Quantcast

«

»

Jan 12 2010

Another konk on the head with the Reality Mallet

Okay, so you know how the homophobic Christian Right clutches its pearls and bleats that if teh gayz are allowed to marry for realz, it will, like, totally destroy the institution of marriage for everybody, forever? So we have to keep gay marriage illegal because the sanctity of traditional straight marriage simply won’t survive otherwise?

Well, it turns out that in the big wide real world that the fundies like to pretend they don’t inhabit, things actually seem to work a little differently.

Now of course, correlation is not causation, and you couldn’t say that if the states with gay marriage bans were to allow gay marriage, then overall divorce rates would start to reverse. I think it’s more of an indicator that many of the states with gay marriage bans have a high fundamentalist demographic, and the rigidly patriarchal marriages that exist in that culture are not exactly the portrait of perfect connubial bliss they want everyone to believe they are.

But it does tend to throw a bit of cold water — like, enough to fill Lake Erie — on the claim that gay marriage is some kind of heterosexuality killer. One has to wonder what folks who say things that stupid are so desperate to suppress.

77 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Mark Morrison

    The people have spoken on the subject. They don't want it and that was why prop 8 passed.

  2. 2
    Martin

    "The people," for the most part, believe in God and angels. Big fucking deal. Unless you can explain how that is in any way relevant to what this post was about, then you're just making the appeal to popularity fallacy. Just because "the people" are behind something doesn't make it right.If "the people" were honest and willing to admit it was sheer mindless bigotry and hate behind their vote, then I could at least respect their honesty. But if they're going to spout bullshit justifications like "gay marriage undermines society" or whatever, then they need to be called on it.There was a time when "the people" were okay with slavery. We've moved on from that, and someday we'll move on from senseless crap like Prop. 8.

  3. 3
    Mark Morrison

    Your post was nothing more than a rant about how a Christian conspiracy stopped gay marriage. You say this conspiracy consist of " if teh gayz are allowed to marry for realz, it will, like, totally destroy the institution of marriage for everybody, forever? So we have to keep gay marriage illegal because the sanctity of traditional straight marriage simply won't survive otherwise?" I did read your post but it was easy to read between the lines. In my response to you I didn't quote scripture but I just gave you the facts. People voted against it because they didn't want it. Just a question and I do really want to know, why are you so angry at God? I'm debating "if" God is real. I just get a sense of anger in your post.

  4. 4
    Ken Chamberlain

    I haven't been keeping up on the subject that much, but I don't really think that gays should have traditional type marriages. Maybe a civil union type of thing. I'm also opposed to adoptions by gay couples.

  5. 5
    Avenging Skeptic

    Go Martin! Nice job!I like to quote Dan Savage in this instance: Civil rights should never be put up to a popular vote.

  6. 6
    A-Astrologist

    Mr Morrison, what right do "the people" have to decide whether gays should be allowed to marry? Does it intrude on them in any real way? Give me a rational reason why marriage should be allowed between different genders, but not the same gender.If you enjoyed drinking coffee and the majority decided that only men could drink tea and only women could drink coffee, would you be ok with that? Or have "the people" spoken, end of story?Like Martin says, just because "the people" are behind something does not necessarily make it right.

  7. 7
    A-Astrologist

    "why are you so angry at God? I'm debating "if" God is real. I just get a sense of anger in your post."How can an atheist be angry at God? Mark, that makes no sense. You do realise what an atheist is, don't you?

  8. 8
    A-Astrologist

    Bornatnight1:"I don't really think that gays should have traditional type marriages. Maybe a civil union type of thing." What's the difference between a civil union and marriage in your eyes (apart from the label)?"I'm also opposed to adoptions by gay couples."Why's that?

  9. 9
    The Invisible Pink Unicorn

    It's amazing how flippant people can be when discussing other's rights. I like how you got all covert on us Mark. Since it was so easy to read between the lines, please elaborate on what you so clearly saw between the lines.

