Marriage is between a Man and a Woman.

[stars2heaven]

Those percentages and study findings are meaningless to the point at hand. I have been in many debates where that is how it goes, unfortunately, this is not one of them and that is your disconnect. Done with you on this thread of the thread. Bye.

If you think they would be meaningless to the point at hand then you have no idea how an argument works and you clearly do not know what you are talking about. They directly support the argument you made.

This is for other peoples benefit as much as yours, please do some learning

http://people.hofstra.edu/Stefan_Waner/RealWorld/logic/logicintro.html

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/index.html

http://rfrost.people.si.umich.edu//courses/arguing.html

http://faculty.matcmadison.edu/alehnen/weblogic/logcont.htm

http://cnx.org/content/col10154/latest/

 

[Bodi]

If you think they would be meaningless to the point at hand then you have no idea how an argument works and you clearly do not know what you are talking about. They directly support the argument you made.

This is for other peoples benefit as much as yours, please do some learning

Logic: Introduction

Introduction to Logic Home Page

How to Argue

An Elementary Introduction to Logic and Set Theory: Table of Contents

Intro to Logic

This is now about logic and argument structure, so I'll address this. If the premise is wrong, the entire argument is meaningless... If you are a university student, like it sounds, then you are learning. Great. Continue... but posting some sites doesn't mean that you truly comprehend the information on them. You haven't proven that sexual balance does not matter, until you do that, all of your stats and evidence that does not include that information is irrelevant.

You make terrible analogies. People making laws that represent their religious beliefs because they hold those beliefs is to impose them on other people. You are the one who can't grasp this.

That analogy might not have been the greatest, but it still has a point.

In the end though, if a law is not about religion, but rather about sexual orientation, then it does not violate the 1st Amendment religious article.
It would be a law that violates the 14th Amendment.

If a law is created by black men that keeps all women from voting, then it is not about race and it does not violate the 15th Amendment.
It would be a law that violates the 19th Amendment.

No analogy is perfect, but if it makes the point then it is a valid analogy.

 

[txlibertarian]

simple question. getting to your core belief, does "everyone" have the right to contract...or only those groups that you support?

I have never said ANYWHERE that I believe gay marriage will lead to pedophilia.

given the fact that in some states, the age of consent is 14 and with parental permission you can marry at that age. Do you, or do you not, support the "right" of an adult man to "engage in contract" to marry a 14 year old boy.

First of all, the lowest age of consent within the United States is 16 years old.

Second the difference between marrying a child and two adults marrying is consent. A child cannot consent (neither can an animal if we want to bring up the bestiality argument), two adult males or females can consent.

 

[SheWolf]

And to people who think marriage is for the up bringing of children... I still can't get over how absurd that is and in many ways defies common sense.

Divorce can be great for a child... I know people in my support group, males and females, who were physically and/or sexually abused by a parent, usually the father. Removing a child for a situation like that is always a positive thing. Marriage isn't always a good thing for a child.

Anybody with the mentality that you should remain in a marriage for their child needs, despite their own should be slapped upside the head. I have seen too many people sacrifice their own happiness and safety for those reasons, and for the fear losing their financial stability. It isn't worth it.. people deserve to be happy. Nothing is wrong with divorce if it's for the right reason... and of course marriage and divorce is a personal decision and choice, and government shouldn't be involved with it.

This thread is another of example of people who commonly say government isn't the solution, supporting government in our lives and micromanaging our decisions.. what happens in our bedrooms and telling us what is good for our children. How freaking ABSURD

 

[roguenuke]

If the laws are not about religion, then it is not a religious issue any more than if a million trillion blacks get together and make a law making the driving age 25. That is not a racist law. Can you please finally grasp this concept?

An argument for a higher driving age would need to have a rational basis. Just like a law preventing two men or two women from getting married needs to have a rational basis. It doesn't matter who is behind such a law, it matters what reasons they are giving for making/having such a law.

For example, if a group of blacks and whites got together to try to pass a law that prevented blacks and whites from marrying, but only those who could have children, because they felt that genetically mixing the races was immoral, this would still be wrong. It doesn't matter who is involved in the law. It matters what the basis of the law is. And the basis for laws against same sex marriage is religion, above all else. There may be a few who support the law who are not doing so mainly because of their own religious beliefs, just as there would certainly be some of those whites and blacks in my example above who would most likely have other reasons for supporting such a law, but the vast majority of the people are still supporting the law due only to their religious beliefs. There is absolutely no evidence that same sex marriage will do any measurable harm to society at all.

