J
JamesTheJust
Guest
Alright, I’ll respect your right to privacy.
And what do you have to say about them?
- Status
And what do you have to say about them?
S
SeannyM
Guest
There has been no change in either marriage or divorce rates in states that implemented gay marriage. And it’s not just a piece of paper. For me its a sacrament in my church, for others its a non-religious commitment to another person that confers responsibilities and benefits. There is literally NO evidence to suggest that the rise of marriage equality has caused a decrease in heterosexual marriage. And there is definitely a state interest in conferring marriage benefits. It creates a stable economic and social family unit, with mutual support. This stability in turn has beneficial effects on the economy, and the job market. The pooling of resources allows for the purchase of real estate. And the recognition of the relationship provides a sense of belonging. The simple fact remains, there is no deleterious effect on straight marriages. In our legal system one simply cannot withhold a fundamental liberty based on unfounded fears. This was also addressed in the ruling.
J
JamesTheJust
Guest
There have been plenty of studies and papers which clearly demonstrate how harmful SS"M" is. Some of my favorites, besides the ones I previously provided, are the following:
spuc.org.uk/campaigns/ssmsub20130301
thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/06/10325/
drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_notinthebest.html
drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_samesex.html
nationalmarriageproject.org/resources/why-marriage-matters/
downloads.frc.org/EF/EF11B30.pdf
G
gracepoole
Guest
What’s to say? I’m familiar with the arguments therein.
And also, hold the phone:
cnn.com/2013/12/23/world/africa/uganda-anti-gay-bill/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
J
JamesTheJust
Guest
Uganda’s policy on homosexuality is nowhere near that of the Catholic Church.
S
SeannyM
Guest
Every single one of those articles comes from a group with the stated purpose of preventing marriage equality. The witherspoon institute commissioned the only “study” that shows any evidence of harm to children raised in gay households… except it doesn’t actually show that at all. That study has been debunked by numerous ACTUAL experts. That study went on to be rejected by the Supreme Court in Windsor. Those sites you link to show no evidence of any harm… they do show unfounded fears, that are not based on any actual evidence, but as the court points out, those fears to not withstand a rational basis review, and they DEFINITELY don’t withstand a heightened scrutiny review.
J
JamesTheJust
Guest
Well, first you commit the genetic fallacy. Then you make a claim that a study has been debunked, but you fail to provide a source. Then you point to the Supreme Court in Windsor as if it were a board of expert sociologists instead of what it is in reality, a board of legal experts with little to no sociological experience.
The authors of any paper one can provide have to have a view on the subject. Am I to discount the study (which I’m hoping you’ll soon provide) which supports the non-harmfulness of SS"M", just because its authors support SS"M"? Obviously not.
PS. It’s really late where I am. Feel free to respond, I’ll get back to you in the morning.
S
SeannyM
Guest
The American Psychological Association has published and summarized multiple studies on the matter. They also dismissed the Regnerus study as non-evidence because of his methods.Well, first you commit the genetic fallacy. Then you make a claim that a study has been debunked, but you fail to provide a source. Then you point to the Supreme Court in Windsor as if it were a board of expert sociologists instead of what it is in reality, a board of legal experts with little to no sociological experience.
The authors of any paper one can provide have to have a view on the subject. Am I to discount the study (which I’m hoping you’ll soon provide) which supports the non-harmfulness of SS"M", just because its authors support SS"M"? Obviously not.
PS. It’s really late where I am. Feel free to respond, I’ll get back to you in the morning.
Nathaniel Frank, researcher at Columbia Law School’s center for Gender and Sexuality Law wrote that the Regnerus study “Fails the most basic requirement of social science research.”
The list goes on and on.
Did you know that his definition of “children raised in a same-sex household” consisted of people who answered on a survey that one of their parents had at one point in time had a same sex encounter? Did you know that the surveys were filled out between 1974 and 1994? Did you know that there is not a single subject of his study whose parents are still in a same-sex relationship? Even if you’re against same-sex marriage, surely you can recognize that this “study” was conducted with methodology that doesn’t even come close to meeting the standard of a scientific study.
And btw, there is a difference between a researcher who has an opinion about same sex marriage, and an organization dedicated to preventing its legalization. Most researchers maintain the ability to remain impartial because of their dedication to the scientific process… but it should be easy to see that a study that was commissioned by a political organization that is dedicated to preventing marriage equality is at the very least suspicious in its veracity.
I didn’t provide links to the multitude of studies that show no deficits in children of same-sex couples because there are too many… they are neatly compiled and listed on the APA’s website though.
P
Personanongrata
Guest
The right thing to do under the circumstances.
R
rossum
Guest
This thread is about a Federal judge’s decision on the law in Utah. To me that appears to be about US Law.
The truth is that same sex marriage in legal in a number of countries, and states. Do you disagree that that is true?
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
Bwahahahah! That is Humpty Dumpty arguing. Just like Bill Clinton redefined the meaning of having sex with someone.
