What does "pro-gay-rights" mean?

[Wednesday]

To the OP question. Being pro-gay rights, means being pro - basic human rights. The right to be who you are without being persecuted. Quite simple really, if you think logically.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

OK, so still asserting that M/F and same-sex couples be necessarily treated equally. I find that silly.

Why on earth would a government, which based on equal treatment under the law, want to treat some couples with preferential treatment over others? I find THAT silly!

I am not advocating discrimination.

I think you may be doing so without intending to.

I don't care what a person's sexual orientation is. I don't care what their sex is.

Then we shouldn't have an issue here.

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?

Please state what compelling reason the government has in:
a) the sexual makeup of a relationship
b) creating second class citizens of those who do not fit into their narrow view

 

[m9lc]

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.

It's still most certainly better than foster care...

 

[Polycarp1]

I note that, despite the thread title and the contents of the first post, we seem to have gotten off on the topic of "Will no one think of the chiiiildren?" Let us take a look at what 'gay rights' actually are? And I propose to examine this by a series of statements that presume the opposite of what those advocating gay rights favor. Review them and see which if any you agree with.

1. It is perfectly legal and acceptable for an employer to refuse to hire someone simply because he/she is gay.
2. It is perfectly legal and acceptable for an employer to fire an employee on finding out that he/she is gay.
3. It should be settled public policy to refuse to acknowledge lifelong commitments of fidelity, often made before God, because some people have issues with the sexuality of those making such commitments.
4. It is proper policy to disregard any health care directives made by and next-of-kin claims with reference to a hospital patient if the person named in the directive or making the kinship claim is in a marital relationship to the patient that you disapprove of.
5. A person whom a hospital patient has lived with and loved, and who loves the patient, may be properly excluded from visiting the patient by a blood family who has rejected and/or disowned the patient due to his/her sexuality.
6. It is proper to set aside a will leaving all or part of an estate to a gay person, especially if the person was in a marital relationship to the deceased.
7. It is proper for a birth family who may have rejected or disowned the deceased to take the home and property of a surviving gay partner of the deceased.
8. "Surviving spouse" provisions should never be actuated when the spouse is of the same sex as the deceased.
9. It is proper for the U.S. government to demand that persons in valid, legal same-sex marriages lie under oath about their marital status.
10. It is better for a child to be in an abusive or neglectful environment or homeless than to live with caring, nurturing parents (birth, adoptive, or foster) who happen to be gay.

How many of these do you agree with?

 

[fated]

It's still most certainly better than foster care...

Statistics please... I was under the impression that foster cares "suffers from" continued birth parent interference.

I find this assertion insulting and unjustified.

 

[fated]

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

Needless to say, your definition is NOT definitive!

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.

Why on earth would a government, which based on equal treatment under the law, want to treat some couples with preferential treatment over others? I find THAT silly!



I think you may be doing so without intending to.



Then we shouldn't have an issue here.




Please state what compelling reason the government has in:
a) the sexual makeup of a relationship
b) creating second class citizens of those who do not fit into their narrow view

1)I am using the historic definition of marriage, which is apt to be changed by those seeking to be married and yet be the same sex.

Do we need to discuss how the government does operate on a set of standards that are directed towards encouraging a peaceful society?

Yes, we all do pay into social security, and those who are single or divorced don't get partner benefits from social security. Most of the people who do get social security in this way have had and raised children. Many of the people you seek to add to this system have not had and have not raised children. At very least, we should consider reforming the system in the interests of fiscal responsibility. I think it would be a good idea regardless.

Basic treatment is like this. Any man is free to marry a woman who is willing to marry him. Very simple. Silly is "a man is identical to a woman."

The sexual makeup of marriages is the best way to determine programs for preparing the most ideal parents for child rearing.

Which citizens are second class (I don't care about sexual orientation)?

I am not saying that certain injustices exist, but this isn't the place to look. Besides, the government could move marital programs into the defense legal system... that would be rather obvious...

