Obama- urges court, Gay Marriage ban

[epan]

I don’t see it as nonsensical, I think every child needs a mother and a father, to do it any other way is to do it crippled, sometimes it happens, but we shouldn’t be saying it is an acceptable norm.

Anyway I came here to find the right words and I think I have found them, please read this very short booklet, wont take you more than 10 minutes, than tell me what you think.

catholic.com/sites/default/files/why_homosexual_unions_are_not_marriages.pdf

Thank you
Josh.

Here is how i think it is. Applying logic to the situation, allowing same sex marriage does not in any way disallow opposite sex marriage. So the question makes no sense.

If the question is adoption, then it makes sense from a religious perspective, but since the bulk of the research shows no difference in mental health based on gender of parents, it makes sense but is irrelevant to the discussion of adoption by same sex couples.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Depriving children of having a mother and father leads them to confusion in adult life as they learn to understand how men and women have relationships around them. This is not a world in which there is 1 gender. Having a mother and father in extremly important in understanding how male/female relationsips work and that balance is important for children growing up.

In your mind, how do they work? Remember, we do not have any distinguishable gender roles anymore. I’ve never met anyone who was “confused” about how to interact in a relationship.

You are reading something into the study that I do not see.

Then you should beef up on what Regnerus said about it.

15000 people were looked at to paricipate and then 3000 were chosen as representitive. 175 raised by 2 women, 73 raised by 2 men.
Two you mean were the only children that were raised from birth to age 18 in same sex households, meaning there was instability in the overwhelming majority of the relationships that the homosexuals had that were looking after the children. Overall 248 children from same sex households were studied.

That was never established, Abyssinia. Only 2 were raised by same-sex parents from birth to age 18 and I believe a third spent 2 months in a same-sex household. The remainder lived in single-parent households following heterosexual divorce and the sexual orientation of that parent was never identified. Again, you cannot attribute the failure of an opposite-sex marriage to instability in a homosexual household.

It is not soundly rejected. University of Texas vindicated Regenrus’ from the criticism he received and many social scientists have defend Regerus’ methodology.

The University of Texas was investigating possible academic misconduct not reviewing the study itself. When it was reviewed, by the journal which initially published it, it was found to be a fatally flawed study that never should have been published. So, yes, it has been soundly rejected by the journal in which it was mistakenly published, every sociological association, and over 200 social scientists and therapists.

When I see social scientsts criticise Rgeenrus’ study also criticise the studies on same sex parenting which are done on a combo of 12 children raised in biological families and same sex parenting families then I might take them more seriously, but I would still take Regenrus’ study to be a credible addition to the ongoing research in the field

I don’t know if you’re just missing the point regarding the methodology, not just the number of respondents, or just dodging the issue.

 

[_Abyssinia]

In your mind, how do they work? Remember, we do not have any distinguishable gender roles anymore. I’ve never met anyone who was “confused” about how to interact in a relationship.

If gender roles do not matter, tell that to people in many inner cities where there is almost always a priamry mother figure, but a lack of father figures, and see how children struggle because of the lack of a father figure and how that lack is producing higher rates of going to prison, lower rates of high education and if you go to the communities you will hear from peoples mouths how needed a father figure was and how their children have suffered for the lack of a father figure

If gender roles did not matter, then studies would show outcomes for children raised in single parent households would be as good in part as those raised in families with married parents and there would not be all this mixed research on outcomes for children raised in same sex households

Then you should beef up on what Regnerus said about it.

That was never established, Abyssinia. Only 2 were raised by same-sex parents from birth to age 18 and I believe a third spent 2 months in a same-sex household. The remainder lived in single-parent households following heterosexual divorce and the sexual orientation of that parent was never identified. Again, you cannot attribute the failure of an opposite-sex marriage to instability in a homosexual household.

The two children I assume were brought up by a caregiver who was homosexual even if that caregiver split up their homosexual partner so the study still looks at that outcome

There is plenty of evidence aside from studies on parenting, that homosexuals statiscally have more partners that hetrosexuals and even in countries where they have redefined marriage, the divorce rate for homosexual parners is much higher than it is for hetrosexual partners so that statisical evidence of increased changing of partners, increased divorce rate is a factor that will bear on children raised in same sex households and that is what the study observes. Statsically heterosexual partnerships where ‘married’ or not, are not as stable, and that is why the study finds that only 2 of the children raised in same sex households were still raised by 2 partners of the same gender at 18 as they were from birth

The University of Texas was investigating possible academic misconduct not reviewing the study itself. When it was reviewed, by the journal which initially published it, it was found to be a fatally flawed study that never should have been published. So, yes, it has been soundly rejected by the journal in which it was mistakenly published, every sociological association, and over 200 social scientists and therapists.

