<!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+Feb 24 2004, 04:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Feb 24 2004, 04:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Over to you, to make a case for why and how a full moral system can exist without religion. More specifically why homosexual marriages are immoral under that non-denominational moral code. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If this is the bottom line of the arguement, then it appears that Legion has answered the challenge, but did so by creating a separate thread on morality without religion rather than taking this thread completely off topic. Maybe not completely offtopic, but the original purpose would quickly be forgotten <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
To bring a little of the other thread over to here - full moral systems cannot exist for anything more than the indivual (or so I would have you believe <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->). Further more, moral systems have nothing to do with law (or so our mutual friend moultano would have you believe). There is no link between the common morality of the majority of society, or full moral system as you put it, and actual law.
I think thats what moultano was trying to claim, but I havent finished formulating my reply so stay tuned for the next thrilling episode!
Basically, if what I quoted above is the bottom line of your arguement, well its being thrashed out in the morality thread right now so feel free to come on over...
<!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+Feb 29 2004, 08:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Feb 29 2004, 08:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hey... Legionnaired. No response? Ignoring the thread? <b>Have</b> no valid response? Othell, same questions?
C'mon, guys. Don't slink off just as the conversation starts to get <i>interesting</i>! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Tal, I think you'll find that responding to a challenge on an internet forum falls near the lower end of my priority list. I've had school papers to write, opportunities to hang out with members of the opposite sex, not to mention a teaching for my youth group I had to put together.
Rest assured, I haven't forsaken the thread, just have had one of the busyest weeks in my recent memory. Calm down, and please, don't taunt me.
Now then, a secular moral system that would accept homosexuality as wrong?
Well, you got me there. I can't invent a system of morals that has any relevance at all unless it first asserts that humanity is worth protecting. Due to my own beliefs expressed in the other thread I linked to, I can't honestly attach a value to humanity arbitrarily like that.
Now, assuming that something has given humanity value however, that must be protected, I can begin to postulate an arguement. Fill this critical step in with whatever you want, God, chance.. whatever. It's an argument for the other thread, to which I will shortly be returning.
If 1 human has value, that 5 humans would have 5 times the value, and 25 men 5 times the value still. So then, assuming that humanity has any value at all, the idea of "greatest good for the greatest number" must be what we must strive for.
Now, for "greatest good," we hope that we have the greatest number of people possible above the poverty line before we start delving into affluence. A society where everyone is equally worse off, but still able to survive is better than a society where a few people are living decadently, but the majority of people are impoverished would be inferior.
With that in mind, the "greatest good for the greatest many" theory would seek to place every person in a state of normality, where they would be taught the skills to make enough money to live off, while still being content emotionally.
In the emotional/personal happiness sense, there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. It does not infringe on the happiness or well-being of others, and the health risks are purely as a result of the free choice of those who participate in it.
However, it is homosexual adoption that I have a serious problem with.
<!--QuoteBegin-http://www.hoselton.net/religion/hwa/booklets/ptchild/part2.htm+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://www.hoselton.net/religion/hwa/booklets/ptchild/part2.htm)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"These qualities, of course, are transmitted to the child only if they are exemplified and taught within the family circle. By way of contrast, homes broken by death, desertion, divorce, separation, neglect, or immorality stamp their imprint on the developing personality. The products of these homes, unguided and unsupervised children who seldom receive needed love and attention, develop distorted attitudes and may easily engage in antisocial behavior. These products of ADULT NEGLIGENCE have become easy recruits in an already vast army of youthful offenders."
What a remarkably accurate analysis. And what a clear picture of the cause of disobedient and delinquent children.
Bear in mind the delinquent is the youth who has actually run afoul of the law. Bear in mind, also, that the lack of government, the lack of love and respect, the misery in a home becomes evident to the public only when it is officially broken by divorce, then "counted" among broken homes.
Again, let us restate the vitally important fact that these general conditions, the underlying disrespect for authority, the lack of government, constitutes a broad picture of the majority of all homes today"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And,
<!--QuoteBegin-http://www.family.org.au/journal/2001/j20010728.html+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://www.family.org.au/journal/2001/j20010728.html)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <b>Criteria for good parenting</b>
Couples who seek to adopt a child are put through a battery of physical and mental health and other checks to ensure as far as possible that they will both be around to offer good care and support to the child until he or she reaches maturity.
It is noteworthy that Australian couples are barred from adopting children if their relationship is likely to be unstable, or if health problems or their age would make them less likely to be present for the next 20 years while the child is growing up.
In Queensland, for example, the eligibility criteria for adoption applicants are specified in the Adoption of Children Regulation Act 1999. The criteria state that prospective adoptive parents must, among other things,
have been married for at least two years; not be suffering from a physical or mental condition, or have a physical or mental disability, to an extent that the person could not provide a high level of stable, long-term care for a child; be less than 36 years old (or less than 40 if they already have another child). How does the homosexual community rate on these adoption eligibility criteria?
<b>Stability</b>
Adoption agencies generally require applicants to be married for at least two years in an endeavour to place adopted children in a stable home environment. Studies of the impact of family breakdown on children show the effects are usually deleterious and prolonged.
Australian and overseas research shows that homosexual men are highly promiscuous and their relationships with other men are extremely unstable. For example, the Sydney **** Community Surveillance Report noted in 1998 that around 30% of the men had more than 10 casual partners in the previous six months and fewer than half had a regular relationship lasting over six months.
The 2000 report of HIV/AIDS-related behaviour in Australia noted that, at the time of the survey of the homosexual men, over 60% reported having one or more "regular partners", over 70% had casual partners; over 40% had both regular and casual partners. An earlier study of Australian homosexual men found that 23% reported a monogamous relationship, 35% a non-monogamous relationship, and 29% "casual sex only". The authors reported "there were almost as many men moving into monogamy as out of it, and out of casual-only partnerships as into them."
Long-term monogamous sexual partnerships are very rare for homosexual men. Some, like famous Australian author Patrick White, may live for many years with another homosexual man - but this type of long-term domestic arrangement often ceases to be sexual after some years, and usually involves an agreement to allow many casual sexual partners for both men. A 1994 study of homosexual men in Holland, where homosexual domestic partnerships are officially recognised, found that only 69% of such "long-term partners" actually lived together. The average number of "outside partners" per year of this type of arrangement was 2.5 in the first year, increasing to 11 in the sixth year.
US authors Bell and Weinberg, in their detailed study of homosexuality, classify the closest homosexual pairing as "close-coupled" where the numbers of casual sexual encounters outside the primary relationship are "low". Only 10% of the male and 28% of the female homosexual pairs fitted this "close-coupled" category. There was no "monogamous" category! For male and female homosexuals, whether in a "regular" relationship or not, promiscuity is the norm.
Lesbian relationships are also short-lived. Research by Johnson published in 1990 found that 50% of lesbian pairs break up within six years. In contrast, even though the divorce rate for married couples is increasing, it is approaching 50% over a lifetime (40 to 50 years), not six years. Cohabiting heterosexual couples break up faster than married ones, but not as fast as lesbians and male homosexuals. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Statistically, a homosexual union will not be as "close-coupled" and thus, more prone to becoming a, to use a somewhat cliche'd phrase, "broken home."
72% of all juvinile deliquents come from a broken home, and the money spent on feeding and sheltering them is staggering.
So, not only are we, by allowing homosexual union, taking steps to legalize homosexual adoption, which, logically, will increase the ammount of kids with mental and emotional disorders.
That is a gross violation of the "greatest good for the greatest many" that I established earlyer, on completely secular orgins.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So, not only are we, by allowing homosexual union, taking steps to legalize homosexual adoption...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why do you act as though it isn't already legal? Go ask Dan Savage and his partner about their kid. It may only be allowed in some states (New York, California, ect..) but it is legal. Allowing states to marry homosexuals would have little (if any) affect on their ability to adopt in states that currently don't allow it.
Of course, I'd much rather see homosexual marriages legalized at a federal level, as I'm sure a good deal of people would.
I don't want to offend anyone and don't hate me for this. I just want to throw something for you avid hs-rights discussers.
Liberal Dread: Yeah, it's all been said before, I don't think there's any reason to ban homsexuals from marrying.
Conservative Dread: I see that the basic argument is "There are homosexuals among humans and animals, hence it's natural"
So I want ask, if a a guy wants to have a relationship with a chimpanzee(and I'm not talking about spanking his monkey), would that be natural and acceptable? Afterall, it's happening in the wild life(for example horse/donkey/mule thing) and among humans.
<!--QuoteBegin-Dread+Mar 1 2004, 07:59 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Mar 1 2004, 07:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So I want ask, if a a guy wants to have a relationship with a chimpanzee(and I'm not talking about spanking his monkey), would that be natural and acceptable? Afterall, it's happening in the wild life(for example horse/donkey/mule thing) and among humans.
Meh, I hate ethical debates. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No. Chimpanzees and animals in general are incapable of giving consent.
The "It happens in wildlife" argument is there to refute claims that homosexuality isn't natural.
All men are created equal, according to the Constitution, right? If you allow one man the right to marry, and keep another one from the right to marry, you're breaking that constitutional right plain and simple. Now you could just ignore that in the Constitution like skinheads and the kkk have done all these years, but perhaps it would be a better alternative to take it on faith that g4ys really no different than straights (ignoring the stereotypes).
<!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+Mar 1 2004, 10:59 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Mar 1 2004, 10:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> All men are created equal, according to the Constitution, right? If you allow one man the right to marry, and keep another one from the right to marry, you're breaking that constitutional right plain and simple. Now you could just ignore that in the Constitution like skinheads and the kkk have done all these years, but perhaps it would be a better alternative to take it on faith that g4ys really no different than straights (ignoring the stereotypes). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Gee, I'm a Nazi now? Thanks Hawkeye.
The fact is, I'm not arguing against homosexual adoption because I don't like it or because I have a predjudice against it, I'm arguing against it because statistically, I've seen results of studies that has shown that that may be a danger to children raised in that kind of household. As I've stated before, if someone wants to post some studies to the contrary, then I'll drop my argument right here.
Do we allow someone who likes to set fire to building as a way of personal expression to do so? Do we respect alcoholic's rights to be alcoholics and destroy the lives of their entire family?
