Marriage is an unnatural state for the human animal. By my own estimation, the unspoken purpose of marriage is to prevent unwed mothers from becoming an undue burden on others (aka "society") and to essentially guarantee the state a growing base of productive taxpayers, but this is all disguised and made more palatable with the rewards and punishments designed into religions.
So maybe we should ban all legal marriage and keep it simple. That way everyone would be treated equally. This way people can have a civil union without any federal, state or local benefits being linked to them. Gays would never go for that because this has never been about love or marriage it has always been about benefits.
You can look back and read all my posts in this thread, I have never used the word God or sited religion.
At some point marriage has to have some legal definition that everyone can agree upon. If not we will have people trying to get benefits for five spouses or nut jobs trying to marry their dog.
So maybe we should ban all legal marriage and keep it simple. That way everyone would be treated equally. This way people can have a civil union without any federal, state or local benefits being linked to them. Gays would never go for that because this has never been about love or marriage it has always been about benefits.
You can look back and read all my posts in this thread, I have never used the word God or sited religion.
At some point marriage has to have some legal definition that everyone can agree upon. If not we will have people trying to get benefits for five spouses or nut jobs trying to marry their dog.
I'd back 100% the elimination of all intrusions by government into this area. Contract law should be the only thing that applies here and the only thing that can be justified constitutionally.
As for anyone trying to marry their dog... I doubt the dog will be able to legally agree to that contract.
Please... "natural" is subjective. Homosexuality exists in many species. What is "natural?" Really?
And in the future, we'll have the ability to grow babies in artificial wombs. Natural? Nope but it would probably be in the best interest for many women who do not wish to risk potential complications that come with pregnancy.
"Natural" is just useless. It's subjective. It doesn't prove or disprove anything.
Natural is not subjective. The sun rising in the east and setting in the west is not subjective. Men and women being the only combination to have children is not subjective. Water will always be made from the same elements. Our planet will always rotate in the same direction.
There are, however, plenty of studies that show that children raised by same sex couples are at least as happy and healthy as children raised by straight couples, here's an article among zillions.
"children need a mother and a father" is an idiotic argument. Children have been raised by same sex couples for thousands of years, and whether you support it, think it's an abomination, or legislate against it, it's still going to happen. The only difference is that laws against it only end up hurting the children themselves. But most social conservatives are too frickin stupid and brainwashed by their idiotic religion to even understand that.
Thanks for bring that up. Here, for further evidence on how that study didn't actually measure the outcomes of children in those context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlApple
There is one simple rule that gays seems to dismiss. If being gay was natural which means "intended by nature" then two men or two women could procreate. Without science that will never be the case because it was never intended by nature.
I'm a conservative and I have no issue with gay marriage or equal rights when it comes to benefits. What I do take issue with is people acting as if it's natural or having two of the same sex parents is healthy. It isn't. We don't need the SCOTUS to tell us that, nature has already spoken.
If not for heterosexuals we wouldn't have to worry about these issues our species would be extinct. If everyone moving forward was like Tim Cook we wouldn't have to wonder about the next iPhone or iPad there wouldn't be anyone around to use them.
You don't know what nature intends because it doesn't intend anything. It doesn't tell us anything; you are merely seeing a small something and acting on that limited knowledge. I feel as though you have not read any studies that show how homosexuals in other animal species can be beneficial to the heterosexual members and therefore propagation of species as a whole?
Also, you have no evidence that a child raised by two same-sex parents is any less healthy than those raised in any other untraditional context other than, "you see it as unnatural" which doesn't make much since and isn't justified as negative influence on children.
Thanks for bring that up. Here, for further evidence on how that study didn't actually measure the outcomes of children in those context.
You don't know what nature intends because it doesn't intend anything. It doesn't tell us anything; you are merely seeing a small something and acting on that limited knowledge. I feel as though you have not read any studies that show how homosexuals in other animal species can be beneficial to the heterosexual members and therefore propagation of species as a whole?
Also, you have no evidence that a child raised by two same-sex parents is any less healthy than those raised in any other untraditional context other than, "you see it as unnatural" which doesn't make much since and isn't justified as negative influence on children.
Nature tells us everything. I was here long before anything else.
