Same Sex Marriage - UK takes a step forward...

[_Bhodi]

lol....

by the way, anyone else here find bhodi's playing schoolmaster to Abdel-Jalil on the subject of the Quran to be hilarious?

Could you explain your reasoning? I'm curious why you made the conclusions you did. You're wrong, but I was curious where the error occurred.

[_subgenius]

Still have yet to see any actual support for the OP assertion of "step forward"...all evidence and common sense seems to conclude that it is likely a step backward.

[_Bazooka]

Still have yet to see any actual support for the OP assertion of "step forward"...all evidence and common sense seems to conclude that it is likely a step backward.

What evidence?



Studies and polling

Polling and studies on the issue has been conducted throughout the first decade of the 21st century as well as before. These polls and studies have shown a consistent trend of increasing support for same-sex marriage across the world. Many developed countries achieved a majority of people in support of same-sex marriage in the first decade of the 21st century. Support for legalization has increased across every age group, political ideology, religion, gender, race, and region of various developed countries in the world.[56][57][58][59][60]
Various detailed polls and studies about same-sex marriage conducted in several countries generally show that support for same-sex marriage increases with higher levels of education, and that younger people are more likely to support the legalization of it than older generations.[61][62][63][64][65] In each U.S. state to hold a voter referendum on the issue prior to November 2012, the public has rejected same-sex marriage laws.[66] However, recent polls indicate that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage, approximately 53%.[56][67][68] Approximately 49% of whites, 51% of blacks, and 59% of Hispanics support same-sex marriage respectively.[69][70][71] Several polls and studies have shown that people who personally know a person who is gay are much more likely to support LGBT rights and same-sex marriage than those who do not.[67] Voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington approved same-sex marriage by referendum on 6 November 2012.[72]

Modern
In 2001, the Netherlands became the first nation in the world to grant same-sex marriages.[86] Same-sex marriages are also granted and mutually recognized by Belgium (2003),[87] Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Portugal (2010),[88] Iceland (2010), Argentina (2010) and Denmark (2012). In Mexico, same-sex marriage is recognized in all 31 states but only performed in Mexico City and in Quintana Roo State. In Nepal, their recognition has been judicially mandated but not yet legislated.[89] Nine states in the United States, as well as the District of Columbia permit same sex marriage, beginning with Massachusetts in 2004 and Connecticut in 2008.[90] As of 2010, some 250 million people (4% of the world population) lived in areas that recognize and perform same-sex marriages.[91]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_m ... nd_polling

[_subgenius]

What evidence?

The simple example is how same-sex relationships currently impact family law combined with the fact that the overwhelming majority of studies that conclude with same sex couples being less effective and less beneficial for a child when compared to the child's biological parents. A society that encourages and/or condones same sex relationships is degenerative on this point.....a step backward....
Also, clearly a Federal endorsement of same-ex marriage in the USA will corrupt the fundamental principle of State's rights. Where we see that Federal recognition of marriage will conflict with the State - and the latter is the body responsible for the laws of divorce and majority of marriage property rights - thus another degradation.
Not to mention the more subtle implication on freedom of speech that we are already experiencing (like the Yeshiva School in NY or California Hastings Law School, etc..).

Now let us look at some numbers for example:
When California permitted same-sex marriage...18,000 same-sex couples married - representing 20% of the same-sex couples living together....compared to the 91% of heterosexual couples living together being married....this same skew is seen in Mass and even the Netherlands....so what?, well obviously even the LGBT community does not support or endorse this political movement being imposed by a minority of LGBT upon the majority of LGBT. Which is to say, that the LGBT community has no regard for the institution of marriage as it has been defined by society (a point that has already been established in other threads).

But i suppose a positive note is that your support for LGBT marriage is a de facto endorsement of polygamy. The LGBT has the simple goal of transforming any sexual behavior into a federally endorsed activity....which is tantamount to turning a moral wrong into a civil right...step backward

same sex marriage is intrinsically sterile...thus negating the obvious family structure intended and endorsed by marriage....again...step backward.

Whereas society begins to define its values only around property and not around family is a step backward....for through family a society is defined.
LGBT would degrade that definition to merely being about "property rights"...and that is simply not progress....it is a step backward as it degrades our behavior to that of two dogs fighting over a bone.

