Gay Marriage

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
If religious people condemn homosexuality they are bigots. If religous people condemn adultery, are they bigoted against adulterers?


[/ QUOTE ]

The key to the negative part of the definition is that they are OBSTINATE and INTOLERANT. If a person condemns something based on sound reasoning, it isn't necessarily a bad thing. If one is obstinate, they adhere to their beliefs perhaps when its illogical. And the intolerant is also problematic. There's nothing wrong with having their opinions... its when they want to legislate based on their prejudice that it is problematic.

There are strong arguments about why adultry is wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you consistent (always have to find out). If a Congressman opposes the death penalty based on their religious belief (and some do), are you upset if they vote based on that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I don't want them to base their decisions on their religion. I want them to vote for an issue based on sound reasoning.

[ QUOTE ]
If a Congressman votes for anti-poverty programs because he believes Jesus would have wanted to take care of the poor, is that wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. I may agree with WHAT they're doing but not why they do it.

[ QUOTE ]
Many sects of Christianity preach non-violence and don't believe in war. If a member of that sect voted against the Iraq war based on his/her religious beliefs, were they wrong to do so?


[/ QUOTE ]

By the way, I think a VOTER can vote for something for whatever reason they want. I don't have to agree that with why they voted the way they did. (and, to make a distinction here, a voter represents themselves and shouldn't be bound to the same standards as a politician. A politician is supposed to represent his constituents, not his faith.)

[ QUOTE ]
It seems a bit much to tell someone they have to divorce their religious/moral views from their public policy views.

[/ QUOTE ] (1) again, you have to make a distinction between a politician and a regular voter... a voter represents themselves, an elected representative represents his voters. (2) no one is making a person make that separation... a racist can vote that it should be legal to lynch blacks... but that wouldn't mean they weren't irrational bigots.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a fallacy. For starters, there is no requirement for a married couple to have children. Therefore, children can not be the reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Where did I say married people have to have children? Read for content please. Marriage is rewarded because it is the institution by which children are created and raised. Population sustainment is a good thing for society. Children raised in this fashion are in the best possible environment. Of course children arent the only reason, but probably the largest as far weighing extrinsic value of marriage.

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, they have done long term studies on children raised by gay parents. There were no discernable difference in the quality of their upbringing. (except, perhaps, they might be a little less bigoted then your average person.)


[/ QUOTE ]

Well lets see them. I have found very few and most of them were very limited in scope or had errors in methodology that made them unuseable to do any sort of true empirical comparison. Contrast this with study after study that shows the value of having a both a mother and a father, and the problems with single parent households and the lack of opposite sex parental influences. I would lay decent odds that I have read more studies, both those that support or dont support my position. But thats not say I have read all the studies out there, so if you have links to some, by all means post so I can take a look at them.

[ QUOTE ]
Again... this is a myth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I have seen nothing that proves otherwise. Please show me some evidence that you think proves it is a myth.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
Marriage is rewarded because it is the institution by which children are created and raised.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that h. sapiens were creating and raising children before the institution of marriage existed, right?

-ptmusic

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Marriage is rewarded because it is the institution by which children are created and raised.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that [censored] sapiens were creating and raising children before the institution of marriage existed, right?

-ptmusic

[/ QUOTE ]

No I didnt. Thanks for the insight. I retract everything that I said.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Marriage is rewarded because it is the institution by which children are created and raised.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that [censored] sapiens were creating and raising children before the institution of marriage existed, right?

-ptmusic

[/ QUOTE ]

No I didnt. Thanks for the insight. I retract everything that I said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, then marriage is not the institution by which children are created, in fact the former is ritualistic and the latter is biological. Why confuse the two and in the process exclude people who want to participate in one and not the other?

Why mess with what other people want at all, unless it is hurting you?

-ptmusic

[Thunderpig]

It is indeed possible...but rarely do you find that kind of objective thinking...the fact of the matter is, we are all going to think in accordance with our experiences in life, regardless of how much the left likes to harangue and attempt to vilify anyone who disagrees with them

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
Contrast this with study after study that shows the value of having a both a mother and a father, and the problems with single parent households and the lack of opposite sex parental influences.

