Page 10 of 15 FirstFirst ... 56789101112131415 LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 299
  1. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #181  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    With all due respect, much of the rhetoric appeals to fear in general and, more specifically, to homophobia and rascism.

    (Please, let us leave immigration and rascism to another thread.)
    Agreed, but someone keeps linking them together.

    "Just as slavery and "separate but equal" had no basis in racism?"

    Seems to be their best argument.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  2. #182  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I am not certain that either fall in the "uncontrollable" category.
    Can you control your sexual orientation? Why do you think its controllable. Do you advocate centers which "cure" people from being gay?

    Surur
  3. #183  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    . . . At any rate, I believe there's a big difference between being "afraid" of homosexuals and being afraid of what a change in marriage laws would say about a society, leaving aside what it might do to that society.
    Could you clarify this, please? I'm not sure how the two are unrelated.

    I understand the feeling of not "afraid" of homosexuals if you're walking down the street, if that's what you mean. But many people fear gays/lesbians for some reason. Not in the "oh my god they can beat the crap out of us" kind of way. But there is a fear of us or what we represent (whatever that is) or some unnamed fear.

    Why is there a fear of "a change in the marriage laws" if there is not "fear" of gays/lesbians"? The two fears do appear to be linked together to me.

    I'd also appreciate any clarification on what you feel it "might do to that society". "Might do" is a very broad and vague term.
    Brent
    T650 on Sprint's Wireless Wonder
  4. #184  
    There is a lot of parallels between racism, slavery and discrimination against homosexuals. Remember in those cases the rule of law supported the discrimination. The rules however were changed.

    The difference appears to be that people say gays can easily exit the discriminated group, so why are they complaining. Would they recommend 1950's black people wear make up and wigs and pretend to be white. I'm sure with enough effort they could have pulled it off too.

    Surur
  5. #185  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    At any rate, I believe there's a big difference between being "afraid" of homosexuals and being afraid of what a change in marriage laws would say about a society, leaving aside what it might do to that society.
    What would it say or do to society, and who cares, and why?

    Surur
  6. #186  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Agreed, but someone keeps linking them together.

    "Just as slavery and "separate but equal" had no basis in racism?"

    Seems to be their best argument.
    No, it is not "their best argument". They are separate issues, except in the sense that one series of events happened before another.

    As a gay person, I get tired of people trying to say that we're "stealing", "co-opting" or whatever from the work done by people before us.

    An argument could probably be made (and I'm just guessing, have done no research) that the civil rights movement "stole" from the suffragette movement or from the Prohibition movement or any other event that happened beforehand.

    Gay/lesbians seeking to not be discriminated against began years ago. The one most people know of was in 1969 with the Stonewall Riots. But attempts to be accepted happened prior to that.
    Brent
    T650 on Sprint's Wireless Wonder
  7. #187  
    Quote Originally Posted by bheuss
    An argument could probably be made (and I'm just guessing, have done no research) that the civil rights movement "stole" from the suffragette movement or from the Prohibition movement or any other event that happened beforehand.
    From Jesus' egalitarianism, defiance and rejection of the opression of the Jews by the Romans, but I would not call it co-opting.
  8. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #188  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    It is the founders who prioritized the rule of law--which, in case it is unclear, includes guidance for how to change laws.
    working on it!
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  9. #189  
    I'd just like to take a moment and echo Septimus comments.

    I really appreciate the civility of our discussion and the free-exchange of ideas.

    The ideas and thoughts posted by many of you have caused me to think and have given me a greater understanding and appreciation for the viewpoints that differ from mine. Which is how I feel discussions such as these are most productive.

    And, overall, whether I disagree or agree with someone, I respect a person who can clearly state and support their opinion.

    I hope to continue participating in such discussions. (And, with any luck, my landlord will get the danged DSL up and running again so that I can check in over the weekend.)

    I honestly feel quite refreshed to be trading thoughts with such a group.
    Brent
    T650 on Sprint's Wireless Wonder
  10. #190  
    Quote Originally Posted by bheuss
    Could you clarify this, please? I'm not sure how the two are unrelated.

    I understand the feeling of not "afraid" of homosexuals if you're walking down the street, if that's what you mean. But many people fear gays/lesbians for some reason. Not in the "oh my god they can beat the crap out of us" kind of way. But there is a fear of us or what we represent (whatever that is) or some unnamed fear.