I don’t know if you’re just missing the point regarding the methodology, not just the number of respondents, or just dodging the issue.

‘The peer-review process failed to identify significant, disqualifying problems’

Again, there is another study in the Journal of marriage and family, not done by Regnerus that shows similar conclusions to Regnerus’ study. If there are more and more large representative studies that come to the conclusions for the outcomes for children raised in same sex households there will still be people disputing the methodology

When a study comes to a conclusion that children raised in same sex parenting households have as good outcome as children raised in households with biological parents, there are no investigations, the study may not be peer reivewed, the methodology flawed, the bias of the researcher pronounced but all that gets ignored because there is a lot of bias in the field of social science and people in the middle on this who want honest, as accurate research as possible do not have as much impact on these many progressive social science publications as people who have progressive agendas

 

[epan]

EmperorNapoleon;10493496:

If gender roles do not matter, tell that to people in many inner cities where there is almost always a priamry mother figure, but a lack of father figures, and see how children struggle because of the lack of a father figure and how that lack is producing higher rates of going to prison, lower rates of high education and if you go to the communities you will hear from peoples mouths how needed a father figure was and how their children have suffered for the lack of a father figure

If gender roles did not matter, then studies would show outcomes for children raised in single parent households would be as good in part as those raised in families with married parents and there would not be all this mixed research on outcomes for children raised in same sex households

The two children I assume were brought up by a caregiver who was homosexual even if that caregiver split up their homosexual partner so the study still looks at that outcome

There is plenty of evidence aside from studies on parenting, that homosexuals statiscally have more partners that hetrosexuals and even in countries where they have redefined marriage, the divorce rate for homosexual parners is much higher than it is for hetrosexual partners so that statisical evidence of increased changing of partners, increased divorce rate is a factor that will bear on children raised in same sex households and that is what the study observes. Statsically heterosexual partnerships where ‘married’ or not, are not as stable, and that is why the study finds that only 2 of the children raised in same sex households were still raised by 2 partners of the same gender at 18 as they were from birth

‘The peer-review process failed to identify significant, disqualifying problems’

Again, there is another study in the Journal of marriage and family, not done by Regnerus that shows similar conclusions to Regnerus’ study. If there are more and more large represnitive studies that come to the cpnslusion that the outcomes for chidlren reaised in same sex households there will still be people disputing the methodology

These papers have no qualms with publishing studies on same sex parenting with tiny samples, they do not have investigations then. I believe this is all because the study does not come to the conclusions that a lot of progressives in the field of social science want it too

I doubt that there are any large studies on same sex parenting. The reason is that the number of same sex parents has only increased recently. Such a study requires some time to assess. You at least need to find a sample who has been parented since infancy, for testing against the control group. Further, some effort must be made to reduce other side effects, such as socio economic, education of parents, religion of parents, etc…, so that you will know what you are looking at. This makes finding a large sample a more difficult task.

As far as I know, and also in the opinion of the people who do actually know what studies have been done, and which ones are better than others and why they are, the evidence is that there is no meaningful difference based on gender. There is some evidence that the children of same sex female couples measure as more adjusted on all axes tested, than those raised by hetero or gay parents. Does this mean that based on these preliminary studies that lesbians should have priority over hetero couples in adoption? I doubt it. The reason that has been proposed for this finding is that females are better at nurturing than males. Therefore having two females on hand creates a more supportive environment for a child than any other combo. But this is also just preliminary data. Much more needs to be known to draw any conclusions. So for, no real harm has been shown as far as adjustment of kids and gender of parents.

It is more important to have two parents, and even more important that all parents available are loving and supportive of the child. There is a clear challenge with single parenting that the parent is often very challenged to provide enough time for a child, if that parent also must be employed, and there are multiple siblings. We are also seeing the tweener generation. Parents with kids who require a lot of attention, with senior parents who are living longer and need a lot of care. This can be a tremendous challenge.

