David Quinn and Gay Marriage

CerebralCortex

koth wrote: »

How exactly does allowing two people of the same sex to make a life-long commitment to each other make a mockery of marriage?

Two people who love each other who only want to be happy. What have you guys got against happiness?

Cybercelesta

I love my dog, he makes me happy, it's usually a lifetime commitment, but I wouldn't marry him!!!

NuMarvel

gimmebroadband wrote: »

But God does!

Even that's not true. As I also said, civil, non-religious marriages can and do happen. God has no part in those marriages. Are they all legal charades?

And marriages were happening before the word of God was ever written. One of your own sources refer to it as a 6000 year old tradition. If God does have a monopoly on marriage, then He was a little late in making his claim.

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Because it makes a mockery out of REAL marriage and reduces it to a commodity!

Avoiding the obvious examples of heteroxsexual marriages that last less than a week (hello Britney!), how does same sex marriage make a mockery of other types of marriages?

I would have thought that divorce would be a larger factor in making a mockery, are you actively campaigning to have that overturned?

Penn

Cybercelesta wrote: »

I love my dog, he makes me happy, it's usually a lifetime commitment, but I wouldn't marry him!!!

Okay, how about two people who are of the same species and are not related to each other? Why should they not be allowed to get married, if it has nothing to do with the Catholic Church?

NuMarvel

Cybercelesta wrote: »

I love my dog, he makes me happy, it's usually a lifetime commitment, but I wouldn't marry him!!!

I hate to break it to you, but he doesn't want to marry you either.

Cybercelesta

Marriages can fail for one reason or another, and Catholics agree that a divorce is necessary in conjuction with a church annulment for the legal distribution of property, so why would we campaign against it???

Cybercelesta

Barrington wrote: »

Okay, how about two people who are of the same species and are not related to each other? Why should they not be allowed to get married, if it has nothing to do with the Catholic Church?

I am personally against it for obvious reasons, nothing to do with religon!!

Zombrex

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Two people who love each other who only want to be happy. What have you guys got against happiness?

It is funny how some Christians can see a bit of God's plan for how to live in others worshipping different gods (against the 1st commandment btw), but when it comes to two homosexuals in love who want to make a State recognized commitment to each other they can't (homosexual relations are against God's commandments but no more so than worshipping other gods).

It is really difficult to escape the conclusion that this resistance to secular recognition of homosexual marriage is more to do with personal bigotry than any serious religious objection.

And that is very sad

Delirium

Cybercelesta wrote: »

Marriages can fail for one reason or another, and Catholics agree that a divorce is necessary in conjuction with a church annulment for the legal distribution of property, so why would we campaign against it???

because it contradicts part of the wedding ceremony. The "what God has joined, let no man divide" part.

Cybercelesta

koth wrote: »

because it contradicts part of the wedding ceremony. The "what God has joined, let no man divide" part.

It the CC the marriage isn't valid if there was a pre-existing impediment!!! Outside of that 'what God has joined' is still in force! There will always be sinners who don't live by it!!!

mehfesto

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Monty never said homesexuality is condemnded, homosexual acts is!

Romans 1:25-27
1 Timothy 1:8-10

http://www.catholicbible101.com/homosexuality.htm

Fair enough. I've just browsed over them.

1 Timothy 1:8-10.

Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

It's not exactly a damning report on homosexuality, I must say. It's basically just a list of people who are 'not nice'. While I agree murderers aren't really good, liars - and let us bear in mind it says just liars, not 'big liars, not little white liars', if we're going to read it literally' - are as evil.

Who here hasn't told even a white lie?

Romans is more forceful arguably and states that the act was 'shameful'. Although the next line after reads:

When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done.

Even god lived and let live with people who didn't believe in him, it would seem.


Overall, I can see why some Christians may be against gay intercourse, but why gay marriage?

NuMarvel

koth wrote: »

because it contradicts part of the wedding ceremony. The "what God has joined, let no man divide" part.

Even more so, it goes against the writings of the Bible, specifically Mark 10:

Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.

2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”

3 “What did Moses command you?” he replied.

4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”

5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. 6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.’[c] So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”


So not only is divorce forbidden, those who remarry are breaking one of the Ten Commandments. So the question goes back to this: if those who are against same sex civil marriage are doing so because of what the Bible says, why aren't they equally as fervent when it comes to removing the legal mechanisms for the dissolution of marriage?

Penn

Cybercelesta wrote: »

I am personally against it for obvious reasons, nothing to do with religon!!

Well firstly, I said two people of the same species, not of the same sex. Though I get your drift.

Secondly, if your reasons are nothing to do with religion, then what are your reasons? Leaving aside things like adopting children and the like, why should two members of the same sex, whether they be males or females, not be allowed to marry, if religion is not an issue?

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

That is primarily what it is, and that is not illegal.

Im some countries it is. But because language is used to think that does not mean language is philosophy. It is primarily a tool for philosophy but people use it for a secondary reason too - communication. We probably coundn't enforce a ban on thinking but we could enforce a ban on speaking or writing.

This nonsense about financial regulation as a way of limiting greed (which its not)

Okay then so tell me what is the main objection against short selling?

http://www.frankpartnoy.com/_/Home.html

Professor Frank Partnoy is the George E. Barrett Professor of Law and Finance and is the director of the Center on Corporate and Securities Law at the University of San Diego.He is one of the world’s leading experts on the complexities of modern finance and financial market regulation.
...
His recent books include Infectious Greed: How Deceit and Risk Corrupted the Financial Markets,

which in turn is a form of idolatry (which its not) is just you stuck to answer a fairly basic question. Greed is not illegal, neither is worshipping money.

Nor is pride illegal. But it is the cause of many bad thinks in the world and the Church would promote policies and laws to oppose pride causing such bad things just as it would oppose greed causing other bad things.

You know that there exists sins that Christians do not attempt to regulate using Earthly laws. Western societies do not ban other religions despite them breaking the 1st Commandment.

The church would hope other religions would eventually accept their view. The church do not force this view on others. They would also support legislation which supports their world view and oppose legislation which in their view works against their view. All this is entirely reasonable.

Except when the negative is legal, then they wish to ban it. I've already said this, that Christian groups where homosexual marriage is legal

The church would not regard a homosexual union as "marriage". They dont even regard a heterosexual union as sacramentally marriage.

have called for it to be banned and where it looks like it will be legal such in Ireland have called for laws to make it illegal to make laws allow it.

You are jumping the gun. One can't make something illegal if it is undefined. The point is homosexual marriage does not exist in Irish law. In the Church view it can't . But if the law was changed the church would then ask for such a law to be repealed. But it has not got to that yet and if uit did how could a repeal happen if people just voted for it? Which begs the question why has such a choice not been pout to the pepole by referendum?

The only answer so for is "It isn't important enough for Fine Gael as they have political reform on top of their agenda" Labour it seems have nothing to say on it either. And the opposition don't propose any legislation on it.

Which is going to happen. Your frankly ridiculous argument is that once it does Christians won't object since they don't ban the negative?

If the majority of people just voted for something the church opposed you are asserting the Church would immediately move a referendum to oppose it? In fact the opposite happened with divorce!

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

It is funny how some Christians can see a bit of God's plan for how to live in others worshipping different gods (against the 1st commandment btw), but when it comes to two homosexuals in love who want to make a State recognized commitment to each other they can't (homosexual relations are against God's commandments but no more so than worshipping other gods).

It is really difficult to escape the conclusion that this resistance to secular recognition of homosexual marriage is more to do with personal bigotry than any serious religious objection.

And that is very sad

Are you claiming i am a bigot?
Quite clearly I have stated if people want civil unions and the law is passed then so be it.
I have also pointed out Gay Senator's who oppose it being called "marriage"

Penn

ISAW wrote: »

I have also pointed out Gay Senator's who oppose it being called "marriage"

So? What about all the other people who do want it to be called marriage?

NuMarvel

ISAW wrote: »

Which begs the question why has such a choice not been pout to the pepole by referendum?

Hasn't that question has been answered a number of times already?

One last go - there's a case before the Supreme Court. Until that case is heard and a judgement is delivered, then planning for a referendum is pointless as nobody knows what the Supreme Court judges will say.

ISAW

Barrington wrote: »

So? What about all the other people who do want it to be called marriage?

