What does "pro-gay-rights" mean?

[BigBadWlf]

I don't need that statistic. Can you cite one for me?

Here this is what the discussion looked like:

Yeah, I'd like to see some as well. Are you suddenly incapable of using Google?

I found a link to the study that CNN Article was about, but nothing on numbers of couples.

[Edit] At the moment, this is the best I can do:
I'm sure I'd get the same response if I made some statement concerning statistics like...

Prevalence of breakdown of same-sex couples is much higher than married couples.

You made the claim. You have refused to back it up. We must assume the claim is not true and that you have purposefully made a false statement

 

[Maren]

This piece assumes that no money or taxpayer resources would be affected by the legal change from (I'll make the difference obvious):

Marriage as an institution of those typically fertile (M/F) couples.

To...

Marriage as an institution of those who have a partner.

That is, we add millions of sterile, generally childless couples, and couples with few children.

So, we can clearly conclude a fairly decent demographic shift.

Much of the monetary pieces are things like Social Security payment! I'm sure when discussion martial rights, that this program undoubtedly comes up, right? There is no way to avoid the conclusion that adding these millions of couples to the social security program will damage an already questionable institution.

I'll assume it was an oversight on your part.

Marriage "being based on children" hasn't been "proven false" because a government decided that adopting some law was not prudent. It simply demonstrates that the government has power to make prudent decisions regarding the institution of marriage.

You can level all kinds of claims at me here, but it won't conquer the A) the fact that most politician understand your claim and disagree, or B) that the demographics indicate that children are certainly involved in marriages, and to a greater extent than same-sex unions, and C)gay people can get married to people of the opposite sex, just like everyone else.

So, do you want to discuss it as a purely emotional issue? That is where divorce comes from.

And at the end we have going outside marriage for "natural" children passively encouraged by the government... I'm not swayed by that "extraordinary" scenario.

In matters of adoption one wonders if similar M/F parents are available if one should choose them over a same-sex couple, and to what degree similarity is necessary. Does that seem bigoted? Why don't we go confuse some fourteen year olds by telling them that girls and boys are the same! Same dignity, but I would say (though you probably don't care) profoundly different and tremendously similar.

And for same sex couples:
The obvious differentiation here being that in one case the child is typically "bred" from both parents and not so (whatsoever) in the case of the same sex couple.

Whereas people sometimes use a black/white race point to counter in these discussions with some... pro-traditional marriage people, it is clear that the proceeding point is completely factual and has nothing to do with "mixed coloreds" or something like that.

So, we certainly have a difference. Again, the government need not overlook significant differences for the determination of programs in order to avoid "sexism."

But you miss the entire point. Your entire argument is based on your own personal beliefs. When I present evidence that doesn't coincide with your beliefs, you claim it isn't relevant because it doesn't agree with your beliefs and state that there is no need for you to support them -- in essence you seem to be claiming that since you believe these things that the are true, regardless of what the reality is.

So, yes, I'd have to say that your entire argument seems bigoted (not saying you are, just that is how your argument is coming off) because it is entirely based on the your beliefs without regard to what others might believe or reality.

 

[fated]

And the evidence for the supposed “skewing”?


the assertion you made was:
“Prevalence of breakdown of same-sex couples is much higher than married couples.”
http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=43903738&postcount=47
You have been asked multiple times to provide evidence to back up this assertion. Since you will not we are only left to assume you purposefully lied when you presented it.

Can you explain why it is moral for you to lie about a minority?



See above.


Again you have no evidence to back your claim up

“Prevalence of breakdown of same-sex couples is much higher than married couples.”
http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=43903738&postcount=47 is in need of it.





And how does that translate into justification for discrimination?



It needs equality for all people. something you have denied



How big of you. Fortunately civil rights are not decided by your whim



Again if you are so concerned about this issue then you would not have married thus creating a tax burden on the rest of us



A just system is one that does not discriminate…and discrimination (no matter how you couch it) is what you are advocating




Again if you are so concerned about this issue then you would not have married thus creating a tax burden on the rest of us



More unsupported claims. Are we to assume that these are also untrue?