Behavior stops being acceptable once it becomes even potentially socially destructive.
I do not have a problem with anyone doing what they want to do so long as it does not take away the rights of anyone else. I am for g4y marriage for that reason. I dont' feel that people have any sayso whatsoever to take away their rights.
Granted, whether it is right or wrong is an entirely different issue. I would say those that aren't christian are wrong, but I'm not going to deprive others the right of believing in what they want to believe in. I do not think a same sex couple would face any less trouble with their children than a mixed race couple and their children. I also think that if you're worried about the health of the child, first I'd think about those children getting beaten up by their drunk dad before I'd worry about that.
Legion like I said there is no way to judge **** adoption until it has been legalized on the federal level and in practice for several years.
Taking your non relegious moral code into account that the "greater good for humanity" is all that matters, then **** adoption might be a more moral cause than current foster care systems. Since they have been around for decades and have numerous reports of abuse, neglect, and thngs much worse than lowered grades in school, **** couples adopting might be a better alternative than forced foster care.
Just as you can speculate in a pessemistic way about what effects **** adoption will have on children, I can give counterpoints just as easily. But the only way to know for sure is to let it happen, so yet again it is no grounds for making **** marriage illlegal.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Do we respect alcoholic's rights to be alcoholics and destroy the lives of their entire family? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is perfectly legal. It may be damaging to society, but no one is about to tread on their rights to drink themselves into a stupor every day.
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Mar 1 2004, 02:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Mar 1 2004, 02:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Do we respect alcoholic's rights to be alcoholics and destroy the lives of their entire family? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is perfectly legal. It may be damaging to society, but no one is about to tread on their rights to drink themselves into a stupor every day. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Is that right? It is right to allow someone to kill themselves, taking the well being of their family with them?
The fact that it isn't illegal doesn't make it right. Hell, we didn't have anti-lynching laws in this country in some states until after FDR, and slavery was around for hundreds of years before it was banned.
You keep comparing the **** lifestyle to harmful acts of violence, it is just not the same thing. You are overblowing a possible psychological effect that having **** parents might possible have on a child (again clinical tests are not possible as it is still not well implemented). Just like you would advocate that lawmakers survey every married couples home and record the amounts of argument they have every week and guage the psychological effects it has on the child, becuase frankly it doesn't merit making a law for it.
Yes it is unfortunate when kids suffer trauma, but it happens in every income and social level in every part of the world. Some people are good parents, some people are bad parents, and the bottom line is there should be no double standard for **** individuals.
The point legion is trying to make is that it would appear that the homosexual family seems to be less stable, and would appear to be at greater risk of breaking up than the conventional heterosexual marriage.
If a certain type of union is determined less stable than the norm, then why would you advocate sending children there? Unless you disagree that it is less stable, in which case you are going to need some studies/reports etc to answer Legion's.
There are double standards in society all the time. Why is the peadophile not allowed near a school while you are? Because it has been deemed that having you near a school is not a risk, while having him near one is. If it would appear the homosexual family is less stable, then I can understand why we would implement a double standard in allowing adoption.
The instability is projected. There hasn't been a national **** adoption agenda so there can be no research on what will happen if there is one. It's like saying people should never live on the moon because experiments show when a family is put in a 0 gravity enviorment their kids do worse in school.
I'm sure 50 years ago being the child of a interracial couple was traumatic and against the norm, 100 years ago having a mother who worked was extremly abnormal and probably damaging to children. Things that are labeled abnormal by society will be abnormal until they are no longer labeled as such.
Again pedophillia is considered an act of violence much like rape, It's really disconcerning to keep seeing you go to the well of comparing homosexuals to violent criminals again and again, especialy when I know your capable of much more in a discussion.
I personally feel that advocating abstinenance is psychologically harmful to children and leads to crimes like arsin, child/spouse abuse, increased risk of VDs and STDs, and suicide. I'm sure Marine, Legion, and MedHead wouldn't take kindly to me saying Catholics shouldn't be allowed to have children because teaching abstinence is traumatic to children.
KungFuSquirrelBasher of MuttonsJoin Date: 2002-01-26Member: 103Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
Is a child not better off in a loving family environment with happy homosexual parents than in a divided and emotionally unstable setting with unhappy heterosexual parents? Drawing a line between the two draws a line between the potentially damaging couples, too. The ability of a couple to rear adopted children should be on the basis of <b><i>that couple</i></b>, not some broad statistical generalization, even if what you've stated were to be proven as fact.
Here's a thought to ponder... What if the reason there is more risk for a child to be damaged in a homosexual parent environment (for the sake of argument, in this example, let's assume this to be fully true) is simply the burden of dealing with the general population viewing said parents as a threat, causing emotional conflict and despair within the child? Or perhaps an instability in the couple itself resulting in a split is also a result of the stress of dealing with the prejudice against them? So then, would it not be possible that as a result of this, homosexual parents would continue to be seen as a "threat" in an endless cycle of hate and/or fear?
I'm not going to sit here and tell you to like the idea of homosexual marriage or adoption or anything else because I don't think that's the point. The point is, whether you like it or not, they are still human beings and entitled to equal privleges as other human beings. It doesn't even matter if I like or don't like or support or don't support it, I feel that the only important matter is I respect their right to do so. This isn't drug abuse or violence, this is two people who love each other wanting to raise a family. Homosexual couples wishing to adopt should have the same rights and standards to meet as any heterosexual couple.
The parallels between this and previous racism and sexism is downright chilling at points - replace the term "****" or "homosexual" throughout this thread with "african american," "asian," or "hispanic," and where does that leave us? No, homosexuals do not constitute a race, but that's not the point. The point is we're sitting here discussing the rights of fully functioning and valuable members of society. The only wrong being committed here as I see it is assuming that a huge percentage of this planet's population is damaging society and a threat - the only damage I see being done comes from those determined to spread discrimination, hatred, bigotry, and/or fear. Justify it how you will, that's what it boils down to, whether on a personal, religious, or societal level.
Whew. That was supposed to be a one or two sentence hypothetical question. Eep.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The instability is projected. There hasn't been a national **** adoption agenda so there can be no research on what will happen if there is one. It's like saying people should never live on the moon because experiments show when a family is put in a 0 gravity enviorment their kids do worse in school.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The instability doesnt appear to be projected. Legion posted some quotes/links there halfway down page 6 on homosexual promiscurity even amongst those with "long term partners". It would seem he is bringing facts/studies to the table, so to claim these are merely projected seems a little odd to me....
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm sure 50 years ago being the child of a interracial couple was traumatic and against the norm, 100 years ago having a mother who worked was extremly abnormal and probably damaging to children. Things that are labeled abnormal by society will be abnormal until they are no longer labeled as such.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And some things 50 years ago were considered traumatic and against the law and still are. Simply because perceptions of certain things change doesnt automatically mean everything should be accepted.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Again pedophillia is considered an act of violence much like rape, It's really disconcerning to keep seeing you go to the well of comparing homosexuals to violent criminals again and again, especialy when I know your capable of much more in a discussion.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again the point is missed in order to attempt to pin vilification on the other side. The point of that was NOT that homosexuals are dangerous deviants, the point was that double standards exist in society and are accepted as normal. To claim "its a double standard" and use it as a standalone arguement for why homosexuals are getting the rough end of the stick is flawed. Simply because a double stand exists does not automatically mean something is unfair.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I personally feel that advocating abstinenance is psychologically harmful to children and leads to crimes like arsin, child/spouse abuse, increased risk of VDs and STDs, and suicide. I'm sure Marine, Legion, and MedHead wouldn't take kindly to me saying Catholics shouldn't be allowed to have children because teaching abstinence is traumatic to children.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are more than welcome to feel that way, and you are more than welcome to attempt to make a case of it. We might not like the eventual conclusion, but all that means is we are going to have to find a way to rebut.
Here is an article from the "completely unbiased <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->" website Christianity Today. Some of what they say I agree with, some of it I dont. I did find suspect some of the resources that they quote as saying something, but when I click the link it doesnt seem all as clear cut as they make out but still, have a read.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Speaking Out: Why **** Marriage Would Be Harmful Institutionalizing homosexual marriage would be bad for marriage, bad for children, and bad for society. By Robert Benne and Gerald McDermott | posted 02/19/2004
Now that the Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled that marriage be open to *** and lesbians, it is time to consider the question that pops up more than mushrooms after a spring rain. How would the legalization of **** marriage harm current and future heterosexual marriages?
The answer at first glance is that it wouldn't, at least not in individual cases in the short run. But what about the longer run for everyone?
It is a superficial kind of individualism that does not recognize the power of emerging social trends that often start with only a few individuals bucking conventional patterns of behavior. Negative social trends start with only a few aberrations. Gradually, however, social sanctions weaken and individual aberrations became a torrent.
Think back to the 1960s, when illegitimacy and cohabitation were relatively rare. At that time many asked how one young woman having a baby out of wedlock or living with an unmarried man could hurt their neighbors. Now we know the negative social effects these two living arrangements have spawned: lower marriage rates, more instability in the marriages that are enacted, more fatherless children, increased rates of domestic violence and poverty, and a vast expansion of welfare state expenses.
But even so, why would a new social trend of *** marrying have negative effects? We believe there are compelling reasons why the institutionalization of **** marriage would be 1) bad for marriage, 2) bad for children, and 3) bad for society.
1. The first casualty of the acceptance of **** marriage would be the very definition of marriage itself. For thousands of years and in every Western society marriage has meant the life-long union of a man and a woman. Such a statement about marriage is what philosophers call an analytic proposition. The concept of marriage necessarily includes the idea of a man and woman committing themselves to each other. Any other arrangement contradicts the basic definition. Advocates of **** marriage recognize this contradiction by proposing "**** unions" instead, but this distinction is, we believe, a strategic one. The ultimate goal for them is the societal acceptance of **** marriage.
Scrambling the definition of marriage will be a shock to our fundamental understanding of human social relations and institutions. One effect will be that sexual fidelity will be detached from the commitment of marriage. The advocates of **** marriage themselves admit as much. "Among **** male relationships, the openness of the contract makes it more likely to survive than many heterosexual bonds," Andrew Sullivan, the most eloquent proponent of **** marriage, wrote in his 1996 book, Virtually Normal. "There is more likely to be a greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman. ? Something of the **** relationship's necessary honesty, its flexibility, and its equality could undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds."