So, what does a married couple, where the woman is past her menopause, do? They can’t “have sex” because they can no longer have children. Do we need to introduce a new word to describe what they are doing? You really need to think through this line of argument more carefully.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
I do observe nature. You are aware that many mammal species exhibit homosexual behaviour? In particular many primate species, humans included, exhibit such behaviour.
I suspect that you are not talking about the real nature we observe in the world, but some sort of ideal nature that only includes the bits you like, and does not include the bits you don’t. Real nature includes infanticide, cannibalism and incest among other things. I suspect that your ideal nature does not.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
Which is my objection to the arguments being presented. They start with the assumption that only heterosexual relations are correct, and proceed to the conclusion that only heterosexual relations are correct. It is very easy to argue if you assume your conclusion to start with.
Since this argument is about heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage, you cannot start by assuming the conclusion you want. You actually have to show that your assumption is correct. I am aware of the Catholic stance on this matter, but civil law is not generally guided by Catholic morality, otherwise contraceptives and divorce would both be illegal.
You need to show independent reasons why same sex marriage should be against the law.
rossum
B
Benvolio
Guest
I am heartened by the compassionate comments here and bemused by the illogical ones. They follow certain lines. There is the Comment Historical: Cleopatra et al. Hd incestuous marriages, incest is older than gay marriage, so we’re headed that way. I assume that means more obelisks in public squares, cat worship, and widespread planting of bulrushes, too. (Forgive typos, I have not figured out how to edit this on my iPad.)
:nope:Then there is the Comment Hysterical. They’re coming for our churches! Anyone who thinks there is a court in this country that would force a church, synagogue or mosuqd to marry someone is totally clueless to the history of American jurisprudence and does not understand that while religious marriages require licenses, civil marriages require nothing religious. Separation of church and state is not a fiction.
We find the Comment Anthropological. Marriage is a primary urge of our biology. Really? I assume then that so are rehearsal dinners and bridal showers. I’m waiting for evidence of same to be discovered in ancient sites. That will totally upend the wedding industry and perhaps we can get back to our roots and stop worrying about cover bands, and marzipan fruit on wedding cakes.
Lastly the Comment Pessimistical (forgive the solecism): marriage equality will undermine straight marriage and The Church. How? Where? Will straight people not get married because gay people can? Will they divorce? Will they suddenly go gay? Will young people think less of marriage because “even gay people can get married”? People who think along these lines don’t know college age students. Even religious ones I each, when they bring up the subject, don’t understand the issue. As for Joly Mother Vhurch, does anyone think the Church of two thousand years or so will collapse because more people want to get married, bond themselves in love? Are we that insecure? Frankly, if it hasn’t collapsed with the attempted reversal of Vatican II and the abuse scandals, it can withstand anything, even a zombie marriage equality apocalypse.
My faith in Christ is unshaken by marriage equality. So is my faith in the value and potential of marriage to create deep social bonds. I welcome gay couples to the fold, and wish them better luck longterm than straight people seem to have with marriage in this country.
The Comment
J
JamesTheJust
Guest
Links would be nice, but I’ll take your word for it.
That’s one study down, five to go.
D
Dawnia
Guest
We have no idea how gay marriage will affect our economy, good or bad, in the long term. Anyone claiming to know otherwise is just guessing.
E
epan
Guest
Bandwagon conservative Catholic fallacy - Pope Francis is obsessed with sex as some of them are.
On the subject of public policy, Pope Francis is talking primarily about social justice issues such as income inequality, and related matters. He has said quite clearly that it is time to move on from the sex obsessed agenda of the previous recent years.
J
JamesTheJust
Guest
How did I commit the bandwagon fallacy? Not once did I say anything along the lines of, “Everybody’s doing it, so we should too,” as you did.
I never said that Pope Francis was “obsessed with sex”. I said that you misinterpreted him.
“We don’t have to talk about this all the time” does not equal “I’m giving up on this and I’m moving on”.
E
epan
Guest
Yes, you are correct. The 10th circuit has not ruled on the merits. However, it’s too late. The cat is out of the bag. By the time that the 10th Circuit takes up the matter, there will be hundreds (perhaps) of legal marriages in Utah, and there is no reversing that. Once you have one same sex couple who is married and entitled to Federal benefits (or other), etc… and then you deny another couple to marry and enjoy those same benefits, then you have an equal protection issue, and any law denying equal rights in that situation is struck down. All it takes is one legal marriage to occur, and then the legal fight is over.
Meanwhile, clerks in conservative areas are breaking the law, and abjuring their sworn oaths, by not issuing licenses. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.
D
Dawnia
Guest
Hold on a minute. I made no claim whatsoever that gay marriage had any effect on hetero’s not getting married. There is research that in states with gay marriage, marriage among hetero couples is going down faster. However, there is nothing that tells us why it is that way in those states.
What I stated, more than once, is that any benefits from gay marriage is offset by the much greater number of people choosing to forgo marriage. The benefits of marriage to the state are evident. The benefit to couples who produce children is apparently not so evident.
Would your marriage be any less a sacrament in your church or less special to you if you didn’t have a piece of paper from the state?
- Status