ALL the other people do NOT want it. a tiny minority want it. that is self evident by the tiny minority wo avail of gay unions elsewhere. But the point is about the majority passing it into law. Even some of those who avail of it do not want it called "marriage" and those who do not want it for themselves, but are prepared to accept people who do want it do not want it called "marriage". That does not mean any of them are bigots.

Killer Pigeon

In my honest opinion, religion or the state shouldn't dictate the personal lives of others. Religious devotion is a choice, your sexual orientation isn't.

"Marriage" doesn't specifically derive from religion, nor is it a religious affair in the eyes of the law. I mean nearly every culture in the world today has marriage ingrained as part of their culture, but there is no universal definition of what marriage is. Marriage is therefore a cultural phenomena and culture is often subject to change.

Sure you could say that in one culture, marriage would have been defined as the union between and man and a woman but that mightn't be so in another culture; there are example of same-sex marriages throughout ancient history.

As marriage is a cultural phenomena, the state should not have a say on what the definition of marriage should be. Therefore the state should not have a right to dictate who a person wishes to get married to, no matter what their sex is.

To be honest. I don't understand why this issue is being discussed in the Christianity forum. As religion is a choice, it should not have an impact on the personal lives of individuals unless those individuals wish to adhere to a particular religion's code of practice. In a similar way, religion should not impact on state legislation or the unalienable rights of the individual.

In relation to married gay couples adopting. Studies have shown that having two parents of the same-sex doesn't impact on the development of the child. Therefore, I don't see why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt. They should be treated as fairly as straight couples in the adoption process in the eyes of the law.

Also, to does people who are fervently against gay marriage. You have every right not to recognise a gay couple who decide to get a civil marriage as being "married" (unless their is a legal premise that you must), but what right have you to dictate how the status of their relationship should be viewed in the eyes of the law. You don't. How does the fact that two gay people decide to get married impact on your marriage?

ISAW

NuMarvel wrote: »

Hasn't that question has been answered a number of times already?

No. where i came in is where Monty asked such a question. It hasn't been answered since then.

One last go - there's a case before the Supreme Court. Until that case is heard and a judgement is delivered, then planning for a referendum is pointless as nobody knows what the Supreme Court judges will say.

What case? any reference to it?

Still begs the question

1. Court decides "gay marriage" exists ~ so do we then have a referendum?
2. Court decides gay marriage does not exist~ do we then have a referendum or just accept the "civil union" terminology?
3. courts decides gay marriage is civil union and gay marriage does not exist. Do we then have a referendum?

Penn

ISAW wrote: »

Barrington wrote: »

So? What about all the other people who do want it to be called marriage?

ALL the other people do NOT want it. a tiny minority want it. that is self evident by the tiny minority wo avail of gay unions elsewhere. But the point is about the majority passing it into law. Even some of those who avail of it do not want it called "marriage" and those who do not want it for themselves, but are prepared to accept people who do want it do not want it called "marriage". That does not mean any of them are bigots.

Sorry, I phrased that badly, I meant that you have shown some Gay Senators eho don't think it should be called marriage, and I'm sure lots of people agree with them. But what about the people who don't agree? Why are you valuing what some Gay Senators have said over potentially what others say?

Neither of us can claim a majority or minority either way, without recent statistics.

ISAW

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

In my honest opinion, religion or the state shouldn't dictate the personal lives of others. Religious devotion is a choice, your sexual orientation isn't.

What if you claim to be sexually oriented towards children and society says that is not normal and should not be allowed?

"Marriage" doesn't specifically derive from religion, nor is it a religious affair in the eyes of the law.

But it is in the eyes of a church Sacrement and church traditions are protected by the constitution as is what is traditionally understood by "family".

I mean nearly every culture in the world today has marriage ingrained as part of their culture. Marriage is therefore a cultural phenomena and culture is often subject to change.

That have child sex in some places too. That does not mean because such cultures exist we should say "Ireland should be open to such change" as if it is progressive.

Sure you could say that in one culture, marriage would have been defined as the union between and man and a woman but that mightn't be so in another culture; there are example of same-sex marriages throughout ancient history.

Not really in almost every culture traditional families are a man a woman and children. Marriage is a man and a woman. And adults dont have sex wioth children. That is effectively universal.

As marriage is a cultural phenomena, the state should not have a say on what the definition of marriage should be.

Already dealt with above.

Therefore the state should not have a right to dictate who person wishes to get married to, no matter what their sex is.

No. that wont wash as a constitutional argument either.

To be honest. I don't understand why this issue is being discussed in the Christianity forum. As religion is a choice, it should not have an impact on the personal lives of individuals unless those individuals wish to adhere to a particular religion's code of practice.

so if you chose the "I like kiddies in a special way" religion then that should be legally respected?

In a similar way, religion should not impact on state legislation or the unalienable rights of the individual.

How can one have inalienable rights in the fiorst place if they are subject to people saying they think differently and the traditional law doers not apply to them?

That is what "inalienable" means ~ you can't remove them or redefine them!

In relation to married gay couples adopting. Studies have shown

WHICH studies? By whom?

You have every right not to recognise a gay couple who decide to get a civil marriage as being "married" (unless their is a legal premise that you must), but what right have you to dictate how the status of their relationship should be viewed in the eyes of the law.

Well this is the whole point. IF the law says "gay marriage does not exist" then who are you to dictate that the law is wrong and the status is the same?

You don't. How does the fact that two gay people decide to get married impact on your marriage?

Someone else abusing a kid may not impact on my kids but that doesn't make it legal or mean I should accept such an act being legal does it?

Killer Pigeon

ISAW wrote: »

ALL the other people do NOT want it. a tiny minority want it. that is self evident by the tiny minority wo avail of gay unions elsewhere. But the point is about the majority passing it into law. Even some of those who avail of it do not want it called "marriage" and those who do not want it for themselves, but are prepared to accept people who do want it do not want it called "marriage". That does not mean any of them are bigots.

This is the thing. The electorate should not have the right to choose who people get married to, neither should the state, it should be a strictly personal matter. It is should not be up to the majority to define someone's relationship.

Let's imagine a hypothetical scenario in which you wanted to marry the person you love. However, you can't get married to that person until there is an election. The majority have to vote in favour of your marriage in order to get married. Do you think that would be fair?

ISAW

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

This is the thing. The electorate should not have the right to choose who people get married to, neither should the state, it should be a strictly personal matter. It is should not be up to the majority to define someone's relationship.

What you do in your own home is your own business. But when you ask the state to award rights to such behaviour or insist such rights are "inalienable" then you are certainly bringing such behavior under the protection and support of the state.

Let's imagine a hypothetical scenario in which you wanted to marry the person you love. However, you can't get married to that person until there is an election. The majority have to vote in favour of your marriage in order to get married. Do you think that would be fair?

But legal marriage already does require the approval odf the State! It isnt hypothetical. Anyone can enter into a relationship with anyone or with multiple partners. The point is when you start calling it "marriage" you are into legal definitions which relate to state support , property rights , inheritance etc.

Nobody can do anything about someone having five partners but should that person die the spouse and children inherit and not the other four partners.

NuMarvel

ISAW wrote: »

No. where i came in is where Monty asked such a question. It hasn't been answered since then.


What case? any reference to it?

I answered the question and referenced the case in Post #98, and post #285. Oldrnwisr also referred to it in post #125, when replying to you.

optogirl

ISAW wrote: »

Someone else abusing a kid may not impact on my kids but that doesn't make it legal or mean I should accept such an act being legal does it?

Your comparing of a homosexual relationship between 2 consenting adults who love each other enough to want to get married and somebody who is sexually attracted to children and acts on that, displays your ignorance surrounding human sexuality.
The discussion here is about consenting adults.

NuMarvel

ISAW wrote: »

What if you claim to be sexually oriented towards children and society says that is not normal and should not be allowed?




Someone else abusing a kid may not impact on my kids but that doesn't make it legal or mean I should accept such an act being legal does it?

So this is what Monty means when he (or she) keeps mentioning sophistry...

Killer Pigeon

ISAW wrote: »

What if you claim to be sexually oriented towards children and society says that is not normal and should not be allowed?

