Illinois passes same sex marriage bill

[frobert]

You can call a same sex relationship a marriage but that does not make it a marriage

That it is ‘not a marriage’ is relative to your religious definition of marriage. There is also the definition of marriage that is relative to the civil authority and the couple getting married.

They are both relationships but they are very different.

There are both differences and similarities as would be expected.

I don’t see anything wrong with the CC and other religions arguing their position nor do I see anything inappropriate for the pro SS marriage side arguing their position but at the end of the day we still live in the same society.

 

[Ben_Carmine]

Parenthetically, there was a study that I saw in passing recently that suggested gay parents were, in many ways, *superior *to a child’s biological parents. The most telling part of that study was that there was no blow back on the author. I’m sure that most academics involved in the field just nodded, took a few thoughtful puffs on their pipe, and went on about their day.

I heard this too (though I’m pretty sure it didn’t say biological parents, seeing as though there’s a possibility one of the gay parents are a biological parent) but, what you failed to mention, is it was theorised that gay couples raising children came out with above average results on the childs well-being and metal health because they tended to be ready (financially, emotionally, etc) to have children, whereas the statistics for straight couples is brought down by all the people who had children by accident or when they weren’t ready.

The conclusion wasn’t that gay couples were superior to straight couples, like you implied, but that the stability of two parents is what is best for raising a child. Two parents to share responsibility and burden. This can also be seen by how kids turn out in unstable enviroments, such as divorce, single parent households, and care homes. The gender of the parents seemed to have very little to do with it, it’s the stability of the household that two parents can provide that appears to be the biggest deciding factor on how well a child turns out. At the very least they’re no worse than an average straight couple.

 

[kanrok]

I heard this too (though I’m pretty sure it didn’t say biological parents, seeing as though there’s a possibility one of the gay parents are a biological parent) but, what you failed to mention, is it was theorised that gay couples raising children came out with above average results on the childs well-being and metal health because they tended to be ready (financially, emotionally, etc) to have children, whereas the statistics for straight couples is brought down by all the people who had children by accident or when they weren’t ready.

The conclusion wasn’t that gay couples were superior to straight couples, like you implied, but that the stability of two parents is what is best for raising a child. Two parents to share responsibility and burden. This can also be seen by how kids turn out in unstable enviroments, such as divorce, single parent households, and care homes. The gender of the parents seemed to have very little to do with it, it’s the stability of the household that two parents can provide that appears to be the biggest deciding factor on how well a child turns out. At the very least they’re no worse than an average straight couple.

The point of this whole exercise is to underscore the fact that there is virtually no push back when a sociologist comes out with a paper that praises the virtues of gay parenting. But when a study comes out that even tangentially claims there are issues of concern, the author is pilloried. Not a very charitable way of dealing with academic disputes, is it?

 

[Ben_Carmine]

The point of this whole exercise is to underscore the fact that there is virtually no push back when a sociologist comes out with a paper that praises the virtues of gay parenting. But when a study comes out that even tangentially claims there are issues of concern, the author is pilloried. Not a very charitable way of dealing with academic disputes, is it?

You’re mistaking studying gay parenting with praising it.

The ones that claims there might be issues of concern don’t really present evidence or findings for this, and (like the one on the previous page that was linked) are religiously motivated.

This ties in with my first sentence: “You’re mistaking studying gay parenting with praising it.” If you think studies are conducted to find a way to reach the end result you want, such as “Gay parenting is good/bad”, then you’re already viewing them wrong. They’re simply there to observe, study and come to a conclusion, not come to a conclusion beforehand and then observe and study to see if it’s right, as is the case with religiously motivated oraganisations.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You’re mistaking studying gay parenting with praising it.

The ones that claims there might be issues of concern don’t really present evidence or findings for this, and (like the one on the previous page that was linked) are religiously motivated.

This ties in with my first sentence: “You’re mistaking studying gay parenting with praising it.” If you think studies are conducted to find a way to reach the end result you want, such as “Gay parenting is good/bad”, then you’re already viewing them wrong. They’re simply there to observe, study and come to a conclusion, not come to a conclusion beforehand and then observe and study to see if it’s right, as is the case with religiously motivated oraganisations.

It is naive to think that having a hope/expectation/agenda when conducting a study is the exclusive domain of the religiously motivated.

 

[kanrok]

You’re mistaking studying gay parenting with praising it.

The ones that claims there might be issues of concern don’t really present evidence or findings for this, and (like the one on the previous page that was linked) are religiously motivated.