  10. 10
    Martin

    Your post was nothing more than a rant about how a Christian conspiracy stopped gay marriage.When did I ever mention a "conspiracy"? In case you haven't been paying attention (and I'm quite sure you have, so to feign innocence on the whole issue would be dishonest), there are a number of high-profile groups actively opposed to gay marriage, all of them right wing and Christian. Look, I'll link to one of them. ZOMG, here's another! This is not a "conspiracy," simply a fact.In my response to you I didn't quote scripture but I just gave you the facts. People voted against it because they didn't want it.And I pointed out that was irrelevant to the matter discussed in the original post, which is that one major claim of the anti-gay-marriage crowd — that gay marriage will undermine traditional marriage — is demonstrably false. An appeal to popular prejudice against gay marriage is a complete non sequitur, as is this:Just a question and I do really want to know, why are you so angry at God? I'm debating "if" God is real. I just get a sense of anger in your post.You're confusing "anger at bigotry justified by belief in God" with "anger at God." The first exists, the second does not.

  11. 11
    Martin

    Bornatnight1: Why to both questions? In case of the latter, what evidence do you have that gays would make poor parents? Have you observed children raised by gay couples suffering as a result? Have higher instances of abuse and neglect been documented in such families than in traditional families? I know several gay and lesbian friends currently raising kids, many of whom were adopted, and the kids are happy as bugs in a rug. Are you perhaps just going with your gut on this one?

  12. 12
    The Invisible Pink Unicorn

    Hey Mark,Usually people that are debating with themselves about if God is real or not don't ask people if they are angry at God. I just think it's, ya know, STUPID to ask someone if they are mad at something they aren't even sure is real.WV:fardin(tee hee)

  13. 13
    JT

    We aren't angry at Spiderman. We're angry at all the fans who dress up like him and keep spraying us with that canned web stuff.

  14. 14
    Ken Chamberlain

    Martin: Because something other than a traditional marriage, even in name only, is more likely to be acceptable to the majority of people. As for adoption, although I have no evidence either way, as to the parenting skills of gay couples, I think it's best to keep children with the normal parenting situation, whenever possible, to be on the safe side. Two mommies, or two daddies, is not normal. Maybe in certain extenuating circumstances, it would be OK.

  15. 15
    A-Astrologist

    "Because something other than a traditional marriage, even in name only, is more likely to be acceptable to the majority of people." What does what the majority find acceptable have to do with this? "As for adoption, although I have no evidence either way, as to the parenting skills of gay couples, I think it's best to keep children with the normal parenting situation, whenever possible, to be on the safe side."To be on the safe side?? You admit you haven't exposed yourself to the evidence (fair enough), but for you to suggest that we should default to straight couples only for adoption, to be safe, suggests either:a)you HAVE been exposed to some evidence to makes you think that caution is needed with gay couplesor b)your stance is entirely emotional and without reason"Two mommies, or two daddies, is not normal."And who decides what's normal? And why should whether something is "normal" impact on the rights of individuals?

  16. 16
    Rational Jen

    As for adoption, although I have no evidence either way, as to the parenting skills of gay couples, I think it's best to keep children with the normal parenting situation, whenever possible, to be on the safe side. Two mommies, or two daddies, is not normal. Maybe in certain extenuating circumstances, it would be OKI have evidence – literally 30 years worth – that this is uninformed crap. Children raised by gay/lesbian couples do just as well as kids raised in "traditional" families. And I can assure you that my son thinks it's very normal to have two moms.What's it like to live in a world where ignorance and bigotry count as "data?" Better yet, why do you think you have the right to vote on other people's civil rights?

  17. 17
    Martin

    As for adoption, although I have no evidence either way, as to the parenting skills of gay couples, I think it's best to keep children with the normal parenting situation, whenever possible, to be on the safe side.As you admit you have no evidence either way, then on what basis do you assume there is some boundary that has a "safe side" (as well as an "unsafe side," presumably) for which heterosexual parenting is the preferred solution. The "safe side" of what is what you aren't explaining. As far as I can see, you might be referring to the "safe side" of public opinion; that is, the anti-gay bigots out there in the general population might be inclined to think less of a child raised by gay parents, and subject that child to whatever emotional or physical violence they wish to dole out. But since when is caving to the preferences of the haters in our world ever the best choice? That would be an act of choosing the "safe side" over courage, honor, and character. Rather like suppressing speech critical of Islam just to be on the "safe side" that maybe the terrorists will choose not to blow you up this week.That might seem an overdone analogy. But the point is that social progress of the sort that leads to the demise of injustice has never in history been accomplished by "just being on the safe side." MLK, Malcolm X, the suffragettes, the freakin' revolutionaries back in the colonial days — these were not people willing to sit on the "safe side." Hell, it took a Civil War for this country to rid itself of slavery. Should we instead have chosen the "safe side" of that issue also, just to avoid unrest?Sorry if we're hammering you here, but this is all about trying to give you a broader context, hopefully to persuade you to consider where you're getting your ideas on this matter from.