Studies and polling...9snip0...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_m ... nd_polling

this is where i remind you, with reciprocity, that slavery once enjoyed favor with public opinion as did Hitler.
Increased political support does not equate to a "step forward".

[_Bazooka]

same sex marriage is intrinsically sterile...thus negating the obvious family structure intended and endorsed by marriage....again...step backward.

So, the marriage of a sterile opposite sex couple is a step backward, really?

this is where i remind you, with reciprocity, that slavery once enjoyed favor with public opinion as did Hitler.
Increased political support does not equate to a "step forward".

And here is where I point out that, as with slavery, moving to end discrimination is a good thing...a step forward!
(Let's not do the Hitler thing, hey?)

[_subgenius]

same sex marriage is intrinsically sterile...thus negating the obvious family structure intended and endorsed by marriage....again...step backward.

So, the marriage of a sterile opposite sex couple is a step backward, really?

umm...no.
as usual, you would argue the exception and ignore the rule...i tried to help you by italicizing the word "intrinsically" (knowing you would disregard it anyway).

this is where i remind you, with reciprocity, that slavery once enjoyed favor with public opinion as did Hitler.
Increased political support does not equate to a "step forward".

And here is where I point out that, as with slavery, moving to end discrimination is a good thing...a step forward!
(Let's not do the Hitler thing, hey?)

well, we "discriminate" against all sorts of things...like serial killers....to equate LGBT marriage with slavery is an insult to the latter and a sign of desperation for the former. Stick with the subject.
The point is taken by me that "public opinion" is not necessarily the proper measure for what is "good" or "bad"...otherwise you would have to concede that currently defining marriage as solely being between a man and a woman is a "good" thing because more states carry that "opinion" than do not.

[_Res Ipsa]

The simple example is how same-sex relationships currently impact family law combined with the fact that the overwhelming majority of studies that conclude with same sex couples being less effective and less beneficial for a child when compared to the child's biological parents. A society that encourages and/or condones same sex relationships is degenerative on this point.....a step backward....
Also, clearly a Federal endorsement of same-ex marriage in the USA will corrupt the fundamental principle of State's rights. Where we see that Federal recognition of marriage will conflict with the State - and the latter is the body responsible for the laws of divorce and majority of marriage property rights - thus another degradation.
Not to mention the more subtle implication on freedom of speech that we are already experiencing (like the Yeshiva School in NY or California Hastings Law School, etc..).

As I understand it, the problem with the studies that exist today is finding a true apples to apples comparison. Same sex couples can be parents in one of two ways: adoption or through a surrogate mother. As we allow heterosexual couples to adopt children, an apples to apples comparison would be of adoption by same sex parents vs. adoption by opposite sex parents. And if we all agree that having married parents is better for children, then we'd really need a longitudinal study of married opposite sex-parents vs. married same sex parents. Are any of the studies to which you refer of that nature?

For surrogate parents, where the child is biologically related to one of the parents, are any of your studies longitudinal studies of married same sex surrogate parents vs. married opposite sex biological parents?

Here's why I would say that extending marriage to same sex partners is good for children: the foster system is the least beneficial setting for children. Extending marriage to same sex partners will not increase the pool of children in foster care, but will take additional children out of the foster care system. For children, same sex marriage is a significant step forward: allowing more children to be raised by adoptive, married parents.

The states rights argument begs the question of whether individuals in California were deprived of their federal civil rights. Suppose the voters of California passed an initiative that amended the California constitution to ban handguns. Would you argue that overturning that law would be a step backward because it violates states rights? Unless one believes that state rights, which are governmental rights, are more important than individual rights in each and every case, the state's rights argument does not show that extending marriage to same sex couples is a step backwards.

Now let us look at some numbers for example:
When California permitted same-sex marriage...18,000 same-sex couples married - representing 20% of the same-sex couples living together....compared to the 91% of heterosexual couples living together being married....this same skew is seen in Mass and even the Netherlands....so what?, well obviously even the LGBT community does not support or endorse this political movement being imposed by a minority of LGBT upon the majority of LGBT. Which is to say, that the LGBT community has no regard for the institution of marriage as it has been defined by society (a point that has already been established in other threads).