For the sake of argument, let’s consider a hypothetical study that showed that Catholic parents on average raise children with more emotional problems, and who achieve lower metrics on most axes measuring health and achievement than some other religious, or non religious groups. Would this then lead to the conclusion that Catholics should not be parents? That argument would be absurd. It rates right up there with the idea of single parent marriage.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

If gender roles do not matter, tell that to people in many inner cities where there is almost always a priamry mother figure, but a lack of father figures, and see how children struggle because of the lack of a father figure and how that lack is producing higher rates of going to prison, lower rates of high education and if you go to the communities you will hear from peoples mouths how needed a father figure was and how their children have suffered for the lack of a father figure. If gender roles did not matter, then studies would show outcomes for children raised in single parent households would be as good in part as those raised in families with married parents and there would not be all this mixed research on outcomes for children raised in same sex households

The fact that the missing parent is a man has no relevance. A missing parent, period, is what causes these issues. The fact of the matter is that it doesn’t matter which gender performs the tasks of parenting so long as they are done. That cannot happen in a single-parent household regardless of which parent is missing. There are no such things as gender roles anymore.

The two children I assume were brought up by a caregiver who was homosexual even if that caregiver split up their homosexual partner so the study still looks at that outcome

I’m not sure why you’re still flogging that dead horse. Regnarus publicly admitted that only a handful actually had same-sex parents and that he didn’t have any data on the sexual orientation of the remainder, but chose to lump them in with same-sex parents anyway.

There is plenty of evidence aside from studies on parenting, that homosexuals statiscally have more partners that hetrosexuals and even in countries where they have redefined marriage, the divorce rate for homosexual parners is much higher than it is for hetrosexual partners so that statisical evidence of increased changing of partners, increased divorce rate is a factor that will bear on children raised in same sex households and that is what the study observes.

Regnarus publicly admitted that these were the result of heterosexual divorce with no idea of the sexual orientation of the parent the children lived with. What Regnarus observed was that two-parent households, regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents, were better for children than single-parent households. You are ascribing findings that were never presented in this study. Don’t blame the failure of heterosexual marriages on gays.

‘The peer-review process failed to identify significant, disqualifying problems’

The article notes that those significant disqualifying problems existed but were not considered in the decision to publish the article, in part, because it would generate buzz for the Journal and increase its visibility in scientific circles. You shouldn’t misrepresent the article or take quotes out of context.

‘Again, there is another study in the Journal of marriage and family, not done by Regnerus that shows similar conclusions to Regnerus’ study. If there are more and more large representative studies that come to the conclusions for the outcomes for children raised in same sex households there will still be people disputing the methodology.

The Journal of Marriage and Family is a shill for the National Council on Family Relations. The studies it publishes on the matter can hardly be considered scientific. They’re bought and paid for by an ultra-conservative organization with a vested interest in making gays look bad. They also have internal policies censoring any research which does not conclude that same-sex marriage and same-parenting have negative outcomes.

 

[_Abyssinia]

The fact that the missing parent is a man has no relevance. A missing parent, period, is what causes these issues. The fact of the matter is that it doesn’t matter which gender performs the tasks of parenting so long as they are done. That cannot happen in a single-parent household regardless of which parent is missing. There are no such things as gender roles anymore.

Men and women are inherently different and because differing gender roles are inevitable and a reality. I have read stories from from people who were raised in same sex households who talk of the problems that they faced because of a lack of a father or mother figure

I have heard people who argued in favour of children being raised in same sex households before that say and I paraphrase that even if they are are in a lesbian or homosexual relationship that the child will still have the opposite gender influences in their life through a uncle, or grandfather. Even people who are in favour of children being raised in same sex households unintentionally admit that the child needs or should have the opposite gender influence in their life. But somebody an uncle or granfather can not have the same benefits that a father or mother can provide

There is a reason why only a man and woman can procreate and that is because children need a mother and father. You can disagre with it, but decades of research shows the benfits that a mother and father give to a child and the benefits that then brings to society

I’m not sure why you’re still flogging that dead horse. Regnarus publicly admitted that only a handful actually had same-sex parents and that he didn’t have any data on the sexual orientation of the remainder, but chose to lump them in with same-sex parents anyway.

Regnarus publicly admitted that these were the result of heterosexual divorce with no idea of the sexual orientation of the parent the children lived with. What Regnarus observed was that two-parent households, regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents, were better for children than single-parent households. You are ascribing findings that were never presented in this study. Don’t blame the failure of heterosexual marriages on gays.