This ties in with my first sentence: “You’re mistaking studying gay parenting with praising it.” If you think studies are conducted to find a way to reach the end result you want, such as “Gay parenting is good/bad”, then you’re already viewing them wrong. They’re simply there to observe, study and come to a conclusion, not come to a conclusion beforehand and then observe and study to see if it’s right, as is the case with religiously motivated oraganisations.

Thanks for making my point for me!

Let’s sum up:

If a study concludes that gay parenting is good, then, the study was based upon good, solid, scientific method.

If a study concludes that gay parenting may have negative consequences, then it is religiously motivated.

Funny, that.

 

[kanrok]

It is naive to think that having a hope/expectation/agenda when conducting a study is the exclusive domain of the religiously motivated.

I think they call that an “hypotheses.”

Unless, of course the hypotheses is counter to the current academic mindset.

Then it is “religiously motivated.”

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

That it is ‘not a marriage’ is relative to your religious definition of marriage. There is also the definition of marriage that is relative to the civil authority and the couple getting married.

The Catholic Church and/or the state did not invent marriage.

The conclusion that same-sex relationships should not be defined as marriage is because it is based on the truth, (Natural Law) not just on Catholic teaching.

If this was based simply on Catholic teaching, opponents could say: “You Catholics are entitled to your opinion, but that is not binding on others.”

Actually, the truth is the reason that same-sex relationships should not be defined as marriage. This, of course, is offensive to those who deny the existence of truth, who
prefer to live in a world dominated by what Pope Benedict XVI termed a “dictatorship of relativism…the gravest problem of our time.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I was aware of the evolution and variations in what people have called marriage. The video didn’t invoke many new thoughts, but I thought it was nicely done. The only constant I see is some binding of people that may be recognized by others. (There have been marriages between people and animals too, but I am purposely overlooking those). In general I don’t think that I can rate them on validity since such a rating may be factitious and have pretty much no impact.

As to why the business denied rights to those with civil unions I don’t know. But I suspect that moving forward the “civil union” idea is considered tainted and not acceptable to the LGBT community now.

Sorry for the lateness of this post submission, which is just a comment to the TED video link in your post pages back.

Yes it is nicely done video but it contains misleading or false historical record of same sex “marriage.”

The so called marriages of Roman emperor Nero to two men (one a boy) were mock ceremonies, and the other emperor Elegabalus (a bisexual who had five wives) forced “marriage” with male subjects, a blond slave and an athlete from Smyrna. The Theodosian Code was a correction to abuse of the social institution of marriage by these degenerate and depraved leaders.

The medieval brother-making rite of adelphopoiesis has been misrepresented, thanks to the agenda of homosexual academic researcher and writer John Boswell.

As for the cited same sex marriage in Spain In 1061, it was performed under deception with the groom discovered to be another female dressed as a man. It was therefore invalid.

 

[frobert]

The Catholic Church and/or the state did not invent marriage.

The conclusion that same-sex relationships should not be defined as marriage is because it is based on the truth, (Natural Law) not just on Catholic teaching.

If this was based simply on Catholic teaching, opponents could say: “You Catholics are entitled to your opinion, but that is not binding on others.”

Actually, the truth is the reason that same-sex relationships should not be defined as marriage. This, of course, is offensive to those who deny the existence of truth, who
prefer to live in a world dominated by what Pope Benedict XVI termed a “dictatorship of relativism…the gravest problem of our time.

If you wish to argue natural law Theory I will argue it with you, but the definition of marriage has nothing to do with Thomistic natural law theory. I will give you that the term marriage has carried with it the connotation of a man and a woman inmost parts of the world for a long time. That said you appear to believe that it can not be different. That belief is relative to you. What is relative to me and the state of NY is that NYS defines marriage as between two people. If it is offensive to you I have to live with that. Ca la vie.

 

[rossum]

I will give you that the term marriage has carried with it the connotation of a man and a woman inmost parts of the world for a long time.

Probably more accurate to say, “a man and one or more women”. Polygamy is not uncommon in history, especially for powerful men. Just read the Old Testament and count up the wives.

rossum

 

[Ben_Carmine]

Thanks for making my point for me!

Let’s sum up:

If a study concludes that gay parenting is good, then, the study was based upon good, solid, scientific method.

If a study concludes that gay parenting may have negative consequences, then it is religiously motivated.

Funny, that.

That’s not what I said, which you know, you’re simply being disingenous there.

Link me a study for example.

