Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Marriage is a civil right in the US
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 211 of 304 (318044)
06-05-2006 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by kjsimons
06-05-2006 3:21 PM


I've heard that that's a lot of propaganda, that it is not impossible for a gay partner to visit in the hospital, that the patient may designate who is allowed access. I'm sure that where it really is a problem, laws can be changed to accommodate such situations without having to involve marriage. And picturing a gay "couple" with children is really ridiculous. Where did they get them? If they are their own from a previous hetero relationship then they should have whatever benefits are available to single parents, if there are any, and if there aren't, they shouldn't get more benefits than single parents do. There is no reason their raising of children, whatever the reason for their having them, should be done as anything but a couple of uncles or aunts, who do in fact on occasion have that sort of responsibility.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by kjsimons, posted 06-05-2006 3:21 PM kjsimons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Damouse, posted 06-05-2006 5:48 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 213 by docpotato, posted 06-05-2006 5:49 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 216 by crashfrog, posted 06-05-2006 6:12 PM Faith has replied
 Message 246 by nator, posted 06-05-2006 8:51 PM Faith has not replied

Damouse
Member (Idle past 4906 days)
Posts: 215
From: Brookfield, Wisconsin
Joined: 12-18-2005


Message 212 of 304 (318048)
06-05-2006 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Faith
06-05-2006 5:42 PM


children are from adoption. Thats been quite a point for anti-gay marriage folks as then the children will grow up gay apparently. I think they'll be heterosexual, but thats my theory.

-I believe in God, I just call it Nature
-One man with an imaginary friend is insane. a Million men with an imaginary friend is a religion.
-People must often be reminded that the bible did not arrive as a fax from heaven; it was written by men.
-Religion is the opiate of the masses

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Faith, posted 06-05-2006 5:42 PM Faith has not replied

docpotato
Member (Idle past 5048 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 213 of 304 (318049)
06-05-2006 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Faith
06-05-2006 5:42 PM


And picturing a gay "couple" with children is really ridiculous. Where did they get them?
From women who've been convinced against having an abortion, probably.
Edited by docpotato, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Faith, posted 06-05-2006 5:42 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Damouse, posted 06-05-2006 5:55 PM docpotato has not replied

Damouse
Member (Idle past 4906 days)
Posts: 215
From: Brookfield, Wisconsin
Joined: 12-18-2005


Message 214 of 304 (318055)
06-05-2006 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by docpotato
06-05-2006 5:49 PM


hence adoption. I actually met a gay couple with a little chinese boys once. nice fellows. I suppose adoption is the obvious route to take with gay couples though.
"now that you're married, what next?"
"Well we're thinking about children..."
"How?!"
"Oh come on, how else?"
Edited by Damouse, : sp

-I believe in God, I just call it Nature
-One man with an imaginary friend is insane. a Million men with an imaginary friend is a religion.
-People must often be reminded that the bible did not arrive as a fax from heaven; it was written by men.
-Religion is the opiate of the masses

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by docpotato, posted 06-05-2006 5:49 PM docpotato has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 215 of 304 (318066)
06-05-2006 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by New Cat's Eye
06-05-2006 1:22 PM


I think there's a difference between actively excluding and limited including.
Oh, really? Tell me - is that like the difference between telling this guy "you have to stay out" and telling that guy "you can't come in"?
There is no difference, as is obvious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2006 1:22 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 216 of 304 (318068)
06-05-2006 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Faith
06-05-2006 5:42 PM


And picturing a gay "couple" with children is really ridiculous. Where did they get them?
You don't know where children come from? How old are you, Faith?
There is no reason their raising of children, whatever the reason for their having them, should be done as anything but a couple of uncles or aunts, who do in fact on occasion have that sort of responsibility.
You've never heard of "adoption"? What makes you think you have to be a birth parent in order to be a parent? Kind of a bigot, aren't you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Faith, posted 06-05-2006 5:42 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Faith, posted 06-05-2006 6:19 PM crashfrog has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 217 of 304 (318072)
06-05-2006 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by crashfrog
06-05-2006 6:12 PM


Gays should not be allowed to adopt except in cases where there is extreme need.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by crashfrog, posted 06-05-2006 6:12 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by docpotato, posted 06-05-2006 6:29 PM Faith has replied
 Message 219 by crashfrog, posted 06-05-2006 6:32 PM Faith has replied
 Message 225 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 06-05-2006 6:46 PM Faith has not replied

docpotato
Member (Idle past 5048 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 218 of 304 (318077)
06-05-2006 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Faith
06-05-2006 6:19 PM


Ah.
Another case of "they can live as they want, except..."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Faith, posted 06-05-2006 6:19 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Faith, posted 06-05-2006 6:33 PM docpotato has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 219 of 304 (318078)
06-05-2006 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Faith
06-05-2006 6:19 PM


