celticlord
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 6,344
- Reaction score
- 3,794
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/46268-those-who-support-gay-marriage-2.html#post10579810421) I asked the question first. Be my guest in attempting to respond to it.
2) When you can prove a negative, one like "God does not exist", I'll give it a go. Until then, your question is irrelevant.
Does that research support the status of being a couple or the status of being married? Does any of that research show harm to children from being more than a couple (i.e., poly)?There is plenty of research that shows that married couples are healthier, happier, and the children of married couples function better. Plenty.
1) you asked the question of someone else in some other thread. Therefore, I actually asked you first... in this thread. So you should answer.1) I asked the question first. Be my guest in attempting to respond to it.
2) When you can prove a negative, one like "God does not exist", I'll give it a go. Until then, your question is irrelevant.
Then providing it to back up your claim when challenged would seem prudent and obviously, according to you, easy to find.There is plenty of research that shows that married couples are healthier, happier, and the children of married couples function better. Plenty.
1) you asked the question of someone else in some other thread. Therefore, I actually asked you first... in this thread. So you should answer.
2) I'm not asking you to prove a negative like the example you gave. Your assertion is that the government supports a 2 parent marriage based on some data, provide that data and it must certainly show the statistics that I asked. Otherwise it's not much of a study if you just made up a conclusion and put it on paper.
Then providing it to back up your claim when challenged would seem prudent and obviously, according to you, easy to find.
The Future of The Family and The Fate of Our Children, by Dr. Deborah Taj Anapol, Ph.D.
There is not a wealth of statistical evidence or case studies about these family structures, but such evidence and theory as does exist at the very least these family structures are no less able to provide a healthy environment for raising children and sustaining families.
It's Better with Three
The anecdotal evidence supporting the viability of poly structures is at the very least sufficiently intriguing that Terri Conley, associate professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, began a study last year into poly families.
But they just adopted a 2-year-old girl from Kazakhstan, and Conley says their lives are too crazy to think about getting involved with someone else. "Maybe down the road, that'll be something we explore," she says.
At the very least, it is fair to say that there is some evidence these family structures have the potential to be healthy environments for sustaining families and raising children.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/46268-those-who-support-gay-marriage-2.html#post1057981042
I did. There is not a wealth of statistical evidence--for obvious reasons--but there is both evidence and theory to give credence to the position that poly family structures are innately no worse than traditional marriage.
Not if you reframe his question as being a request to provide proof that poly family structures are in fact harmful to children by leaving them less healthy and able to function than children of traditional married couples. Then his question is exceedingly relevant and deserving of response.
Given that you appear to favor disallowing plural marriages and the range of poly family structures, establishing the foundation for such disallowance, presumably by demonstrating with evidence the harm done, is reasonable, appropriate, and one might even say courteous.
Does that research support the status of being a couple or the status of being married? Does any of that research show harm to children from being more than a couple (i.e., poly)?
If there is no demonstrable harm, what civil interest is served by limiting relationship choices to monogamous marriage?
The civil interest is called liberty. If there is no harm, if there is no proven harm, then the default answer ever and always should be freedom to choose.If there is no demonstrative benefit, what civil interest is served by allowing plural marriage? I am arguing from the standpoint of benefits to the family and children. Until you can show me evidence that plural marriage does this, I reject it.
I asked the question first in this thread...which is what you were responding to. Your move.
You did not ask for me to prove my position. You asked for me to prove yours. That's your job. Still your move.
Sure. And since you are not stupid, this is information you surely know, as do most people. I will not take your bait.
Still your move.
You may see no evidence that it is beneficial but you also must see no evidence that it is detrimental. Therefore taking a position against something must be either stupidity, which I don't think you are or simply an emotional response. I think you'd agree, that is a dangerous reason to be for or against something that effects others.No, there isn't. Read my debunking of your "evidence".
This is not my position. My position is this, again: "none of these can show benefits to the family, children, the human condition, or the government". I am not saying that they are detrimental. I am saying that there is no evidence that they benefit. If you want to disprove my statement, show me evidence that they are beneficial to any of the things I mentioned. This is consistent with my position on pro-GM. There is evidence that shows that gay marriage is beneficial in the ways that I mentioned.
I am in favor of disallowing plural marriages because I see no evidence that it is beneficial. I have shown, in the other thread, how it is completely different, structurally, from gay marriage, so in order for me to support it, I need to see evidence that it is beneficial. There is plenty to back the pro-GM position; if there wasn't, I wouldn't support it.
It is his job to disprove my position, not to alter my position.
The research is generally limited to committed relationships, marriage mostly.
And there is no research on children from plural marriages, as I have said.
If there is no demonstrative benefit, what civil interest is served by allowing plural marriage? I am arguing from the standpoint of benefits to the family and children. Until you can show me evidence that plural marriage does this, I reject it.