    Why is there a fear of "a change in the marriage laws" if there is not "fear" of gays/lesbians"? The two fears do appear to be linked together to me.

    I'd also appreciate any clarification on what you feel it "might do to that society". "Might do" is a very broad and vague term.
    No doubt that there is general uneasiness towards or distrust of people with different habits and proclivities; more so when they are so personal in nature. That’s only natural. And, no doubt that plays a part on some people’s minds. However, I think there’s a very good argument leaving aside personal feelings.

    That brings me to your second question. I know there’s a lot of data being bandied about with regard to parental impact on children. Some studies seem to suggest a father is unimportant, some suggest single parent families do just fine. I’m not convinced. Neither do I think most of the country is convinced. I suspect, as with very many “official” statistics, the outcomes are biased towards a predetermined end. And I think that the preponderance of historical evidence shows that strong families need a mother and father figure represented. And I think it also shows that a string society is built on strong families. In that vein, I think the government has an interest in promoting and maintaining strong families. Getting to the point, if the above is true then a change in marriage laws permitting same sex marriages would be a change promoting less than optimal family units.
  11. #191  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    I absolutely could not agree with you more. And well said, I might add.
    Thank you.

    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    You don't think the state has an interest in family bonds? How far would you take that? Would you say that the state doesn't have an interest in seeing the number of out-of-wedlock pregnancies reduced?
    Let me see if I can clarify a little. I believe that the community has an interest in stable and functional families. I would distinguish between the community and the state, and between the nation and the state. In this distinction, the state becomes one of many instruments that the community might use. Other obvious ones on the list are churches and schools.

    I would distinguish between stable and functional families and "the traditional family" and between that family and "marriage." Those institutions are already in decline; the decline has less to do with alternatiive family styles as with the decreasing size of households. The decline cannot be reversed simply by passing laws against alternative families and small households.

    That brings us to "out-of-wedlock" pregnancies. The very expression implies a strong preference for traditional marriage and more concern for conditions of conception than the lives of children. "Out-of-wedlocK" is now the norm for large segments of the population.

    I want children to be brought up in functional families committed to their nurture and to one another. That trumps whatever preference I might have for that family being one of "one man and one woman." It trumps whether the families are progenitors of the children but I recognize that a large number of those "out-of-wedlock" babies are nurtured by loving grandparents. It trumps whatever preference I might have for "conceived in wedlock."

    While it will be diffilcult to get the politiicians and bureaucrats on board with my agenda, the community will be with me, of necessity if not by choice.
  12. #192  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    ...As far as I am concerned, whatever interest the state may ever have had in individual living arrangements, has long since evaporated.
    To what ever extent this is correct, I believe it is the most powerful reason to act on this matter.

    My spin:
    I advocate, examining the purpose and intent of the law, determining if that purpose still holds vailidity.
  13. #193  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    May one assume that you do not object to the division of the question?
    No objection.
  14. #194  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Can you control your sexual orientation? Why do you think its controllable. Surur
    Some say yes. Some say no. Research is pending.
  15. #195  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Getting to the point, if the above is true then a change in marriage laws permitting same sex marriages would be a change promoting less than optimal family units.
    Putting aside for a second the disturbing idea of the government making a determination on "optimal family units", lots of families fit your description of "less than optimal". If there is no homophobia involved, why the singling out of homosexuals not dirovcees, or single parents?
  16. #196  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Let me see if I can clarify a little. I believe that the community has an interest in stable and functional families. I would distinguish between the community and the state, and between the nation and the state. In this distinction, the state becomes one of many instruments that the community might use. Other obvious ones on the list are churches and schools.
    Again, agreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    I would distinguish between stable and functional families and "the traditional family" and between that family and "marriage." Those institutions are already in decline; the decline has less to do with alternatiive family styles as with the decreasing size of households. The decline cannot be reversed simply by passing laws against alternative families and small households.
    I'm not for passing new laws but also not for redefining the existing one. But I disagree that the rise in "alternative family styles" is not part of the decline in marriage and traditional families. Of course, thise decline can't be traced to one single event. But its clear that cultural mores have been loosened and than people find it increasingly unnecessary to commit. One example is in poor and minority communities where the rise in single parent households has skyrocketed. I know that poor single parents have just as much capacity for being nuturing parents but I don't think it unfair to say that the need to put food on the table reduces the amount of time necessary to raise those children in such a nurturing way.