Gays should not be allowed to adopt except in cases where there is extreme need.
Why not? And what about the homosexuals who have already adopted?
You really do hate children, don't you? Who else shouldn't get to adopt? Atheists? Blacks?
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Faith, posted 06-05-2006 6:19 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Faith, posted 06-05-2006 6:41 PM crashfrog has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 220 of 304 (318080)
06-05-2006 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by docpotato
06-05-2006 6:29 PM


That's life, Doc, at least it was until the lefties decided that nobody should ever be prohibited from anything. It used to be that singles couldn't adopt either, and married heteros had to qualify.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by docpotato, posted 06-05-2006 6:29 PM docpotato has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by RickJB, posted 06-05-2006 6:36 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 222 by crashfrog, posted 06-05-2006 6:36 PM Faith has replied
 Message 226 by docpotato, posted 06-05-2006 6:48 PM Faith has replied
 Message 247 by nator, posted 06-05-2006 8:59 PM Faith has not replied

RickJB
Member (Idle past 4991 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 221 of 304 (318082)
06-05-2006 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Faith
06-05-2006 6:33 PM


Faith, do you have any response to my comments in message 163?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Faith, posted 06-05-2006 6:33 PM Faith has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 222 of 304 (318083)
06-05-2006 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Faith
06-05-2006 6:33 PM


It used to be that singles couldn't adopt either, and married heteros had to qualify.
That's never been absolutely true. Single people - and gays, actually - have been adopting for a very long time.
You really do just make it up as you go, don't you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Faith, posted 06-05-2006 6:33 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Faith, posted 06-05-2006 6:44 PM crashfrog has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 223 of 304 (318085)
06-05-2006 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by crashfrog
06-05-2006 6:32 PM


I'm always amazed at the obtuseness of supposedly intelligent people. And if anyone wants to complain that that is a "personal" comment, I would point out that on this subject I've been personally accused of all kinds of things there is no evidence for, including the insinuation that I am a racist because I oppose gay marriage, calling me a bigot regularly, and crash's now saying I hate children.
Oh well. Do I really have to explain that again? Gays are a travesty of a couple, and kids are going to figure that out eventually. Unnatural is the word. Fake. Makebelieve. Emperor's new clothes. Children ideally should have a male and a female parent, ideally their own. Sometimes it is necessary for children to be raised in less than ideal circumstances but it makes no sense to choose those circumstances when other options are available.
I don't care if gays live together, I'm sure they can have nice enough lives together, but marriage is ludicrous. And if they happen to have their own children, I wouldn't take them away from them, although I'm sure you are aware that not too long ago our legal system would have, and that's really not an unintelligent law either. And again, whatever single natural parents must live with, gays deserve no better.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by crashfrog, posted 06-05-2006 6:32 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 06-05-2006 6:55 PM Faith has replied
 Message 229 by docpotato, posted 06-05-2006 6:58 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 230 by crashfrog, posted 06-05-2006 6:59 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 248 by nator, posted 06-05-2006 9:05 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 224 of 304 (318087)
06-05-2006 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by crashfrog
06-05-2006 6:36 PM


It was once absolutely true. And yes I'm aware of the liberalizing of the laws.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by crashfrog, posted 06-05-2006 6:36 PM crashfrog has not replied

SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5834 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 225 of 304 (318090)
06-05-2006 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Faith
06-05-2006 6:19 PM