This says a lot about the mentality of the liberal "progressive". If I believe homosexual behavior is not only wrong but an offense against even the basic laws of nature, I'm labeled a conservative wacko.
yes, because that is a conservative wacko thing to believe. humans are part of nature -- thus it's not a violation of whatever "laws" of nature youre referring to. animals practice homosexuality as well. ever had a dog?
Actually, they do. Kids need a father and mother, not two of the same gender (or just one of them). Men and women are inherently different, and you gain different perspectives from each thanks to these differences. So yeah, if there was ever a time to say "think of the children", this is it.
a tired, failed argument. nobody advocates banning single-parent families, do they? no, that would be insane. as insane as saying gay families should be banned, which you are advocating for when you dont support marriage equality.
also, children raised by a single parent are raised just fine. didnt one become the president?
Because most media tells white people, Christians in particular, that they only got where they are due to privilege, or some other kind of invisible bias, and that it had no merit, and how Christians are evil, etc. And white conservative Christian men? Boy, they're just responsible for all the ills in the world if you believe the prevailing opinions.
really? can you show us where, specifically "most media" tell that christians are "evil"? i didnt get this memo.
no, you cant. because it never happened. christ....
a tired, failed argument. nobody advocates banning single-parent families, do they? no, that would be insane. as insane as saying gay families should be banned, which you are advocating for when you dont support marriage equality.
also, children raised by a single parent are raised just fine. didnt one become the president?
I don't think this president is a good argument in favor of anything, to be blunt and I'd rather the thread didn't devolve much further into the politics aspect, other than to voice disdain for involvement by any political party.
There is no privilege. None whatsoever. I've been treated just as poorly as anyone else, I've had to overcome challenges just like anyone else. The concept of privilege is just an excuse and a tool used to keep people down.
there is no privilege? hahahahah! good one. sorry, but the white middle class is afforded a lot more opportunity by its very existence than say, the poor black class here in the south. doesnt mean there arent also poor whites, but the institution is privleged by nature. im white and i readily acknowledge this -- i was given many more opportunities than a poor black kid. admit it and move it.
yes, because that is a conservative wacko thing to believe. humans are part of nature -- thus it's not a violation of whatever "laws" of nature youre referring to. animals practice homosexuality as well. ever had a dog?
Difference... Humans have intelligence.
Additionally, there are lots of things we as humans can do but it doesn't make it right or natural (or the same as animals). A philosophy of "anything goes" is dangerous and currently leading the world down some dark paths.
Since history informs us of the social religious origins of marriage, I think you have that reversed.
nope.
and hes right -- civic contracts should be issued by the govt, and marriages by name should be reserved for whatever superstitious org you belong to and be as worthless as a baptism.
and hes right -- civic contracts should be issued by the govt, and marriages by name should be reserved for whatever superstitious org you belong to and be as worthless as a baptism.
No, I agree contract law is the only thing that should apply. Religious rationalizations (pro or con) have no place in government.
The sample size was about 3000 people. A lot of the statements won't be directly related to the parenting - it's a study of correlation, not causation. Further down it mentions the criticisms including comparing unstable family situations with stable ones but it says that this is because "of the 248 children with homosexual parents who were surveyed, only two had lived with their homosexual parent and the parent's partner during their entire childhood from birth to age 18". Only 10 children out of 248 stayed with the parents for over 13 years. There's a Q&A here with the researcher who's Catholic:
One of the questions was whether gay marriage could be the solution to producing a more stable environment. I could see children wanting to find their biological parents regardless. No matter how close Steve Jobs was to his adoptive family, he still wanted to find his biological parents after all those years. Genetic heritage is a very strong bond to break because it's part of who you are.
The issue of marriage is only indirectly related to raising children although in some places adoption or surrogacy requires marriage and there are a lot of different scenarios such as a woman having kids to then split with her husband and raise the kids with another woman. They're going to be together anyway so marriage is just beneficial to them.
Thanks! So it's a predictably weak study for the issue at hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Absolutely right. Equal protection should mean no unique benefits to marrieds which are in effect discriminatory to unmarrieds.
This makes about the most sense of anything in this thread. And I say this as a man benefiting fully from a long marriage in the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlApple
That's an idiotic comment. Trying to compare a health issue with attempting to defy the laws of nature.