 

[roguenuke]

Because it is what makes us who we are... are you kidding me? I like men to be men and women to be women. The only way to truly tell if there is a difference would be if we let only homosexual couples raise children for the next few thousand years. We are debating an absolute subject, not one that has a few homosexuals raising some well adjsted kids.

Except, there is no way to equal out the amount of feminity and masculinity in any household, especially not how much a child is exposed to.

Many of those manly lesbians were raised in heterosexual households, with a mom and a dad. And many of those girly gay guys were raised in heterosexual households with a mom and a dad. Many crossdressers were raised in heterosexual households, with a mom and a dad.

And, as was said earlier in this thread, there are many other places for a child to get the view from the opposite sex of their parents, including other relatives, teachers, coaches, neighbors, and friends. All of these people usually play roles in the lives of children, whether they are raised by a mother and a father, two fathers, two mothers, one father/mother, or legal guardians.

Also, there is no way to determine how much influence each parent has in the development of children or where that influence actually affects certain personality traits. If a person's mother is always away from home, will those boys always be more masculine than the other boys, having most of their influence from their father? Will the daughters always be tomboys? If a child's father is always away, would the boys be sissies and the girl's ultra-girly? Would having parents that fill those "normal" parental roles (father working normal 9-5 M-F workdays, SAHM) always produce boys that are just masculine enough and girls who are just feminine enough?

 

[stars2heaven]

This is now about logic and argument structure, so I'll address this. If the premise is wrong, the entire argument is meaningless... If you are a university student, like it sounds, then you are learning. Great. Continue... but posting some sites doesn't mean that you truly comprehend the information on them. You haven't proven that sexual balance does not matter, until you do that, all of your stats and evidence that does not include that information is irrelevant.

I have already presented evidence that it does not matter, however I have no need to prove that it does not matter. This is how burden of proof works. I could work for an eternity providing evidence that it doesn't matter and never be able to prove with certainty that it doesn't. One instance of evidence to the contrary can prove that it does. That is why the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim, aside from the fact that you are the one who made it. You don't even have a supporting argument for your claim. A claim is all that you have, and no evidence to back it up.

That analogy might not have been the greatest, but it still has a point.

Whatever point it is making does not address the situation at hand.

In the end though, if a law is not about religion, but rather about sexual orientation, then it does not violate the 1st Amendment religious article.
It would be a law that violates the 14th Amendment.

You do realize that a law that violates the 1st Amendment ALSO violates the 14, right?

If a law is created by black men that keeps all women from voting, then it is not about race and it does not violate the 15th Amendment.
It would be a law that violates the 19th Amendment.

You are right, but this is still in inappropriate analogy. Here is why, though Im sure one of those sites should cover this as well.

Your analogy is an instance of sexual discrimination that is prohibited by an Amendment that protects against sexual discrimination when voting rights are concerned. There is no Amendment that protects a person from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation no matter the situation. The predicate in your analogy does not match the predicate of the situation we are looking at. The 14th amendment does not protect a person from being discriminated against on the basis of their sexuality in the way the 19th amendment protects against discrimination on the basis of sex. So "sexual discrimination is to the 19th amendment what sexuality discrimination is to the 14th amendment" makes no sense at all.

My analogy is spot on though. Religious discrimination is to the 1st amendment what sexual discrimination is to the 19th. You see the difference? The one difference here is that the 1st is far broader in scope than the 19th. The 19th is based only on a persons sex, but the 1st is not based only on a persons religion. The 1st Amendment encompases far more than just protecting people from discrimination on the basis of their religion, but also protects people from being discriminated against for religious reasons. That includeds homosexuals.

No analogy is perfect, but if it makes the point then it is a valid analogy.

You are wrong again. There really are good analogies, but yours haven't been so far.

 

[The Baron]

Well, now that I have a few moments and I apologize for not responding sooner…

“Not really, because oddly enough we don't all still have the same rights. It is weird that you think so, though.” - stars2heaven

While I have no interest in getting into a “Yes they do!” / “No they don’t” argument, and while I know you must find it terribly inconvenient the truth is that I am not allowed to do anything more than anyone else and vice-versa.

“What? You even missed the ones with protections in their name? Oh darn.” - stars2heaven

Oh, darn! You’re right. So what?