Wow, just plain sad
Gays should not be allowed to adopt except in cases where there is extrme need.
Wow, the words that come to mind... ignorance, bigorty, intellectual laziness........
There is actually far more evidence that fundamentalist parents should not be allowed to adopt.
Perhaps you didn't know that gay adopters take many of the kids (special needs, problem behavior, etc) that no one else will take and would otherwise languish in foster homes.
# There are already thousands of children living in gay couple households. The 2000 U. S. Census reports 33% of female same-sex couple households and 22% of male same-sex couple households already have at least one child under the age of 18 living at home.
Ok, so we know this is already happening and has been for some time.
According to the American Psychological Association Policy Statement on Sexual Orientation, Parents, & Children, "there is no reliable evidence that homosexual orientation per se impairs psychological functioning. Second, beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation."
Imagine that, those who actually care enough to do research instead of complain have found that your fears are unfounded and baseless.
The American Psychological Association also states "Research suggests that sexual identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior, and sexual orientation) develop in much the same ways among children of lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents"
# There is no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is linked to one's environment. In other words, growing up in a gay couple household will not "make" a child gay. Read Nature vs. Nurture: Born or Made Gay
LGBTQ Resources
Now.... How about those fundie parents?
Social movements by their very nature demand change, and Promise Keepers is certainly no exception. But exactly how the group's agenda would affect our nation can't be learned from PK rhetoric and maudlin ceremonies. Furthermore, the research community is only beginning to study the social consequences of this relatively new group. There is, however, considerable research describing the effects of Christian fundamentalism on personality and lifestyle. Given PK's underlying fundamentalist agenda, such studies are thus able to forecast risks posed by PK's way of life.
The most important value espoused by Promise Keepers is the building of strong marriages and families by the reestablishment of the patriarchal family structure. But such a structure -- prompted by PK's inerrant belief in the Bible -- has been linked to a variety of harmful behaviors.
The July 19, 1993, issue of Christianity Today cites the book Battered into Submission: The Tragedy of Wife Abuse in the Christian Home (1989) by James and Phyllis Alsdurf, whose research suggests that "the probability of wife abuse increases with the rigidity of a church's teachings, especially teachings pertaining to gender roles and hierarchy." Fundamentalism has also been found to hamper the process of helping battered women. According to Vicky Whipple in the Journal of Marital and Family Therapy (1987):
Five major factors ... complicate working with
fundamentalist, battered women: (1) a strong "we versus them"
mentality, which encourages members to seek help only
from the church; (2) a reliance on faith, which leads to a
passive approach toward life; (3) an insistence on
forgiveness, which tends to countenance aggressive
behavior among family members; (4) the dominance of males
over females; (5) strong prohibitions against divorce or
remarriage.
Wow, that doesn't sound so good.... let's see more.
Although Marshall H. Medoff and I. Lee Skov of California State University found fundamentalists more likely to marry and have children, Thomas Snow and William Comptom of Middle Tennessee State University found that membership in a fundamentalist Protestant church is not a predictor of marital satisfaction. Even PK itself, despite its opposition to divorce, reports that 20 percent of the men who attended the group's first eight stadium conferences this year described themselves in surveys as either "divorced" or "remarried."
Within this rigid fundamentalist family structure, children also become victims. Researchers express alarm about the use of corporal punishment by fundamentalist parents, given its link to spouse abuse, sibling violence, delinquency, aggression, hatred, and a general pro-violence attitude. in Violence and Victims (1991), Harold Grasmick, Robert Bursik Jr., and M'lou Kimpel of the University of Oklahoma say, "In fact, the child abuse rate for parents who approve of corporal punishment is four times the rate of child abuse for parents who do not approve of corporal punishment." They also warn of court cases in which day care centers run by fundamentalist churches have insisted that hitting preschoolers is their religious obligation.
The corporal punishment of preschoolers is detailed by Christopher Ellison, John Bartkowski, and Michelle Segal in Social Forces (1996). These University of Texas researchers found that parents who hold that the Bible is inerrant spanked or slapped their toddler or preschooler (aged one to four years) .884 times more per week (or nearly fifty times more each year) and are 50 percent more likely to have spanked or slapped their grade-school-aged child than nonfundamentalist parents. They also found that boys of all ages receive corporal punishment more often than girls, and adopted children are 50 percent more likely than other children to be spanked or slapped.
In surveys of adults who were asked how frequently they had been spanked by parents as a child, H. Erlanger reported in the American Sociological Review (1974) that the strongest predictor of corporal punishment is religious affiliation, with Baptist affiliation having a greater direct effect on the frequency of spankings than gender, race, size of residence, age, and parents' social class.
This link between corporal punishment and fundamentalism builds on consistent findings that fundamentalists tend to be authoritarians. To measure this, Bob Altemeyer's Right-wing Authoritarianism scale is generally accepted as reliable. As discussed in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (1995) by Gary Leak and Brandy Randall, "individuals who score high on the RWA scale are prone to aggress against unpopular or unconventional groups, feel morally superior and self-righteous, possess a mean-spiritedness that is coupled with vindictiveness and a `secret pleasure' when others experience misfortune, and appear prejudiced toward out-groups."
Given the indiscriminativeness of authoritarians' prejudice, Altemeyer and Bruce Hunsberger labeled them "equal-opportunity bigots, disliking all `different' people regardless of race, creed, or color." Research by Linda Wylie and James Forest of the University of Manitoba also found that authoritarianism is highly correlated with religious fundamentalism and an important predictor of racial and ethnic prejudice, homophobia, and punitiveness. Lee Kirkpatrick at the College of William and Mary surveyed college students and found that "fundamentalism was correlated more positively than Christian orthodoxy" with discriminatory attitudes toward blacks, women, homosexuals, and communists.
To take this a step further, Deborah Byrnes and Gary Kiger of Utah State University studied whether religious affiliation and gender would impact a person's willingness to confront racial discrimination committed by authority figures, strangers, and peers. Their results, published in the Journal of Psychology (1992), found that women expressed more willingness than men, and nonfundamentalists expressed more willingness than fundamentalists to challenge discrimination. Such research foretells a losing battle in Promise Keepers' fight for "racial reconciliation."
Questia
I think that's enough....
You know what though? Even with all that evidence I wouldn't propose that fundamentalists not be allowed to adopt, because I'm not going to judge individuals by the reputation of a group.
Faith - open mouth, insert foot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Faith, posted 06-05-2006 6:19 PM Faith has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024