The former moderator of the Metropolitan Community Church, a largely homosexual denomination, made the same point. "Monogamy is not a word the **** community uses," Troy Perry told The Dallas Morning News. "We talk about fidelity. That means you live in a loving, caring, honest relationship with your partner. Because we can't marry, we have people with widely varying opinions as to what that means. Some would say that committed couples could have multiple sexual partners as long as there's no deception."
A recent study from the Netherlands, where **** marriage is legal, suggests that the moderator is correct. Researchers found that even among stable homosexual partnerships, men have an average of eight partners per year outside their "monogamous" relationship.
In short, **** marriage will change marriage more than it will change ***.
Further, if we scramble our definition of marriage, it will soon embrace relationships that will involve more than two persons. Prominent advocates hope to use **** marriage as a wedge to abolish governmental support for traditional marriage altogether. Law Professor Martha Ertman of the University of Utah, for example, wants to render the distinction between traditional marriage and "polyamory" (group marriage) "morally neutral." She argues that greater openness to **** partnerships will help us establish this moral neutrality (Her main article on this topic, in the Winter 2001 Harvard Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review, is not available online, but she made a similar case in the Spring/Summer 2001 Duke Journal Of Gender Law & Policy). University of Michigan law professor David Chambers wrote in a widely cited 1996 Michigan Law Review piece that he expects **** marriage will lead government to be "more receptive to [marital] units of three or more" (1996 Michigan Law Review).
2. **** marriage would be bad for children. According to a recent article in Child Trends, "Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage." While **** marriage would encourage adoption of children by homosexual couples, which may be preferable to foster care, some lesbian couples want to have children through anonymous sperm donations, which means some children will be created purposely without knowledge of one of their biological parents. Research has also shown that children raised by homosexuals were more dissatisfied with their own gender, suffer a greater rate of molestation within the family, and have homosexual experiences more often.
**** marriage will also encourage teens who are unsure of their sexuality to embrace a lifestyle that suffers high rates of suicide, depression, HIV, drug abuse, STDs, and other pathogens. This is particularly alarming because, according to a 1991 scientific survey among 12-year-old boys, more than 25 percent feel uncertain about their sexual orientations. We have already seen that lesbianism is "chic" in certain elite social sectors.
Finally, acceptance of **** marriage will strengthen the notion that marriage is primarily about adult yearnings for intimacy and is not essentially connected to raising children. Children will be hurt by those who will too easily bail out of a marriage because it is not "fulfilling" to them.
3. **** marriage would be bad for society. The effects we have described above will have strong repercussions on a society that is already having trouble maintaining wholesome stability in marriage and family life. If marriage and families are the foundation for a healthy society, introducing more uncertainty and instability in them will be bad for society.
In addition, we believe that **** marriage can only be imposed by activist judges, not by the democratic will of the people. The vast majority of people define marriage as the life-long union of a man and a woman. They will strongly resist redefinition. Like the 1973 judicial activism regarding abortion, the imposition of **** marriage would bring contempt for the law and our courts in the eyes of many Americans. It would exacerbate social conflict and division in our nation, a division that is already bitter and possibly dangerous.
In summary, we believe that the introduction of **** marriage will seriously harm Americans?including those in heterosexual marriages?over the long run. Strong political measures may be necessary to maintain the traditional definition of marriage, possibly even a constitutional amendment.
Some legal entitlements sought by *** and lesbians might be addressed by recognizing non-sexually defined domestic partnerships. But as for marriage, let us keep the definition as it is, and strengthen our capacity to live up to its ideals.
Robert Benne and Gerald McDermott, who both teach religion at Roanoke College, wrote an earlier version of this article for the Public Theology Project. Viewpoints published in "Speaking Out" do not necessarily represent those of Christianity Today.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's a doublestandard, Marine, because the heterosexual marriage system has all the problems you are pointing out in homosexual marriages.
If you want to blame the failure of the sanctity of marriage on the hippies and if you want to call out hellfire as the outcome of **** marriage, that's your parrogative. But to be candid I think this is just an attempt to cram down some morals down society's throat by a group that is losing their hold on country that is entering an age of decadence.
And like I said 6 months ago it was illegal for a **** couple to be married, so I fail to see how there could be any real research on <i>stable, married</i>, **** couples adopting children.
<!--QuoteBegin-dr.d+Mar 2 2004, 12:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Mar 2 2004, 12:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It's a doublestandard, Marine, because the heterosexual marriage system has all the problems you are pointing out in homosexual marriages. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> But if the same problems are found to occur in greater frequency within the homosexual relationship - doesn't that make the homosexual couple the less preferential choice given that the odds have the heterosexual couple providing a more stable home?
Of course then the arguement turns to whether or not the frequency really IS higher, but thats where we need facts/studies. To requote Legion:
Couples who seek to adopt a child are put through a battery of physical and mental health and other checks to ensure as far as possible that they will both be around to offer good care and support to the child until he or she reaches maturity.
It is noteworthy that Australian couples are barred from adopting children if their relationship is likely to be unstable, or if health problems or their age would make them less likely to be present for the next 20 years while the child is growing up.
In Queensland, for example, the eligibility criteria for adoption applicants are specified in the Adoption of Children Regulation Act 1999. The criteria state that prospective adoptive parents must, among other things,
have been married for at least two years; not be suffering from a physical or mental condition, or have a physical or mental disability, to an extent that the person could not provide a high level of stable, long-term care for a child; be less than 36 years old (or less than 40 if they already have another child). How does the homosexual community rate on these adoption eligibility criteria?
Stability
Adoption agencies generally require applicants to be married for at least two years in an endeavour to place adopted children in a stable home environment. Studies of the impact of family breakdown on children show the effects are usually deleterious and prolonged.
Australian and overseas research shows that homosexual men are highly promiscuous and their relationships with other men are extremely unstable. For example, the Sydney **** Community Surveillance Report noted in 1998 that around 30% of the men had more than 10 casual partners in the previous six months and fewer than half had a regular relationship lasting over six months.
The 2000 report of HIV/AIDS-related behaviour in Australia noted that, at the time of the survey of the homosexual men, over 60% reported having one or more "regular partners", over 70% had casual partners; over 40% had both regular and casual partners. An earlier study of Australian homosexual men found that 23% reported a monogamous relationship, 35% a non-monogamous relationship, and 29% "casual sex only". The authors reported "there were almost as many men moving into monogamy as out of it, and out of casual-only partnerships as into them."
Long-term monogamous sexual partnerships are very rare for homosexual men. Some, like famous Australian author Patrick White, may live for many years with another homosexual man - but this type of long-term domestic arrangement often ceases to be sexual after some years, and usually involves an agreement to allow many casual sexual partners for both men. A 1994 study of homosexual men in Holland, where homosexual domestic partnerships are officially recognised, found that only 69% of such "long-term partners" actually lived together. The average number of "outside partners" per year of this type of arrangement was 2.5 in the first year, increasing to 11 in the sixth year.
US authors Bell and Weinberg, in their detailed study of homosexuality, classify the closest homosexual pairing as "close-coupled" where the numbers of casual sexual encounters outside the primary relationship are "low". Only 10% of the male and 28% of the female homosexual pairs fitted this "close-coupled" category. There was no "monogamous" category! For male and female homosexuals, whether in a "regular" relationship or not, promiscuity is the norm.
Lesbian relationships are also short-lived. Research by Johnson published in 1990 found that 50% of lesbian pairs break up within six years. In contrast, even though the divorce rate for married couples is increasing, it is approaching 50% over a lifetime (40 to 50 years), not six years. Cohabiting heterosexual couples break up faster than married ones, but not as fast as lesbians and male homosexuals. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And like I said 6 months ago it was illegal for a **** couple to be married, so I fail to see how there could be any real research on stable, married, **** couples adopting children. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We dont need that yet, though it would be nice. If homosexuals love each other and want to spend their lives together, then marriage licence or no licence they should stay together, unless you are claiming the only thing that holds people together is that little piece of paper.
What that article is arguing is that homosexual relationships seem to be instable across the board. It didnt claim it interviewed only male homosexuals out for a good time, it claimed to have interviewed them whether they be in a committed relationship or no. I think with that statement you are dancing on the edge of forum rule #5.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Mar 1 2004, 04:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Mar 1 2004, 04:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Mar 1 2004, 02:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Mar 1 2004, 02:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Do we respect alcoholic's rights to be alcoholics and destroy the lives of their entire family? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is perfectly legal. It may be damaging to society, but no one is about to tread on their rights to drink themselves into a stupor every day. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Is that right? It is right to allow someone to kill themselves, taking the well being of their family with them?
The fact that it isn't illegal doesn't make it right. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Weather its right or not doesn't matter. Its not 'right' that the KKK and Nazis get to spread their propaganda and march around spreading hate, but it is their right and I have to respect that if I want to expect the same respect of my rights.
Interesting how you went from homosexual marriage, to alchoholism, to suicide with this argument. A child raised by a normal homosexual couple will never be as damaged by that as if it had alchoholic straight parents. So what if they do slightly worse in school, if your going to ban marriage on that account you may as well ban it for people with an IQ < 110. I know, lets simplify things, lets just genetically engeneer our children from birth (when the tech is available) to be perfect, that way anyone can get married.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A child raised by a normal homosexual couple will never be as damaged by that as if it had alchoholic straight parents.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Anyone else find it strange that there are very stringent rules and a lengthy evaluation process to adopt a child, but no such thing for getting a kid the normal way?
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Mar 1 2004, 09:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Mar 1 2004, 09:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Weather its right or not doesn't matter. Its not 'right' that the KKK and Nazis get to spread their propaganda and march around spreading hate, but it is their right and I have to respect that if I want to expect the same respect of my rights. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> As coil so eloquently put in the other thread, "Your right to swing your fist through the air ends at my face."
Spreading hate is destructive. Even if hatred is socially acceptable, it is just plain wrong, and infringes on basic, intrinsic human rights.