The article notes that those significant disqualifying problems existed but were not considered in the decision to publish the article, in part, because it would generate buzz for the Journal and increase its visibility in scientific circles. You shouldn’t misrepresent the article or take quotes out of context.

The Journal of Marriage and Family is a shill for the National Council on Family Relations. The studies it publishes on the matter can hardly be considered scientific. They’re bought and paid for by an ultra-conservative organization with a vested interest in making gays look bad. They also have internal policies censoring any research which does not conclude that same-sex marriage and same-parenting have negative outcomes.

Next time a study on children raised in same sex households is released that is done on a tiny non representative sample, I will be waiting too see if you and others who have critized Regnerus’ study, criticised that one, because criticism is mysteriously absent from the studies which have far less credibility than Regnerus’ by people in favour of parenting by same sex couples

 

[epan]

Wait, I thought they just wanted “equal protection under the law”? (CA has had same sex domestic parnerships since 1999)

True, but even if the legally married same sex couples are working for the Federal Government, they are not entitled to equal benefits as opposite sex. That is one example. Another would be a domestic partnered couple, who would prefer marriage, and who has different rights in any respect than a legally married same sex couple, or opposite sex married couple. This situation exists in California.

The point at which DOMA became an equal rights issue, and probably unconstitutional, was the moment that a same sex couple legally married. When DOMA was passed, that had not happened in the US, and the law was constitutional when the President signed it. Things have changed.

In the DOMA case, there is a significant Amici brief filed on behalf of 70 large corporations, such as Microsoft, pointing out that the current situation is unfair to employees who are denied benefits, and also a burden on the corporations to administer, having to balance Federal and various state laws, which conflict with each other.

 

[Dawnia]

The fact that the missing parent is a man has no relevance. A missing parent, period, is what causes these issues. The fact of the matter is that it doesn’t matter which gender performs the tasks of parenting so long as they are done. That cannot happen in a single-parent household regardless of which parent is missing. There are no such things as gender roles anymore.

Where have you been hiding for the last 30 years? There are an endless number of studies that discuss the contributions of mothers compared to the contributions of fathers and the effects on kids if one or the other is missing.

Social science still seems to think that gender roles have a significant factor or they wouldn’t be looking at it as a criteria in completely unrelated studies…like drug use in teens.

 

[epan]

By the way I found a link on here

The Threat Against
Marriage Is Real!
Click here to get this free booklet!

and I found a free copy of the small booklet online as pdf “Why homosexual Unions Are Not Marriages”

It’s at catholic.com/sites/default/files/why_homosexual_unions_are_not_marriages.pdf

Anyway EmporerNapolean, I think it explains homosexuality the best, it’s a very short booklet, please read it, it’s much easier than looking at all kinds of statistic information that will encourage a discussion that goes around in circles.

Also can anyone point me to Catholic Answer booklets like this one, in which is about Euthanasia, Abortion or Suicide?

Thank you.
Josh

I read the pamphlet that you recommend. It is a remarkable collection of misinformation and self contradiction. If you read it closely, you will find that the top of the first eight pages contradict the assertions made at the top of the page by the bottom of the page by simple logic.

I would recommend another approach. Try the religious and moral approach, rather than the social engineering approach which has never worked, regardless of the objective.

It is a surprising piece of illogical thinking, considering that CAF is the business venture of a successful attorney. Most attorneys are very good logicians.

 

[josh987654321]

Epan, maybe you are right, that it would be better for a child to be raised by two homosexual parents than by an unhealthy single parent or a very unhealthy mother and father.

But don’t you see, you are arguing over which one would be slightly better than the other, the truth is that they are all hard options, every child will have the best chances if they are raised by a healthy biological mother and father.

To say that two homosexuals would be the same as a biological mother and father is foolish, doesn’t mean that it can’t be done, but the option to a biological mother and father would be far better.

Put yourself in the Child’s shoe’s, ask yourself, what would I rather, two mothers or two fathers where I will be only biologically tied to one of them?

Or a healthy Biological Mother and Father?

To argue for equal rights with homosexuality is to say “I would be just as happy with two fathers or two mothers where I am only biologically tied to one or none of them, Than having a healthy biological Mother and Father”

So I ask you Epan, what would you prefer if you could choose you’re circumstances in which to be raised?