The civil interest is called liberty. If there is no harm, if there is no proven harm, then the default answer ever and always should be freedom to choose.
The question is never what should the government allow, but what must the government be required to disallow.
If people want plural marriage, unless and until it can be shown that plural marriage is decidedly harmful--and this you have not done, nor even attempted to do--it is in the interest of freedom and liberty that people be allowed plural marriage.
Freedom is the pre-eminent civic interest.
I disagree with all of your "it's your move" since you are making a claim and not backing it up with anything other than your claim. Therefore, since you seem determined to avoid providing evidence for your claim when challenged we should assume that it's nothing but an unsubstantiated claim/ your opinion.
You may see no evidence that it is beneficial but you also must see no evidence that it is detrimental. Therefore taking a position against something must be either stupidity, which I don't think you are or simply an emotional response. I think you'd agree, that is a dangerous reason to be for or against something that effects others.
Do you also support polygamy, polyandry, open marriages, and other non-traditional family structures?
Neither. In the question of marriage, I have no reason to support something that shows no clear benefit.
This is where you're wrong. There is no inherent civic interest in security. Society does not protect because there may be harm, but because there is specific and articulable reason to believe there will be harm, or that there has been harm done.Freedom and security is the pre-eminent civic interest. Without the second, we have anarchy.
All the criteria ennumerated require intentional, willful, and demonstrably harmful conduct of the parent. Further, for temporary removal, Chapter 262 §101 sets the standard of an "immediate danger":Sec. 161.001. INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION OF PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP. The court may order termination of the parent-child relationship if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence:
(1) that the parent has:
(A) voluntarily left the child alone or in the possession of another not the parent and expressed an intent not to return;
(B) voluntarily left the child alone or in the possession of another not the parent without expressing an intent to return, without providing for the adequate support of the child, and remained away for a period of at least three months;
(C) voluntarily left the child alone or in the possession of another without providing adequate support of the child and remained away for a period of at least six months;
(D) knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the child to remain in conditions or surroundings which endanger the physical or emotional well-being of the child;
(E) engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the child with persons who engaged in conduct which endangers the physical or emotional well-being of the child;
(F) failed to support the child in accordance with the parent's ability during a period of one year ending within six months of the date of the filing of the petition;
(G) abandoned the child without identifying the child or furnishing means of identification, and the child's identity cannot be ascertained by the exercise of reasonable diligence;
(H) voluntarily, and with knowledge of the pregnancy, abandoned the mother of the child beginning at a time during her pregnancy with the child and continuing through the birth, failed to provide adequate support or medical care for the mother during the period of abandonment before the birth of the child, and remained apart from the child or failed to support the child since the birth;
(I) contumaciously refused to submit to a reasonable and lawful order of a court under Subchapter D, Chapter 261;
(J) been the major cause of:
(i) the failure of the child to be enrolled in school as required by the Education Code; or
(ii) the child's absence from the child's home without the consent of the parents or guardian for a substantial length of time or without the intent to return;
(K) executed before or after the suit is filed an unrevoked or irrevocable affidavit of relinquishment of parental rights as provided by this chapter;
(L) been convicted or has been placed on community supervision, including deferred adjudication community supervision, for being criminally responsible for the death or serious injury of a child under the following sections of the Penal Code or adjudicated under Title 3 for conduct that caused the death or serious injury of a child and that would constitute a violation of one of the following Penal Code sections:
(i) Section 19.02 (murder);
(ii) Section 19.03 (capital murder);
(iii) Section 19.04 (manslaughter);
(iv) Section 21.11 (indecency with a child);
(v) Section 22.01 (assault);
(vi) Section 22.011 (sexual assault);
(vii) Section 22.02 (aggravated assault);
(viii) Section 22.021 (aggravated sexual assault);
(ix) Section 22.04 (injury to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual);
(x) Section 22.041 (abandoning or endangering child);
(xi) Section 25.02 (prohibited sexual conduct);
(xii) Section 43.25 (sexual performance by a child);
(xiii) Section 43.26 (possession or promotion of child pornography); and
(xiv) Section 21.02 (continuous sexual abuse of young child or children);
(M) had his or her parent-child relationship terminated with respect to another child based on a finding that the parent's conduct was in violation of Paragraph (D) or (E) or substantially equivalent provisions of the law of another state;
(N) constructively abandoned the child who has been in the permanent or temporary managing conservatorship of the Department of Family and Protective Services or an authorized agency for not less than six months, and:
(i) the department or authorized agency has made reasonable efforts to return the child to the parent;
(ii) the parent has not regularly visited or maintained significant contact with the child; and
(iii) the parent has demonstrated an inability to provide the child with a safe environment;
(O) failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that specifically established the actions necessary for the parent to obtain the return of the child who has been in the permanent or temporary managing conservatorship of the Department of Family and Protective Services for not less than nine months as a result of the child's removal from the parent under Chapter 262 for the abuse or neglect of the child;
(P) used a controlled substance, as defined by Chapter 481, Health and Safety Code, in a manner that endangered the health or safety of the child, and:
(i) failed to complete a court-ordered substance abuse treatment program; or
(ii) after completion of a court-ordered substance abuse treatment program, continued to abuse a controlled substance;
(Q) knowingly engaged in criminal conduct that has resulted in the parent's:
(i) conviction of an offense; and
(ii) confinement or imprisonment and inability to care for the child for not less than two years from the date of filing the petition;
(R) been the cause of the child being born addicted to alcohol or a controlled substance, other than a controlled substance legally obtained by prescription, as defined by Section 261.001;
(S) voluntarily delivered the child to a designated emergency infant care provider under Section 262.302 without expressing an intent to return for the child; or
(T) been convicted of the murder of the other parent of the child under Section 19.02 or 19.03, Penal Code, or under a law of another state, federal law, the law of a foreign country, or the Uniform Code of Military Justice that contains elements that are substantially similar to the elements of an offense under Section 19.02 or 19.03, Penal Code; and
(2) that termination is in the best interest of the child.
