Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,057 Year: 5,314/9,624 Month: 339/323 Week: 183/160 Day: 0/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Marriage is a civil right in the US
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5940 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 116 of 304 (317746)
06-04-2006 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Rob
06-04-2006 9:04 PM


Re: Two things, Miss Faith, if you please.
That is why the same people who argue against the sacredness of marriage and the role it plays in human developement, are 'often' the same people who hope (you know you do) that the terrorists will kick our evil, Christian, imperialist pig butts. That way the world and it's rampant Fruedian/Marxist beliefs will have a better chance of coming home to save us all from ourselves.
This is really pretty disgusting. Do you think before you post?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Rob, posted 06-04-2006 9:04 PM Rob has not replied

SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5940 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 159 of 304 (317853)
06-05-2006 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by New Cat's Eye
06-05-2006 12:23 AM


Come one
I find it plausible that guys will have fake marriages for health insurance or other benefits.
Dude, this is a red herring, just like it was the first time you brought it up. You are making up things to be worried about

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2006 12:23 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Dr Jack, posted 06-05-2006 9:42 AM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied
 Message 170 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2006 10:03 AM SuperNintendo Chalmers has replied

SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5940 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 160 of 304 (317857)
06-05-2006 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Faith
06-05-2006 7:43 AM


Re: It's coming out, finally, isn't it faith?
So does the common practice of unmarried couples living together and the complete disregard of any requirement to be married before indulging in sex
I have lived with my fiancee for over a year now and *gosh* we have been having sex for many years and I'm getting married next month.
It certainly isn't making a mockery of my marriage.
In fact, we are much more comfortable with the upcoming marriage because we know that we can live together and get along.
It's really a pretty bad joke for someone like you to be commenting on other people's sex lives.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Faith, posted 06-05-2006 7:43 AM Faith has not replied

SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5940 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 174 of 304 (317896)
06-05-2006 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by New Cat's Eye
06-05-2006 10:03 AM


Re: Come one
Well, like I typed, I find it plausible. Mr. Jack said he's seen it happen. Simply dismissing the whole argument by calling one line a fallacy seems like a waste of time to me. I'm not interested in discussing whether or not its a fallacy so if thats all you have to say then whatever.
We shouldn't let straight people get married because it might encourage men and women to engage in false marriages to get medical benefits.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2006 10:03 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2006 10:22 AM SuperNintendo Chalmers has replied

SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5940 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 181 of 304 (317906)
06-05-2006 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by New Cat's Eye
06-05-2006 10:22 AM


Re: Come one
Are you just being a smartass?
You're just wasting thread space.
No, I'm pointing out how utterly stupid and ridiculous your argument is.
You're a smart dude for the most part, but this "fear" of people abusing same sex marriages is just ridiculous.
You are making the claim that gay marriages would be abused with no evidence other than that's how you feel about it.
And finally, why the hell is it your business to tell people what are valid reasons for getting married?
I'll defer the rest of my argument to Yaro's excellent post #179

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2006 10:22 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2006 10:46 AM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied

SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5940 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 207 of 304 (317995)
06-05-2006 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by nator
06-05-2006 1:08 PM


wow
Well, we could deny all sorts of rights to all sorts of people and it would make our healthcare system less taxed.
For example, we could deny marriage to people who's family history or genetic profile show a high chance that they will have difficult pregnancies which will require costly hospital stays.
We could deny marriage to people who are poor and have no health insurance, because if they have children that they obviously cannot afford, the taxpayers end up footing the bill for their kids.
Would this be acceptable to you?
It should be, because thesse are known factors that actually do increase costs, compared to your vague "I think it would be worse".
What increases costs is that there are people who are uninsured which is why we need some sort of universal coverage.
But that is another topic

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by nator, posted 06-05-2006 1:08 PM nator has not replied

SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5940 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 208 of 304 (317996)
06-05-2006 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by New Cat's Eye
06-05-2006 2:54 PM


and I probably won't. The reasons are just my personal opinions. You'll disagree with my position and continue to support gay marriages and I won't. Just don't call me a bigot because we have different positions (which I realise you haven't).
I'm not trying to compel you to change you mind about gay marriages and I probably wouldn't have said anything at all if Jar didn't act the fool in the thread this stemmed from.
I don't think you're a bigot Catholic Scientist.
Nothing of the sort.
It's not fair to smear anyone against gay marriage as a bigot; even though there are a lot of bigots who are against it.
I've seen a lot of posts from you on here.... and the only thing I think you are guilty of is being young (I held a lot of your views about 8 years ago when I was in my early 20s)
ABE: Of course this doesn't mean I'm right
Cheers
Edited by SuperNintendo Chalmers, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2006 2:54 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5940 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 225 of 304 (318090)
06-05-2006 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Faith
06-05-2006 6:19 PM