Finally, you cannot assert that it is unreasonable to insist on skepticism when a foundational law and definition are to be changed. [/quote]
You mean like how the religious right wants to put aside the 14th amendment in order to legally discriminate against a minority?

[/quote]
We have a judicious precedent here, and it needs to be taken seriously.[/quote]
Discrimination should always be taken seriously[/quote]

OK, so still asserting that M/F and same-sex couples be necessarily treated equally. I find that silly. Why does a person marry someone of another sex and not some androgynous lump? There is an obvious difference here, even if it isn't always "enacted" in the form of children.

Want that study, try Google just like Watersmoon110 indicated, I don't need it, if you are interested go find it yourself...

I've considered moving away, but it doesn't seem prudent. Besides, I have four children. They may well be paying my social security one day.

I am not advocating discrimination. I don't care what a person's sexual orientation is. I don't care what their sex is. The only thing I care about is the sexual makeup of the marital structure, as this is fitting for the government to encourage and develop. What is wrong with it? To many sterile couples?

 

[fated]

You made the claim. You have refused to back it up. We must assume the claim is not true and that you have purposefully made a false statement

1) No.
2) That would be jumping to conclusions.

 

[BigBadWlf]

But you miss the entire point. Your entire argument is based on your own personal beliefs. When I present evidence that doesn't coincide with your beliefs, you claim it isn't relevant because it doesn't agree with your beliefs and state that there is no need for you to support them -- in essence you seem to be claiming that since you believe these things that the are true, regardless of what the reality is.

So, yes, I'd have to say that your entire argument seems bigoted (not saying you are, just that is how your argument is coming off) because it is entirely based on the your beliefs without regard to what others might believe or reality.

 

[fated]

But you miss the entire point. Your entire argument is based on your own personal beliefs. When I present evidence that doesn't coincide with your beliefs, you claim it isn't relevant because it doesn't agree with your beliefs and state that there is no need for you to support them -- in essence you seem to be claiming that since you believe these things that the are true, regardless of what the reality is.

So, yes, I'd have to say that your entire argument seems bigoted (not saying you are, just that is how your argument is coming off) because it is entirely based on the your beliefs without regard to what others might believe or reality.

What is reality then?

Gay people can make good parents? I don't doubt that.

Gay parents don't sexually confuse their children? I think there might be some danger of that, better wait for a blind study... (just like the government)... and if it is true... it is likely a reason to continue to have marriage be as it has been (one man and one woman). No need to purposefully devote "promotional" programs of this type to relationships that are non-ideal for parenting.

People need not be androgynous lumps in the eyes of the law.

 

[BigBadWlf]

1) No.

You made the claim. “Prevalence of breakdown of same-sex couples is much higher than married couples.”
http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=43903738&postcount=47
You have refused to back up this claim with evidence

Denying this is dishonest

2) That would be jumping to conclusions.

You were given multiple opportunities to show otherwise. The conclusion stands

 

[fated]

You made the claim. “Prevalence of breakdown of same-sex couples is much higher than married couples.”
http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=43903738&postcount=47
You have refused to back up this claim with evidence

Denying this is dishonest



You were given multiple opportunities to show otherwise. The conclusion stands

I don't need that statistic. Can you cite one for me?

Here this is what the discussion looked like:

Yeah, I'd like to see some as well. Are you suddenly incapable of using Google?

I found a link to the study that CNN Article was about, but nothing on numbers of couples.

[Edit] At the moment, this is the best I can do:
I'm sure I'd get the same response if I made some statement concerning statistics like...

Prevalence of breakdown of same-sex couples is much higher than married couples.
You made the claim. You have refused to back it up. We must assume the claim is not true and that you have purposefully made a false statement

That would be jumping to conclusions. I never had any intention of backing that up, only goading someone into harping on me for a study I clearly never intended to cite.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Gay parents don't sexually confuse their children? I think there might be some danger of that, better wait for a blind study... (just like the government)... and if it is true... it is likely a reason to continue to have marriage be as it has been (one man and one woman). .