  18. 18
    Ken Chamberlain

    A-Astrologist: What does what the majority find acceptable have to do with this? Well, since it's something that has to be voted for, it would seem relevant.

  19. 19
    Ken Chamberlain

    Jen: And I can assure you that my son thinks it's very normal to have two moms.Maybe we are defining normal differently. Surely you must agree that it is not as common as the mommy – daddy configuration.What's it like to live in a world where ignorance and bigotry count as "data?" Better yet, why do you think you have the right to vote on other people's civil rights?I don't have any data on the subject, and in such cases, I prefer to maintain the status quo until I do. Not sure what you meant by vote, but I'm sure I do have a right to my opinion.

  20. 20
    Kazim

    Maybe we are defining normal differently. Surely you must agree that it is not as common as the mommy – daddy configuration.I'm still boggling over the fact that you actually seem to think this is a good argument. You state that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed, people ask for a justification, and all you can come up with is that being raised by gay parents is atypical.I mean, it's uncommon to be raised by two left handed parents… or by two professional musicians… or by two nuclear physicists… or by two Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptists Great Lakes Region, Council of 1912. But the obvious question is: So the fuck what?

  21. 21
    Ken Chamberlain

    Martin: As you admit you have no evidence either way, then on what basis do you assume there is some boundary that has a "safe side"Well, I don't assume, but it's pretty clear that the mommy – daddy configuration is here to stay. The gay couple with kids, isn't something that occurs naturally, so should be looked at with caution.

  22. 22
    Raymond

    Lets cut the shit. Most Christians think that their holy book says homosexuality is wrong and by extension gay marriage must be wrong. So there isn't a conspiracy, its a widespread belief. The book says "be a bigot", its just that many of them don't want to be so blunt about the subject.

  23. 23
    Ken Chamberlain

    Kazim: I mean, it's uncommon to be raised by two left handed parents… or by two professional musicians… or by two nuclear physicists… or by two Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptists Great Lakes Region, Council of 1912. But the obvious question is: So the fuck what?If it were found that nuclear physicists, tended to be terrible parents, I would say that two nuclear physicists should not be allowed to adopt.

  24. 24
    Rational Jen

    Surely you must agree that it is not as common as the mommy – daddy configuration."Common" and "normal" are not synonymous, but even if they were, that still wouldn't support your argument. Interracial and intercultural families are less common than families in which all members share the same racial/cultural heritage, but we now recognize objections to those relationships as pure bigotry. Or do you?I don't have any data on the subject, and in such cases, I prefer to maintain the status quo until I do.The status quo is that adoption by gays/lesbians is legal in all states except two – Arkansas and Florida. The adoption bans in those two states are not based on any secular reason. In fact, children in Florida, especially those considered unadoptable, are routinely placed in foster care with gay couples. Let me help you understand what that means – the children who need parents with the best parenting skills are placed in homes with gay/lesbian foster parents. The same gay/lesbian foster parents who are legally prohibited from adopting them.Here in Texas, the status quo is to make decisions based on the best interest of the child, which is why my son enjoys the protection of having two legal parents. That's no thanks to bigoted jackasses who express their "concerns" about children being raised by two moms or two dads.So, sure, you're entitled to your opinion. Let just be clear that it's an uninformed opinion, and that's because you choose to remain ignorant. Like I said, there's literally 30 years worth of research that says our kids are fine, and it's not that hard to find it. Of course, you have to actually care whether what you believe is true.

  25. 25
    A-Astrologist

    "Not sure what you meant by vote, but I'm sure I do have a right to my opinion."Saying something "is more likely to be acceptable to the majority of people" and therefore it should be made so, is effectively the same as saying it should be put to the vote. I'm guessing that's what Jen means.Having the right to your opinion is one thing (I still think opinions require to be justified rationally though) but to say that majority opinion rules over the civil rights of others by default, is quite another.

  26. 26
    A-Astrologist

    "If it were found that nuclear physicists, tended to be terrible parents, I would say that two nuclear physicists should not be allowed to adopt."As we might all (although why that would be so is beyond me).But how the hell does that relate to your earlier posts? You said you had no evidence either way, didn't you?This argument is in total contradiction to those points which you have already made.