Are you seriously trying to compare pedophilia with homosexuality? I actually view that as quite offensive. Clearly pedophilia should be prevented because of the simple fact that it impacts on the development of the children (the victim) and the child isn't mature enough to willfully consent.

ISAW wrote: »

But it is in the eyes of a church Sacrement and church traditions are protected by the constitution as is what is traditionally understood by "family".

Marriage is many things in the eyes of many cultures, religions and traditions. Why should one religion dictate what marriage should be for everyone, including those who don't adhere to the practices of that particular religion?

ISAW wrote: »

That have child sex in some places too. That does not mean because such cultures exist we should say "Ireland should be open to such change" as if it is progressive.

Again, I view your comparison between pedophilia and homosexuality as quite offensive. Clearly you don't understand the nature of homosexuality. Two consenting adults of the same-sex engaging in a relationship aren't impacting on the lives of others any more than two straight consenting adults engaging in a similar relationship are.

ISAW wrote: »

Not really in almost every culture traditional families are a man a woman children. Marriage is a man and a woman. And adults dont have sex wioth children. That is effectively universal.

Not in every culture, it is not universal, and as I said culture is open to change and should not be dictated upon by the state.

"And adults dont have sex wioth children"

We are not talking about pedophilia, that is a different issue.

Anthropologists have failed to come up with a single universal definition of marriage based specifically on the union between a man and a woman. There are many examples of same-sex marriages throughout history. Read the following wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

ISAW wrote: »

No. that wont wash as a constitutional argument either.

Nowhere in the Irish constitution is the institution of married recognised as being specifically between a man and a woman. Similarly, the Irish constitution doesn't recognise the Family as being specifically one containing a man, a woman and their children. Therefore, you don't really need a referendum in order to bring about legislation to permit same-sex marriages. The following is what the Irish constitution says on marriage:

The Family

Article 41

1. 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

2. 1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

3. 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

2° A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that ­

i. at the date of the institution of the proceedings, the spouses have lived apart from one another for a period of, or periods amounting to, at least four years during the five years,

ii. there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation between the spouses,

iii. such provision as the Court considers proper having regard to the circumstances exists or will be made for the spouses, any children of either or both of them and any other person prescribed by law, and

iv. any further conditions prescribed by law are complied with.

3° No person whose marriage has been dissolved under the civil law of any other State but is a subsisting valid marriage under the law for the time being in force within the jurisdiction of the Government and Parliament established by this Constitution shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage within that jurisdiction during the lifetime of the other party to the marriage so dissolved.

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/Pdf%20files/Constitution%20of%20Ireland.pdf

In fact, you could make a case that not permitting same-sex marriages is in breech of the constitution.

ISAW wrote: »

so if you chose the "I like kiddies in a special way" religion then that should be legally respected?

I have tackled this issue already. I think your comparison is gravely offensive and if you compare homosexuality with pedophilia again in a subsequent post I will report you. I regard it as trolling; it is devoid of logic or fact. It doesn't contribute to your argument and it is offensive.

ISAW wrote: »

WHICH studies? By whom?

A synopsis on some is available here:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_pare2.htm

ISAW wrote: »

Well this is the whole point. IF the law says "gay marriage does not exist" then who are you to dictate that the law is wrong and the status is the same?

My point is the state should not have the right to dictate the personal lives of individuals.

ISAW wrote: »

Someone else abusing a kid may not impact on my kids but that doesn't make it legal or mean I should accept such an act being legal does it?

Yet again, you compare homosexuality with pedophilia. Do it again, I will report you.

Killer Pigeon

ISAW wrote: »

What you do in your own home is your own business. But when you ask the state to award rights to such behaviour or insist such rights are "inalienable" then you are certainly bringing such behavior under the protection and support of the state.

If I have a right to do something, such as love another man, in the comfort of my own home, then I would expect that I should be protected by the state if my right to love another man was being denied.

ISAW wrote: »

But legal marriage already does require the approval odf the State! It isnt hypothetical. Anyone can enter into a relationship with anyone or with multiple partners. The point is when you start calling it "marriage" you are into legal definitions which relate to state support , property rights , inheritance etc.

You need the approval of the state, but you don't need the approval of the people.

ISAW

NuMarvel wrote: »

I answered the question and referenced the case in Post #98, and post #285. Oldrnwisr also referred to it in post #125, when replying to you.

Post 125 the point you made as above is about holding a referendum on something being decided upon by the courts.
As I stated yes we will have to wait but we can still discuss what such a referendum might be pending the court decision.

i.e. if the court decides Gay marriage is not legal under Irish Law then we can discuss what form civil legal partnerships might take in the absence of gay marriage.

By the way I asked for a reference to the court case. Have you got one?

ISAW

Barrington wrote: »

Sorry, I phrased that badly, I meant that you have shown some Gay Senators eho don't think it should be called marriage, and I'm sure lots of people agree with them. But what about the people who don't agree? Why are you valuing what some Gay Senators have said over potentially what others say?

I'm not I'm just saying you can't call Senator biased against gays because he is one. The people who don't agree in this case are a minority of the already small minority of all gay people. The point is what about them. If the vast majority think something should be in a certain way (whether or not based on their opinion that it is morally wrong) then why should laws be brought in to facilitate the tiny minority who want their behaviour to be accepted on the same level as people who don't have their lifestyle or behave as they do?

Neither of us can claim a majority or minority either way, without recent statistics.

Oh we can! A tiny minority of people are homosexual. It is unlikely non homosexuals will want to enter into homosexual unions.

ISAW

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

This is the thing. The electorate should not have the right to choose who people get married to, neither should the state, it should be a strictly personal matter. It is should not be up to the majority to define someone's relationship.

The state doe not have the right to decide to whom anyone gets married. People cvan not marry horses pigs or rocks however ~ even if they say they are in love with the horse!

Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman.
If you really believe that the majority can't redefine marriage as "gay marriage" then why are you campaigning for a law which defines marriage as between people of the same sex?

optogirl wrote: »

Your comparing of a homosexual relationship between 2 consenting adults who love each other enough to want to get married and somebody who is sexually attracted to children and acts on that, displays your ignorance surrounding human sexuality.
The discussion here is about consenting adults.

You only just added that in.
The Irish law says they have to be over 18 but it also says they cant be married if they are of the same sex. You cant just pick out one impediment and ignore another.
If you can say 2suppose we dump the sex requirement" what is different with someone dumping the age requirement or the "already married to someone else" impediment or "certified mentally ill " requirement or stepdaughter/stepson requirement?

NuMarvel

ISAW wrote: »

Post 125 the point you made as above is about holding a referendum on something being decided upon by the courts.
As I stated yes we will have to wait but we can still discuss what such a referendum might be pending the court decision.

If you are aware that we will have to wait for the Court's decision, then why did you state:

ISAW wrote: »

Which begs the question why has such a choice not been pout to the pepole by referendum?

The only answer so for is "It isn't important enough for Fine Gael as they have political reform on top of their agenda" Labour it seems have nothing to say on it either. And the opposition don't propose any legislation on it.

It's one thing to hypothesise on the wording of a referendum that may or may not happen. It's another thing entirely put forward a theory as to why there's no referendum when you know full well why.

Monty's definitely right. Spin and sophistry are rampant in this thread...

Killer Pigeon

ISAW wrote: »

The state doe not have the right to decide to whom anyone gets married. People cvan not marry horses pigs or rocks however ~ even if they say they are in love with the horse!

In the real world, "horses, pigs or rocks" do not have the ability to consent.

ISAW wrote: »

Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman.

According to some cultures, but this is not universal as I said to you before on this thread and I will not get into again.

ISAW wrote: »

If you really believe that the majority can't redefine marriage as "gay marriage" then why are you campaigning for a law which defines marriage as between people of the same sex?

You can't redefine something that doesn't have a set definition. The people won't need to redefine anything. All that needs to be done is remove whatever legislation that prevents same-sex marriages. It is likely that you won't need a referendum. Marriage should be recognised by the state as the union between two individuals. Simple.

ISAW

NuMarvel wrote: »

If you are aware that we will have to wait for the Court's decision, then why did you state:

I was wrong about that. It doesnt beg the question of a referendun right now. It begs the question what sort of a referendum should we be having and pending the decision whatever it is, if it says gay marriage is illegal then why not put that decision to the people?