 

[fated]

I note that, despite the thread title and the contents of the first post, we seem to have gotten off on the topic of "Will no one think of the chiiiildren?" Let us take a look at what 'gay rights' actually are? And I propose to examine this by a series of statements that presume the opposite of what those advocating gay rights favor. Review them and see which if any you agree with.

1. It is perfectly legal and acceptable for an employer to refuse to hire someone simply because he/she is gay.
2. It is perfectly legal and acceptable for an employer to fire an employee on finding out that he/she is gay.
3. It should be settled public policy to refuse to acknowledge lifelong commitments of fidelity, often made before God, because some people have issues with the sexuality of those making such commitments.
4. It is proper policy to disregard any health care directives made by and next-of-kin claims with reference to a hospital patient if the person named in the directive or making the kinship claim is in a marital relationship to the patient that you disapprove of.
5. A person whom a hospital patient has lived with and loved, and who loves the patient, may be properly excluded from visiting the patient by a blood family who has rejected and/or disowned the patient due to his/her sexuality.
6. It is proper to set aside a will leaving all or part of an estate to a gay person, especially if the person was in a marital relationship to the deceased.
7. It is proper for a birth family who may have rejected or disowned the deceased to take the home and property of a surviving gay partner of the deceased.
8. "Surviving spouse" provisions should never be actuated when the spouse is of the same sex as the deceased.
9. It is proper for the U.S. government to demand that persons in valid, legal same-sex marriages lie under oath about their marital status.
10. It is better for a child to be in an abusive or neglectful environment or homeless than to live with caring, nurturing parents (birth, adoptive, or foster) who happen to be gay.

How many of these do you agree with?

I need a definition of gay for 1 and 2. Is that like compelling the dress code to allow men to wear dresses to work? Or is it to just not consider whether and to what extent a person is attracted to members of the same sex?

The government does not "refuse to acknowledge." It marries whoever fits into its framework.

4 is rather ambiguously worded. Nonetheless, one should be able to choose another person for health care priority. 5, 6, and 7 should be at the priority of the person in question if desired.

8 has nothing to do with the standards that currently exist. However, I would point out that is not ridiculous to expect roommates, however, sexually oriented or active, or how long they are together, to take care of themselves. If one becomes a dependent, some programs normally become available.

9 No, and if this is a problem it should be changed. Of course, a far as the federal government is concerned, there is no such thing.

10 your question is quite skewed. You seem to be asking for adoptive and foster care services reform.

 

[Braunwyn]

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

Here this is what the discussion looked like:

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

What's the problem with that link?

[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?

It's interesting that the last point, which is your point, doesn't give a citation.

Statistics please... I was under the impression that foster cares "suffers from" continued birth parent interference.

I find this assertion insulting and unjustified.

You provided a link that shows -

"Key Findings

• An estimated 65,500 adopted children are living with a lesbian or gay parent.
• More than 16,000 adopted children are living with lesbian and gay parents in California, the highest number among the states.
• Gay and lesbian parents are raising four percent of all adopted children in the United States.
• Same-sex couples raising adopted children are older, more educated, and have more economic resources than other adoptive parents.
• Adopted children with same-sex parents are younger and more likely to be foreign born.
• An estimated 14,100 foster children are living with lesbian or gay parents.
• Gay and lesbian parents are raising three percent of foster children in the United States.
• A national ban on GLB foster care could cost from $87 to $130 million.
• Costs to individual states could range from $100,000 to $27 million. "

 

[ChaliceThunder]

I note that, despite the thread title and the contents of the first post, we seem to have gotten off on the topic of "Will no one think of the chiiiildren?" Let us take a look at what 'gay rights' actually are? And I propose to examine this by a series of statements that presume the opposite of what those advocating gay rights favor. Review them and see which if any you agree with.