People can believe whatever they want, but to allow them to foster a widespread, destructive, and universally <b>wrong</b> desire is nothing short of neglegence, to the point of being felonious. By allowing hate to occur, by allowing injustice to occur, we ourselves are accountable.
KFS: Ideally, yes, adoption should be handled at the case-by-case basis. But the issue here is one that addresses a <i>cornerstone of Western thought!</i> The human family has until recent times, attempted to be nuclear, monogamous, and designed to care for and protect the offspring of that family.
The studies I've cited (<i>which have not been challenged or contradicted</i>) show that the 'normal' homosexual long-term relationship is neither nuclear, nor monogamous, nor enriches and protects the children raised in the household.
It fails the purpose marriage has fulfilled for thousands of years, and we change it on the grounds that we cannot say a person's choice is wrong? People make wrong choices, they always will, and the second that we enable the implications of every one of those bad choices, will be the second that Western culture will officially go straight to hell.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As coil so eloquently put in the other thread, "Your right to swing your fist through the air ends at my face."
Spreading hate is destructive. Even if hatred is socially acceptable, it is just plain wrong, and infringes on basic, intrinsic human rights.
People can believe whatever they want, but to allow them to foster a widespread, destructive, and universally wrong desire is nothing short of neglegence, to the point of being felonious. By allowing hate to occur, by allowing injustice to occur, we ourselves are accountable.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again the homosexual lifestyle is neither hateful or harmful, despite what you believe and our trying to convince us of, there are responsible **** couples.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->KFS: Ideally, yes, adoption should be handled at the case-by-case basis. But the issue here is one that addresses a cornerstone of Western thought! The human family has until recent times, attempted to be nuclear, monogamous, and designed to care for and protect the offspring of that family.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's nothing ideal about current adoption procedures. You either A.) go to a private adoption agency who give kids to whoever they want or B.) go through foster care who give kids to whoever want them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The studies I've cited (which have not been challenged or contradicted) show that the 'normal' homosexual long-term relationship is neither nuclear, nor monogamous, nor enriches and protects the children raised in the household.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In my mind those studies are the same thing as getting statistics for intergalactic travel, it just hasn't happened yet and at this point is all theories, I don't work in child development so I can't offer anything to argue them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It fails the purpose marriage has fulfilled for thousands of years, and we change it on the grounds that we cannot say a person's choice is wrong? People make wrong choices, they always will, and the second that we enable the implications of every one of those bad choices, will be the second that Western culture will officially go straight to hell. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1000 years ago parents were trading their kids off for cattle, and you married whoever was socially and economically acceptable for you, arranged marriages were probably unfallable back then, I'm sure people couldn't concieve of two willing partners marrying whoever they wanted back then...guess people still can't.
I fail to see how marriage makes up for even half of Western culture much less a corner stone of it. Imperalism, Captalism, Industrialism maybe, but marriage hardly. Until you can prove all **** couples are Communist Anarchist Neo-fascists I wont worry about **** marriage rocking Western culture too much.
What's all this talk about approving **** marriage being individualist anyway? This comming from a country that hates Communism with a burning passion and preaches entrapranuerism and investing like gospil. This country's economic structure is founded on individulaism, this country's goverment is run by the people for the people supposedly, and yet when it comes to **** marriage we are being greedy? Double standards, double standards and even more double standards.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Mar 1 2004, 07:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Mar 1 2004, 07:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Of course then the arguement turns to whether or not the frequency really IS higher, but thats where we need facts/studies. To requote Legion:
Lesbian relationships are also short-lived. Research by Johnson published in 1990 found that 50% of lesbian pairs break up within six years. In contrast, even though the divorce rate for married couples is increasing, it is approaching 50% over a lifetime (40 to 50 years), not six years. Cohabiting heterosexual couples break up faster than married ones, but not as fast as lesbians and male homosexuals. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I appreciate the fact that you guys are trying to at least present material that isn't straight from the bible. With that said...
I found some serious problems with this study. The quoted part I left is one such example. What the study won't tell you is that the <b> first 43 % of the 50 % of heterosexual marriages that end up in divorce - "over a lifetime" - take place within the first fifteen years ! </b> So while technically their statement may be true it is in reality very, very misleading.
So you have 43% ending up in divorce within the first fifteen years. Common sense tells you that chances are the marriage won't be particularly happy for all 15 years either. So who is to say what sort of home-life/stability a marriage such as this really provides ? How many marriages now stay together "simply for the kids" as opposed to providing a loving/stable home ?
And then you run into other problems such as: How many of the "promiscuous" homosexual men are interested in raising children ? Would they be willing to change their lifestyle for their child ? How were the men selected for the study ? Are they a fair representation of all homosexual men ? The list of questions is long.
<!--QuoteBegin-FilthyLarry+Mar 2 2004, 05:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ Mar 2 2004, 05:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And then you run into other problems such as: How many of the "promiscuous" homosexual men are interested in raising children ? Would they be willing to change their lifestyle for their child ? How were the men selected for the study ? Are they a fair representation of all homosexual men ? The list of questions is long. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> According to this, they interviewed homosexual men in general, not just the promiscuous. Pretty much the bottom line of the article, homosexual men are in general FAR more promiscuous than heterosexual men, even when they claim to be in a "committed relationship".
"Would they be willing to change their lifestyle for their child?" is a fair enough question, and it would appear that across society (not just the homosexuals) the answer is a resounding NO! Quit my job to take care of kids? WTH!!!!1!11 nevar!
I think in general its easier to continue your lifestyle and take care of your child rather then change what seems to be the norm for homosexual men and undergo a revolution of behaviour simply to take care of children. The changes required once children enter the equation are drastic enough without a complete morality shift.
The last two questions are really a request for sources. On the webpage Legion quoted, it said sources where available on request, so I have sent them an email asking for it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In my mind those studies are the same thing as getting statistics for intergalactic travel, it just hasn't happened yet and at this point is all theories, I don't work in child development so I can't offer anything to argue them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll say it again. The studies are claiming that homosexual relationships are highly unstable across the board. Be they in a "committed relationship" or having casual sex with anyone promiscurity seems to be the general rule. A high chance of promiscurity is in no way conducive to a stable home. Therefore the article makes the connection that homosexuals are far more likely to be promiscuous even when in long term relationships, and as such will provide a less stable home then the average heterosexual couple.
You might disagree with that connection, but you are not exactly bowling me over with decent arguements as to how the connection is invalid. Larry's at least making an attempt rather than the "fingers in ears, eyes tightly shut" method favoured by others in this thread.
The fact that you dont work in child development in no way excuses you from needing an arguement. I didnt work in the US military but felt I could comment on the Iraqi war. I'm not a muslim in France but felt I could comment on headscarves. I'm sure there are heaps of topics where you arent a professional in that field but have commented on. If you really dont know, then perhaps research is in order.
Well I've stated my argument about why I think those studies are not enough to ban g4y marriage but they have been ignored, or dismissed I'm not sure which.
I'll restate them in short once more. **** marriage and legal adoption are not an institution in America at present, so any studies about the subject at present are biased if not skewed by social standards, when and if these institutions become common in the US a study on their harm and/or good can be done and the findings can be used to revoked any rights previously granted, but any moves to preemptively remove those rights is unconstitutional.
<!--QuoteBegin-dr.d+Mar 2 2004, 08:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Mar 2 2004, 08:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'll restate them in short once more. **** marriage and legal adoption are not an institution in America at present, so any studies about the subject at present are biased if not skewed by social standards, when and if these institutions become common in the US a study on their harm and/or good can be done and the findings can be used to revoked any rights previously granted, but any moves to preemptively remove those rights is unconstitutional. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Claiming they are biased and skewed is a lot different to pointing out where and specifically how. Please, I cant defend the article if you refuse to actually attack it specifically. If your reason is because homosexual marriages aren't currently allowed, then I've already countered that or so I believe.
If homosexuals wish to live in a monogamous, stable relationship, then they dont need a small piece of paper from the government saying they are married in order for it to happen. However, it would appear that monogamy is the highly rare exception amongst the homosexual community, according to that article - <b>even amongst those homosexuals claiming to be in a committed relationship</b>.
To claim you have to let something happen before you can determine if its a good thing or not is also flawed. Its a little akin to introducing oversea's species to your environment. "How can you know caintoads will be bad for Australia's environment if you havent actually tried them?" Its possible that they ARE bad/harmful, and once you let them in getting rid of them will be virtually impossible. You dont have to try everything to figure out some things are bad.
I'm not an American, so I'm not 100% up on your constitution. Could you show me the section where it claims prevention of certain rights is unconstitutional (this isnt a challenge, I'd just like to know where its claiming this)
Those studies arent supporting the ban of g4y marriage, they simply exist to show that almost all we have viewed of current homosexual cohabitation is instability and promiscurity. From there they make the jump that allowing homosexual couples to adopt is probably a bad idea, given that even with the conventional marriage relationship in crisis, homosexual parents may be even less stable then that.
Revoking rights is a hell of a lot harder than granting them, and we both know it. The battle is over once this becomes law. Take a look at euthanasia in Holland. It became legally acceptable, and since there have been large numbers of alarming reports including the claim that 1/5 assisted suicides is without consent, yet it still remains law.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Basically, Amendment I puts direct limitations on the powers of government, and Amendment IX states that those aren't the only rights people have.
It is worth noting, even the Civil Rights act of 1964 only reffers to business and government practices, specifically to voting restrictions.
Most other "rights" have been decided through Supreme Court cases, Roe vs. Wade for abortion, for example.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
Actually, now I'm a bit curious as to where the AUS gov't held that study.. or more precisely, from where they drew their results.
Obviously, you're going to get a much higher 'non-monogamous' percentage, homosexual or straight, if you hold the survey at a bar or nightclub. Many 'G*y Alliance' chapters honestly act as little beyond a meat market.
What they really should poll is the number of homosexual couples who HAVE adopted in the states that allow it in regards to monogamy. Or going beyond that, simple stability of the home/child. Which would be quite amusing if a child from a polyamourous household, with more role models/parental supervision/emotional support actually measured higher than the stereotypical Post-Nuclear American Family.
On a side note. Please keep all discussions relating to zoophilia, paedophilia (or actualized: child abuse), vorarephilia, lubophilia, coprophilia, and so on OUT of this thread. Thenk yew.