“Why” - stars2heaven

Marriage is a delicate thing and when you go tinkering with the institution it is harmed. You have to look no further than the last time a change was made to marriage…no-fault divorce.

Since its inception, no-fault divorce has devastated marriage and it is no longer the institution that it was when I was a child in that it is no longer permanent.

Today half of all couples will get divorced and the rate of marriages are declining as more and more people are choosing not to marry but to live together instead.

History has already taught us what happens to the institution of marriage when society tinkers with it and further changes to the institution will only continue to devastate it.

That’s why.

“So? Shouldn't scientific data and research be used to promote education and affect professional and public policy? You haven't shown any bias here” - stars2heaven

Research organizations typically focus on research to avoid the appearance of bias, but the APA doesn’t even bother anymore. The division employs folks like Dennis Debiak who is openly gay himself and he’s far from being the only one employed there. While I’m sure he’s a nice guy and great doctor he is a gay man pushing a gay agenda behind the façade of an objective organization which the APA no longer is.

“That's funny, cause the ‘ex-gay’ thing has been thouroughly debunked as well. Weird, huh? Oh, and talk about bias.” - stars2heaven

Then how do you explain the thousands of ex-gay folks. I’m sure they will be quite surprised to find that they are no longer ex-gay. They sure are going to have a hard time explaining this to their current wives, husbands and children.

You may also want to re-look at the list of names I provided as those who peer-reviewed the study by Jones and Yarhouse. They are some heavyweight among the psychchiatric community. One was even a former APA President (not everyone in the APA toes the “party-line”).

“It ought to be self evident.” - stars2heaven

It’s not. Please elaborate.

“Prove it.” - stars2heaven

Prove what?

That most professionals agree that biological moms and dads are best for raising their kids?

Yea, I’ll get right on it.

In the meantime, you might want to actually read what some of these organizations actually say about the raising of children.

“You must not have looked very closely at the article I posted. It addressed this issue specifically.” - stars2heaven

Oh, I read it. It’s just stupid. It insists there are benefits but then does not bother to justify or explain the benefits.

Insisting that something is so doesn’t make it true.

This is also from the APA which I have correctly pointed-out is a biased and inept organization.

“I don't care anymore, so moving on” - stars2heaven

Suit yourself.

“I don't know if it's obvious or not but Im really not taking you seriously at this point. It doesn't seem you are reading what I'm writing anyways. It should have been clear that what you quoted was in reference to the developement of children who have multiple parents (regardless of their sexual orientation) and not to the development of children who have married gay parents. (for which there isn't any significant data)” - stars2heaven

I’m reading what you are writing and yes, what I posted did reference children with multiple parents. As you and I both agree that there isn’t any significant data for married gay parents it is helpful and--I think--well advised to consider the information that we do have available to us…in the case the research of children with multiple parents.

But I’ll grant you I should have explained all of that with my last post.

“The courts may very well be treating it as a civil matter and not a religious one, that's the way it really ought to be. But that doesn't preclude the possibility that there is a religious issue that is relevant to the First Amendment as well.” - stars2heaven

We got into this a little bit earlier in this thread, but if nobody is interfering with anyone’s “religion” and nobody’s worship is being attacked then how it this a First Amendment issue?

-and-​

“sexual orientation is innate, just like race. Lots of research to back it up too” - stars2heaven

No, there isn’t.

But where would you like to start? How about with Dean Hamer? He was the one that discovered the “gay gene”. I last saw him in a very short scene in Bill Maher’s Irreligious. Would you like to discuss how he’s been discredited?

By the way, did you know that Hamer also discovered the “god gene”?

Or how about the work of Simon LeVay? There are some people that still reference this guy although he was discredited almost immediately.

What about the work of Bailey and Pillar? Their work was used as evidence that homosexuality was biological when, in fact, it showed just the opposite. Would you like to discuss this “research”?

These are just the ones that are referenced most often. You may have some others you’d like to discuss. That’s fine.

Ya know, I used to get all worked up every time a new “study” came out that “proved” homosexuality was biological but just as quickly as these studies would make headlines they would just as quickly disappear once questions started being asked about the research. Now when a new study “proving” homosexuality is biological surfaces I really don’t pay it much attention knowing that it will soon disappear like so many other.

Today there is still a push to “prove” that homosexuality is biological.

Why?

Because it has yet to be proven.

But because of the political implication, the search continues to find a biological cause.