Two fathers or two mothers where you are only biologically tied to one or none?

Or a healthy Biological Mother and Father?

Because I would definatly prefer a biological mother and father, I would know where I came from and be able to relate to both throughout my life.

This is a fact that parents are the greatest role models in a Child’s life, not by what they say, but by what they do!.

Unfortunatly not every child can have a healthy biological mother and father, but because of the numbers that don’t have this, doesn’t mean that we should be saying it is an acceptable norm and full credits to those who don’t have an opportunity to a healthy father and mother and can rise above it and do better for the next generation.

I know that if someone said that I would be no better of with a healthy biological mother and father than I would be with a healthy homosexual union of two mothers or two fathers, I would be pissed of at them for their Ignorance.

So please put yourself in the child’s shoe’s and ask yourself what would I prefer?

Stop asking yourself if this option is slightly better than this or that, ask yourself what’s the best option, what should we be aiming for?

“Aim for the moon, even if you miss you’ll land amongst the stars”

And remember “The greatest role model for a child is it’s biological parents, even greater for the same sex biological parent, not what they say, but what they do.”

Thank you
Josh.

 

[josh987654321]

Also Epan would you please be able to point out to me how it contradicts in the pamphlet?
Because I can’t find it, Thank you.

Josh.

 

[epan]

Epan, maybe you are right, that it would be better for a child to be raised by two homosexual parents than by an unhealthy single parent or a very unhealthy mother and father.

But don’t you see, you are arguing over which one would be slightly better than the other, the truth is that they are all hard options, every child will have the best chances if they are raised by a healthy biological mother and father.

To say that two homosexuals would be the same as a biological mother and father is foolish, doesn’t mean that it can’t be done, but the option to a biological mother and father would be far better.

Put yourself in the Child’s shoe’s, ask yourself, what would I rather, two mothers or two fathers where I will be only biologically tied to one of them?

Or a healthy Biological Mother and Father?

To argue for equal rights with homosexuality is to say “I would be just as happy with two fathers or two mothers where I am only biologically tied to one or none of them, Than having a healthy biological Mother and Father”

So I ask you Epan, what would you prefer if you could choose you’re circumstances in which to be raised?

Two fathers or two mothers where you are only biologically tied to one or none?

Or a healthy Biological Mother and Father?

Because I would definatly prefer a biological mother and father, I would know where I came from and be able to relate to both throughout my life.

This is a fact that parents are the greatest role models in a Child’s life, not by what they say, but by what they do!.

Unfortunatly not every child can have a healthy biological mother and father, but because of the numbers that don’t have this, doesn’t mean that we should be saying it is an acceptable norm and full credits to those who don’t have an opportunity to a healthy father and mother and can rise above it and do better for the next generation.

I know that if someone said that I would be no better of with a healthy biological mother and father than I would be with a healthy homosexual union of two mothers or two fathers, I would be pissed of at them for their Ignorance.

So please put yourself in the child’s shoe’s and ask yourself what would I prefer?

Stop asking yourself if this option is slightly better than this or that, ask yourself what’s the best option, what should we be aiming for?

“Aim for the moon, even if you miss you’ll land amongst the stars”

And remember “The greatest role model for a child is it’s biological parents, even greater for the same sex biological parent, not what they say, but what they do.”

Thank you
Josh.

Josh, if you look at the opinions of the people who study this topic, there appears to be no evidence that two same sex parents are detrimental to a child’s development. There may even be indications that it can be beneficial, over opposite sex parents, if the same sex parents are lesbian.

What I have advocated is not same sex marriage, but it has been to stop spreading misinformation as if it were fact, because I believe that doing so (besides being deceptive, and hateful if intentional) weakens the point being made by impugning the person’s credibility.

 

[epan]

Also Epan would you please be able to point out to me how it contradicts in the pamphlet?
Because I can’t find it, Thank you.

Josh.

Nearly each page is good for a chuckle. I think it was hastily written, and not very well thought out. Here is an example:

Now homosexual activists are using a similar strategy, claiming that equality requires that homosexuals be allowed to marry each other. For that to be true there would have to be real equality between homosexuality and heterosexuality—the way there is real equality between persons of different races and between men and women.

When has there ever been “real equality”, whatever that is supposed to mean, between races or between men and women? There are now equal rights, under the law, which is VERY different.