  27. 27
    Kazim

    If it were found that nuclear physicists, tended to be terrible parents, I would say that two nuclear physicists should not be allowed to adopt.And still you are flailing to cover up the fact that you have no argument whatsoever. Because in the first place, you have said that you "don't have any data on the subject," which means that all you can do is make unfounded libel against gay people, whom you assume would be bad parents.And in the second place, you'd be an idiot to say that two nuclear physicists should not be allowed to adopt, even if studies did, in fact, show them more likely than most to be bad parents. Seriously, I'd love to see how your career in politics would go after trying to propose such a law. What, are you going to run actuarial tables on everybody, and pass laws saying that people with certain professions or dispositions (i.e., left handed) are to be legally banned from adopting? With what justification?

  28. 28
    Rational Jen

    If it were found that nuclear physicists, tended to be terrible parents, I would say that two nuclear physicists should not be allowed to adopt.First of all, that's not how it works. If you want to adopt, you have to demonstrate your fitness to be a parent, not that members of whatever group you belong to tend to be good or bad parents. Second, what was the basis for your opposition to gay/lesbian parents again?

  29. 29
    Ken Chamberlain

    That's no thanks to bigoted jackasses who express their "concerns" about children being raised by two moms or two dads.I'm sure that your son has turned out just fine, and hope my opinion on the subject has not offended you, it wasn't meant to. Like I said, there's literally 30 years worth of research that says our kids are fine, and it's not that hard to find it. Of course, you have to actually care whether what you believe is true.Like I said before, I don't have any evidence one way or another, if you say it exists, I'll take your word for it.

  30. 30
    Ken Chamberlain

    Jen: Second, what was the basis for your opposition to gay/lesbian parents again?Like I said a few times, I need to see the evidence.

  31. 31
    Ken Chamberlain

    AAstrologer: But how the hell does that relate to your earlier posts? You must have missed kazims post to me.

  32. 32
    Ken Chamberlain

    Kazim: Seriously, I'd love to see how your career in politics would go after trying to propose such a law. Not to fear, I'm staying out of politics. lol

  33. 33
    Kazim

    Not to fear, I'm staying out of politics. lolAnd yet, you don't seem to have any hesitation about rendering political judgments about denying other people the right to adopt.

  34. 34
    Ken Chamberlain

    Kazim: And yet, you don't seem to have any hesitation about rendering political judgments about denying other people the right to adopt.Don't worry, my opinions are pretty toothless.

  35. 35
    Kazim

    Nice to see you've conceded the argument, then. Ta ta!

  36. 36
    Martin

    The gay couple with kids, isn't something that occurs naturally, so should be looked at with caution."Looked at with caution" for? what? reason? What is the risk you seem to think exists? This is the key question you aren't answering.

  37. 37
    Ken Chamberlain

    Martin: "Looked at with caution" for? what? reason? What is the risk you seem to think exists? This is the key question you aren't answering.Looked at for any possible detriment to the children, psychological or otherwise. I don't know what, if any risk, exists. Jen says there is none. So be it!

  38. 38
    Martin

    Looked at for any possible detriment to the children, psychological or otherwise.Okay, but is it not the case that this would be something resulting from the character and temperament of the parents in question, which would be an issue entirely apart from their sexual preference? As I am sure you are aware, children are abused, physically, emotionally and psychologically, in traditional families with straight parents all the time. And we do have CPS to watchdog that sort of thing.The reason your comments have gotten such a backlash here today is that you've implied there might be some risk to adopted children of gay parents that is specifically due to the parents' being gay, and that it's a unique sort of risk that would not be present with straight parents. And you implied this while admitting you had no evidence for it. So I hope you see why folks have found your remarks troubling. If parents (either gay or straight) were disallowed adoption rights because of a history of violence, drugs, alcoholism, criminal record, etc., that would be one thing. But disallowing them solely for being gay would have what basis, apart from anti-gay prejudice? That's what we're all getting at.

  39. 39
    Tim

    Although I HIGHLY doubt any problems come from a child being raised in a same parent household, even if studies did show that a child did worse than a mixed gender pair household, the child(of same pair parents) is still going to be better off then raised by a single parent, foster care, or an orphanage. Genders of the parents aside, two loving parents is still going better then one or none.