 

[Bodi]

An argument for a higher driving age would need to have a rational basis. Just like a law preventing two men or two women from getting married needs to have a rational basis. It doesn't matter who is behind such a law, it matters what reasons they are giving for making/having such a law.

For example, if a group of blacks and whites got together to try to pass a law that prevented blacks and whites from marrying, but only those who could have children, because they felt that genetically mixing the races was immoral, this would still be wrong. It doesn't matter who is involved in the law. It matters what the basis of the law is. And the basis for laws against same sex marriage is religion, above all else. There may be a few who support the law who are not doing so mainly because of their own religious beliefs, just as there would certainly be some of those whites and blacks in my example above who would most likely have other reasons for supporting such a law, but the vast majority of the people are still supporting the law due only to their religious beliefs. There is absolutely no evidence that same sex marriage will do any measurable harm to society at all.

I agree, the law needs to have a rational basis. I agree that the main basis behind anti same sex marriage is religious. The main basis for the law is distinct from the main basis of the law though. If the basis for a law is religion, but the law is not about religion, then it is not a religious argument, but instead one that is actually based on sexual orientation.

...and I am for same sex marriage.

 

[Bodi]

I have already presented evidence that it does not matter, however I have no need to prove that it does not matter. This is how burden of proof works. I could work for an eternity providing evidence that it doesn't matter and never be able to prove with certainty that it doesn't. One instance of evidence to the contrary can prove that it does. That is why the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim, aside from the fact that you are the one who made it. You don't even have a supporting argument for your claim. A claim is all that you have, and no evidence to back it up.

I am not saying that it does matter... you are the one saying that it does not matter, do you see the difference?

You do realize that a law that violates the 1st Amendment ALSO violates the 14, right?

Yes, but this law violates the 14th and not the 1st...

You are right, but this is still in inappropriate analogy. Here is why, though Im sure one of those sites should cover this as well.

Your analogy is an instance of sexual discrimination that is prohibited by an Amendment that protects against sexual discrimination when voting rights are concerned. There is no Amendment that protects a person from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation no matter the situation. The predicate in your analogy does not match the predicate of the situation we are looking at. The 14th amendment does not protect a person from being discriminated against on the basis of their sexuality in the way the 19th amendment protects against discrimination on the basis of sex. So "sexual discrimination is to the 19th amendment what sexuality discrimination is to the 14th amendment" makes no sense at all.

My analogy is spot on though. Religious discrimination is to the 1st amendment what sexual discrimination is to the 19th. You see the difference? The one difference here is that the 1st is far broader in scope than the 19th. The 19th is based only on a persons sex, but the 1st is not based only on a persons religion. The 1st Amendment encompases far more than just protecting people from discrimination on the basis of their religion, but also protects people from being discriminated against for religious reasons. That includeds homosexuals.

Oh, I see the difference, but unfortunately some people are missing the most important aspect of this issue, the law is not based on religion...

You are wrong again. There really are good analogies, but yours haven't been so far.

"Really good" is not "perfect"...

Sorry, hearing you tell me I am wrong over and over and having your arrogance just flying about is becoming a bit tedious...

 

[sokpupet]

The divorce rate in the US is >50%. I hardly believe heterosexuals should be dictating who should be able to marry since they demonstrate such disregard for it. Maybe they are afraid of being shown up.

 

[Bodi]

The divorce rate in the US is >50%. I hardly believe heterosexuals should be dictating who should be able to marry since they demonstrate such disregard for it. Maybe they are afraid of being shown up.

Some news report the other day was stating (I can't remember exact percentages) that if those that have friends that have been divorced at 60% more likely to get divorced themselves and if you just know a person that has been divorced, it is 30%? more likely you will get divorced. PErcentages are incorrect, but in the general area...

At least most of those getting divorced do not have children... they are in their early 20's and childless, in general. When we started separating, I was surprised to find that around 75% of divorces are initiated by women with children, and that is exactly what happened in our situation.

 

[Bodi]

There is no Amendment that protects a person from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation no matter the situation.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Equal protection applies to anti-discrimination laws, laws that discriminate against same sex marriage and/or sexual orientation violate the equal protaction clause.

That is the brilliance of this Amendment...

 

[Mr. Invisible]

I believe marriage is between a Man and a Woman.

What say you?

For some reason people like to think that marriage is a sacred institution it is not. When people are marrying one another for reasons other than love like money or fame, marriage loses its sacredness and legitimacy, but that's just my opinion.