What homosexuals are asking for is equal rights under the law. I doubt that many people would say that men and women are equal, any more than they would say that a same sex marriage and an opposite sex marriage are equal. What is being asked for is equal rights and protection under the law, just as men and women have that. The question is not one of underlying equality, but of the right to be treated with legal equality.

I strongly object to the way that both sides try to distort and confuse the issues.

 

[josh987654321]

Do you agree that the most important role models in a child’s life are their parents, not what they say, but what they do?

Because this has been proven, just like when a parent says to their child “don’t smoke” yet when they smoke themselves their child is (I don’t know the percentage) more likely to also take up smoking.

In the same way, when a child is raised by two fathers or two mothers in a homosexual union, it will confuse them with regards to the design of our human anatomy of male and female and to their own sexuality, and that their parents behaviour is normal or natural.

The very nature of homosexuality means using organs in a manner in which they are not designed to be used for, how can any supreme being be in support of that, in miss using their creation?

The city of Sodom where Lot lived was destroyed in the bible because of their acts of homosexuality, in other posts I said ‘Sidon’ lol my misstake in the name.

Also, lol, where you quoted the panphlet I can see how that looks like a contradiction, but it’s a short panphlet and they can’t go into alot of detail, but you know what they mean, there talking with regards to marriage, I mean if it were in regards to everything/anything like a photo or something, than that is a contradiction, but in regards to marriage it isn’t.

 

[josh987654321]

there appears to be no evidence that two same sex parents are detrimental to a child’s development. There may even be indications that it can be beneficial, over opposite sex parents, if the same sex parents are lesbian.

Damn, some studies have really come up with that conclusion? because common sense tells me that that isn’t ture lol, these studies have way, way too many variables, especially in what you determine to be detrimental or benifical for a child’s development.

I think it would be ‘detrimental’ for a Child to have a view of “homosexuality” as a normal or natural behaviour.

I think it would be benifical for a Child to know where they came from through both of their parents, adopted children, during some point during their lives usually seek to find their biological parents, and why do you think that is?

Like I said before, the very nature of homosexuality means using organs in a manner in which they are not meant to be used for and that a child’s parents are the greatest role models in a child’s life, not what they say, but by what they do, now you put two and two together and than say that this is not ‘detrimental’ to a childs development.

I don’t mean to offend you Epan in any of this, Im just trying to help you see the truth of homosexuality as I see it.

Thank you
Josh.

 

[epan]

Damn, some studies have really come up with that conclusion? because common sense tells me that that isn’t ture lol, these studies have way, way too many variables, especially in what you determine to be detrimental or benifical for a child’s development.

I think it would be ‘detrimental’ for a Child to have a view of “homosexuality” as a normal or natural behaviour.

I think it would be benifical for a Child to know where they came from through both of their parents, adopted children, during some point during their lives usually seek to find their biological parents, and why do you think that is?

Like I said before, the very nature of homosexuality means using organs in a manner in which they are not meant to be used for and that a child’s parents are the greatest role models in a child’s life, not what they say, but by what they do, now you put two and two together and than say that this is not ‘detrimental’ to a childs development.

I don’t mean to offend you Epan in any of this, Im just trying to help you see the truth of homosexuality as I see it.

Thank you
Josh.

Heheh… thanks Josh. There is no need to worry about offending me.

Yes, there are studies, but not enough of them yet. And there are countries where gay marriage has been around long enough to get some meaningful data.

Over time, it may turn out that the tide will shift, and that the bulk of the information will support your ideas. Right now they don’t. At least this is what the published positions are of the relevant professional therapist and medical organizations. They take into account a lot more data and expertise than I have in the topic.

Now, having said that, and my statement refers really to the social issue, is not having said that I support gay marriage. I do support putting a child without a home into a loving home. I don’t know the state of the laws in the US about adoption by same sex parents, but I know that it is allowed in many states. I do not oppose those laws. I know that the Church does.

Yes, I do understand the mechanics of homosexual sex. Thanks for the tutorial, but it is not necessary.

I’ll repeat this again. It seems to get lost here, surprisingly. There is a moral objection to gay sex and gay marriage. Until the day comes that we suddenly discover that the Bible was grossly mistranslated, or has been grossly misunderstood over all this time, then I don’t see that changing.