It's one thing to hypothesise on the wording of a referendum that may or may not happen. It's another thing entirely put forward a theory as to why there's no referendum when you know full well why.

Yes I agree. We obviously can't have a referendum right now if there is a court decision pending. You still haven't given a reference to the court case by the way. But I dont think the court will take years to decide. Do you? So off you go...care to hypothesise on the wording of a referendum that may or may not happen.

Penn

ISAW wrote: »

I'm not I'm just saying you can't call Senator biased against gays because he is one. The people who don't agree in this case are a minority of the already small minority of all gay people. The point is what about them. If the vast majority think something should be in a certain way (whether or not based on their opinion that it is morally wrong) then why should laws be brought in to facilitate the tiny minority who want their behaviour to be accepted on the same level as people who don't have their lifestyle or behave as they do?

Oh we can! A tiny minority of people are homosexual. It is unlikely non homosexuals will want to enter into homosexual unions.

But I'm a heterosexual and do not want to enter into a homosexual union. But I still want this to be brought in. I still want homosexuals to be allowed to get married, because there is absolutely no good reason why they shouldn't be allowed to. I care about equality, and if I am allowed to marry a woman, a woman should be allowed to marry another woman, and a man should be allowed to marry another man. I have yet to see a good, non-religious reason in this thread why they should not be allowed to get married.

ISAW

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

In the real world, "horses, pigs or rocks" do not have the ability to consent.

That is a side issue. Multiple people can consent but multiple people cant get married because marriage is defined as between one man and one woman. It isn't defined as between anything else.

According to some cultures, but this is not universal as I said to you before on this thread and I will not get into again.

the family unit is fairly much universally accepted. Marriage is almost totally between one man and one woman. Polyandry and polygamy have occurred in some places but where they have they have declined polygamy in particular. Homosexual marriage is even rarer if it ever existed.

You can't redefine something that doesn't have a set definition. The people won't need to redefine anything. All that needs to be done is remove whatever legislation that prevents same-sex marriages.

There isn't any . Marriage is defined as between man and woman as far as I know.

It is likely that you won't need a referendum. Marriage should be recognised by the state as the union between two individuals. Simple.

Nope because family marriage and other such things are constitutionally protected and legally defined.

ISAW

Barrington wrote: »

But I'm a heterosexual and do not want to enter into a homosexual union. But I still want this to be brought in. I still want homosexuals to be allowed to get married, because there is absolutely no good reason why they shouldn't be allowed to.

Marriage is between a man and a woman and for having children of their own. it is constitutionally protected. If homosexuals want civil unions then there is nothing stopping them legally having them.

[
I care about equality, and if I am allowed to marry a woman, a woman should be allowed to marry another woman, and a man should be allowed to marry another man. I have yet to see a good, non-religious reason in this thread why they should not be allowed to get married.

You are getting like Stan "I want to be a woman" from monty python

Killer Pigeon

ISAW wrote: »

That is a side issue. Multiple people can consent but multiple people cant get married because marriage is defined as between one man and one woman. It isn't defined as between anything else.



the family unit is fairly much universally accepted. Marriage is almost totally between one man and one woman. Polyandry and polygamy have occurred in some places but where they have they have declined polygamy in particular. Homosexual marriage is even rarer if it ever existed.



There isn't any . Marriage is defined as between man and woman as far as I know.



Nope because family marriage and other such things are constitutionally protected and legally defined.

I covered all these issues in a reply to you in post #329 - clearly you've either ignored it or unwittingly skipped over it. As of yet you haven't replied to that post.

NuMarvel

ISAW wrote: »

But I dont think the court will take years to decide. Do you? So off you go...care to hypothesise on the wording of a referendum that may or may not happen.

The appeal to the Supreme Court was lodged back in February 2007, so it may take some time yet before the case is heard, let alone decided upon.

As for hypothetical wording of a referendum, I think that's best left for the Politics forum, or perhaps Legal Discussion. I personally think it's a pointless exercise at this point without the judgement in front of us.

Penn

ISAW wrote: »

Marriage is between a man and a woman and for having children of their own. it is constitutionally protected. If homosexuals want civil unions then there is nothing stopping them legally having them.

The constitution changes with the times, ISAW. It evolves with society (well, sometimes a few years behind society) and like it or not, society is evolving

ISAW wrote: »

You are getting like Stan "I want to be a woman" from monty python

Never saw that. I presume Stan "I want to be a woman" makes good arguments to which you have no reasonable, logical comeback.

NuMarvel

ISAW wrote: »

Marriage is between a man and a woman and for having children of their own.

Except for when they don't have children of their own.

Or when they don't have children at all.

Or when they have children outside marriage.

So if exceptions already exist to your definition of marriage, then what do you lose by adding another?

Delirium

ISAW wrote: »

Marriage is between a man and a woman and for having children of their own.

thats a definition of marriage. Not all heterosexual couples marry to reproduce.

it is constitutionally protected.

And constitutions can be changed if and when the government/people choose to do so.

If homosexuals want civil unions then there is nothing stopping them legally having them.

But that doesn't give them the same rights as married couples. You're giving more worth/value to one couple over the other purely based on their sexuality. Should we not have moved past this sort of discrimination by now?

optogirl

ISAW wrote: »

The state doe not have the right to decide to whom anyone gets married. People cvan not marry horses pigs or rocks however ~ even if they say they are in love with the horse!

Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman.
If you really believe that the majority can't redefine marriage as "gay marriage" then why are you campaigning for a law which defines marriage as between people of the same sex?


You only just added that in.
The Irish law says they have to be over 18 but it also says they cant be married if they are of the same sex. You cant just pick out one impediment and ignore another.
If you can say 2suppose we dump the sex requirement" what is different with someone dumping the age requirement or the "already married to someone else" impediment or "certified mentally ill " requirement or stepdaughter/stepson requirement?

what do you mean by 'you only just added that in'??? And again CONSENT is the key word here

oldrnwisr

Apologies to ISAW for not responding to your points quicker as I've been snowed under with work commitments.
To everyone else I will try to keep this as concise as possible because I'm already 13 pages behind and don't want to start raking over old ground too much.

ISAW wrote: »

Since you are not claiming that and we can both accept that the Bible isnt a cop[y of earliuer laws but includes symboly incorporated from earlier then there isn't an issue about it. The bible and the law in it isn't copied and doesn't originate in non Jewish cultures from which we can show it was copied.

Agreed.

ISAW wrote: »

What do you mean by "is derived from"
1. They copied it
2. they used some symbols from earlier stories of non Jewish traditions to represent the Devil and other elements in Jewish tradition.

A mixture of 1 and 2, but mostly 2. For example, the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is a heavily modified adaptation of a creation story in Sumerian mythology.
The goddess Ninhursag created a beautiful garden full of lush vegetation and fruit trees, called Edinu, the Sumerian earthly Paradise, a place which the Sumerians believed to exist to the east of their own land, beyond the sea. Ninhursag charged Enki, her lover, with controlling the wild animals and tending the garden, but Enki became curious about the garden and his assistant, Adapa, selected seven plants and offered them to Enki, who ate them.
This enranged Ninhursag, and she caused Enki to fall. Enki falls, receiving seven wounds in the process and turning him into a mortal. The other senior Gods convince Ninhursag to forgive Enki and she bears seven daughters, one for each of his wounds, including the daughter of the rib.


This story contains several parallels to the Genesis creation story including Eve being formed from a rib, the name Eden, forbidden food, the Fall etc.

I'm not suggesting that the story in Genesis was deliberately copied from the earlier Sumerian tale. I'm saying that the Sumerian myth, which would have been familiar to the authors of Genesis would have influenced the use of certain symbols and concepts when they wrote their own creation story.

There are many other examples throughout the OT and NT but I'll leave it there.

ISAW wrote: »

Could you please point out where I have made an error in logic as you claim?

I never made any reference to paedophilia, nor as you claimed did I support any idea that it was progressive. You used an emotive hot button issue like paedophilia to make inferences about my argument in favour of gay marriage.

ISAW wrote: »

Indeed Jesus pointed out that following the letter of the law over the spirit of the law is problematic. Which is the problem with positive law and "what law says I cant do that"?

Agreed, however, that was an argument being proposed (not by you).

ISAW wrote: »

Members of my family have a shellfish allergy so - not so fast! And the astrologers well I confess sometimes I harbour bad thoughts about them.