Laws? Where are these published?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlApple
It is the law of nature that women at some point can not have children. Having a health issue is not the law of nature. The same laws apply to any species, they would not exist if even the majority of that species was homosexual. I already stated in my first post to Marvin I have no issue with same sex marriage or equal government benefits. What I do take issue with is people pretending two of the same sex being together is natural. It isn't.
Let me put it in simple terms, it was intended by nature for a species to procreate which is the only way to ensure the survival of the species without the use of science. When two of the same sex can do the same then we can all agree is was intended by nature. I always have to include "the use of science" because that will always be the next argument by some nut job liberal.
Every woman will at some point no longer be able to have children, and every human will at some point have a health issue. How are these different?
Certainly procreation is natural, but that doesn't mean that everything other than procreation is unnatural. Diverse behavior is also natural, and necessary for survival.
No, I agree contract law is the only thing that should apply. Religious rationalizations (pro or con) have no place in government.
While I agree with the religious comment, marriage is a little different than a straight forward business contract. A prenuptial is a contract but a marriage is a ceremony expressing mutual commitment. The only reason for a license is, 1. to confirm you are old enough, of sound mind, and 2. that you are not already married. That, and you will be married by someone licensed to perform the marriage (not always true though). And to also pay a fee to get the license.
Other than that I don't think the government should be involved in deciding who you can marry and they certainly should not be providing financial/social advantages to married couples other than you can inherit all of your spouse's assets without tax.
Comments
The history of marriage is long: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
Marriage is an unnatural state for the human animal. By my own estimation, the unspoken purpose of marriage is to prevent unwed mothers from becoming an undue burden on others (aka "society") and to essentially guarantee the state a growing base of productive taxpayers, but this is all disguised and made more palatable with the rewards and punishments designed into religions.
So maybe we should ban all legal marriage and keep it simple. That way everyone would be treated equally. This way people can have a civil union without any federal, state or local benefits being linked to them. Gays would never go for that because this has never been about love or marriage it has always been about benefits.
You can look back and read all my posts in this thread, I have never used the word God or sited religion.
At some point marriage has to have some legal definition that everyone can agree upon. If not we will have people trying to get benefits for five spouses or nut jobs trying to marry their dog.
So maybe we should ban all legal marriage and keep it simple. That way everyone would be treated equally. This way people can have a civil union without any federal, state or local benefits being linked to them. Gays would never go for that because this has never been about love or marriage it has always been about benefits.
You can look back and read all my posts in this thread, I have never used the word God or sited religion.
At some point marriage has to have some legal definition that everyone can agree upon. If not we will have people trying to get benefits for five spouses or nut jobs trying to marry their dog.
I'd back 100% the elimination of all intrusions by government into this area. Contract law should be the only thing that applies here and the only thing that can be justified constitutionally.
As for anyone trying to marry their dog... I doubt the dog will be able to legally agree to that contract.
Please... "natural" is subjective. Homosexuality exists in many species. What is "natural?" Really?
And in the future, we'll have the ability to grow babies in artificial wombs. Natural? Nope but it would probably be in the best interest for many women who do not wish to risk potential complications that come with pregnancy.
"Natural" is just useless. It's subjective. It doesn't prove or disprove anything.
Natural is not subjective. The sun rising in the east and setting in the west is not subjective. Men and women being the only combination to have children is not subjective. Water will always be made from the same elements. Our planet will always rotate in the same direction.
He can't, because his study is baloney.
There are, however, plenty of studies that show that children raised by same sex couples are at least as happy and healthy as children raised by straight couples, here's an article among zillions.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/07/children-of-same-sex-couples-are-happier-and-healthier-than-peers-research-shows/
"children need a mother and a father" is an idiotic argument. Children have been raised by same sex couples for thousands of years, and whether you support it, think it's an abomination, or legislate against it, it's still going to happen. The only difference is that laws against it only end up hurting the children themselves. But most social conservatives are too frickin stupid and brainwashed by their idiotic religion to even understand that.
Thanks for bring that up. Here, for further evidence on how that study didn't actually measure the outcomes of children in those context.
There is one simple rule that gays seems to dismiss. If being gay was natural which means "intended by nature" then two men or two women could procreate. Without science that will never be the case because it was never intended by nature.