 

[frobert]

Probably more accurate to say, “a man and one or more women”. Polygamy is not uncommon in history, especially for powerful men. Just read the Old Testament and count up the wives.

rossum

I think your priorities are screwy, but who I am to judge. If you want to advocate for polygamy be my guest but don’t ask me to help you. Not sure if you will get much help on CAF either.

 

[kanrok]

That’s not what I said, which you know, you’re simply being disingenous there.

Link me a study for example.

Saying “it’s not what I said” is actually being disingenuous.

It certainly is what you meant.

But than again, you already know that.

Not sure what study you want “linked.”

I’ve already posted two above.

 

[Ben_Carmine]

Saying “it’s not what I said” is actually being disingenuous.

It certainly is what you meant.

But than again, you already know that.

Not sure what study you want “linked.”

I’ve already posted two above.

I don’t believe you believe you weren’t being disingenuous.

As for studies, you’re not going to link any for me in other words?

 

[kanrok]

I don’t believe you believe you weren’t being disingenuous.

As for studies, you’re not going to link any for me in other words?

Well, then…I don’t believe that you don’t believe that I don’t believe…

Really. Is that your response?

Let me suggest two things for you.

One, read your own words.

Two, read the thread above and see if you can find the studies I already “linked.”

But to assuage your burgeoning curiosity about how social scientists “cook the books,” here is a recent article published on a [shudder!] Catholic website:

crisismagazine.com/2014/the-latest-sham-science-on-gay-parenting

To your point, from the article:

"Let’s for a moment put aside the notion of straight people having kids “by accident”—I will come back to it—and focus instead on Kristof’s casual assertion that evidence has been “found” linking gay parenting to “better outcomes on average” than straight parenting. What is the basis for the claim made by this sentence which appeared on page A27 of the New York Times on January 23, 2014? The web version of Kristof’s story links to the Australian “study,” which turns out to be a one-page “interim report” of research being conducted by Simon Robert Crouch. Crouch is a “public health doctor” and lead investigator of the Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families (ACHESS) at the University of Melbourne.

Some casual Googling reveals that Crouch is also “a gay dad with twins” who writes and blogs frequently about gay parenting from an advocate’s point of view. (“The heteronormative world begins its gender distinctions before birth. ‘Is it a boy or a girl?’ is the first question most women are asked when they announce that they are pregnant.”) Further snooping turned up what, to this non-social scientist at least, looked a lot like an effort by the researcher to game the results of the research:

There has been some research looking at the health and wellbeing of children with same-sex parents, mainly from Europe and North America…. Critics of the research to date highlight small sample sizes and a focus on lesbian parents. Researchers at the University of Melbourne are trying to fill these gaps however through a new project—the Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families (ACHESS). (Emphasis added.)

The purpose of the study is to answer critics of previous studies? Does anyone really believe that Simon Robert Crouch is going to find anything in his research to suggest that gay parents are not at least the equal of—and, as it happens, better “on average”—than straight parents?"

I’m all for letting the facts come out in an honest and straightforward way.

That is what the scientific method is designed to accomplish.

But when “scientists” game the system and the useful idiots in the press assist them in the scam, I have to call foul.

 

[Ben_Carmine]

Well, then…I don’t believe that you don’t believe that I don’t believe…

Really. Is that your response?

Let me suggest two things for you.

One, read your own words.

Looks like we agree not to believe each other then.

Two, read the thread above and see if you can find the studies I already “linked.”

But to assuage your burgeoning curiosity about how social scientists “cook the books,” here is a recent article published on a [shudder!] Catholic website:

crisismagazine.com/2014/the-latest-sham-science-on-gay-parenting

To your point, from the article:

"Let’s for a moment put aside the notion of straight people having kids “by accident”—I will come back to it—and focus instead on Kristof’s casual assertion that evidence has been “found” linking gay parenting to “better outcomes on average” than straight parenting. What is the basis for the claim made by this sentence which appeared on page A27 of the New York Times on January 23, 2014? The web version of Kristof’s story links to the Australian “study,” which turns out to be a one-page “interim report” of research being conducted by Simon Robert Crouch. Crouch is a “public health doctor” and lead investigator of the Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families (ACHESS) at the University of Melbourne.