    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    That brings us to "out-of-wedlock" pregnancies. The very expression implies a strong preference for traditional marriage and more concern for conditions of conception than the lives of children. "Out-of-wedlocK" is now the norm for large segments of the population.
    I think your portrayal of this view in unwarranted. It seems clear to me, as I stated above, that a single parent most often does not have the time needed to devote to raising children.

    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    I want children to be brought up in functional families committed to their nurture and to one another. That trumps whatever preference I might have for that family being one of "one man and one woman." It trumps whether the families are progenitors of the children but I recognize that a large number of those "out-of-wedlock" babies are nurtured by loving grandparents. It trumps whatever preference I might have for "conceived in wedlock."
    The problem is that large numbers of single parent families lead to a second and third generation of larger numbers of single parent families. Where are these "loving grandparents" going to come from when often there is only one parent? Will fathers suddenly begin to care about thier families once they have grand kids?
  17. #197  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Some say yes. Some say no. Research is pending.
    But what do YOU think. You have your own sexual preference. Do you think you can change it at will? This is not a research issue. Its one you can simply decide for yourself.

    Surur
  18. #198  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Putting aside for a second the disturbing idea of the government making a determination on "optimal family units", lots of families fit your description of "less than optimal". If there is no homophobia involved, why the singling out of homosexuals not dirovcees, or single parents?
    Yes, why dont the state then actively penalize single parent families, if all they care about is promoting families? A single mother can always chose to marry some-one, even if they dont love them or are compatible with them. According to some-one else in this thread (I forgot who) thats a choice which many people can make to avoid discrimination. This would then restore that magical parental unit.

    Surur
  19. #199  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    I think the government has an interest in promoting and maintaining strong families. Getting to the point, if the above is true then a change in marriage laws permitting same sex marriages would be a change promoting less than optimal family units.
    For gays, obviously being married does not have much to do with children. You still have not explained how allowing gays to marry would reduce the status and standing of marriage and be damaging. If your argument hinges on this you will need to spend more time defending it.

    Surur
  20. #200  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    No doubt that there is general uneasiness towards or distrust of people with different habits and proclivities; more so when they are so personal in nature. That’s only natural. And, no doubt that plays a part on some people’s minds. However, I think there’s a very good argument leaving aside personal feelings.

    That brings me to your second question. I know there’s a lot of data being bandied about with regard to parental impact on children. Some studies seem to suggest a father is unimportant, some suggest single parent families do just fine. I’m not convinced. Neither do I think most of the country is convinced. I suspect, as with very many “official” statistics, the outcomes are biased towards a predetermined end. And I think that the preponderance of historical evidence shows that strong families need a mother and father figure represented. And I think it also shows that a string society is built on strong families. In that vein, I think the government has an interest in promoting and maintaining strong families. Getting to the point, if the above is true then a change in marriage laws permitting same sex marriages would be a change promoting less than optimal family units.
    I think the key part of your statement is "if the above is true". I agree with you about statistical bias and believe it's unavoidable. Numbers may not lie, but interpretation of numbers is another thing.

    Personal experiences (family housing, foster care) have shown to me that who makes up the home is not as important as the "home life". A child in a nurturing environment (regardless of one, two, or more people; regardless of their genders) is much better equipped to handle life than children raised in a non-nurturing environment. "Strong families" are not dependent on a female mother and a male father.

    I agree that "the preponderance of historical evidence shows that strong families need a mother and father figure represented". Mainly because there has been no other history. There is scant, if any, relevant (i.e., gay/lesbian households with children) sociological historical data to compare it against.

    I was raised by my parents, a man and a woman, and I am gay. Of my gay/lesbian friends raising children, most of those children identify as straight (the rest are too young to be considering dating or interest in sex). I don't think you can draw a conclusion between sexual orientation and parental gender identity.

    So, "if the above is true" I would posit that a change in the laws could bring about a more stable family unit. Which could contribute to society, business, and the well-being of the nation.
    Brent
    T650 on Sprint's Wireless Wonder

Posting Permissions