OK, but I think you take my point about singling out one law in the Bible while discarding others?

ISAW wrote: »

I agree. Not rammed through into law because of a claim that minorities should have rights.

No, but then I'm not basing my argument on the fact that minorities should have rights. I'm arguing why this minority should have this right.

ISAW wrote: »

Exactly! It isn't about the writing at all. It is about it being wrong! Even if a writing says it is wrong it is not wrong because the law says so. it was wrong even before they wrote that law down!
I think you have the concept now.

OK, we seem to be making progress now. I agree that something can be right or wrong independent of what legislation or a religious text says. Where I disagree with you is that once you dispense with legislation and religious texts, I don't consider homosexuality to be immoral (or homosexual acts for that matter).

ISAW wrote: »

The point is that homosexual is a legislator! And people cant claim he is anti gay because he is gay!
The other point is he has stated "marriage" is not "civil partnership"
He said that a gay man said it. A gay man who makes the law.

So you're aiming for an appeal to authority now? To paraphrase Stan Marsh, David Norris is not the emperor of gay people. His opinion on gay marriage is just that, his opinion.

ISAW wrote: »

I disagree. do you really believe that if the drink drive limit was removed people would not drink and drive more then usual?

No, I have no doubt that if the drink-drive limit was raised or removed that people would drink more. However, drinking is a conscious choice which homosexuality absolutely isn't.

ISAW wrote: »

Article 42 on the family refers to "marriage" "women" and "mothers". Marriage is between a man and a woman. That is the issue.

I presume you mean Article 41, since Article 42 makes no mention of marriage or women or mothers.

ISAW wrote: »

In your opinion. In fact the Church gives more parenting courses and has more research done on families then any other agency. It is ongoing.

So what? Who cares what parenting courses they give or what research they sponsor? They clearly haven't listened to any of it. It's not just my opinion either. The research and the consensus says that there is no difference in the outcome of a child raised by two homosexual parents compared to two heterosexual ones.

ISAW wrote: »

Indeed a valid view based on best practice and on research and on what families find is the best modus operandi for them?

But it isn't based on good research or best practice, that's the problem.

Cybercelesta wrote: »

Now where in the bible does God condone Gay marriage??

Luke 6:31:rolleyes:

Keylem wrote: »

For Catholics, it is sinful to support any legislation which normalises homosexual lifestyles, if it came to a vote, then I as a Catholic would have to vote no to gay marriage!!!!

Most honest response in this thread to date. I suspect that for most christians, they will reject homosexual marriage because their religion tells them to, no matter what evidence or counter argument is presented.

Monty. wrote: »

This statement is self contradictory.
Jesus specifically done away with some customs.
The Bible must be studied, interpreted and understood in its entirety.
The New testament amends, updates and revises the old, Christianity is not ancient Judaism.
The New testament also condemns homosexual acts.

But Jesus instructs his followers to keep the commandments, all of them. (Matthew 19:17).

That would encompass the rules in Leviticus.

NuMarvel wrote: »

Even more so, it goes against the writings of the Bible, specifically Mark 10:

Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.

2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”

3 “What did Moses command you?” he replied.

4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”

5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. 6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.’[c] So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”


So not only is divorce forbidden, those who remarry are breaking one of the Ten Commandments. So the question goes back to this: if those who are against same sex civil marriage are doing so because of what the Bible says, why aren't they equally as fervent when it comes to removing the legal mechanisms for the dissolution of marriage?

Except for Jesus allows an exception in Matthew 19.

"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery." Matthew 19:9

Gotta love them contradictory Bible passages.

ISAW wrote: »

WHICH studies? By whom?

These ones for starters.

Bos, H. M. W., van Balen, F., & Van den Boom, D. C. (2007). Child
adjustment and parenting in planned lesbian-parent families.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77, 38–48.

http://www.meerdangewenst.nl/documenten/AJOP.pdf


Gartrell, N., Deck, A., Rodas, C., Peyser, H., & Banks, A. (2005). The
National Lesbian Family Study: 4. Interviews with the 10-year-old
children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 75, 518–524.

http://www.nllfs.org/images/uploads/...-olds-2005.pdf


Perrin,E.C.,&AmericanAcademyof Pediatrics,Committee on Psychosocial
Aspects of Child, Family Health. (2002). Technical report:
Coparent or second-parent adoption by same-sex parents. Pediatrics,
109, 341–344.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...6c302e03b8d796


Tasker, F. (2005). Lesbian mothers, gay fathers and their children: A
review. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 26,
224–240.

http://journals.lww.com/jrnldbp/Abst...ldren_.12.aspx


Vanfraussen, K., Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, I., & Brewaeys, A. (2002).
What does it mean for youngsters to grow up in a lesbian family
created by means of donor insemination? Journal of Reproductive
and Infant Psychology, 20, 237–252.

http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiL...2002-11380-003

ISAW wrote: »

By the way I asked for a reference to the court case. Have you got one?

Sure. Her you go.

Zappone & Gilligan v. Revenue Commissioners, [2008] 2 IR 417.

ISAW wrote: »

I'm not I'm just saying you can't call Senator biased against gays because he is one.

Of course you can. Ever heard of a self-hating Jew. The psychology of such an individual has been analysed in multiple studies with most of them following the conclusions of Kenneth Levin, a Harvard psychiatrist that:

"people may attempt to distance themselves from membership in devalued groups because they accept, to some degree, the negative evaluations of their group held by the majority and because these social identities are an obstacle to the pursuit of social status."

Given the stigmatisation of homosexuals in society, this is a perfectly reasonable position.

W. M. L. Finlay, "Pathologizing Dissent: Identity Politics, Zionism and the 'Self-Hating Jew'", British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 2, June 2005, pp. 201-222.

ISAW wrote: »

Oh we can! A tiny minority of people are homosexual. It is unlikely non homosexuals will want to enter into homosexual unions.

You can't be serious.

First of all, show that homosexuality only forms a tiny minority. Over the last half century, studies attempting to document the demographics of sexual orientation have found wildly varying percentages from 0.3% to 20% such that there isn't a consensus on homosexuality prevalence.

Furthermore, there are documented difficulties with assessing homosexuality for demographic purposes. As one researcher noted:

"The research must measure some characteristic that may or may not be defining of sexual orientation. The class of people with same-sex desires may be larger than the class of people who act on those desires, which in turn may be larger than the class of people who self-identify as gay/lesbian/bisexual."

"Demographics of the Gay and Lesbian Population in the United States: Evidence from Available Systematic Data Sources", Dan Black, Gary Gates, Seth Sanders, Lowell Taylor, Demography, Vol. 37, No. 2 (May, 2000), pp. 139–154.


Secondly, you're claiming that a heterosexual would not enter a homosexual union. Are you suggesting that people don't get married for reasons other than love or family? What about marriages of convience, for work visas or other economic reasons?

ISAW wrote: »

the family unit is fairly much universally accepted. Marriage is almost totally between one man and one woman. Polyandry and polygamy have occurred in some places but where they have they have declined polygamy in particular. Homosexual marriage is even rarer if it ever existed.

Only if you narrow the scope to current societies. When examined across human history, a different picture emerges.



Polygyny is the most common family form in history due to the effect that an unrestricted male evolutionary impusle has on society. It is the rise of Christianity and it's views on what a marriage should be which has shifted the proportion in modern times.

ISAW

oldrnwisr wrote: »

These ones for starters.

Bos, H. M. W., van Balen, F., & Van den Boom, D. C. (2007). Child
adjustment and parenting in planned lesbian-parent families.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77, 38–48.

http://www.meerdangewenst.nl/documenten/AJOP.pdf

On page 41 arrives at two significant resluts one of which is just botderline i.e. at the five per cent level p=0.05 i.e. one in twenty times you would get the result buychance

the other is highly significant at the 0.001 level i.e. one in a thousand the result was by chance. So it would seem lesbians are less likely to smack their children or " respect for the child’s autonomy, and structure and limit-setting" but when you look again you find the scores were by trained observers of videotapes. They didnt know whether mothers in the video were lesbian or not but they did know that all the males in the videos were heterosexual. Therefore ~ It is not a blind test and the statistical significance is questionable.