KungFuSquirrelBasher of MuttonsJoin Date: 2002-01-26Member: 103Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Mar 1 2004, 10:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Mar 1 2004, 10:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> KFS: Ideally, yes, adoption should be handled at the case-by-case basis. But the issue here is one that addresses a <i>cornerstone of Western thought!</i> The human family has until recent times, attempted to be nuclear, monogamous, and designed to care for and protect the offspring of that family. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, I'm not for a second saying that this is just a quick and easy change. There will be substantial resistance however it turns out. However, cornerstones have been shattered before and cornerstones will be shattered again. "That's just the way it is" doesn't seem to be enough in my mind.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The studies I've cited (<i>which have not been challenged or contradicted</i>) show that the 'normal' homosexual long-term relationship is neither nuclear, nor monogamous, nor enriches and protects the children raised in the household.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now, I could be entirely wrong here, and please correct me if I am, but from what my reading these studies, they seem to be comparing married heterosexual couples to the broad spectrum of all homosexual couples. If I'm reading this correctly, is this not a bit skewed? There is no equivalent definition of marriage, so we're taking a sample of all homosexual couples vs. married couples? Even in just a long-term relationship scenario (say, for the sake of argument, 2 years as cited as a minimum requirement for adoption), what happens when you add in non-married heterosexual relationships of 2 years or more? Dating, engaged, and cohabiting couples... Suddenly the numbers may be strikingly different.
On top of that, I think we all agree that there's a lot to a word, particularly that of "marriage." Regardless of sexual orientation, marriage is a word that implies love, commitment, friendship, and family. These homosexual relationships studied are under no marriage banner. As I believe someone else pointed out, what happens when they are? There is no benchmark for what would happen with homosexual couples taking that extra level of commitment.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It fails the purpose marriage has fulfilled for thousands of years, and we change it on the grounds that we cannot say a person's choice is wrong?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, the choice bit comes into play, then the judgment of that choice. Now, I'll admit, there's not a whole lot of evidence either way, and there are even some people who do make a conscious choice on the matter - but that generally constitutes bisexuality or general sexual experimentation. I've said something along these lines before - when I see homosexuality welcomed with accepting arms in the whole of society, I'll believe it's a choice. When I stop hearing everyone's story about some distant family member who, from early childhood, showed tendencies as such, I'll believe it's a choice. When I no longer see people struggle for years trying to deal with their sexuality, I'll believe it's a choice. When "for-show" marriages and other instances of homosexuals living lies to shield themselves from the rest of society end completely, I'll believe it's a choice. These are not behaviors that indicate any sort of "hey, this might be cool" decision at any point in their lives. I'm not saying there's a magic homosexual gene that gets turned on and off, nor that it is hereditary or any other assumptions like that, but common sense alone would seem to indicate that there is far more at work, whether psychologically, physiologically, biologically, or socialogically.
Comments
If this is the bottom line of the arguement, then it appears that Legion has answered the challenge, but did so by creating a separate thread on morality without religion rather than taking this thread completely off topic. Maybe not completely offtopic, but the original purpose would quickly be forgotten <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
To bring a little of the other thread over to here - full moral systems cannot exist for anything more than the indivual (or so I would have you believe <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->). Further more, moral systems have nothing to do with law (or so our mutual friend moultano would have you believe). There is no link between the common morality of the majority of society, or full moral system as you put it, and actual law.
I think thats what moultano was trying to claim, but I havent finished formulating my reply so stay tuned for the next thrilling episode!
Basically, if what I quoted above is the bottom line of your arguement, well its being thrashed out in the morality thread right now so feel free to come on over...
Othell, same questions?
C'mon, guys. Don't slink off just as the conversation starts to get <i>interesting</i>! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Tal, I think you'll find that responding to a challenge on an internet forum falls near the lower end of my priority list. I've had school papers to write, opportunities to hang out with members of the opposite sex, not to mention a teaching for my youth group I had to put together.
Rest assured, I haven't forsaken the thread, just have had one of the busyest weeks in my recent memory. Calm down, and please, don't taunt me.
Now then, a secular moral system that would accept homosexuality as wrong?
Well, you got me there. I can't invent a system of morals that has any relevance at all unless it first asserts that humanity is worth protecting. Due to my own beliefs expressed in the other thread I linked to, I can't honestly attach a value to humanity arbitrarily like that.
Now, assuming that something has given humanity value however, that must be protected, I can begin to postulate an arguement. Fill this critical step in with whatever you want, God, chance.. whatever. It's an argument for the other thread, to which I will shortly be returning.
If 1 human has value, that 5 humans would have 5 times the value, and 25 men 5 times the value still. So then, assuming that humanity has any value at all, the idea of "greatest good for the greatest number" must be what we must strive for.
Now, for "greatest good," we hope that we have the greatest number of people possible above the poverty line before we start delving into affluence. A society where everyone is equally worse off, but still able to survive is better than a society where a few people are living decadently, but the majority of people are impoverished would be inferior.
With that in mind, the "greatest good for the greatest many" theory would seek to place every person in a state of normality, where they would be taught the skills to make enough money to live off, while still being content emotionally.
In the emotional/personal happiness sense, there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. It does not infringe on the happiness or well-being of others, and the health risks are purely as a result of the free choice of those who participate in it.
However, it is homosexual adoption that I have a serious problem with.
<!--QuoteBegin-http://www.hoselton.net/religion/hwa/booklets/ptchild/part2.htm+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://www.hoselton.net/religion/hwa/booklets/ptchild/part2.htm)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"These qualities, of course, are transmitted to the child only if they are exemplified and taught within the family circle. By way of contrast, homes broken by death, desertion, divorce, separation, neglect, or immorality stamp their imprint on the developing personality. The products of these homes, unguided and unsupervised children who seldom receive needed love and attention, develop distorted attitudes and may easily engage in antisocial behavior. These products of ADULT NEGLIGENCE have become easy recruits in an already vast army of youthful offenders."
What a remarkably accurate analysis. And what a clear picture of the cause of disobedient and delinquent children.
Bear in mind the delinquent is the youth who has actually run afoul of the law. Bear in mind, also, that the lack of government, the lack of love and respect, the misery in a home becomes evident to the public only when it is officially broken by divorce, then "counted" among broken homes.
Again, let us restate the vitally important fact that these general conditions, the underlying disrespect for authority, the lack of government, constitutes a broad picture of the majority of all homes today"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And,
<!--QuoteBegin-http://www.family.org.au/journal/2001/j20010728.html+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://www.family.org.au/journal/2001/j20010728.html)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<b>Criteria for good parenting</b>
Couples who seek to adopt a child are put through a battery of physical and mental health and other checks to ensure as far as possible that they will both be around to offer good care and support to the child until he or she reaches maturity.
It is noteworthy that Australian couples are barred from adopting children if their relationship is likely to be unstable, or if health problems or their age would make them less likely to be present for the next 20 years while the child is growing up.
In Queensland, for example, the eligibility criteria for adoption applicants are specified in the Adoption of Children Regulation Act 1999. The criteria state that prospective adoptive parents must, among other things,
have been married for at least two years;
not be suffering from a physical or mental condition, or have a physical or mental disability, to an extent that the person could not provide a high level of stable, long-term care for a child;
be less than 36 years old (or less than 40 if they already have another child).
How does the homosexual community rate on these adoption eligibility criteria?
<b>Stability</b>
Adoption agencies generally require applicants to be married for at least two years in an endeavour to place adopted children in a stable home environment. Studies of the impact of family breakdown on children show the effects are usually deleterious and prolonged.
Australian and overseas research shows that homosexual men are highly promiscuous and their relationships with other men are extremely unstable. For example, the Sydney **** Community Surveillance Report noted in 1998 that around 30% of the men had more than 10 casual partners in the previous six months and fewer than half had a regular relationship lasting over six months.
The 2000 report of HIV/AIDS-related behaviour in Australia noted that, at the time of the survey of the homosexual men, over 60% reported having one or more "regular partners", over 70% had casual partners; over 40% had both regular and casual partners. An earlier study of Australian homosexual men found that 23% reported a monogamous relationship, 35% a non-monogamous relationship, and 29% "casual sex only". The authors reported "there were almost as many men moving into monogamy as out of it, and out of casual-only partnerships as into them."
Long-term monogamous sexual partnerships are very rare for homosexual men. Some, like famous Australian author Patrick White, may live for many years with another homosexual man - but this type of long-term domestic arrangement often ceases to be sexual after some years, and usually involves an agreement to allow many casual sexual partners for both men. A 1994 study of homosexual men in Holland, where homosexual domestic partnerships are officially recognised, found that only 69% of such "long-term partners" actually lived together. The average number of "outside partners" per year of this type of arrangement was 2.5 in the first year, increasing to 11 in the sixth year.
US authors Bell and Weinberg, in their detailed study of homosexuality, classify the closest homosexual pairing as "close-coupled" where the numbers of casual sexual encounters outside the primary relationship are "low". Only 10% of the male and 28% of the female homosexual pairs fitted this "close-coupled" category. There was no "monogamous" category! For male and female homosexuals, whether in a "regular" relationship or not, promiscuity is the norm.
Lesbian relationships are also short-lived. Research by Johnson published in 1990 found that 50% of lesbian pairs break up within six years. In contrast, even though the divorce rate for married couples is increasing, it is approaching 50% over a lifetime (40 to 50 years), not six years. Cohabiting heterosexual couples break up faster than married ones, but not as fast as lesbians and male homosexuals.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Statistically, a homosexual union will not be as "close-coupled" and thus, more prone to becoming a, to use a somewhat cliche'd phrase, "broken home."
72% of all juvinile deliquents come from a broken home, and the money spent on feeding and sheltering them is staggering.
So, not only are we, by allowing homosexual union, taking steps to legalize homosexual adoption, which, logically, will increase the ammount of kids with mental and emotional disorders.
That is a gross violation of the "greatest good for the greatest many" that I established earlyer, on completely secular orgins.
Why do you act as though it isn't already legal? Go ask Dan Savage and his partner about their kid. It may only be allowed in some states (New York, California, ect..) but it is legal. Allowing states to marry homosexuals would have little (if any) affect on their ability to adopt in states that currently don't allow it.