1. It is perfectly legal and acceptable for an employer to refuse to hire someone simply because he/she is gay.
2. It is perfectly legal and acceptable for an employer to fire an employee on finding out that he/she is gay.
3. It should be settled public policy to refuse to acknowledge lifelong commitments of fidelity, often made before God, because some people have issues with the sexuality of those making such commitments.
4. It is proper policy to disregard any health care directives made by and next-of-kin claims with reference to a hospital patient if the person named in the directive or making the kinship claim is in a marital relationship to the patient that you disapprove of.
5. A person whom a hospital patient has lived with and loved, and who loves the patient, may be properly excluded from visiting the patient by a blood family who has rejected and/or disowned the patient due to his/her sexuality.
6. It is proper to set aside a will leaving all or part of an estate to a gay person, especially if the person was in a marital relationship to the deceased.
7. It is proper for a birth family who may have rejected or disowned the deceased to take the home and property of a surviving gay partner of the deceased.
8. "Surviving spouse" provisions should never be actuated when the spouse is of the same sex as the deceased.
9. It is proper for the U.S. government to demand that persons in valid, legal same-sex marriages lie under oath about their marital status.
10. It is better for a child to be in an abusive or neglectful environment or homeless than to live with caring, nurturing parents (birth, adoptive, or foster) who happen to be gay.

How many of these do you agree with?

Once again Polycarp1 is eloquent on the issue.

Thank you!

(I disagree with every single one of those statements, by the way. )

 

[ChaliceThunder]

1)I am using the historic definition of marriage, which is apt to be changed by those seeking to be married and yet be the same sex.

However, I was addressing Renton405 in that response...not you.

Isn't "one woman-one man" a fairly recent piece of codified language, based in the fear of the Religious Right?

Allow me to challenge you on the "historic definition." How historical do you want to get?

Shall wives be made to be the property of husbands again? That's historical. (I have yet to meet a woman who would agree to this, by the way.)

Shall we enshrine into law that marriages will now and forever be arranged without consent of the partners? That's historical.

Shall we outlaw inter-racial marriage? That is historical.

Do we need to discuss how the government does operate on a set of standards that are directed towards encouraging a peaceful society?

I don't know - but allowing gay marriage certainly will not do anything to discourage a peaceful society.

Yes, we all do pay into social security, and those who are single or divorced don't get partner benefits from social security.

I am neither single nor divorced.

Most of the people who do get social security in this way have had and raised children. Many of the people you seek to add to this system have not had and have not raised children.

Total non-sequitur. Bearing children has nothing to do with it. I do not understand why that topic keeps coming up.

At very least, we should consider reforming the system in the interests of fiscal responsibility. I think it would be a good idea regardless.

Perhaps so. Although you and I would probably differ on what to "fix."

Basic treatment is like this. Any man is free to marry a woman who is willing to marry him. Very simple. Silly is "a man is identical to a woman."

Did anybody here posit this preposterous idea, except you?

The sexual makeup of marriages is the best way to determine programs for preparing the most ideal parents for child rearing.

You have not proven this - and you have also been shown time and time again that gay parents make excellent parents as well. (But again, why are we talking about children? The thread is about pro-gay-rights.)

Which citizens are second class (I don't care about sexual orientation)?

I wish everyone else didn't care about sexual orientation - then we would not need to work for equal rights. Until people stop discriminating against us based on the assumption that we are gay, thereby making us second class citizens, we will keep fighting for equality until it is a reality.

I am not saying that certain injustices exist, but this isn't the place to look.

Sure - no injustice occurs against gay people. Nothing to see here, folks. Look elsewhere. If that is what you are saying, you need a reality check. Perhaps a gay son or daughter. Or maybe a gay man could MARRY your daughter. You might think twice then.

Besides, the government could move marital programs into the defense legal system... that would be rather obvious...

Care to elaborate? That does not make much sense to me, and it doesn't seem obvious.

 

[fated]

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

Here's what I found:
“We demonstrate that the absence of a biological tie between parents and their children does not unequivocally constitute a disadvantage in at least one key family process—the allocation of resources to young children. We find that the two-adoptive-parent family structure is remarkably similar to the two-biological-parent-family structure in that it provides adoptive children an advantage over children in other alternative family structures,” the authors say.