[/ QUOTE ]

Without reading any studies I can go along with the hypothesis that having two parents is better than one. Having role models of both sexes is better than having just one.

However, how does this impact giving the exact same legal rights to a gay couple? We are talking about -- benefits, rights over a sick spouse's treatment, inheritance, etc,

Many of the oppponents cop out by saying that they are OK with civil unions but not marriage. If it just comes down to the use of the word "marriage" then that is simply denial.

In any event, if the efforts put into opposing two people who want to quietly live together was put into attacking the problems of child abuse, child support payments, assistance for single mothers the country would be better off -- oh wait those are "liberal" ideas, better to fight gay marriage.

[Los Feliz Slim]

I was expecting to see the "if we let two men marry each other, what's to prevent everyone from marrying anyone/anything they want" argument. So, what about that? If we allow people of the same sex to marry each other, won't we eventually start allowing people to marry their pets? Their children or siblings? It's a slippery slope, people!

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Huh? Where did I say married people have to have children?

[/ QUOTE ]

The question asked was what is an argument against gay marriage. Your entire response was based around children. Therefore, you were (intentionally or not) asserting that HAVING/RAISING CHILDREN was the key reason that gays could not marry. Therefore, if having/raising children is a requirement for marriage, then people who don't have children also should not be able to marry.

See:
[ QUOTE ]
Marriage brings certain goods to society, the most prevalent of those being the bearing and raising of children. The opposite sex nuclear family is the best environment for raising of children and the proper raising of children,that is, future citizens, is of great deal of importance to society.

[/ QUOTE ]

So... if this is your entire argument against gay marriage (which I just re-checked.. it was) then the only key to determine whether people should get married or not is children. By your argument above, society should you reward non producing heterosexuals with the right to marry.

[ QUOTE ]
Well lets see them. I have found very few

[/ QUOTE ] So... you have seen them.

How about the American Acadamy of Pediatrics? A group that has kids best interests at heart. After reviewing a DOZEN different studies, the AAP took this official stance:

[ QUOTE ]
The February issue of Pediatrics also contains "Technical Report: Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents." The technical report provides details on the growing body of scientific literature that suggests children who grow up with gay or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social and sexual functioning as children whose parents are heterosexual.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the author's testimony before Congress on the subject: TESTIMONY

Or go listen to the NPR story on it. More interesting is the testimony of a 29 year old woman raised by gay parents. Seems she would have more insight then a random person off the street: NPR AUDIO

[ QUOTE ]
Well lets see them. I have found very few and most of them were very limited in scope or had errors in methodology that made them unuseable to do any sort of true empirical comparison.

[/ QUOTE ] There are several articles referenced on the NPR page. They address the criticisms. (as does the NPR story)

(Note: On the NPR page... there are links to other stories a few of which link to PDF files of the actual studies. Go nuts!)

[ QUOTE ]
Contrast this with study after study that shows the value of having a both a mother and a father, and the problems with single parent households and the lack of opposite sex parental influences.

[/ QUOTE ] This is addressed. Note: the studies you reference were also studying the difference between single parent families vs 2 parent families. They did not address a child raised by 2 same sex parents.

None of the people who are against gays couples raising children have any studies which show that the children in this situation are healthy and normal. They merely attack the studies which show that they're alright. (one, for instance, said that a woman raised by two educated and 'well off' lesbians didn't count because her lesb. moms were very educated and well off... therefore, they weren't typical and it didn't count. I found that amusing because they acknowledged the they did a good job raising their kid, but since they were so smart and well off, their case couldn't be used as an example. lol)

Finally, all this is really irrelevent since, as you now say that you don't have to have kids to be married, then you can't say gays cannot marry because of the children. So we're back to the start which is; there is no good argument about why two consenting men or two women who want to marry each other should not be able to.

[imported_The Vibesman]

Studies about single parent families don't apply here, those families are very often lower-class, with a parent who does not have a lot of time to devote to the child. Many of the problems with the kids there are not because they lack both a mom and dad in the life, it is because they lack supervision and are growing up in a bad environment/neighborhood/what-have-you. As to a nuclear family always being better, would you rather have two drug-free, well-adjusted, middle-class homeowning gay men raising a kid or a crack-whore married to a coke dealer with a conviction for breaking and entering and another for spousal abuse?