This argument overlooks the nature of constitutional rights. What is the percentage of people in the U.S. who attend funerals of soldiers and carry signs that say "God hates fags?" Yet, their activities are protected by the U.S. constitution. What is the percentage of the U.S. population that participates in the LDS temple ceremony? Yet, that activity is protected by the free exercise clause of the first amendment. We don't extend constitutional rights based on the percentage of our population that chooses to exercise them.

As an aside, the numbers you cite aren't a valid comparison, because you've failed to account for the fact that marriage was available to same sex partners in California only for a fixed window of time. A valid comparison would be to compare the percentage of single people of marriageable age living together in California with the percentage of gay people of marriageable age living together in California who got married during that specific window of time.

No step backward here, unless you always value the rights of state government over the rights of individuals.

But i suppose a positive note is that your support for LGBT marriage is a de facto endorsement of polygamy. The LGBT has the simple goal of transforming any sexual behavior into a federally endorsed activity....which is tantamount to turning a moral wrong into a civil right...step backward

Classic strawman. Show me where the "LGBT community" has the goal of pedophilia or rape? The only "community" that endorses, say, shoving shoving an object into a woman's vagina without her consent is the extreme wing of the Republican party. Polygamy is a red herring and can be evaluated on its own merits. But you did finally get down to the real basis of the opposition to marriage equality: gay sex is a sin. Same sex partners are being denied the rights extended to opposite sex partners because of religion attempting to impose its values on those who don't share them.

same sex marriage is intrinsically sterile...thus negating the obvious family structure intended and endorsed by marriage....again...step backward.

Permitting same-sex marriage does not negate any family structure at all. Extending marriage to same sex partners will not affect the structure of any family anywhere in any way at all. All those families will still be intact with the same structure. Same sex partners are, in this case, functionally identical to any herterosexual who is infertile or who chooses not to have children. Unless we decide to bar infertile people and people who elect not to have children from marriage, this argument is nonsense. Moreover, by allowing more children to be moved from the foster care system to two-parent, married households, we take a step forward.

Whereas society begins to define its values only around property and not around family is a step backward....for through family a society is defined.
LGBT would degrade that definition to merely being about "property rights"...and that is simply not progress....it is a step backward as it degrades our behavior to that of two dogs fighting over a bone.

Are you taking the position that if two opposite sex people marry and either cannot or choose not to have children, then their marriage is only about property? You really think the only reason two people of the same sex want to marry is because of property rights? If marriage is a net good when extended to two opposite sex partners, then it is a net good if it is extended to same sex partners. Making a definition inclusive doesn't "degrade" it. It extends a relationship that you believe is good, that promotes stable families, that is good for children, to more people.

Here's my case for marriage equality being a step forward. The most concrete step forward will be the increased ability of married couples to take children out of the foster system and put them in stable, two-parent marriages. That, in and of itself, will be a huge step forward. Second, there is an inherent stigma against same-sex relationships when they are denied a legal relationship and a set of privileges based almost entirely on religious bigotry. Giving people equal treatment under the law, regardless of religious condemnation, is a step forward for our legal system.

I see only steps forward and none that go back.

[_Res Ipsa]

well, we "discriminate" against all sorts of things...like serial killers....to equate LGBT marriage with slavery is an insult to the latter and a sign of desperation for the former. Stick with the subject.
The point is taken by me that "public opinion" is not necessarily the proper measure for what is "good" or "bad"...otherwise you would have to concede that currently defining marriage as solely being between a man and a woman is a "good" thing because more states carry that "opinion" than do not.

So your answer to Bazooka's analogy is to compare LGBT folks to serial killers? LOL. I guess that's a step up from "dogs fighting over a bone."

I do agree, however, that popularity is not a valid basis for denying constitutional rights.

[Guest]

lol....

by the way, anyone else here find bhodi's playing schoolmaster to Abdel-Jalil on the subject of the Quran to be hilarious?

Could you explain your reasoning? I'm curious why you made the conclusions you did. You're wrong, but I was curious where the error occurred.

which conclusion are you referring to? the conclusion that you made a fool of yourself -- or the conclusion that i found it to be humorous?

[_palerobber]

[...] the overwhelming majority of studies that conclude with same sex couples being less effective and less beneficial for a child when compared to the child's biological parents.

you can't even name one study whose data supports that conclusion.