Of course, I'd much rather see homosexual marriages legalized at a federal level, as I'm sure a good deal of people would.
Liberal Dread: Yeah, it's all been said before, I don't think there's any reason to ban homsexuals from marrying.
Conservative Dread: I see that the basic argument is "There are homosexuals among humans and animals, hence it's natural"
So I want ask, if a a guy wants to have a relationship with a chimpanzee(and I'm not talking about spanking his monkey), would that be natural and acceptable? Afterall, it's happening in the wild life(for example horse/donkey/mule thing) and among humans.
Meh, I hate ethical debates.
Meh, I hate ethical debates. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. Chimpanzees and animals in general are incapable of giving consent.
The "It happens in wildlife" argument is there to refute claims that homosexuality isn't natural.
Gee, I'm a Nazi now? Thanks Hawkeye.
The fact is, I'm not arguing against homosexual adoption because I don't like it or because I have a predjudice against it, I'm arguing against it because statistically, I've seen results of studies that has shown that that may be a danger to children raised in that kind of household. As I've stated before, if someone wants to post some studies to the contrary, then I'll drop my argument right here.
Do we allow someone who likes to set fire to building as a way of personal expression to do so? Do we respect alcoholic's rights to be alcoholics and destroy the lives of their entire family?
Behavior stops being acceptable once it becomes even potentially socially destructive.
Granted, whether it is right or wrong is an entirely different issue. I would say those that aren't christian are wrong, but I'm not going to deprive others the right of believing in what they want to believe in. I do not think a same sex couple would face any less trouble with their children than a mixed race couple and their children. I also think that if you're worried about the health of the child, first I'd think about those children getting beaten up by their drunk dad before I'd worry about that.
And sorry Legionnaired. You're not a Nazi.
Taking your non relegious moral code into account that the "greater good for humanity" is all that matters, then **** adoption might be a more moral cause than current foster care systems. Since they have been around for decades and have numerous reports of abuse, neglect, and thngs much worse than lowered grades in school, **** couples adopting might be a better alternative than forced foster care.
Just as you can speculate in a pessemistic way about what effects **** adoption will have on children, I can give counterpoints just as easily. But the only way to know for sure is to let it happen, so yet again it is no grounds for making **** marriage illlegal.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is perfectly legal. It may be damaging to society, but no one is about to tread on their rights to drink themselves into a stupor every day.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is perfectly legal. It may be damaging to society, but no one is about to tread on their rights to drink themselves into a stupor every day. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is that right? It is right to allow someone to kill themselves, taking the well being of their family with them?
The fact that it isn't illegal doesn't make it right. Hell, we didn't have anti-lynching laws in this country in some states until after FDR, and slavery was around for hundreds of years before it was banned.
Yes it is unfortunate when kids suffer trauma, but it happens in every income and social level in every part of the world. Some people are good parents, some people are bad parents, and the bottom line is there should be no double standard for **** individuals.
If a certain type of union is determined less stable than the norm, then why would you advocate sending children there? Unless you disagree that it is less stable, in which case you are going to need some studies/reports etc to answer Legion's.
There are double standards in society all the time. Why is the peadophile not allowed near a school while you are? Because it has been deemed that having you near a school is not a risk, while having him near one is. If it would appear the homosexual family is less stable, then I can understand why we would implement a double standard in allowing adoption.
I'm sure 50 years ago being the child of a interracial couple was traumatic and against the norm, 100 years ago having a mother who worked was extremly abnormal and probably damaging to children. Things that are labeled abnormal by society will be abnormal until they are no longer labeled as such.
Again pedophillia is considered an act of violence much like rape, It's really disconcerning to keep seeing you go to the well of comparing homosexuals to violent criminals again and again, especialy when I know your capable of much more in a discussion.
I personally feel that advocating abstinenance is psychologically harmful to children and leads to crimes like arsin, child/spouse abuse, increased risk of VDs and STDs, and suicide. I'm sure Marine, Legion, and MedHead wouldn't take kindly to me saying Catholics shouldn't be allowed to have children because teaching abstinence is traumatic to children.
Here's a thought to ponder... What if the reason there is more risk for a child to be damaged in a homosexual parent environment (for the sake of argument, in this example, let's assume this to be fully true) is simply the burden of dealing with the general population viewing said parents as a threat, causing emotional conflict and despair within the child? Or perhaps an instability in the couple itself resulting in a split is also a result of the stress of dealing with the prejudice against them? So then, would it not be possible that as a result of this, homosexual parents would continue to be seen as a "threat" in an endless cycle of hate and/or fear?
I'm not going to sit here and tell you to like the idea of homosexual marriage or adoption or anything else because I don't think that's the point. The point is, whether you like it or not, they are still human beings and entitled to equal privleges as other human beings. It doesn't even matter if I like or don't like or support or don't support it, I feel that the only important matter is I respect their right to do so. This isn't drug abuse or violence, this is two people who love each other wanting to raise a family. Homosexual couples wishing to adopt should have the same rights and standards to meet as any heterosexual couple.
The parallels between this and previous racism and sexism is downright chilling at points - replace the term "****" or "homosexual" throughout this thread with "african american," "asian," or "hispanic," and where does that leave us? No, homosexuals do not constitute a race, but that's not the point. The point is we're sitting here discussing the rights of fully functioning and valuable members of society. The only wrong being committed here as I see it is assuming that a huge percentage of this planet's population is damaging society and a threat - the only damage I see being done comes from those determined to spread discrimination, hatred, bigotry, and/or fear. Justify it how you will, that's what it boils down to, whether on a personal, religious, or societal level.
Whew. That was supposed to be a one or two sentence hypothetical question. Eep.
The instability doesnt appear to be projected. Legion posted some quotes/links there halfway down page 6 on homosexual promiscurity even amongst those with "long term partners". It would seem he is bringing facts/studies to the table, so to claim these are merely projected seems a little odd to me....
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm sure 50 years ago being the child of a interracial couple was traumatic and against the norm, 100 years ago having a mother who worked was extremly abnormal and probably damaging to children. Things that are labeled abnormal by society will be abnormal until they are no longer labeled as such.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And some things 50 years ago were considered traumatic and against the law and still are. Simply because perceptions of certain things change doesnt automatically mean everything should be accepted.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Again pedophillia is considered an act of violence much like rape, It's really disconcerning to keep seeing you go to the well of comparing homosexuals to violent criminals again and again, especialy when I know your capable of much more in a discussion.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again the point is missed in order to attempt to pin vilification on the other side. The point of that was NOT that homosexuals are dangerous deviants, the point was that double standards exist in society and are accepted as normal. To claim "its a double standard" and use it as a standalone arguement for why homosexuals are getting the rough end of the stick is flawed. Simply because a double stand exists does not automatically mean something is unfair.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I personally feel that advocating abstinenance is psychologically harmful to children and leads to crimes like arsin, child/spouse abuse, increased risk of VDs and STDs, and suicide. I'm sure Marine, Legion, and MedHead wouldn't take kindly to me saying Catholics shouldn't be allowed to have children because teaching abstinence is traumatic to children.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are more than welcome to feel that way, and you are more than welcome to attempt to make a case of it. We might not like the eventual conclusion, but all that means is we are going to have to find a way to rebut.
Here is an article from the "completely unbiased <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->" website Christianity Today. Some of what they say I agree with, some of it I dont. I did find suspect some of the resources that they quote as saying something, but when I click the link it doesnt seem all as clear cut as they make out but still, have a read.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Speaking Out: Why **** Marriage Would Be Harmful
Institutionalizing homosexual marriage would be bad for marriage, bad for children, and bad for society.
By Robert Benne and Gerald McDermott | posted 02/19/2004
Now that the Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled that marriage be open to *** and lesbians, it is time to consider the question that pops up more than mushrooms after a spring rain. How would the legalization of **** marriage harm current and future heterosexual marriages?
The answer at first glance is that it wouldn't, at least not in individual cases in the short run. But what about the longer run for everyone?
It is a superficial kind of individualism that does not recognize the power of emerging social trends that often start with only a few individuals bucking conventional patterns of behavior. Negative social trends start with only a few aberrations. Gradually, however, social sanctions weaken and individual aberrations became a torrent.
Think back to the 1960s, when illegitimacy and cohabitation were relatively rare. At that time many asked how one young woman having a baby out of wedlock or living with an unmarried man could hurt their neighbors. Now we know the negative social effects these two living arrangements have spawned: lower marriage rates, more instability in the marriages that are enacted, more fatherless children, increased rates of domestic violence and poverty, and a vast expansion of welfare state expenses.
But even so, why would a new social trend of *** marrying have negative effects? We believe there are compelling reasons why the institutionalization of **** marriage would be 1) bad for marriage, 2) bad for children, and 3) bad for society.
1. The first casualty of the acceptance of **** marriage would be the very definition of marriage itself. For thousands of years and in every Western society marriage has meant the life-long union of a man and a woman. Such a statement about marriage is what philosophers call an analytic proposition. The concept of marriage necessarily includes the idea of a man and woman committing themselves to each other. Any other arrangement contradicts the basic definition. Advocates of **** marriage recognize this contradiction by proposing "**** unions" instead, but this distinction is, we believe, a strategic one. The ultimate goal for them is the societal acceptance of **** marriage.
Scrambling the definition of marriage will be a shock to our fundamental understanding of human social relations and institutions. One effect will be that sexual fidelity will be detached from the commitment of marriage. The advocates of **** marriage themselves admit as much. "Among **** male relationships, the openness of the contract makes it more likely to survive than many heterosexual bonds," Andrew Sullivan, the most eloquent proponent of **** marriage, wrote in his 1996 book, Virtually Normal. "There is more likely to be a greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman. ? Something of the **** relationship's necessary honesty, its flexibility, and its equality could undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds."
The former moderator of the Metropolitan Community Church, a largely homosexual denomination, made the same point. "Monogamy is not a word the **** community uses," Troy Perry told The Dallas Morning News. "We talk about fidelity. That means you live in a loving, caring, honest relationship with your partner. Because we can't marry, we have people with widely varying opinions as to what that means. Some would say that committed couples could have multiple sexual partners as long as there's no deception."