Gartrell, N., Deck, A., Rodas, C., Peyser, H., & Banks, A. (2005). The
National Lesbian Family Study: 4. Interviews with the 10-year-old
children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 75, 518–524.

http://www.nllfs.org/images/uploads/...-olds-2005.pdf

Longitudinal study- good
Sample =78 families not great.

they began with 85 so we can't say anything about those who dropped out.
14 families were of lone parents.( page 519)

another 5 families dropped out leaving 74.

One was a twin. The rest were single children. whatever they measured seem to be on single children families then ( hardly as broad as possible). The longtitudinal study followed them form pregnancy to ten years of age.

They were all well to do middle class mothers with degrees and median incomes of $85,000 again hardly the average US citizen. 93 per cent were white.

By the time they were ten 32 of the 74 had siblings. Of these 8 had been adopted (page 520) and . I would be really startled that in a survey of 74 Irish middle class mothers having children that if 32 of them had additional Children that a quarter of the mothers having additional children had opted for adoption!

If anything the above research argues against lesbian couples being a good influence on society. It certainly isn't evidence that they provide stability or traditional family values or structures.

Although on re reading what it could mean is that the families adopted 8 additional children. But again that isn't a large sample proving gay couples adopting is good for society.

Perrin,E.C.,&AmericanAcademyof Pediatrics,Committee on Psychosocial
Aspects of Child, Family Health. (2002). Technical report:
Coparent or second-parent adoption by same-sex parents. Pediatrics,
109, 341–344.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...6c302e03b8d796

This is a review article and I would have to read through the 31 references before giving a comprehensive reply. but it is the best evidence produced yet as regards children being stable when parents are gay. But again children of lone parents are stable. Two parents are more preferable however. Which brings us back to marriage as being defined as heterosexual. The think is there are two separate issues
1. Marriage
2. Adoption rights

On 1 I have been clear as regards definition - if peiople want civil unions let them legislate for them

On 2 I don't think the evidence is convincing enough to abandon traditional families.

Tasker, F. (2005). Lesbian mothers, gay fathers and their children: A
review. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 26,
224–240.

http://journals.lww.com/jrnldbp/Abst...ldren_.12.aspx

All this says is it suggests "that children with lesbian or gay parents are comparable with children with heterosexual parents on key psychosocial developmental outcomes."
Im sure children of single or lone parents or poor parents are also comparable and not psychologically damaged by them but what is preferable? Surely two parents are preferable and adequate housing etc. As such this isnt an argument for homosexual marriage, it is just saying people who grow up with two gay adults dont seem to psychologically suffer. Nor do poor children, or other types of non traditional families.

Vanfraussen, K., Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, I., & Brewaeys, A. (2002).
What does it mean for youngsters to grow up in a lesbian family
created by means of donor insemination? Journal of Reproductive
and Infant Psychology, 20, 237–252.

http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiL...2002-11380-003

Ill have to leave this on for later as well. Remind me if I don't and thanks for supplying the papers.

Of course you can. Ever heard of a self-hating Jew.

Only from Woody Allen when he pointed out how ludicrous it was for a Jew to criticise another Jew for whistling a tune from Wagner.

The psychology of such an individual has been analysed in multiple studies with most of them following the conclusions of Kenneth Levin, a Harvard psychiatrist that:

"people may attempt to distance themselves from membership in devalued groups because they accept, to some degree, the negative evaluations of their group held by the majority and because these social identities are an obstacle to the pursuit of social status."

Aha! So we are back to Fianna Fáil voters.

Given the stigmatisation of homosexuals in society, this is a perfectly reasonable position.

W. M. L. Finlay, "Pathologizing Dissent: Identity Politics, Zionism and the 'Self-Hating Jew'", British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 2, June 2005, pp. 201-222.

LOL. So according to you the main reason there isn't gay marriage is because gay people and others stigmatise homosexuality? I think the feminists pushed this one about women in politics . Then after all their pushing and gender quotas and positive discrimination they found out women still don't want to be politicians! But this apparently according to your theory is because women have being women, hate other women being women and want to distance themselves from being women. and they do this ironically by maintaining traditional women's roles?

You can't be serious.

First of all, show that homosexuality only forms a tiny minority. Over the last half century, studies attempting to document the demographics of sexual orientation have found wildly varying percentages from 0.3% to 20% such that there isn't a consensus on homosexuality prevalence.

I doubt many found 20% or 0.3%!
What was the average?

How many studies?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation#Modern_survey_results

Most of these come in at the 1-2%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States
As of April 2011, approximately 3.5% of American adults identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual

Furthermore, there are documented difficulties with assessing homosexuality for demographic purposes. As one researcher noted:

It is still a tiny minority! Not nearly twenty percent!

Secondly, you're claiming that a heterosexual would not enter a homosexual union. Are you suggesting that people don't get married for reasons other than love or family? What about marriages of convience, for work visas or other economic reasons?

Same sex civil partnerships can be asexual.
Hetrosexuals have no huge demand for gay marriage!
The idea that there is a massive amount of people pretending to be gay for work visas is nonsense!


Only if you narrow the scope to current societies. When examined across human history, a different picture emerges.

According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook,
http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite/worldcul/Codebook4EthnoAtlas.pdf

of 1231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry.

but
At the same time, even within societies which allow polygyny, the actual practice of polygyny occurs relatively rarely.

Polygyny is the most common family form in history due to the effect that an unrestricted male evolutionary impusle has on society. It is the rise of Christianity and it's views on what a marriage should be which has shifted the proportion in modern times.

Nope! There is a difference with allowance and occurrence! even within societies which allow polygyny, the actual practice of polygyny occurs relatively rarely.

Likewise suppose something like child sex was allowable in ancient times and due to religio has been banned. But even when it was allowed it might have happened rarely.

oldrnwisr

ISAW wrote: »

On page 41 arrives at two significant resluts one of which is just botderline i.e. at the five per cent level p=0.05 i.e. one in twenty times you would get the result buychance

the other is highly significant at the 0.001 level i.e. one in a thousand the result was by chance. So it would seem lesbians are less likely to smack their children or " respect for the child’s autonomy, and structure and limit-setting" but when you look again you find the scores were by trained observers of videotapes. They didnt know whether mothers in the video were lesbian or not but they did know that all the males in the videos were heterosexual. Therefore ~ It is not a blind test and the statistical significance is questionable.

Presenting your opinion of this paper is worthless. If you think that this paper is flawed then you are welcome to present another peer-reviewed paper which challenges it's findings or conclusions.

This paper is cited by 38 other peer-reviewed papers, 10 of which I have presented below. While some of the papers have mentioned the noise in the results, none have concluded that they are detrimental in any way to the conclusions of the study.

Biblarz, T., Stacey, J. (2010). How does the gender of parents matter? Journal of Marriage and Family, 72,3-22.
http://www.famigliearcobaleno.org/public/documenti/file/How-Does-the-Gender-of-Parents-Matter.pdf

Bos, H. M. W., Gartrell, N. K., van Balen, F., Peyser, H. and Sandfort, T. G. M. (2008), Children in Planned Lesbian Families: A Cross-Cultural Comparison Between the United States and the Netherlands. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 78: 211–219
http://www.nllfs.org/images/uploads/pdf/NLLFS-children-in-planned-lesbian-families-2008.pdf

Henny M. W. Bos, Frank van Balen, Children in planned lesbian families: Stigmatisation, psychological adjustment and protective factors, Culture, Health &Sexuality, Vol. 10, Iss. 3, 2008.
http://www.narcis.nl/publication/RecordID/oai:uva.nl:307079

US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Psychological Adjustment of 17-Year-Old Adolescents , Nanette Gartrell and Henny Bos Pediatrics 2010; peds.2009-3153; published ahead of print June 7, 2010

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2010/06/07/peds.2009-3153.full.pdf+html

Bos, Henny M. W., Hakvoort, Esther M.,Child adjustment and parenting in planned lesbian families with known and as-yet unknown donors (2007) Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology, 28, 121-129
http://home.medewerker.uva.nl/e.m.hakvoort/bestanden/Bos_Hakvoort_2007.pdf

Gartrell, Nanette, Bos, Henny, Goldberg, Naomi, (2010) Adolescents of the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Sexual Orientation, Sexual Behavior, and Sexual Risk Exposure, Archives of Sexual Behavior.
http://www.familieslg.org/_comun/bibliografia/pdf/estudis_cientifics/2010_Gartrell-