But the OP here is about the effects of DOMA, and the Constitutional issues. While DOMA may have seemed like a good idea to many, at the time. The fact is that DOMA might actually be the instrument of gay marriage proponents to make gay marriage the law of the land. Without DOMA, the pending case in the US Supreme Court would have no standing. Without DOMA, DADT might not have been tested and overturned in the courts, for lack of grounds.

My opinion is that the tactics which are being used sometimes by those who oppose gay marriage have actually accelerated its acceptance and its legal protection in the US.

I also believe that hyperbole and untruth on either side of the argument is not only morally wrong, but also tends to strengthen the position of the other side in public opinion. The majorities do not decide elections in the US. It is the sliver of a few percent of the electorate who sit in the middle on these issues. I believe that the best way to approach them is through truth and reason.

Finally, there is an issue of charity. A person’s sexual orientation, or that person’s sexual behavior does not define the totality of the person. I do know from my life experience that I do not know the impact of the speech which comes out of my mouth on another person, going into the future. I have had the experience of realizing on at least one occasion that a seemingly innocuous conversation, which I quickly forgot about, had a profound influence on the other party to the conversation. I don’t always live up to my ideals, but I do hold as an important standard in my own behavior, that of treating people kindly, regardless of the situation. In fact, it is when my job was not to treat people kindly, but rather to treat them with great prejudice, that I learned that the best path for me in life would be one which is devoted to relieving suffering and helping people.

Much of the speech on both sides of this debate has not been charitable. I oppose that.

 

[Caged]

I have a similar issue with this pamphlet. So its main argument seems to surround the fact that marriage is already defined as one man and one woman. It is defined in this way through religious texts.

Then you scroll down some more and it tries to protect itself by claiming that this isn’t at all about religion?

Ok well if that’s true explain to me why 99.9% of atheists think this argument is bogus? If it’s not about religion and about simple human nature and logic then why has “logic without truth” (I’ve heard people claim that atheists are practicing this logic without truth concept before) not led them to the conclusion it’s wrong? It should have shouldn’t it? According to the pamphlet it has nothing to do with imposing religion, but upon human nature more so.

Also, if human nature itself opposes same sex unions, why the heck is there SSA?

It also claims that same sex marriage is not being denied to homosexuals they’re just asking the law to be redefined (to further equality) to include them.

That argument is rather ancient just newly stated. “We’re not denying blacks the privilege to
sit in the front of the bus it’s just that they’re asking us to redefine the law to include them”

 

[josh987654321]

Now, having said that, and my statement refers really to the social issue, is not having said that I support gay marriage. I do support putting a child without a home into a loving home. I don’t know the state of the laws in the US about adoption by same sex parents, but I know that it is allowed in many states. I do not oppose those laws. I know that the Church does.

I am very happy to read that , just as long as you don’t support gay marriage, because there is a push where I come from in Australia for gay marriage, and I would hate for them to pass it.

What would you say to best oppose same sex marriage?

What do you think would work for others similar to you and your beliefs?

Yes, I do understand the mechanics of homosexual sex. Thanks for the tutorial, but it is not necessary.

That’s great news, I don’t like giving the tutorial as much as you don’t like reading it lol, but for some people they need to hear that, to udnerstand why we are against ‘homosexuality’.

My opinion is that the tactics which are being used sometimes by those who oppose gay marriage have actually accelerated its acceptance and its legal protection in the US.

Exactly I 100% agree, I apologise because I have also been guilty of saying some things that have been insensitive.

This is why I am here, I want to find of a humble and loving way to oppose same sex marriage, so could you please give me an example of what you would say as to why you oppose same sex marriage?

Finally, there is an issue of charity. A person’s sexual orientation, or that person’s sexual behavior does not define the totality of the person. I do know from my life experience that I do not know the impact of the speech which comes out of my mouth on another person, going into the future. I have had the experience of realizing on at least one occasion that a seemingly innocuous conversation, which I quickly forgot about, had a profound influence on the other party to the conversation. I don’t always live up to my ideals, but I do hold as an important standard in my own behavior, that of treating people kindly, regardless of the situation. In fact, it is when my job was not to treat people kindly, but rather to treat them with great prejudice, that I learned that the best path for me in life would be one which is devoted to relieving suffering and helping people.

Much of the speech on both sides of this debate has not been charitable. I oppose that.