Ah, so two-biological-parent-family structures seem to be different somehow... like the standard by which others are judged...

That is fine and expected. I wouldn't blame a government or call it... sexual orientist if it decided to keep it that way.

 

[fated]

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.

I don't think we should kick people out of married status, though you could possibly use benefits to encourage a certain level of new life, among other things, out the of government "married corps."

That is not really a straw man. A typical person chooses from people of the opposite sex to marry. A gay person chooses from people of the same sex. Naturally, one relationship is barren in the ideal sense and the other is not necessarily so.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

I don't think we should kick people out of married status, though you could possibly use benefits to encourage a certain level of new life, among other things, out the of government "married corps."

That is not really a straw man. A typical person chooses from people of the opposite sex to marry. A gay person chooses from people of the same sex. Naturally, one relationship is barren in the ideal sense and the other is not necessarily so.

Please don't use the word "barren" to describe gay marriages.

1) Many gay parents have biological children of their own. So "barren" is not an accurate descriptor here.

2) Many gay parents adopt. So "barren" is also not a good descriptor.

3) Many gay relationships are fruitful and productive to society, business, the church, etc. in ways too many to number.

"Barren" still doesn't work. "Childless" perhaps - but that is no reason to discriminate.

 

[fated]

Please don't use the word "barren" to describe gay marriages.

1) Many gay parents have biological children of their own. So "barren" is not an accurate descriptor here.

2) Many gay parents adopt. So "barren" is also not a good descriptor.

3) Many gay relationships are fruitful and productive to society, business, the church, etc. in ways too many to number.

"Barren" still doesn't work. "Childless" perhaps - but that is no reason to discriminate.

According to your definition of marriage is there a marital structure that the country should encourage and develop the most?

 

[ChaliceThunder]

According to your definition of marriage is there a marital structure that the country should encourage and develop the most?

How about the country encourages and develops both equally and call it good?

 

[fated]

How about the country encourages and develops both equally and call it good?

Or, we could stick with the standard two-biological-parent kind and introduce programs to help those who would also adopt... yes, that's actually what we do, though those laws may need some additional work...

 

[Adivi]

I don't think we should kick people out of married status, though you could possibly use benefits to encourage a certain level of new life, among other things, out the of government "married corps."

That is not really a straw man. A typical person chooses from people of the opposite sex to marry. A gay person chooses from people of the same sex. Naturally, one relationship is barren in the ideal sense and the other is not necessarily so.

So if someone is sterile, they shouldn't be allowed to marry at all because their relationship would necessarily be 'barren'?

 

[Braunwyn]

Or, we could stick with the standard two-biological-parent kind and introduce programs to help those who would also adopt... yes, that's actually what we do, though those laws may need some additional work...

I see this a lot of from you. "We should introduce programs" for this and that. We're gonna, we're gonna, we're gonna. Lets not look at the reality of our the situation lets look at the should-of's, could-of's, would-of's. Most people who wants kids, want their own and most who adopt want babies. I don't see the implementation of a million & 1 social programs changing that. If there are any couples (gay or straight) that are good people, are educated, and have a stable financial situation and are willing to adopt those less adoptable, they shouldn't be thwarted by bigotry.

 

[Vene]

Implementing programs only increases Bureaucratic messes. How about instead of regulating values that don't effect you, just let them do it? I don't understand the mindset of denying rights, especially when it doesn't actually hurt others.

 

[Maren]

I don't think we should kick people out of married status, though you could possibly use benefits to encourage a certain level of new life, among other things, out the of government "married corps."

That is not really a straw man. A typical person chooses from people of the opposite sex to marry. A gay person chooses from people of the same sex. Naturally, one relationship is barren in the ideal sense and the other is not necessarily so.

So, in other words, in your opinion marriage should not be determined on if a couple actually has children.

Your argument is a red herring, whether a couple actually has children doesn't actually matter to you. You've made it plain that even if a gay couple has children, you are still against their being able to marry. It is strange you keep arguing the sole purpose of marriage is children.