I'm a conservative and I have no issue with gay marriage or equal rights when it comes to benefits. What I do take issue with is people acting as if it's natural or having two of the same sex parents is healthy. It isn't. We don't need the SCOTUS to tell us that, nature has already spoken.
If not for heterosexuals we wouldn't have to worry about these issues our species would be extinct. If everyone moving forward was like Tim Cook we wouldn't have to wonder about the next iPhone or iPad there wouldn't be anyone around to use them.
You don't know what nature intends because it doesn't intend anything. It doesn't tell us anything; you are merely seeing a small something and acting on that limited knowledge. I feel as though you have not read any studies that show how homosexuals in other animal species can be beneficial to the heterosexual members and therefore propagation of species as a whole?
Also, you have no evidence that a child raised by two same-sex parents is any less healthy than those raised in any other untraditional context other than, "you see it as unnatural" which doesn't make much since and isn't justified as negative influence on children.
Thanks for bring that up. Here, for further evidence on how that study didn't actually measure the outcomes of children in those context.
You don't know what nature intends because it doesn't intend anything. It doesn't tell us anything; you are merely seeing a small something and acting on that limited knowledge. I feel as though you have not read any studies that show how homosexuals in other animal species can be beneficial to the heterosexual members and therefore propagation of species as a whole?
Also, you have no evidence that a child raised by two same-sex parents is any less healthy than those raised in any other untraditional context other than, "you see it as unnatural" which doesn't make much since and isn't justified as negative influence on children.
Nature tells us everything. I was here long before anything else.
This says a lot about the mentality of the liberal "progressive". If I believe homosexual behavior is not only wrong but an offense against even the basic laws of nature, I'm labeled a conservative wacko.
yes, because that is a conservative wacko thing to believe. humans are part of nature -- thus it's not a violation of whatever "laws" of nature youre referring to. animals practice homosexuality as well. ever had a dog?
Actually, they do. Kids need a father and mother, not two of the same gender (or just one of them). Men and women are inherently different, and you gain different perspectives from each thanks to these differences. So yeah, if there was ever a time to say "think of the children", this is it.
a tired, failed argument. nobody advocates banning single-parent families, do they? no, that would be insane. as insane as saying gay families should be banned, which you are advocating for when you dont support marriage equality.
also, children raised by a single parent are raised just fine. didnt one become the president?
Nature tells us everything. I was here long before anything else.
No, nature does not have a plan. It does not think. It merely happens and happening does not justify right or wrong.
Nature does not tell you anything but what you want to hear or else you would be, hands down, for polygamy.
Because most media tells white people, Christians in particular, that they only got where they are due to privilege, or some other kind of invisible bias, and that it had no merit, and how Christians are evil, etc. And white conservative Christian men? Boy, they're just responsible for all the ills in the world if you believe the prevailing opinions.
really? can you show us where, specifically "most media" tell that christians are "evil"? i didnt get this memo.
no, you cant. because it never happened. christ....
No, nature does not have a plan. It does not think. It merely happens and happening does not justify right or wrong.
Nature does not tell you anything but what you want to hear or else you would be, hands down, for polygamy.
Right, and by his logic, since killing is common, we should kill because it's natural too.
at some point things are accepted on personal experience and faith. [...]
People can try to keep forcing the issue, it's not going to work. Kids need a mom and a dad, not two dads, two moms, or one parent.
no, they arent, unless you subscribe to things are faith-based. otherwise, things are accepted by valid, peer-reviewed data.
your dim logic means we should ban single-parent families. absurd!
a tired, failed argument. nobody advocates banning single-parent families, do they? no, that would be insane. as insane as saying gay families should be banned, which you are advocating for when you dont support marriage equality.
also, children raised by a single parent are raised just fine. didnt one become the president?
I don't think this president is a good argument in favor of anything, to be blunt and I'd rather the thread didn't devolve much further into the politics aspect, other than to voice disdain for involvement by any political party.
There is no privilege. None whatsoever. I've been treated just as poorly as anyone else, I've had to overcome challenges just like anyone else. The concept of privilege is just an excuse and a tool used to keep people down.
there is no privilege? hahahahah! good one. sorry, but the white middle class is afforded a lot more opportunity by its very existence than say, the poor black class here in the south. doesnt mean there arent also poor whites, but the institution is privleged by nature. im white and i readily acknowledge this -- i was given many more opportunities than a poor black kid. admit it and move it.