(1) there is an immediate danger to the physical health or safety of the child or the child has been a victim of neglect or sexual abuse and that continuation in the home would be contrary to the child's welfare;
Sec. 262.104. TAKING POSSESSION OF A CHILD IN EMERGENCY WITHOUT A COURT ORDER. (a) If there is no time to obtain a temporary restraining order or attachment before taking possession of a child consistent with the health and safety of that child, an authorized representative of the Department of Family and Protective Services, a law enforcement officer, or a juvenile probation officer may take possession of a child without a court order under the following conditions, only:
(1) on personal knowledge of facts that would lead a person of ordinary prudence and caution to believe that there is an immediate danger to the physical health or safety of the child;
(2) on information furnished by another that has been corroborated by personal knowledge of facts and all of which taken together would lead a person of ordinary prudence and caution to believe that there is an immediate danger to the physical health or safety of the child;
(3) on personal knowledge of facts that would lead a person of ordinary prudence and caution to believe that the child has been the victim of sexual abuse;
(4) on information furnished by another that has been corroborated by personal knowledge of facts and all of which taken together would lead a person of ordinary prudence and caution to believe that the child has been the victim of sexual abuse; or
(5) on information furnished by another that has been corroborated by personal knowledge of facts and all of which taken together would lead a person of ordinary prudence and caution to believe that the parent or person who has possession of the child is currently using a controlled substance as defined by Chapter 481, Health and Safety Code, and the use constitutes an immediate danger to the physical health or safety of the child.
tbh, I could care less who wants to get married.
Marriage is an institution of the church, not the government... and they should have absolutely no say in it.
If marriage is defined solely as a religious sacrament, then, if your religious beliefs do not include that sacrament, it follows that no, you would not be getting married.People keep saying this, but that means I can't get married because I don't belong to any religion or church.
Disagree all you want. You initiated this by responding to this statement of mine, which you posted in this thread: "Please show some evidence that polygamous marriage rears children as healthy and able to function as children of hetero- and homosexual marriage. There is plenty of data on both of those. I do not see why the government should support something unless there is some data showing it is helpful."
I asked first. If you have no evidence of your position, just say so and we can move on.
Do you think 2 parents are better for child rearing than 1 parent?Neither. In the question of marriage, I have no reason to support something that shows no clear benefit.
My wife and I were together for 12 years before we got "married". The only thing that changed thereafter was the view the government took of our union. Oh, and we got a piece of paper from the justice of the peace.People keep saying this, but that means I can't get married because I don't belong to any religion or church.
===>But if your religious beliefs do not include the sacrament of marriage, what is it about marriage that you desire it so?
My wife and I were together for 12 years before we got "married". The only thing that changed thereafter was the view the government took of our union. Oh, and we got a piece of paper from the justice of the peace.
Create a piece of paper on your computer that says "marriage" on it. Print it out and hang it on the wall so you can feel good.
If instead you were given the option of registering a civil union at the local courthouse, so that your union ("marriage") gained legal stature, would that suffice?===>
That thing. It's not much, but the fact stands that marriage has become more than just a religious institution, as proven by the fact that nonreligious people do it all the time.
Yes. Consenting adults should be allowed to do as they please until some demonstrable harm to others is proven.Do you also support polygamy, polyandry, open marriages, and other non-traditional family structures?
If instead you were given the option of registering a civil union at the local courthouse, so that your union ("marriage") gained legal stature, would that suffice?
Is it the status of the term "married" or the legal stature for your relationship that is important to you?
(honest questions, btw)
So if marriage were deemed a religious exercise, but civil unions could be registered at the courthouse...is that an acceptable arrangement for you?Well I'm personally a fan of doing things the traditional way, so being married by that term would be preferable. Not that it matters very much.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?