A recent study from the Netherlands, where **** marriage is legal, suggests that the moderator is correct. Researchers found that even among stable homosexual partnerships, men have an average of eight partners per year outside their "monogamous" relationship.
In short, **** marriage will change marriage more than it will change ***.
Further, if we scramble our definition of marriage, it will soon embrace relationships that will involve more than two persons. Prominent advocates hope to use **** marriage as a wedge to abolish governmental support for traditional marriage altogether. Law Professor Martha Ertman of the University of Utah, for example, wants to render the distinction between traditional marriage and "polyamory" (group marriage) "morally neutral." She argues that greater openness to **** partnerships will help us establish this moral neutrality (Her main article on this topic, in the Winter 2001 Harvard Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review, is not available online, but she made a similar case in the Spring/Summer 2001 Duke Journal Of Gender Law & Policy). University of Michigan law professor David Chambers wrote in a widely cited 1996 Michigan Law Review piece that he expects **** marriage will lead government to be "more receptive to [marital] units of three or more" (1996 Michigan Law Review).
2. **** marriage would be bad for children. According to a recent article in Child Trends, "Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage." While **** marriage would encourage adoption of children by homosexual couples, which may be preferable to foster care, some lesbian couples want to have children through anonymous sperm donations, which means some children will be created purposely without knowledge of one of their biological parents. Research has also shown that children raised by homosexuals were more dissatisfied with their own gender, suffer a greater rate of molestation within the family, and have homosexual experiences more often.
**** marriage will also encourage teens who are unsure of their sexuality to embrace a lifestyle that suffers high rates of suicide, depression, HIV, drug abuse, STDs, and other pathogens. This is particularly alarming because, according to a 1991 scientific survey among 12-year-old boys, more than 25 percent feel uncertain about their sexual orientations. We have already seen that lesbianism is "chic" in certain elite social sectors.
Finally, acceptance of **** marriage will strengthen the notion that marriage is primarily about adult yearnings for intimacy and is not essentially connected to raising children. Children will be hurt by those who will too easily bail out of a marriage because it is not "fulfilling" to them.
3. **** marriage would be bad for society. The effects we have described above will have strong repercussions on a society that is already having trouble maintaining wholesome stability in marriage and family life. If marriage and families are the foundation for a healthy society, introducing more uncertainty and instability in them will be bad for society.
In addition, we believe that **** marriage can only be imposed by activist judges, not by the democratic will of the people. The vast majority of people define marriage as the life-long union of a man and a woman. They will strongly resist redefinition. Like the 1973 judicial activism regarding abortion, the imposition of **** marriage would bring contempt for the law and our courts in the eyes of many Americans. It would exacerbate social conflict and division in our nation, a division that is already bitter and possibly dangerous.
In summary, we believe that the introduction of **** marriage will seriously harm Americans?including those in heterosexual marriages?over the long run. Strong political measures may be necessary to maintain the traditional definition of marriage, possibly even a constitutional amendment.
Some legal entitlements sought by *** and lesbians might be addressed by recognizing non-sexually defined domestic partnerships. But as for marriage, let us keep the definition as it is, and strengthen our capacity to live up to its ideals.
Robert Benne and Gerald McDermott, who both teach religion at Roanoke College, wrote an earlier version of this article for the Public Theology Project. Viewpoints published in "Speaking Out" do not necessarily represent those of Christianity Today.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you want to blame the failure of the sanctity of marriage on the hippies and if you want to call out hellfire as the outcome of **** marriage, that's your parrogative. But to be candid I think this is just an attempt to cram down some morals down society's throat by a group that is losing their hold on country that is entering an age of decadence.
And like I said 6 months ago it was illegal for a **** couple to be married, so I fail to see how there could be any real research on <i>stable, married</i>, **** couples adopting children.
But if the same problems are found to occur in greater frequency within the homosexual relationship - doesn't that make the homosexual couple the less preferential choice given that the odds have the heterosexual couple providing a more stable home?
Of course then the arguement turns to whether or not the frequency really IS higher, but thats where we need facts/studies. To requote Legion:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->QUOTE (http://www.family.org.au/journal/2001/j20010728.html)
Criteria for good parenting
Couples who seek to adopt a child are put through a battery of physical and mental health and other checks to ensure as far as possible that they will both be around to offer good care and support to the child until he or she reaches maturity.
It is noteworthy that Australian couples are barred from adopting children if their relationship is likely to be unstable, or if health problems or their age would make them less likely to be present for the next 20 years while the child is growing up.
In Queensland, for example, the eligibility criteria for adoption applicants are specified in the Adoption of Children Regulation Act 1999. The criteria state that prospective adoptive parents must, among other things,
have been married for at least two years;
not be suffering from a physical or mental condition, or have a physical or mental disability, to an extent that the person could not provide a high level of stable, long-term care for a child;
be less than 36 years old (or less than 40 if they already have another child).
How does the homosexual community rate on these adoption eligibility criteria?
Stability
Adoption agencies generally require applicants to be married for at least two years in an endeavour to place adopted children in a stable home environment. Studies of the impact of family breakdown on children show the effects are usually deleterious and prolonged.
Australian and overseas research shows that homosexual men are highly promiscuous and their relationships with other men are extremely unstable. For example, the Sydney **** Community Surveillance Report noted in 1998 that around 30% of the men had more than 10 casual partners in the previous six months and fewer than half had a regular relationship lasting over six months.
The 2000 report of HIV/AIDS-related behaviour in Australia noted that, at the time of the survey of the homosexual men, over 60% reported having one or more "regular partners", over 70% had casual partners; over 40% had both regular and casual partners. An earlier study of Australian homosexual men found that 23% reported a monogamous relationship, 35% a non-monogamous relationship, and 29% "casual sex only". The authors reported "there were almost as many men moving into monogamy as out of it, and out of casual-only partnerships as into them."
Long-term monogamous sexual partnerships are very rare for homosexual men. Some, like famous Australian author Patrick White, may live for many years with another homosexual man - but this type of long-term domestic arrangement often ceases to be sexual after some years, and usually involves an agreement to allow many casual sexual partners for both men. A 1994 study of homosexual men in Holland, where homosexual domestic partnerships are officially recognised, found that only 69% of such "long-term partners" actually lived together. The average number of "outside partners" per year of this type of arrangement was 2.5 in the first year, increasing to 11 in the sixth year.
US authors Bell and Weinberg, in their detailed study of homosexuality, classify the closest homosexual pairing as "close-coupled" where the numbers of casual sexual encounters outside the primary relationship are "low". Only 10% of the male and 28% of the female homosexual pairs fitted this "close-coupled" category. There was no "monogamous" category! For male and female homosexuals, whether in a "regular" relationship or not, promiscuity is the norm.
Lesbian relationships are also short-lived. Research by Johnson published in 1990 found that 50% of lesbian pairs break up within six years. In contrast, even though the divorce rate for married couples is increasing, it is approaching 50% over a lifetime (40 to 50 years), not six years. Cohabiting heterosexual couples break up faster than married ones, but not as fast as lesbians and male homosexuals.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And like I said 6 months ago it was illegal for a **** couple to be married, so I fail to see how there could be any real research on stable, married, **** couples adopting children. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We dont need that yet, though it would be nice. If homosexuals love each other and want to spend their lives together, then marriage licence or no licence they should stay together, unless you are claiming the only thing that holds people together is that little piece of paper.
What that article is arguing is that homosexual relationships seem to be instable across the board. It didnt claim it interviewed only male homosexuals out for a good time, it claimed to have interviewed them whether they be in a committed relationship or no. I think with that statement you are dancing on the edge of forum rule #5.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is perfectly legal. It may be damaging to society, but no one is about to tread on their rights to drink themselves into a stupor every day. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is that right? It is right to allow someone to kill themselves, taking the well being of their family with them?
The fact that it isn't illegal doesn't make it right. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Weather its right or not doesn't matter. Its not 'right' that the KKK and Nazis get to spread their propaganda and march around spreading hate, but it is their right and I have to respect that if I want to expect the same respect of my rights.
Interesting how you went from homosexual marriage, to alchoholism, to suicide with this argument. A child raised by a normal homosexual couple will never be as damaged by that as if it had alchoholic straight parents. So what if they do slightly worse in school, if your going to ban marriage on that account you may as well ban it for people with an IQ < 110. I know, lets simplify things, lets just genetically engeneer our children from birth (when the tech is available) to be perfect, that way anyone can get married.
Anyone else find it strange that there are very stringent rules and a lengthy evaluation process to adopt a child, but no such thing for getting a kid the normal way?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
As coil so eloquently put in the other thread, "Your right to swing your fist through the air ends at my face."
Spreading hate is destructive. Even if hatred is socially acceptable, it is just plain wrong, and infringes on basic, intrinsic human rights.
People can believe whatever they want, but to allow them to foster a widespread, destructive, and universally <b>wrong</b> desire is nothing short of neglegence, to the point of being felonious. By allowing hate to occur, by allowing injustice to occur, we ourselves are accountable.
KFS: Ideally, yes, adoption should be handled at the case-by-case basis. But the issue here is one that addresses a <i>cornerstone of Western thought!</i> The human family has until recent times, attempted to be nuclear, monogamous, and designed to care for and protect the offspring of that family.
The studies I've cited (<i>which have not been challenged or contradicted</i>) show that the 'normal' homosexual long-term relationship is neither nuclear, nor monogamous, nor enriches and protects the children raised in the household.
It fails the purpose marriage has fulfilled for thousands of years, and we change it on the grounds that we cannot say a person's choice is wrong? People make wrong choices, they always will, and the second that we enable the implications of every one of those bad choices, will be the second that Western culture will officially go straight to hell.
Spreading hate is destructive. Even if hatred is socially acceptable, it is just plain wrong, and infringes on basic, intrinsic human rights.