You can rationalize it any way you want but it's just legalized perversion
so is the legalization of anal and oral sex. do you enjoy those? i do.
yes, because that is a conservative wacko thing to believe. humans are part of nature -- thus it's not a violation of whatever "laws" of nature youre referring to. animals practice homosexuality as well. ever had a dog?
Difference... Humans have intelligence.
Additionally, there are lots of things we as humans can do but it doesn't make it right or natural (or the same as animals). A philosophy of "anything goes" is dangerous and currently leading the world down some dark paths.
Since history informs us of the social religious origins of marriage, I think you have that reversed.
nope.
and hes right -- civic contracts should be issued by the govt, and marriages by name should be reserved for whatever superstitious org you belong to and be as worthless as a baptism.
nope.
and hes right -- civic contracts should be issued by the govt, and marriages by name should be reserved for whatever superstitious org you belong to and be as worthless as a baptism.
No, I agree contract law is the only thing that should apply. Religious rationalizations (pro or con) have no place in government.
The intolerance of those demanding homosexual marriage is no better than the intolerance of Hitler against the Jews.
Intolerance is not binary. The reaction to violation of what's tolerated varies, and I'd say that arguing on a forum is considerably less violent.
The following page summarizes the findings:
http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/homosexual-parent-study-summary-of-findings
The sample size was about 3000 people. A lot of the statements won't be directly related to the parenting - it's a study of correlation, not causation. Further down it mentions the criticisms including comparing unstable family situations with stable ones but it says that this is because "of the 248 children with homosexual parents who were surveyed, only two had lived with their homosexual parent and the parent's partner during their entire childhood from birth to age 18". Only 10 children out of 248 stayed with the parents for over 13 years. There's a Q&A here with the researcher who's Catholic:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/blackwhiteandgray/2012/06/q-a-with-mark-regnerus-about-the-background-of-his-new-study/
One of the questions was whether gay marriage could be the solution to producing a more stable environment. I could see children wanting to find their biological parents regardless. No matter how close Steve Jobs was to his adoptive family, he still wanted to find his biological parents after all those years. Genetic heritage is a very strong bond to break because it's part of who you are.
The issue of marriage is only indirectly related to raising children although in some places adoption or surrogacy requires marriage and there are a lot of different scenarios such as a woman having kids to then split with her husband and raise the kids with another woman. They're going to be together anyway so marriage is just beneficial to them.
Thanks! So it's a predictably weak study for the issue at hand.
Absolutely right. Equal protection should mean no unique benefits to marrieds which are in effect discriminatory to unmarrieds.
This makes about the most sense of anything in this thread. And I say this as a man benefiting fully from a long marriage in the US.
That's an idiotic comment. Trying to compare a health issue with attempting to defy the laws of nature.
Laws? Where are these published?
It is the law of nature that women at some point can not have children. Having a health issue is not the law of nature. The same laws apply to any species, they would not exist if even the majority of that species was homosexual. I already stated in my first post to Marvin I have no issue with same sex marriage or equal government benefits. What I do take issue with is people pretending two of the same sex being together is natural. It isn't.
Let me put it in simple terms, it was intended by nature for a species to procreate which is the only way to ensure the survival of the species without the use of science. When two of the same sex can do the same then we can all agree is was intended by nature. I always have to include "the use of science" because that will always be the next argument by some nut job liberal.
Every woman will at some point no longer be able to have children, and every human will at some point have a health issue. How are these different?
Certainly procreation is natural, but that doesn't mean that everything other than procreation is unnatural. Diverse behavior is also natural, and necessary for survival.
While I agree with the religious comment, marriage is a little different than a straight forward business contract. A prenuptial is a contract but a marriage is a ceremony expressing mutual commitment. The only reason for a license is, 1. to confirm you are old enough, of sound mind, and 2. that you are not already married. That, and you will be married by someone licensed to perform the marriage (not always true though). And to also pay a fee to get the license.
Other than that I don't think the government should be involved in deciding who you can marry and they certainly should not be providing financial/social advantages to married couples other than you can inherit all of your spouse's assets without tax.
Right, and by his logic, since killing is common, we should kill because it's natural too.
If you ate today there is a high probability that something died in order for you to eat. So killing is actually very common to survive.