I also agree, this is why I have been trying to be very careful when opposing same sex marriage, that when I speak of it, I make a clear distinction between the ‘homosexual’ and the acts of ‘homosexuality’.

Because you hear people say some rediculous and extreme things when it comes to opposing homosexuality, which only gives a bad name to people who also oppose it for the right reasons and it incourages those who are for it.

I have a homosexual uncle, who is in a relationship with his ‘partner’, I don’t agree with what he is doing, but he is still my uncle and I treat him the same as I do anyone else with love (of agape ) and respect, so I don’t treat him differently because of who he is or what hes doing, but I don’t agree with what he is doing either, and if they decided to get ‘married’ he would know that I still love him but he would also understand why I wouldn’t go or support his discison.

 

[josh987654321]

Also, if human nature itself opposes same sex unions, why the heck is there SSA?

People have all kinds of desires, do you think that just because we have those desires means that’s it’s a normal/natural or moral thing to do?
We all learn control over our desires, because not every thing we desire is ‘right’ or good for us.

It also claims that same sex marriage is not being denied to homosexuals they’re just asking the law to be redefined (to further equality) to include them.

That argument is rather ancient just newly stated. “We’re not denying blacks the privilege to
sit in the front of the bus it’s just that they’re asking us to redefine the law to include them”

This is the major problem when it comes to same sex marriage issues, they think it’s like women’s rights or black rights, like they are some sort of “Martin luther King” for black rights and that all who oppose it are the KKK from the southern states.

to encourage homosexual behaviour like gay marriage is wrong, like I said before the very nature of homosexuality means using your organs for something that they are not meant to be used for, so to say that this should be accepted as a natural or normal behaviour is silly.

 

[epan]

I am very happy to read that , just as long as you don’t support gay marriage, because there is a push where I come from in Australia for gay marriage, and I would hate for them to pass it.

What would you say to best oppose same sex marriage?

What do you think would work for others similar to you and your beliefs?

This might surprise you, but I was making some of the points that Dr. Jennifer Morse is now making long before she was. The problem is that gender role in society has been so screwed up, that it no longer makes sense legally to make any decisions based on gender. I disagree with this societal policy. It affects far more than just how marriage is perceived, or what comprises a marriage contract.

There are profound differences between the sexes, not all of which are understood. But legally, we are committed as a society to eliminating those gender differences. When it comes to marriage, Morse points to no fault divorce as the culprit, and I agree with her but I don’t think that she always fleshes out why no fault divorce plays a role. No fault divorce was the beginning of the legalization of eliminating gender role in marriage. From that beginning, the trend continued until all legal gender distinctions have been removed. Morse talks more about its effect in making marriage impermanent, but I see a different implication.

As I have said before, which you may not have seen, if you eliminate gender roles in marriage under the law, then logically it doesn’t make a lot of sense legally to then continue to say that gender matters when it comes to granting a civil marriage contract.

This does not change the moral prohibitions, but those are not always the place of government to put its nose into, when they are religious objections.

This is why I say, that while this is a legal redefinition of marriage which is proposed, it is not a SUDDEN redefinition. It is just one more step, after many have been taken to redefine heterosexual marriage.

I would be in favor of restoring gender roles to marriage, legally, and eliminating no fault divorce. I would like to redefine it backwards, so to speak, which I also believe is more in line with Church teachings. If that were to happen, then I would say that gay marriage makes no legal sense at all, unlike what I say with the current state of heterosexual marriage. As a personal civil right, why should homosexuals be treated any differently than heterosexuals, if heterosexuals have no legal obligation to uphold gender differences?

The children’s rights arguments are compelling, but they are not currently supported much more by heterosexual marriage than they would be by homosexual marriage, precisely because divorce is so easy. Look at the numbers. A requirement to stopping the social momentum toward gay marriage would be to change the social momentum in heterosexual marriage.

One point, which Morse makes, and which I think has a lot of appeal to the libertarian mind who might also be in favor of gay marriage, is the issue of increased government interference in private lives as a result of gay marriage. I won’t repeat her argument here, it is available online to anyone who is curious. But she makes a compelling case that gay marriage is a governmental creation, and due to certain aspects of it, the government then will take a greater interest in its regulation. I would think that this would be a rather compelling issue, which most people don’t consider when discussing the issue, because to the average person they are thinking in terms of how small the minority of gay people is, and how little impact this will have on their lives.