Some casual Googling reveals that Crouch is also “a gay dad with twins” who writes and blogs frequently about gay parenting from an advocate’s point of view. (“The heteronormative world begins its gender distinctions before birth. ‘Is it a boy or a girl?’ is the first question most women are asked when they announce that they are pregnant.”) Further snooping turned up what, to this non-social scientist at least, looked a lot like an effort by the researcher to game the results of the research:

There has been some research looking at the health and wellbeing of children with same-sex parents, mainly from Europe and North America…. Critics of the research to date highlight small sample sizes and a focus on lesbian parents. Researchers at the University of Melbourne are trying to fill these gaps however through a new project—the Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families (ACHESS). (Emphasis added.)

The purpose of the study is to answer critics of previous studies? Does anyone really believe that Simon Robert Crouch is going to find anything in his research to suggest that gay parents are not at least the equal of—and, as it happens, better “on average”—than straight parents?"

I’m all for letting the facts come out in an honest and straightforward way.

That is what the scientific method is designed to accomplish.

But when “scientists” game the system and the useful idiots in the press assist them in the scam, I have to call foul.

I assume you think that’s a bias source, by virtue of him being a gay dad, but I looked around (even followed all those links) and I can’t find the source of that information anywhere. It’s not mentioned anywhere in the original source.

Anyway, do you have a source for your claim that they’re “gaming the system”? And, even better, some counter evidence to the claims made?

 

[kanrok]

Looks like we agree not to believe each other then.

I assume you think that’s a bias source, by virtue of him being a gay dad, but I looked around (even followed all those links) and I can’t find the source of that information anywhere. It’s not mentioned anywhere in the original source.

Anyway, do you have a source for your claim that they’re “gaming the system”? And, even better, some counter evidence to the claims made?

I’ve provided two studies and three articles supporting my position in this thread. I’m not sure you read them.

As for the most recent source, I have not claimed the author of the non-peer-reviewed “interim report” is “bias” [sic.] merely because he is a gay dad. But it certainly raises some questions about his “research.” The Regnerus study, meanwhile, was actually published in a peer reviewed social science journal.

The fact that the “interim report” was not subjected to peer review certainly didn’t stop a NYT commentator from using it as “proof” that, as he stated “An Australian study found gay parenting had better outcomes on average, apparently because gay couples don’t have kids by accident.” See here: nytimes.com/2014/01/23/opinion/kristof-modern-family-matters.html

And I’m not sure what you mean by these words:

“I assume you think that’s a bias source, by virtue of him being a gay dad, but I looked around (even followed all those links) and I can’t find the source of that information anywhere. It’s not mentioned anywhere in the original source.”

The very first sentence of the hyperlinked source in the article mentioned above is: “Dr Simon Crouch is a gay dad with twins.”

Please don’t get your kilt in twist over this next sentence, but, unless you bring more to the table than what you have, I do not have time to spend with you any more.

Cheers!

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

If you wish to argue natural law Theory I will argue it with you, but the definition of marriage has nothing to do with Thomistic natural law theory. I will give you that the term marriage has carried with it the connotation of a man and a woman inmost parts of the world for a long time. That said you appear to believe that it can not be different. That belief is relative to you. What is relative to me and the state of NY is that NYS defines marriage as between two people. If it is offensive to you I have to live with that. Ca la vie.

I really don’t want to argue anything with you, frobert.

I am simply pleased that you agree with my statement:

There is no evidence that any civilization with a written history ever defined a same sex relationship as a marriage.

So we can agree that, historically and culturally, marriage was defined as a union of a male and a female.

Since the concept of “marriage” proceeded the state of New York…the state has no authority to redefine marriage. unless it can show a definite benefit to the state and society…rather than a politically motivated agenda.

 

[DrTaffy]

I am not finding anything in Roman law that defines a homosexual relationship as a marriage.

Nor are you apparently finding anything to say that it was not. After all, why would you expect to find an explicit reference to same sex marriage in law? It doesn’t raise any new issues that are not covered by the existing laws. But if it were not valid, wouldn’t all those who commented so bitterly on the same sex marriages of the Emperor and others have mentioned that fact?

Yet we find many references to same sex marriages in Ancient Rome, and nothing to say that they were not legally valid?

That is my assertion…there is no evidence.:banghead:

No, your assertion was that:

In ancient Rome and Greece homosexual unions were prevalent. but they were never legally considered marriage.

That remains a wholly unsupported assertion.

How do you explain Cicero arguing that Curio was legally obliged to pay Antonius’ debts if the same sex marriage was not legally binding?

Nero could call his arrangement with other men and young boys a marriage, or anything he wanted to…he was the Emperor. That didn’t change the Roman definition of marriage.

Since he was the Emperor, it would have. Or would at least have been commented on. Unless the definition already covered same sex marriages.