Done already.


You wont like the results.

“the results demonstrate no differences on any measures between the heterosexual and homosexual parents regarding parenting styles, emotional adjustment, and sexual orientation of the child(ren)” parents or their children.” Stacey and Biblarz “(How) Does Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?” American Sociological Review, 2001, Vol. 66 (April:159–183) 159



”studies find no significant differences between children of lesbian mothers and children of heterosexual mothers in anxiety, depression, self-esteem, and numerous other measures of social and psychological adjustment.” Tasker, Fiona L. and Susan Golombok. 1997. Growing Up in a Lesbian Family. New York: Guilford.


“The children of gay fathers deomonstrate equivalent level of psychological well-being when compred to their peer group. Hese results hold consistantly over evenrey recaial and socio-exxonomic category.” Bozett, Frederick W. 1987a. “Children of Gay Fathers.” Pp. 39–57 in Gay and Lesbian Parents, edited by F. W. Bozett. New York:



“Given some credible evidence that children with gay and lesbian parents, especially adolescent children, face homophobic teasing and ridicule that many find difficult to manage, the children in these studies seem to exhibit impressive psychological strength.” Patterson, Charlotte J. 1992. “Children of Lesbianand Gay Parents.” Child Development63:1025–42.





“these young adults … were not statistically more likely to self-identify as bisexual, lesbian, or gay. To be coded as such, the respondent not only had to currently self-identify as bisexual/lesbian/gay, but also to express a commitment to that identity in the future.” Stacey and Biblarz “(How) Does Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?”
American Sociological Review, 2001, Vol. 66 (April:159–183) 159

 

[Maren]

What is reality then?

Gay people can make good parents? I don't doubt that.

Gay parents don't sexually confuse their children? I think there might be some danger of that, better wait for a blind study... (just like the government)... and if it is true... it is likely a reason to continue to have marriage be as it has been (one man and one woman). No need to purposefully devote "promotional" programs of this type to relationships that are non-ideal for parenting.

People need not be androgynous lumps in the eyes of the law.

You've been presented with studies that claim exactly that, that gay parents are equally as good and that it doesn't lead to "sexual confusion" of the children. But since they don't agree with your preconceived notions, you appear to reject them out of hand.

Next, you didn't answer my question about the proposed Washington law. Since you are the one claiming that the purpose from "promotional" programs (marriage) is because of children, do you support a law like that which would require children for a couple to become/remain married? If not, why not?

Last, I've seen no claims by anyone here that people should be "androgynous lumps" in the eyes of the law. That claim appears to be nothing more than a straw man.

 

[BigBadWlf]

I never had any intention of backing that up, only goading someone into harping on me for a study I clearly never intended to cite.

How can one cite evidence or proof of something when it is a falsehood in the first place?

 

[KhlulHloo]

The Laws are however based on definitions. And the definition of marriage is a union with man and woman. In order for it to be marriage there must be the ability to pro-create. Otherwise its a contradiction in terms.

Wow!
I know that here in the watery undercity, lying is a practice of existence, but I was under the impression that "Christians" were forbidden from lying (the whole lake of fire thing, ya know)
Or..wait.........possibly you aren't promoting a lie. Perhaps you believe that elderly couples (say, 80+ years old) can procreate?
Or perhaps you stand against such "definitions"?
Perhaps you stand against marriages where procreation is impossible, even though the marriage in question is male and female?

C'mon, renton, buck up. Admit either your lie or your conflation of your personal defintion vs the actual definition.

Although, being human, I doubt you will

you can't force a piece where it dosen't fit, not matter how hard you try.

Try telling that to the many married male-female couples who have sex via the anal cavity
You're post is so funny, I think you must be making a purposeful joke!

So it is by default that marriage and homosexual "unions" cannot be.

So by default, either you are lying, joking or are so closed minded you can't see beyond your tiny paradigm.
Man, o man your post is funny!

 

[fated]

How can one cite evidence or proof of something when it is a falsehood in the first place?