  40. 40
    Rational Jen

    Looked at for any possible detriment to the children, psychological or otherwise. I don't know what, if any risk, exists.Gee, I wonder where one might look to find out if gay/lesbian parents are detrimental to their children? I mean, it's not like the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the Child Welfare League of America, the National Association of Social Workers, the North American Council on Adoptable Children, and every state child welfare agency in the country have written statements supporting adoption by gay/lesbian parents. /sarcasmBornatnight1, you are really committed to your ignorance, aren't you? And for the record, yes, suggesting that I'm somehow less fit as a parent or in any way detrimental to my child solely because I'm a lesbian is deeply offensive. Why would you think it wouldn't be?

  41. 41
    Ken Chamberlain

    Martin: you've implied there might be some risk to adopted children of gay parents that is specifically due to the parents' being gay, and that it's a unique sort of risk that would not be present with straight parents. Yes, I think that is a possibility. I certainly think it's something that should be considered. I don't know it to be true, but it could be. Also, I don't think adoption should be an automatic right, but rather a privilege. It's also true that there are plenty of poor straight parents. At any rate, that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it, backlash or not. Have a good day! lol

  42. 42
    Ken Chamberlain

    Jen: Why would you think it wouldn't be?Because you're rational enough to know I was talking about a group, not individuals? At any rate, you've convinced me. I certainly don't have time to read all that material! Have a good day.

  43. 43
    Ken Chamberlain

    Tim: Genders of the parents aside, two loving parents is still going better then one or none.I would have to see the evidence.

  44. 44
    Mark Morrison

    I meant that I "wasn't" debating if God is real or not. Sorry shouldn't blog at 3:00 am but I work late. Martin said,And I pointed out that was irrelevant to the matter discussed in the original post, which is that one major claim of the anti-gay-marriage crowd — that gay marriage will undermine traditional marriage — is demonstrably false. Martin, How many charts or studys would you like me to produce that say the opposite? Studies come a dime a dozen but the that doesn't make them accurate does it ? The bottom line is that the majority of the people do not think that gay marriage is ok. Why do you think it's ok for the minority to force anyone else to accept their view?

  45. 45
    Mark Morrison

    Bornatnight1 said… A-Astrologist: What does what the majority find acceptable have to do with this? Well, since it's something that has to be voted for, it would seem relevant. Mark said, It would seem that some just don't care if it is relevant or not. As long as it they can do what they want.

  46. 46
    Mark Morrison

    What if and this is just a question. You have a group of people that think it's ok for a adult male (over 18) to marry girls as young as 5. Now the majority just doesn't think that this is a good idea but the studies have shown that they usually stay married. Would this be ok and if not why?

  47. 47
    Rational Jen

    At any rate, you've convinced me. I certainly don't have time to read all that material! 5:10pm I would have to see the evidence. 5:22pmTranslation: "But thinking is so hard…sniffle…and besides, I'm so comfortable with my bigotry."Twelve whole minutes from being convinced to needing to see the evidence. You know, ignorance is correctable, but laziness and lying are character flaws. I retract my previous statement – people who are as willfully ignorant as you are are not entitled to an opinion.

  48. 48
    Martin

    You have a group of people that think it's ok for a adult male (over 18) to marry girls as young as 5.Sorry, but attempts to liken homosexuality to pedophilia won't fly here, as there is no basis to compare a situation between two consenting adults and an adult and child. So, analogy fail.

  49. 49
    Mark Morrison

    I never compaired the two nor did I try to link the two. I ask a hypothetical question that you completely dodged. So I'll ask again. What if and this is just a question. You have a group of people that think it's ok for a adult male (over 18) to marry girls as young as 5. Now the majority just doesn't think that this is a good idea but the studies have shown that they usually stay married. Would this be ok and if not why?

  50. 50
    dreamking00

    @Mark Morrison:The bottom line is that the majority of the people do not think that gay marriage is ok. Why do you think it's ok for the minority to force anyone else to accept their view?There was a time when the majority of the people did not think black people should vote, or for that matter own themselves. There was a time when the majority of the people thought women shouldn't vote. There's a reason that the Argument from Popularity is a *logical fallacy.* Something can be popular and still be *wrong.*

