|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2010 : 23:58:19 [Permalink]
|
Bill scott......
Have you considered the effect of legalized same-sex marriage on the sociological principles of kinship? There may be a glimmer of hope for your failed secular arguments for opposing same sex marriage buried in the convoluted tangle of legal and social customs and practice that define what kinship means in many of the worlds societies!
Just a thought!
|
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
 Posted - 02/05/2010 : 00:52:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
In California, the definition was changed after gays had gotten married. They had a right to marriage, and then that right was taken away from them. |
Just want to make it clear that those (few) same-sex couples who were married during the time that it was legal to do so here in California are still legally married (unless their marriages have since ended in divorce, annulment, or death, etc.). |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2010 : 00:53:55 [Permalink]
|
Bill scott.....
| nobody in their wildest dreams every thought we would ever come to a point where some were trying to define marriage as between two men or women. That insanity was just never considered as ever being taken seriously in days gone by |
Your use of the word "insanity" troubles me, Bill. I completely understand the religious delusions that you suffer, and in that irrational setting, "insanity" is as good a word as any other because the discourse is contextual in a fantasy world similar to L.Frank Baum's Oz, or the Reverend Dodgson's Wonderland.
But, up to now, you have been handling yourself pretty well in framing secular argumentation to rationalize the religious fervor that drives you. Now, with applying the word "insane" to a purely secular discussion of homosexual bigotry, you immediately become as non-credible as you would if you were offering a Biblical rationale for your position.
Please justify calling secular acceptance of same sex marriage "insane", without using the totally discredited "lack of reproduction - end of mankind" nonsense that has been hammered to death here. |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2010 : 01:34:34 [Permalink]
|
People of the same sex will always couple, you can't really stop that, and allowing them to marry really does no harm. Whether it's a product of society, or a genetic defect, homosexuality has always existed and probably always will.
But we really have yet to see what happens to any children raised in these civil partnerships, this I state as a fact, with no implications.
Sure we have some information, but not enough. The sad thing is that I'm sure the outcome of any studies will be suppressed if the results are negative as it wouldn't be politically correct. |
 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2010 : 01:56:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Nobody is robbing anybody of their civil rights. If Jack wants to marry Jill there are few reasons the government, or the public, would attempt to halt this union. But what the homosexual activists do is they try to redefine marriage.
<snip>
What they are rejecting is the homosexual activists repeated atttempts to re-define marriage, as they see fit, by ramming it through the back door (no pun intended) using the court system and bypassing the will of the people and the will of the state.
|
Then I have the perfect sollution:
Rename what we call marriage today, call it Civil Union and change legislation according to the name change, and give Gays the right to enter that Civil Union.
Then religious people can have their ceremony at church and call it marriage.
Problem solved. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2010 : 07:55:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
But we really have yet to see what happens to any children raised in these civil partnerships, this I state as a fact, with no implications. |
Actually, there are plenty of implications...| Sure we have some information, but not enough. The sad thing is that I'm sure the outcome of any studies will be suppressed if the results are negative as it wouldn't be politically correct. |
...because no matter how negatively a straight couple treat their children (up to and including parents raping their own kids), there is no law nor any court which will demand that the marriage be dissolved, or even that the abusive parents stop having children (the very rare and, I think, unconstitutional demands for some pedophilic men to be chemically castrated were not generally the result of incestual crimes).
Also, keep in mind that straight couples can do things to their children that are pretty horrible, sometimes resulting in the kids committing suicide or paying for years of therapy, but which are perfectly legal. Abuse doesn't have to leave bruises, but that's what the law looks for.
So unless you're going to call for general "fitness to be parents" testing prior to issuing marriage licenses for all people, regardless of sexual orientation and preference, the idea that the kids of gay couples need to be studied for "negative" effects is, itself, prejudicial against same-sex couples. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2010 : 10:15:41 [Permalink]
|
| I didn't say anything about not be allowed to marry. I was talking about having children. Same sex couples need to be screened for suitability in the first place since they have to adopt. |
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2010 : 10:17:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
People of the same sex will always couple, you can't really stop that, and allowing them to marry really does no harm. Whether it's a product of society, or a genetic defect, homosexuality has always existed and probably always will.
|
Why is homosexuality a genetic DEFECT? |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2010 : 10:28:20 [Permalink]
|
Kin Selection among humans; how male homosexuality may have evolved
| Their past research has shown that male homosexuals in Samoa (known as fa’afafine*) exhibit "significantly higher" helpful tendencies towards nieces and nephews than their heterosexual counterparts. Found primarily in birds and social insects, sexually mature individuals may stay behind to help rear the next generation of offspring rather than having their own. Known as the helper-in-the-nest phenomena, it has long been thought to play a role in the development and origin of homosexuality. |
food for thought... |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 02/05/2010 10:28:41 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2010 : 11:11:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
I didn't say anything about not be allowed to marry. I was talking about having children. Same sex couples need to be screened for suitability in the first place since they have to adopt. |
What utter crap. It's as if you think that same-sex couples are always composed of two biologically infertile people. It's bigoted baloney.
Yes, I know you were talking about having children. So was I. If straight couples don't have to be screened for suitability (in spite of many of them being crappy parents), why should same-sex couples? They shouldn't. Neither getting a surrogate mother nor making use of a stud require any screening. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2010 : 11:21:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Just want to make it clear that those (few) same-sex couples who were married during the time that it was legal to do so here in California are still legally married (unless their marriages have since ended in divorce, annulment, or death, etc.). |
Yes, indeed. Good reminder.
The important thing regarding the rights in question is that on November 4, 2008, a person in California could marry whoever they liked without the sex of either person being a condition. On the next day, men could only marry women (and vice versa, of course). That Bill can try to pass this off as not being a denial of rights is nothing more than his denial of reality. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2010 : 11:29:45 [Permalink]
|
On Fire For Christ......
| Same sex couples need to be screened for suitability in the first place since they have to adopt |
Why, OFFC? |
| Edited by - bngbuck on 02/05/2010 11:32:37 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2010 : 14:46:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
I didn't say anything about not be allowed to marry. I was talking about having children. Same sex couples need to be screened for suitability in the first place since they have to adopt.
|
Not necessary for female couples. One of them could get pregnant out of wedlock... Either by actually having sex with a man no matter how disgusting it may seem to them, or they may artificially inseminate themselves privately which is what happened in a city close to me (with legal complications later, but that's another story). Neither of those alternatives are under the control of the Government.
Just as any single-women who don't want to get committed can go out on a Friday night and follow a man home to have sex in order to get pregnant. Single moms don't get screened for suitability before they get pregnant. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2010 : 14:48:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by pleco
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
People of the same sex will always couple, you can't really stop that, and allowing them to marry really does no harm. Whether it's a product of society, or a genetic defect, homosexuality has always existed and probably always will.
|
Why is homosexuality a genetic DEFECT?
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCzbNkyXO50 |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2010 : 14:56:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
On Fire For Christ......
| Same sex couples need to be screened for suitability in the first place since they have to adopt |
Why, OFFC?
|
In such a liberal country like Sweden, every couple who wants to adopt has to be screened. Regardless of being hetero or homo, for the purpose of getting the adopted child to a stable family. They don't always succeed, but the authorities aim for that. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
Deceiving in the name of Jesus, again