People can believe whatever they want, but to allow them to foster a widespread, destructive, and universally wrong desire is nothing short of neglegence, to the point of being felonious. By allowing hate to occur, by allowing injustice to occur, we ourselves are accountable.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again the homosexual lifestyle is neither hateful or harmful, despite what you believe and our trying to convince us of, there are responsible **** couples.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->KFS: Ideally, yes, adoption should be handled at the case-by-case basis. But the issue here is one that addresses a cornerstone of Western thought! The human family has until recent times, attempted to be nuclear, monogamous, and designed to care for and protect the offspring of that family.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's nothing ideal about current adoption procedures. You either A.) go to a private adoption agency who give kids to whoever they want or B.) go through foster care who give kids to whoever want them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The studies I've cited (which have not been challenged or contradicted) show that the 'normal' homosexual long-term relationship is neither nuclear, nor monogamous, nor enriches and protects the children raised in the household.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In my mind those studies are the same thing as getting statistics for intergalactic travel, it just hasn't happened yet and at this point is all theories, I don't work in child development so I can't offer anything to argue them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It fails the purpose marriage has fulfilled for thousands of years, and we change it on the grounds that we cannot say a person's choice is wrong? People make wrong choices, they always will, and the second that we enable the implications of every one of those bad choices, will be the second that Western culture will officially go straight to hell. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1000 years ago parents were trading their kids off for cattle, and you married whoever was socially and economically acceptable for you, arranged marriages were probably unfallable back then, I'm sure people couldn't concieve of two willing partners marrying whoever they wanted back then...guess people still can't.
I fail to see how marriage makes up for even half of Western culture much less a corner stone of it. Imperalism, Captalism, Industrialism maybe, but marriage hardly. Until you can prove all **** couples are Communist Anarchist Neo-fascists I wont worry about **** marriage rocking Western culture too much.
What's all this talk about approving **** marriage being individualist anyway? This comming from a country that hates Communism with a burning passion and preaches entrapranuerism and investing like gospil. This country's economic structure is founded on individulaism, this country's goverment is run by the people for the people supposedly, and yet when it comes to **** marriage we are being greedy? Double standards, double standards and even more double standards.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->QUOTE (http://www.family.org.au/journal/2001/j20010728.html)
Criteria for good parenting
Stability
*snipped* ----------
Lesbian relationships are also short-lived. Research by Johnson published in 1990 found that 50% of lesbian pairs break up within six years. In contrast, even though the divorce rate for married couples is increasing, it is approaching 50% over a lifetime (40 to 50 years), not six years. Cohabiting heterosexual couples break up faster than married ones, but not as fast as lesbians and male homosexuals.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I appreciate the fact that you guys are trying to at least present material that isn't straight from the bible. With that said...
I found some serious problems with this study. The quoted part I left is one such example. What the study won't tell you is that the <b> first 43 % of the 50 % of heterosexual marriages that end up in divorce - "over a lifetime" - take place within the first fifteen years ! </b> So while technically their statement may be true it is in reality very, very misleading.
So you have 43% ending up in divorce within the first fifteen years. Common sense tells you that chances are the marriage won't be particularly happy for all 15 years either. So who is to say what sort of home-life/stability a marriage such as this really provides ? How many marriages now stay together "simply for the kids" as opposed to providing a loving/stable home ?
And then you run into other problems such as: How many of the "promiscuous" homosexual men are interested in raising children ? Would they be willing to change their lifestyle for their child ? How were the men selected for the study ? Are they a fair representation of all homosexual men ? The list of questions is long.
According to this, they interviewed homosexual men in general, not just the promiscuous. Pretty much the bottom line of the article, homosexual men are in general FAR more promiscuous than heterosexual men, even when they claim to be in a "committed relationship".
"Would they be willing to change their lifestyle for their child?" is a fair enough question, and it would appear that across society (not just the homosexuals) the answer is a resounding NO! Quit my job to take care of kids? WTH!!!!1!11 nevar!
I think in general its easier to continue your lifestyle and take care of your child rather then change what seems to be the norm for homosexual men and undergo a revolution of behaviour simply to take care of children. The changes required once children enter the equation are drastic enough without a complete morality shift.
The last two questions are really a request for sources. On the webpage Legion quoted, it said sources where available on request, so I have sent them an email asking for it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In my mind those studies are the same thing as getting statistics for intergalactic travel, it just hasn't happened yet and at this point is all theories, I don't work in child development so I can't offer anything to argue them.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll say it again. The studies are claiming that homosexual relationships are highly unstable across the board. Be they in a "committed relationship" or having casual sex with anyone promiscurity seems to be the general rule. A high chance of promiscurity is in no way conducive to a stable home. Therefore the article makes the connection that homosexuals are far more likely to be promiscuous even when in long term relationships, and as such will provide a less stable home then the average heterosexual couple.
You might disagree with that connection, but you are not exactly bowling me over with decent arguements as to how the connection is invalid. Larry's at least making an attempt rather than the "fingers in ears, eyes tightly shut" method favoured by others in this thread.
The fact that you dont work in child development in no way excuses you from needing an arguement. I didnt work in the US military but felt I could comment on the Iraqi war. I'm not a muslim in France but felt I could comment on headscarves. I'm sure there are heaps of topics where you arent a professional in that field but have commented on. If you really dont know, then perhaps research is in order.
I'll restate them in short once more. **** marriage and legal adoption are not an institution in America at present, so any studies about the subject at present are biased if not skewed by social standards, when and if these institutions become common in the US a study on their harm and/or good can be done and the findings can be used to revoked any rights previously granted, but any moves to preemptively remove those rights is unconstitutional.
Claiming they are biased and skewed is a lot different to pointing out where and specifically how. Please, I cant defend the article if you refuse to actually attack it specifically. If your reason is because homosexual marriages aren't currently allowed, then I've already countered that or so I believe.
If homosexuals wish to live in a monogamous, stable relationship, then they dont need a small piece of paper from the government saying they are married in order for it to happen. However, it would appear that monogamy is the highly rare exception amongst the homosexual community, according to that article - <b>even amongst those homosexuals claiming to be in a committed relationship</b>.
To claim you have to let something happen before you can determine if its a good thing or not is also flawed. Its a little akin to introducing oversea's species to your environment. "How can you know caintoads will be bad for Australia's environment if you havent actually tried them?" Its possible that they ARE bad/harmful, and once you let them in getting rid of them will be virtually impossible. You dont have to try everything to figure out some things are bad.
I'm not an American, so I'm not 100% up on your constitution. Could you show me the section where it claims prevention of certain rights is unconstitutional (this isnt a challenge, I'd just like to know where its claiming this)
Those studies arent supporting the ban of g4y marriage, they simply exist to show that almost all we have viewed of current homosexual cohabitation is instability and promiscurity. From there they make the jump that allowing homosexual couples to adopt is probably a bad idea, given that even with the conventional marriage relationship in crisis, homosexual parents may be even less stable then that.
Revoking rights is a hell of a lot harder than granting them, and we both know it. The battle is over once this becomes law. Take a look at euthanasia in Holland. It became legally acceptable, and since there have been large numbers of alarming reports including the claim that 1/5 assisted suicides is without consent, yet it still remains law.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Basically, Amendment I puts direct limitations on the powers of government, and Amendment IX states that those aren't the only rights people have.
It is worth noting, even the Civil Rights act of 1964 only reffers to business and government practices, specifically to voting restrictions.
Most other "rights" have been decided through Supreme Court cases, Roe vs. Wade for abortion, for example.
Obviously, you're going to get a much higher 'non-monogamous' percentage, homosexual or straight, if you hold the survey at a bar or nightclub. Many 'G*y Alliance' chapters honestly act as little beyond a meat market.
What they really should poll is the number of homosexual couples who HAVE adopted in the states that allow it in regards to monogamy. Or going beyond that, simple stability of the home/child. Which would be quite amusing if a child from a polyamourous household, with more role models/parental supervision/emotional support actually measured higher than the stereotypical Post-Nuclear American Family.
On a side note. Please keep all discussions relating to zoophilia, paedophilia (or actualized: child abuse), vorarephilia, lubophilia, coprophilia, and so on OUT of this thread.
Thenk yew.
Well, I'm not for a second saying that this is just a quick and easy change. There will be substantial resistance however it turns out. However, cornerstones have been shattered before and cornerstones will be shattered again. "That's just the way it is" doesn't seem to be enough in my mind.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The studies I've cited (<i>which have not been challenged or contradicted</i>) show that the 'normal' homosexual long-term relationship is neither nuclear, nor monogamous, nor enriches and protects the children raised in the household.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now, I could be entirely wrong here, and please correct me if I am, but from what my reading these studies, they seem to be comparing married heterosexual couples to the broad spectrum of all homosexual couples. If I'm reading this correctly, is this not a bit skewed? There is no equivalent definition of marriage, so we're taking a sample of all homosexual couples vs. married couples? Even in just a long-term relationship scenario (say, for the sake of argument, 2 years as cited as a minimum requirement for adoption), what happens when you add in non-married heterosexual relationships of 2 years or more? Dating, engaged, and cohabiting couples... Suddenly the numbers may be strikingly different.
On top of that, I think we all agree that there's a lot to a word, particularly that of "marriage." Regardless of sexual orientation, marriage is a word that implies love, commitment, friendship, and family. These homosexual relationships studied are under no marriage banner. As I believe someone else pointed out, what happens when they are? There is no benchmark for what would happen with homosexual couples taking that extra level of commitment.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It fails the purpose marriage has fulfilled for thousands of years, and we change it on the grounds that we cannot say a person's choice is wrong?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, the choice bit comes into play, then the judgment of that choice. Now, I'll admit, there's not a whole lot of evidence either way, and there are even some people who do make a conscious choice on the matter - but that generally constitutes bisexuality or general sexual experimentation. I've said something along these lines before - when I see homosexuality welcomed with accepting arms in the whole of society, I'll believe it's a choice. When I stop hearing everyone's story about some distant family member who, from early childhood, showed tendencies as such, I'll believe it's a choice. When I no longer see people struggle for years trying to deal with their sexuality, I'll believe it's a choice. When "for-show" marriages and other instances of homosexuals living lies to shield themselves from the rest of society end completely, I'll believe it's a choice. These are not behaviors that indicate any sort of "hey, this might be cool" decision at any point in their lives. I'm not saying there's a magic homosexual gene that gets turned on and off, nor that it is hereditary or any other assumptions like that, but common sense alone would seem to indicate that there is far more at work, whether psychologically, physiologically, biologically, or socialogically.