  51. 51
    Martin

    Mark, trying once again: Martin, How many charts or studys would you like me to produce that say the opposite? Studies come a dime a dozen but the that doesn't make them accurate does it ?1. If you have evidence that the study cited in this post is inaccurate, had flawed methodology, or has been properly debunked by research (preferably not carried out by an ideologically homophobic organization with a predetermined agenda), then present it. I say if you had such evidence, you'd have presented it by now, instead of repeating emotional appeals like the above and offering lame hypotheticals about marrying children.2. If it is in fact your belief that gay marriage harms society, then it should follow that all of the US states in which gay marriage is currently legal, like Massachusetts, ought to be chaotic wastelands of sheer lawlessness or something. A quick glance at these states shows that, in fact, life goes on there pretty much as it always has. So then, where is the harm? Is it just biding its time waiting to strike in the night?3. If it is in fact your belief that gay marriage harms society, why not be specific and explain precisely what harm you anticipate, and how gay marriage specifically will be the cause of it. I'll even offer you a multiple choice question to help you sort it out more easily:If gay marriage is legalized in my state…A. I will suddenly find that I love my spouse and children lessB. I will be forced to divorce my spouse and leave my familyC. If I am not married, I will lose my interest in the opposite sex and my desire to marry anyone, as marriage will be less special to meD. I might suddenly find myself attracted to the same sexE. People will suddenly start wanting to marry ducks and rabbits and trees!The bottom line is that the majority of the people do not think that gay marriage is ok.And if I've said it once I've said it a million times: Who gives a rat's left buttock? Again, appeal to popularity = logical fallacy. If the majority of the people hold despicable, bigoted views, they're still despicable and bigoted. It's the job of the enlightened to educate them out of their ignorance, like we had to do with slavery, racial inequality, gender inequality, and every other form of social injustice that we've outgrown (or are still outgrowing) from the past.Why do you think it's ok for the minority to force anyone else to accept their view?The minority here is only fighting for equality under the law. This does not translate to forcing bigots to accept their view. It is unlikely you'll ever be ready for that. Ignorant bigots will still be free to be ignorant bigots, living their empty little lives of fear and hate that they cherish so much, when gays are allowed to marry. You can't legislate beliefs, even misguided ones, and that isn't the goal. Though it is so utterly, typically arrogant of people like you to say things like "Why do you think it's ok for the minority to force [me] to accept their view?", when you clearly think it's okay for you to dictate to millions of people whom they can and cannot love and share their lives with. Bigots always love to imagine themselves the victims, I find.

  52. 52
    Martin

    I didn't "dodge" your dishonest "hypothetical question," Mark. I merely pointed out, accurately, that you're trying to pull the usual bullshit homophobes often try to pull in order to justify their views. You're basically trying to trap me into a corner from which I might argue for a situation in which pedophilia is okay, at which point you can declare victory in the argument by painting my position as one of anything-goes amorality. And the funny thing is, you seem to think you're being a sophisticated arguer here, when "bull in a china shop" is more like it.Here is my answer to your "hypothetical": It does not apply, because unless you can realistically argue for the concept of a society in which 5 is the legal age of consent (meaning that in addition to marrying, 5 year olds may also vote, drive, drink, hold jobs, and fight in the military), then there is no way in which your hypothetical question can say anything meaningful about the actual gay marriage fight in the US going on right now. There is simply no basis for comparison, because there is no culture in which 5 year olds are considered consenting adults, and "imagining" such a culture is an exercise in rhetorical pointlessness.Okay? So, instead of bogus "hypotheticals," how about presenting all those charts and "studys" and evidence you claim to have proving gay marriage will be the downfall of civilization as we know it? Or will it be easier just to go on from this with another, "Ha ha, so you're dodging me again!" taunt?

  53. 53
    The Invisible Pink Unicorn

    Let me see if I can make this clear for you Mark; I'll go slowly.Children are NOT mentally or physically mature enough to handle sex or long term relationships. The validity of a fact isn't decided by how many people agree with it.Now you might ask how I know if a 5 year old is mature or not. With the exception of geniuses, children are not mentally equipped to handle the complexities of a relationship. Nor have they built the experiential foundations that one can only achieve over time. A child hasn't had the physical changes necessary to trigger the chemical reactions that make them desire the opposite sex. Which is why you any 3rd grade girl will tell you boys are gross.Lastly, do the studies that shows they "usually stay married" also show psychological profiles on the children? I hate to speculate, but I feel safe in saying those children would have social, physical, and mental issues.word verification: value

  54. 54
    Tim

    Tim: Genders of the parents aside, two loving parents is still going better than one or none .Bornatnight1: I would have to see the evidence. 2 > 1 > 0Is that sufficient evidence? :DSeriously though, you need evidence to see if having parents is better than not having parents?