I guess you really would like to go down this over trod path. It does really do Watermoon110 an injustice, as she cited a source and would have likely looked for another for me...

What sort of study are you looking for?
Would you prefer a blind study, I can't seem to find one?
Would you like one from a pro-gay-rights website (not one there either)?
How about a pro-traditional marriage website study, there are those available, would you like one of them?

 

[BigBadWlf]

I guess you really would like to go down this over trod path. It does really do Watermoon110 an injustice, as she cited a source and would have likely looked for another for me...

Why an injustice to Watermoon? She cited reference to back up her claim. You didn’t

What sort of study are you looking for?

How about a study that passed peer review and is published in a legitimate scientific journal

 

[fated]

Why an injustice to Watermoon? She cited reference to back up her claim. You didn’t


How about a study that passed peer review and is published in a legitimate scientific journal

"this over trod path"
Can you find one?

Here's an article from a catholic website:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html

"
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]4. 'Gay marriage'.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1] Gay activists claim that there is no difference between children raised in a homosexual as opposed to a heterosexual household. However, essentially all studies that show that there is no difference have been criticised because of poor research quality. Despite the shortcomings, the studies seem to suggest that children raised in same-sex parents may be more sexually promiscuous and more likely to become homosexuals. [/SIZE][/FONT]

• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1] In a review of all the studies that purport to find no difference between children raised in families by same-sex parents and parents of different sex, major methodological flaws have been noted. For example, the studies have very small sample sizes, biased sample selection, or lack of control groups. (P. Morgan, Children as Trophies? Christian Institute. Newcastle upon Tyne, 2002)
  
  [/SIZE][/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1] Despite the limitations of the studies of same-sex parenting some differences are found. Children raised in same-sex parents are more likely to become sexually promiscuous and are more likely to become homosexual themselves. (Riggs SC. Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents. (letter) Pediatrics 2002; 109: 1193-4.)
  
  [/SIZE][/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1] However, the main concern remains the inherent instability of same-sex marriages. In the above mentioned Dutch survey, the average length of a 'committed' homosexual partnership was only 1.5 years. In the mentioned survey of nearly 8,000 gays, 71% of relationships did not last 8 years. Furthermore, violence among homosexual partnerships is two to three times as common as in heterosexual relationships. Such an environment does not provide the stability required for raising children. Former homosexual Stephen Bennett who is married to his wife and has two children states: 'Granting homosexuals the right to marry or adopt children is deliberately creating dysfunctional families.'"[/SIZE][/FONT]

So, here we go... can you counter with another study or will you just berate this one?

If you don't have another, I'll assume this study has some truth to it rather than disregard it altogether.

 

[flicka]

The fact is homosexuals have kids...no studies will change that.

 

[fated]

The fact is homosexuals have kids...no studies will change that.

I am in favor of offering needed support to parents, however, prudential judgments may be needed. It is not so much "it will happen sometimes" as "should we actively encourage and develop?"

 

[KhlulHloo]

It is not so much "it will happen sometimes" as "should we actively encourage and develop?"

Especially amongst the elderly who wish to marry and amongst the (for whatever reason) infertile or incompatible who wish to marry!

Your posts are almost as funny as Rentons

Human sexuality...so many permutations...so many apparently simple answers amongst some who have ready and willing definitions.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

The Laws are however based on definitions. And the definition of marriage is a union with man and woman. In order for it to be marriage there must be the ability to pro-create. Otherwise its a contradiction in terms. you can't force a piece where it dosen't fit, not matter how hard you try. So it is by default that marriage and homosexual "unions" cannot be.

Your argument only works when one uses YOUR definition of marriage.

Needless to say, your definition is NOT definitive!

 

[ChaliceThunder]

From a purely economic standpoint, you cannot but conclude that the system should be changed, or at least reviewed, before awarding full benefits to millions more people.

Friend, ALL of us pay into Social Security.

It is in no way reasonable to conclude that my partner of 23 years should not receive the benefits upon my death. It is discrimination, pure and simple.