most certainly have problems in their social life, not because it's their parents' fault, but because society does not accept them. Maybe in several generations society's perception of gays will have changed and nobody will have a negative view on them, but that's not the situation in our times. edit: I just saw this comment: + Show Spoiler + On July 16 2010 01:29 BillyMole wrote: Any argument based on social acceptance by peers during childhood is fundamentally flawed. Children do not utilize adult social concepts, and adhere to their own social constructs, especially during high school. It has been shown time and time again that adults can exert only minor influence on these social constructs. The bottom line is, kids are bastards, and will treat each other very poorly given the slightest reason. Saying that having two same-sex parents will adversely effect a child's social acceptance during the school years is not a good argument, and moreover, can be applied to many, many things. By this same logic, you should not allow: - Males to be cheerleaders - Anyone to join the band - Anyone to perform significantly better in classes than others - Anyone ugly to attend school at all - Anyone to join any chess, math, debate, etc club, basically any pursuit seen as nerdy should not be allowed I could go on, but you get the point. Any of the above things can easily cause a child to be a social outcast, and nothing, I repeat, NOTHING that adults do will force that child's peers to accept them. (Note: school social constructs are highly varied, and in some places these things are acceptable, other places will cause you to be outcast) The only arguments that can carry any weight must be based on the child's state of being upon entering the adult world. In that aspect, it has never been shown that having same-sex parents will adversely effect your adult life in any way. I am sure there are exceptions, since just as terrible straight parents exist, I'm sure there are terrible same-sex parents. I am sorry but your reasoning does not seem accurate here. The things you list that might cause social rejection are things that you choose to do. Having same-sex parents and thus becoming a social outcast is something that a kid cannot influence. Your comparison lacks... | ||
|
Empyrean
16950 Posts
Could anyone weigh in on that? | ||
|
Go0g3n
Russian Federation410 Posts
| ||
|
keV.
United States3214 Posts
On July 16 2010 01:34 ggrrg wrote: It would seem to me that part of his post was the doubt that same-sex couples could be as good parents as heterosexual couples. However, it also includes the fear that the child's "social life" could suffer from having homosexual parents. This is actually a pretty valid point. Children can be pretty mean: there you are the only child that has two daddies and everybody makes fun of you. How do you make friends? In high school you will inevitably meet people, who will be incredibly close-minded and being called "son of a fairy" and ostracized is perfectly possible. The fact that you and I view same-sex parents as unproblematic doesn't mean that everybody does. These children will most certainly encounter a lot of people, who will be appalled by the idea that there are gays and that such individuals are actually allowed to have children. In fact, kids with homosexual parents will most certainly have problems in their social life, not because it's their parents' fault, but because society does not accept them. Maybe in several generations society's perception of gays will have changed and nobody will have a negative view on them, but that's not the situation in our times. If we waited on all Caucasian Christians to come around to new ideas, we'd still be living in castles and giving our daughters to the king. | ||
|
JWD
United States12607 Posts
On July 16 2010 01:38 Go0g3n wrote: Here's my take: I don't think the general issue of Straight vs. Gay is in quality of parenting, guarding the sanctity of traditional marriage or even religious faith, but in the basic natural feeling of resentment of gays, the feeling that comes not from the brain (which may be cooking all the liberal ideas), but from the stomach. Here's my take: You should get your stomach checked out. | ||
|
seppolevne
Canada1681 Posts
On July 16 2010 01:29 BillyMole wrote: The bottom line is, kids are bastards, and will treat each other very poorly given the slightest reason. Saying that having two same-sex parents will adversely effect a child's social acceptance during the school years is not a good argument, and moreover, can be applied to many, many things. By this same logic, you should not allow: - Males to be cheerleaders - Anyone to join the band - Anyone to perform significantly better in classes than others - Anyone ugly to attend school at all - Anyone to join any chess, math, debate, etc club, basically any pursuit seen as nerdy should not be allowed I could go on, but you get the point. Any of the above things can easily cause a child to be a social outcast, and nothing, I repeat, NOTHING that adults do will force that child's peers to accept them. (Note: school social constructs are highly varied, and in some places these things are acceptable, other places will cause you to be outcast) This a thousand times. No gay marriage because their kids will be made fun of? News flash: kids get made fun of. Ugly? Hot? Skinny? Fat? Tall? Short? Smart? Dumb? Athletic? Not? Wear eyeliner? Don't wear eyeliner? Eat no-name bread with your sandwich? Eat the expensive bread with your sandwich? Kids will make fun of you for ANYTHING. | ||
|
Coil
Argentina119 Posts
This thing has been going on for months now, there was actually a couple that got married in the capital after the governor declared it legal, then a supreme cout said it was unconstitutional. Now it seems the debacle is over. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Mong Dota 2 6129TY 735Zeus  695Nal_rA 532Shuttle 356Leta 83SilentControl 43NaDa 35Dewaltoss 28Shinee 26[ Show more ] League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games summit1g15233 XBOCT915 ceh9608 JimRising  475Happy461 WinterStarcraft409 singsing378 Skadoodle202 StateSC282 Fuzer  72QueenE40 Westballz5 |
|
WardiTV Invitational
Code For Giants Cup
SOOP
ShoWTimE vs Clem
Replay Cast
ReBellioN vs HonMonO
The PondCast
WardiTV Invitational
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
CranKy Ducklings
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