  55. 55
    Leisha Camden

    Bornatnight1, here's a tip for you. When posting comments in an online debate, this is what you should do. 1) Write your comment. 2) Read your comment. 3) Post your comment.Here's an example of why you should follow these three steps.Comment #1:"Like I said, there's literally 30 years worth of research that says our kids are fine, and it's not that hard to find it. Of course, you have to actually care whether what you believe is true."Like I said before, I don't have any evidence one way or another, if you say it exists, I'll take your word for it.Comment #2, posted immediately after #1:"Second, what was the basis for your opposition to gay/lesbian parents again?"Like I said a few times, I need to see the evidence.OK, so: first write your comment, THEN read it to see if it makes sense in context, THEN post. That second step is really pretty crucial.Good luck.

  56. 56
    Ken Chamberlain

    Leisha: Apparently you have misinterpreted my posts. No big deal, thanks for the posting tips anyway! Have a good day.

  57. 57
    Leisha Camden

    Apparently you have misinterpreted my postsYeah, sure, I bet that's what the problem is. :-D lol!!

  58. 58
    Ing

    "Martin: Because something other than a traditional marriage, even in name only, is more likely to be acceptable to the majority of people. As for adoption, although I have no evidence either way, as to the parenting skills of gay couples,"So…you have no evidence but are willing to hinder other people's freedom due to a 'hunch'?

  59. 59
    Ken Chamberlain

    Ing: So…you have no evidence but are willing to hinder other people's freedom due to a 'hunch'?No, not willing to risk the welfare of the children. As for hunches, I have none.

  60. 60
    Ing

    "No, not willing to risk the welfare of the children. As for hunches, I have none."Ok, it's only common sense that straight people rape their children of the opposite gender more than gay people do.Therefore only gay people should be allowed to raise children and thus only those of the opposite gender.I don't want to risk the children

  61. 61
    Ing

    "No, not willing to risk the welfare of the children. "There's the FUCKING bigotry you fucking bigot. The fact you can't see it makes it even worse. You know there's evidence against, it's been shown to you, you admit you have no evidence…and yet your first theory is that "gays are bad". Shame on you. you self righteous moral guardian dipshit. You shouldn't be allowed near children at all, your influence would clearly be a corruptive taint as the last thing children need is to be taught to judge people based on irrational revulsion. Rather keep children orphans than give them gay parents. Disgusting. Until you're willing to take on the responsibility for the children who need families YOU GET NO SAY IN THE RISK. You don't care at all about them until the gays want to raise them. You're a bully keeping a toy you don't want away from the other kids in the sand box.You know people say that atheists shouldn't raise children due tot he lack of religion and moral fortitude. You'd take children away from them? black people and Latinos are statistically more likely to be poor and live in crime plagued areas. would you take their children away and give them to whities? There's evidence there that kids are at a bigger risk in that environment, but it'd be insane to impose a bizzaro fuck backwards 'think of the children' authoritative fiat on them. Let me finish by saying I do NOT believe you have good intentions. You don't think that because you care about the children. You think that because you have a bigotry against the gays. You sicken me and shouldn't be giving your opinions on morality to anyone.

  62. 62
    Ing

    @MarkDoes letting people hire employees mean that we will have child labour?Does owning pets mean that we will legalize slavery again?Does legalizing sex mean we will legalize rape?Does allowing gun ownership mean that we condone murder?You're argument that 'legalizing something harmless will lead to legalizing something harmful' is absurd and simply a cheap attempt to connect gays with pedophiles. I can do that too look"if we allow religion to continue next thing we know we'll be having crusades!"

  63. 63
    Ken Chamberlain

    Ing:"There's the FUCKING bigotry you fucking bigot. The fact you can't see it makes it even worse. You know there's evidence against, it's been shown to you, you admit you have no evidence…and yet your first theory is that "gays are bad". Shame on you. you self righteous moral guardian dipshit." Apparently, something I said has struck a nerve, or did you forget to take your medication this morning? Whichever the case, have a nice day.

  64. 64
    Ing

    "Apparently, something I said has struck a nerve, or did you forget to take your medication this morning? Whichever the case, have a nice day."That's right, don't address anything, deflect and attack. Right out of the racist asshole handbook.