Wow, just plain sad
Gays should not be allowed to adopt except in cases where there is extrme need.
Wow, the words that come to mind... ignorance, bigorty, intellectual laziness........
There is actually far more evidence that fundamentalist parents should not be allowed to adopt.
Perhaps you didn't know that gay adopters take many of the kids (special needs, problem behavior, etc) that no one else will take and would otherwise languish in foster homes.
# There are already thousands of children living in gay couple households. The 2000 U. S. Census reports 33% of female same-sex couple households and 22% of male same-sex couple households already have at least one child under the age of 18 living at home.
Ok, so we know this is already happening and has been for some time.
According to the American Psychological Association Policy Statement on Sexual Orientation, Parents, & Children, "there is no reliable evidence that homosexual orientation per se impairs psychological functioning. Second, beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation."
Imagine that, those who actually care enough to do research instead of complain have found that your fears are unfounded and baseless.
The American Psychological Association also states "Research suggests that sexual identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior, and sexual orientation) develop in much the same ways among children of lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents"
# There is no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is linked to one's environment. In other words, growing up in a gay couple household will not "make" a child gay. Read Nature vs. Nurture: Born or Made Gay
LGBTQ Resources
Now.... How about those fundie parents?
Social movements by their very nature demand change, and Promise Keepers is certainly no exception. But exactly how the group's agenda would affect our nation can't be learned from PK rhetoric and maudlin ceremonies. Furthermore, the research community is only beginning to study the social consequences of this relatively new group. There is, however, considerable research describing the effects of Christian fundamentalism on personality and lifestyle. Given PK's underlying fundamentalist agenda, such studies are thus able to forecast risks posed by PK's way of life.
The most important value espoused by Promise Keepers is the building of strong marriages and families by the reestablishment of the patriarchal family structure. But such a structure -- prompted by PK's inerrant belief in the Bible -- has been linked to a variety of harmful behaviors.
The July 19, 1993, issue of Christianity Today cites the book Battered into Submission: The Tragedy of Wife Abuse in the Christian Home (1989) by James and Phyllis Alsdurf, whose research suggests that "the probability of wife abuse increases with the rigidity of a church's teachings, especially teachings pertaining to gender roles and hierarchy." Fundamentalism has also been found to hamper the process of helping battered women. According to Vicky Whipple in the Journal of Marital and Family Therapy (1987):
Five major factors ... complicate working with
fundamentalist, battered women: (1) a strong "we versus them"
mentality, which encourages members to seek help only
from the church; (2) a reliance on faith, which leads to a
passive approach toward life; (3) an insistence on
forgiveness, which tends to countenance aggressive
behavior among family members; (4) the dominance of males
over females; (5) strong prohibitions against divorce or
remarriage.
Wow, that doesn't sound so good.... let's see more.
Although Marshall H. Medoff and I. Lee Skov of California State University found fundamentalists more likely to marry and have children, Thomas Snow and William Comptom of Middle Tennessee State University found that membership in a fundamentalist Protestant church is not a predictor of marital satisfaction. Even PK itself, despite its opposition to divorce, reports that 20 percent of the men who attended the group's first eight stadium conferences this year described themselves in surveys as either "divorced" or "remarried."
Within this rigid fundamentalist family structure, children also become victims. Researchers express alarm about the use of corporal punishment by fundamentalist parents, given its link to spouse abuse, sibling violence, delinquency, aggression, hatred, and a general pro-violence attitude. in Violence and Victims (1991), Harold Grasmick, Robert Bursik Jr., and M'lou Kimpel of the University of Oklahoma say, "In fact, the child abuse rate for parents who approve of corporal punishment is four times the rate of child abuse for parents who do not approve of corporal punishment." They also warn of court cases in which day care centers run by fundamentalist churches have insisted that hitting preschoolers is their religious obligation.
The corporal punishment of preschoolers is detailed by Christopher Ellison, John Bartkowski, and Michelle Segal in Social Forces (1996). These University of Texas researchers found that parents who hold that the Bible is inerrant spanked or slapped their toddler or preschooler (aged one to four years) .884 times more per week (or nearly fifty times more each year) and are 50 percent more likely to have spanked or slapped their grade-school-aged child than nonfundamentalist parents. They also found that boys of all ages receive corporal punishment more often than girls, and adopted children are 50 percent more likely than other children to be spanked or slapped.
In surveys of adults who were asked how frequently they had been spanked by parents as a child, H. Erlanger reported in the American Sociological Review (1974) that the strongest predictor of corporal punishment is religious affiliation, with Baptist affiliation having a greater direct effect on the frequency of spankings than gender, race, size of residence, age, and parents' social class.
This link between corporal punishment and fundamentalism builds on consistent findings that fundamentalists tend to be authoritarians. To measure this, Bob Altemeyer's Right-wing Authoritarianism scale is generally accepted as reliable. As discussed in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (1995) by Gary Leak and Brandy Randall, "individuals who score high on the RWA scale are prone to aggress against unpopular or unconventional groups, feel morally superior and self-righteous, possess a mean-spiritedness that is coupled with vindictiveness and a `secret pleasure' when others experience misfortune, and appear prejudiced toward out-groups."
Given the indiscriminativeness of authoritarians' prejudice, Altemeyer and Bruce Hunsberger labeled them "equal-opportunity bigots, disliking all `different' people regardless of race, creed, or color." Research by Linda Wylie and James Forest of the University of Manitoba also found that authoritarianism is highly correlated with religious fundamentalism and an important predictor of racial and ethnic prejudice, homophobia, and punitiveness. Lee Kirkpatrick at the College of William and Mary surveyed college students and found that "fundamentalism was correlated more positively than Christian orthodoxy" with discriminatory attitudes toward blacks, women, homosexuals, and communists.
To take this a step further, Deborah Byrnes and Gary Kiger of Utah State University studied whether religious affiliation and gender would impact a person's willingness to confront racial discrimination committed by authority figures, strangers, and peers. Their results, published in the Journal of Psychology (1992), found that women expressed more willingness than men, and nonfundamentalists expressed more willingness than fundamentalists to challenge discrimination. Such research foretells a losing battle in Promise Keepers' fight for "racial reconciliation."
Questia
I think that's enough....
You know what though? Even with all that evidence I wouldn't propose that fundamentalists not be allowed to adopt, because I'm not going to judge individuals by the reputation of a group.
Faith - open mouth, insert foot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Faith, posted 06-05-2006 6:19 PM Faith has not replied

SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5940 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 227 of 304 (318094)
06-05-2006 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Faith
06-05-2006 6:41 PM


Wrong again
Oh well. Do I really have to explain that again? Gays are a travesty of a couple, and kids are going to figure that out eventually. Unnatural is the word. Fake. Makebelieve. Emperor's new clothes. Children ideally should have a male and a female parent, ideally their own. Sometimes it is necessary for children to be raised in less than ideal circumstances but it makes no sense to choose those circumstances when other options are available.
I don't care if gays live together, I'm sure they can have nice enough lives together, but marriage is ludicrous. And if they happen to have their own children, I wouldn't take them away from them, although I'm sure you are aware that not too long ago our legal system would have, and that's really not an unintelligent law either. And again, whatever single natural parents must live with, gays deserve no better.
Every single study ever performed has found that children raised by homosexual parents are just as well adjusted as those raised by hetero parents.
You seem to have a lot of opinions about children... unfortunately they are uninformed opinions. Gay parenting has been studied for many years and the results speak for themselves.
As long as there are unwanted children we need all the adoptive parents that we can get.
Faith, the reason you are called a bigot is that you are a bigot.
Bigot
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ
I don't consider that an insult. I am a bigot about some things myself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Faith, posted 06-05-2006 6:41 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Faith, posted 06-05-2006 7:01 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has replied
 Message 235 by AdminNWR, posted 06-05-2006 7:11 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied

SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5940 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 234 of 304 (318103)
06-05-2006 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Faith
06-05-2006 7:01 PM


Re: Wrong again
Gays can do all right raising children in many cases. I never said they couldn't. I said children should ideally have both sexes for parents and only when there is no choice should gays be considered.
Why? I used to feel like you until I did some research and found out my opinion was based on prejudice and not facts. Once I found out the facts I had no reason to oppose gay parents anymore.
Then again, I try to base my opinions on facts and reality. But that's just me

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Faith, posted 06-05-2006 7:01 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Faith, posted 06-05-2006 7:16 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied

SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5940 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 255 of 304 (318179)
06-05-2006 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Yaro
06-05-2006 8:04 PM


Re: A recap
Couldn't have said it better myself Yaro.
You saved me a post
I have to admit that I actually personally find homosexuality kind of gross at some level. However, as I have gotten older I have realized that gay people can't help who they are and should be treated as equal citizens and human beings. It's hard to get through your own personal biases sometimes, but part of living in a free country is protecting the rights of everyone; even those you find objectionable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Yaro, posted 06-05-2006 8:04 PM Yaro has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by nator, posted 06-06-2006 7:58 AM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied

SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5940 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 300 of 304 (318747)
06-07-2006 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by iano
06-07-2006 11:37 AM


Re: Gay marriage represents "anything goes"
No more so than asserting gay marriage as moral (or perhaps civil rights) progress is begging the question. The question is, is it a good thing or a bad thing. I say it leads down a slope to moral depravity. You think it leads upwards towards something.
It is a subjective thing and we are both entitled to our view on what we consider a) moral depravity to be and b) whether gay marriage leads to that. You might agree with some of your fellow proponants of gay marriage that there is no more reason to legislate against this than there is to legislate against mothers marrying sons or people having numerous wives and husbands. If you do not see that as a 'bad' thing then I cannot help that - my subjective standard as to 'moral fibre of society' differs from yours
There is one big difference. The side in support of civil unions, gay marriage, etc. has facts, reason and evidence on their side. This has been presented in this thread repeatedly. Gay marriage has never been shown to have any harm on a society and the children of gay parents are just as well adjusted as those of straight parents.
The side against gay marriage has not offered any evidence to support their side. Everything is based on superstition, prejudice, ignorance and/or a hunch.
Guess what, you can certainly think however you want.. but you are wrong. The facts aren't on your side.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by iano, posted 06-07-2006 11:37 AM iano has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024