Bos-Goldberg_Arch_Sex_Behav.pdf

Henny Bos and Theo G. M. Sandfort, (2010) Children’s Gender Identity in Lesbian and Heterosexual Two-Parent Families, Sex Roles, 62, 114-126
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2807026/

Farr, R. H., & Patterson, C. J. (2009). Transracial adoption among lesbian, gay, and heterosexual couples: Who completes transracial adoptions and with what results? Adoption Quarterly, 12, 187–204.
http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/fp09.pdf

Tasker, F. (2010) Same-sex parenting and child development: Reviewing the contribution of parental gender, Journal of Marriage and Family
http://www.famigliearcobaleno.org/public/documenti/file/Same-Sex-Parenting-and-Child-Development.pdf

Biblarz, Timothy J., Savci, Evren (2010) Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Families, Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 480-497
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00714.x/full


As for the other papers which I posted in my last post, they are cited by 77, 77, 92 and 58 other papers respectively. These papers represent solid research in favour of LGBT parenting. However, even papers only show so much on their own and so it is important to note the consensus position of the relevant medical organisations:


American Psychological Assocation

Position Statement in Support of Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Civil Marriage

Amicus brief submitted in support of 9th Circuit Court of Appeals challenge to California Prop 8

Lesbian and Gay Parenting Resource Publication


Canadian Psychological Association

Brief presented to the Legislative House of Commons Committee on Bill
C38


American Academy of Pediatrics

Policy statement - Coparent or second-parent adoption by same-sex parents


Australian Psychological Society

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) parented families - A literature review


American Psychoanalytic Association

Position statement on Gay and Lesbian Parenting


American Psychiatric Association

Adoption and co-parenting by same-sex couples


North American Council on Adoptable Children

Gay and Lesbian Adoptions and Foster Care


Royal College of Psychiatrists

Submission to the Church of England's Listening Exercise on Human Sexuality


American Academy of Child & Adolescent Pscyhiatry

Children with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender parents


American National Association of Social Workers

Amicus brief - California Supreme Court - Case No. S147999


Child Welfare League of America

Position statement on parenting of children by lesbian, gay and bisexual adults


That's just 10 organisations for starters. As one researcher, Judith Stacey noted:

“Rarely is there as much consensus in any area of social science as in the case of gay parenting, which is why the American Academy of Pediatrics and all of the major professional organizations with expertise in child welfare have issued reports and resolutions in support of gay and lesbian parental rights.”

ISAW wrote: »

The think is there are two separate issues
1. Marriage
2. Adoption rights

On 1 I have been clear as regards definition - if peiople want civil unions let them legislate for them

On 2 I don't think the evidence is convincing enough to abandon traditional families.

On the first point, who cares what the definition is, we'll just change it. The definition of marriage has been in flux throughout it's history. For example, mixed race marriages were illegal in America until California changed its laws in 1948. This will just be another instance where we redefine it.

On the second point, no-one is suggesting abandoning traditional families. Having heterosexual families as well as homosexual ones does not constitute abandoning anything. Also, while you may not think the evidence is convincing, the people who are actually in the field of LGBT research disagree. Completely.

ISAW wrote: »

All this says is it suggests "that children with lesbian or gay parents are comparable with children with heterosexual parents on key psychosocial developmental outcomes."
Im sure children of single or lone parents or poor parents are also comparable and not psychologically damaged by them but what is preferable? Surely two parents are preferable and adequate housing etc. As such this isnt an argument for homosexual marriage, it is just saying people who grow up with two gay adults dont seem to psychologically suffer. Nor do poor children, or other types of non traditional families.

Yes, despite the extra challenges faced by LGBT families, such as homophobia, bigotry and lack of legal recognition, children raised in such families do at least as well as any other children using any quantitative measure of outcome. The preferable situation is to have two loving, committed parents. That's it. No difference between straight and gay headed families. Religious groups still like to claim that straight couples are preferable but this simply isn't the case:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=318DYr_K8J4

ISAW wrote: »

LOL. So according to you the main reason there isn't gay marriage is because gay people and others stigmatise homosexuality?

NO, that is not what I'm saying at all. You made the claim that:

ISAW wrote: »

... you can't call Senator biased against gays because he is one.

I'm saying that based on the psychological research it is entirely possible to say that David Norris has a bias against gay activists.

Like I said already:

"people may attempt to distance themselves from membership in devalued groups because they accept, to some degree, the negative evaluations of their group held by the majority and because these social identities are an obstacle to the pursuit of social status."

ISAW wrote: »

I doubt many found 20% or 0.3%!

This study reported 20%:

Fraternal birth order and ratio of heterosexual/homosexual feelings in women and men.

while this one reported 0.3%:

UK Office of National Statistics - Population Trends.

(Actually it determined 1.5% but found that this was within the established boundaries of 0.3-3%)

ISAW wrote: »

What was the average?

For reasons, I have already outlined, there is no average value. The spread in the data is so great that any average value would be meaningless.

ISAW wrote: »

How many studies?

How many do you want?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/oct/26/relationships

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article633160.ece

ISAW wrote: »

According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook,
http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite/worldcul/Codebook4EthnoAtlas.pdf

of 1231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry.

but
At the same time, even within societies which allow polygyny, the actual practice of polygyny occurs relatively rarely.

Yes, the practice of polygyny within polygynous societies is rare but for reasons of population of mechanics and not choice.

For example, the Incan king Atahualpa had 1500 wives in a society which had a heavily regulated practice of polygyny. Great lords had harems of seven hundred women, principal persons fifty women, leaders of vassal nations thirty women, down to chiefs of five men who got three. This lead inevitably to almost no women at all for ordinary men who were forced to a life of near-celibacy. Polygyny was a privilege which accompanied power and so practice of polygyny in societies where it was allowed was still exceedingly rare.

However, this doesn't change the fact that the number of societies which had polygyny as a feature far outnumbers those built on monogamy.

Matt Ridley has a detailed analysis of this in Chapter 6 (Polygamy and the Nature of Men) of his book The Red Queen.

ISAW wrote: »

Likewise suppose something like child sex was allowable in ancient times and due to religio has been banned. But even when it was allowed it might have happened rarely.

Once again you are trying to draw parallels between homosexuality and paedophilia. It is irrelevant and offensive. Do it once more and you're going on ignore and I will report the post.

ISAW

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Presenting your opinion of this paper is worthless. If you think that this paper is flawed then you are welcome to present another peer-reviewed paper which challenges it's findings or conclusions.

I dont have to
The paper admits itself that the test in this case is not blind!

This paper is cited by 38 other peer-reviewed papers, 10 of which I have presented below.

Some from the same people I critqued above in my original reply?

e.g.
Gartrell, N., Deck, A., Rodas, C., Peyser, H., & Banks, A. (2005).

I've seen this before in educational literature
Ms A quotong Ms B who supports Ms C who supports Ms A

And all of a sudden you have a "feminism " branch or a "constructivism" branch of the literature.

While some of the papers have mentioned the noise in the results, none have concluded that they are detrimental in any way to the conclusions of the study.

Biblarz, T., Stacey, J. (2010). How does the gender of parents matter? Journal of Marriage and Family, 72,3-22.
http://www.famigliearcobaleno.org/public/documenti/file/How-Does-the-Gender-of-Parents-Matter.pdf

says: page 6

Studies that compared
single (heterosexual) mothers and fathers
rarely controlled effects of diverse routes to
single parenthood—chosen or accidental or via
the loss of a coparent through death, desertion,
or a divorce in which child custody was
contested or granted willingly. Studies that compared
lesbian comothers (or gay cofathers) with
heterosexual coparents, on the other hand, rarely
could control for marital status or biological
relatedness of both parents, and they could not
readily distinguish the impact of gender from
sexual identity. Moreover, these studies were
conducted in different states and nations with
distinct and changing sociocultural and legal
contexts for parenting, such as the Netherlands,
where same-sex marriage was legalized in 2001.

and

At this point no research supports
the widely held conviction that the gender of
parents matters for child well-being. To ascertain
whether any particular form of family is
ideal would demand sorting a formidable array
of often inextricable family and social variables.