  65. 65
    Ken Chamberlain

    Ing: "That's right, don't address anything, deflect and attack. Right out of the racist asshole handbook."Whatever, have a nice day.

  66. 66
    Martin

    Ing, take a few deep breaths, big guy. A lot of us have been addressing Bornatnight1's views on this topic, and we generally agree he's in the wrong here and has not thought his ideas through. Getting points across is more effectively done when tempers remain in check, though I'm only too aware of how frustrating these kinds of arguments can be.

  67. 67
    Ing

    My take was that he clearly wasn't getting it explained in black and white text so clearly he needed some brow beating. probably went overboard and didn't make my point.My over all point was that I don't believe for a second that moral guardians like him actually CARE all that much about the children. They're not doing anything to help put unwanted children in homes, they're not working to improve conditions for children, they're not interested in aids babies or the like; until the gays want them. When that happiness they scream MINE MINE MINE. I find this attitude worse than the christian one. The theist one is defensible if the false premise of the bible is accepted, so they're more of naive twats rather than fullblown assholes. I also love Boratatnight's implication that since i care about the issue I must be either a) gay MYSELF or……not straight, b) insane.Either way I'm sure he doesn't want me around children.

  68. 68
    Ken Chamberlain

    Ing: "probably went overboard and didn't make my point."Apology accepted. Have a good day.

  69. 69
    Ing

    @BoringnightUm…noSee I didn't apologize. I assert everything I said was valid. I'm apologizing for delivery not content. I DID intend offense to you.

  70. 70
    A-Astrologist

    "Whatever, have a nice day.""Apology accepted. Have a good day."This brazen boldness of Bornatnight1 coupled with his gleeful ignorance and failure to address the arguments against him, is such a winning combination.

  71. 71
    Ken Chamberlain

    Ing: "I'm apologizing for delivery not content."Apology accepted. Have a good day.

  72. 72
    Kazim

    This brazen boldness of Bornatnight1 coupled with his gleeful ignorance and failure to address the arguments against him, is such a winning combination.More than that: It's the kind of combination that gets people banned. When people stop trying to address what others are saying and just stick to being a smug smartass, they wear out their welcome very quickly.Bornatnight1, this is your first and last warning. Watch it.-Kazim (smacking the moderator stick against my palm)

  73. 73
    Ken Chamberlain

    Kazim: "When people stop trying to address what others are saying and just stick to being a smug smartass, they wear out their welcome very quickly."Not a problem, I won't be making anymore comments, I'll just keep my opinions to myself, since any difference of opinion is apparently not appreciated here.Bornatnight1 [cowering in fear of the moderator stick]

  74. 74
    Kazim

    Not a problem, I won't be making anymore comments, I'll just keep my opinions to myself, since any difference of opinion is apparently not appreciated here.Damn right you won't. Because after I told you that you were in danger of being banned for evading questions and acting like a smug smartass, you gave a smug smartass answer. You are now banned. Now go away.

  75. 75
    Ing

    Great…now i feel real guilty :(Again, sorry if i came off like too big of an asshole myself.

  76. 76
    Kazim

    Ing, I value your comments a lot, but I do occasionally think you could stand to tone it down a little. You have a tendency to fly off the handle at any perceived slight, and launch into a curse-filled insult tirade before it may be warranted.Note that I'm not against cursing per se, for fuck's sake. ;) I'm not telling you this because I'm thinking of aiming the moderator stick at you. But I have been meaning to mention this, because you would probably get your point across better if you were calmer sometimes.People can see when somebody is acting like a "fucking bigot" without you needing to apply that exact phrase. When you do that, it makes it super easy for a bigot to pretend to take the high road, claiming he's been mistreated because he presented his bigotry calmly. It allows him to escalate the dialogue with fewer consequences, claiming that you started it. Even if that isn't true, it can be persuasive.

  77. 77
    Ing

    People can see when somebody is acting like a "fucking bigot" without you needing to apply that exact phrase. When you do that, it makes it super easy for a bigot to pretend to take the high road, claiming he's been mistreated because he presented his bigotry calmly. It allows him to escalate the dialogue with fewer consequences, claiming that you started it. Even if that isn't true, it can be persuasive."Noted and criticism accepted. Again I don't think i was off the handle as people got, but tone is hard to convey over the net. Will be vigilant.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite="" class=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>