Please don't try to shift the burden to prove to me. If you claim non traditional families are just as good then that is for you to prove. This paper says it isn't proved and possibly can't be.

Bos, H. M. W., Gartrell, N. K., van Balen, F., Peyser, H. and Sandfort, T. G. M. (2008), Children in Planned Lesbian Families: A Cross-Cultural Comparison Between the United States and the Netherlands. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 78: 211–219
http://www.nllfs.org/images/uploads/pdf/NLLFS-children-in-planned-lesbian-families-2008.pdf

Reenforced the point about the problems of comparing Netherlands with the US made on page six of your last cited paper

Moreover, these studies were
conducted in different states and nations with
distinct and changing sociocultural and legal
contexts for parenting, such as the Netherlands,
where same-sex marriage was legalized in 2001.

Henny M. W. Bos, Frank van Balen, Children in planned lesbian families: Stigmatisation, psychological adjustment and protective factors, Culture, Health &Sexuality, Vol. 10, Iss. 3, 2008.
http://www.narcis.nl/publication/RecordID/oai:uva.nl:307079

Again Nether lands and says

However, boys more often reported that, in their view, they were excluded by peers because of their non-traditional family situation. Girls more often reported that other children gossiped about the fact that they had two lesbian mothers. Higher levels of stigmatization were associated with more hyperactivity for boys and lower self-esteem for girls.

This is actually evidence that negative effects occur. now i know you can say "but what if two black people getting married were picked on isn't that racist?" But the fact is most people accept mixed race couples and minority race which considered culturally is not thought to be immoral as homosexual marraige is. In fact may religious black people would also reject homosexual marriage. the point again is you have to prove the "lesbian family"
is a positive thing for society but I don't have to prove say a black family is just as good as any other colour since people already accept that.

US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Psychological Adjustment of 17-Year-Old Adolescents , Nanette Gartrell and Henny Bos Pediatrics 2010; peds.2009-3153; published ahead of print June 7, 2010

Whioch proves lesbian families are just as good or better how exactly?

Bos, Henny M. W., Hakvoort, Esther M.,Child adjustment and parenting in planned lesbian families with known and as-yet unknown donors (2007) Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology, 28, 121-129
http://home.medewerker.uva.nl/e.m.hakvoort/bestanden/Bos_Hakvoort_2007.pdf

Which proves lesbian families are just as good or better how exactly?

Gartrell, Nanette, Bos, Henny, Goldberg, Naomi, (2010) Adolescents of the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Sexual Orientation, Sexual Behavior, and Sexual Risk Exposure, Archives of Sexual Behavior.
http://www.familieslg.org/_comun/bibliografia/pdf/estudis_cientifics/2010_Gartrell-

Bos-Goldberg_Arch_Sex_Behav.pdf

Which proves lesbian families are just as good or better how exactly?

Henny Bos and Theo G. M. Sandfort, (2010) Children’s Gender Identity in Lesbian and Heterosexual Two-Parent Families, Sex Roles, 62, 114-126
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2807026/

So the children don't suffer from gender identity?
Which proves lesbian families are just as good or better how exactly?

Farr, R. H., & Patterson, C. J. (2009). Transracial adoption among lesbian, gay, and heterosexual couples: Who completes transracial adoptions and with what results? Adoption Quarterly, 12, 187–204.
f

All this claims is that in a study 33 lesbian and gay couples are more inclined to adopt outside their race than 30 other sex parented. so what? Adoption is a tiny percentage of society anyway . But of course same sex couples cant have their own children without adoption or getting a surrogate. If lesbians are more inclined to adopt outside their race
how does this proves lesbian families are just as good or better than non gay parents?

Tskipped two - didnt have time to read them

As for the other papers which I posted in my last post, they are cited by 77, 77, 92 and 58 other papers respectively. These papers represent solid research in favour of LGBT parenting. However, even papers only show so much on their own and so it is important to note the consensus position of the relevant medical organisations:

As I stated a lot of the people seem to be citing each other!

American Psychological Assocation

No it isnt! It is the American Psychiatric Association

Position Statement in Support of Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Civil Marriage

Fair enough the psychiatrists support it. The also support Electro shock treatment
Do you agree with them?

http://www.psych.org/MainMenu/Newsroom/NewsReleases/2011-News-Releases_1/ECT-Hearing_1.aspx

The American Psychiatric Association is pleased that patients will continue to have access to life-saving Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT)

Amicus brief submitted in support of 9th Circuit Court of Appeals challenge to California Prop 8

this is meant to be legal support for gay marriage

Proposition 8 (ballot title: Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment; called California Marriage Protection Act by proponents) was a ballot proposition and constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 state elections.

i.e. it is the opposite The wording of Proposition 8 was precisely the same as that which had been found in Proposition 22, which, as an ordinary statute, had been invalidated by the State Supreme Court. California's State Constitution put Proposition 8 into immediate effect the day after the election

Before the passage of Proposition 8, California was only the second state to allow same-sex marriage.Subsequent state legislation established that any same-sex marriages granted by other jurisdictions after the passage of Proposition 8 retain the state rights that come with marriage, except for the legal term "marriage" itself

On August 4, 2010, federal judge Vaughn R. Walker declared the ban unconstitutional but temporarily stayed his ruling.On August 6, 2010, both sides submitted legal briefs to Judge Walker arguing for or against a long-term stay of the ruling. On August 12, 2010, Judge Walker had scheduled to lift his stay. On August 16, 2010, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granted the motion to stay, ordered expedited briefing on the merits of the appeal, and directed the parties to brief the issue of why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of standing. On August 17, 2010, the same Ninth Circuit panel ordered expedited briefing on the Imperial County appeal.The Ninth Circuit requested the California Supreme Court to rule as to whether Proposition 8 sponsors have a standing to defend it in the courts, and the Supreme Court set September 6, 2011 as the date to hear arguments.

That's today. Wait and we will see eh?

“Rarely is there as much consensus in any area of social science as in the case of gay parenting, which is why the American Academy of Pediatrics and all of the major professional organizations with expertise in child welfare have issued reports and resolutions in support of gay and lesbian parental rights.”

Ironic then that the most populous and richest US state just voted it down and only one other state allows it then? Social scientists however don't get to veto the peoples vote on a constitution!

On the first point, who cares what the definition is, we'll just change it. The definition of marriage has been in flux throughout it's history. For example, mixed race marriages were illegal in America until California changed its laws in 1948. This will just be another instance where we redefine it.

LOL! When California decided to reverse this definition you of course don't accept the peoples decision. Your answer is "we will just change it"

On the second point, no-one is suggesting abandoning traditional families. Having heterosexual families as well as homosexual ones does not constitute abandoning anything. Also, while you may not think the evidence is convincing, the people who are actually in the field of LGBT research disagree. Completely.

Again they don't make the law!
They may say the same about abortion but it is for the people to decide on whether it is morally right or wrong.

Yes, despite the extra challenges faced by LGBT families, such as homophobia, bigotry and lack of legal recognition, children raised in such families do at least as well as any other children using any quantitative measure of outcome. The preferable situation is to have two loving, committed parents. That's it. No difference between straight and gay headed families. Religious groups still like to claim that straight couples are preferable but this simply isn't the case:

But there are very few such children. the idea that all families should be adopted is also not something to be supported. but the point here is about whether marriage rights should be extended by allowing gay marriage i.e. homosexual couples have the same rights as traditional families. Can we say that traditional families values should be basesd on the proportion of traditional families who adopt children? Why then should we apply the experience of non traditional couples who adopt children when we dont blanked apply even traditional families who adopt?

I'm saying that based on the psychological research it is entirely possible to say that David Norris has a bias against gay activists.

It is quite simple. Norris is not anti gay activist. He is not in favour of Gay Marriage . He is Church of Ireland. C of I don't support gay marriage last I heard. Maybe some social scientists decided to tell them they were wrong?

"people may attempt to distance themselves from membership in devalued groups because they accept, to some degree, the negative evaluations of their group held by the majority and because these social identities are an obstacle to the pursuit of social status."

Oh don't be silly! Norris has landmark rulings in gay rights court cases. He is not biased against gay activists!


(Actually it determined 1.5% but found that this was within the established boundaries of 0.3-3%)

For reasons, I have already outlined, there is no average value. The spread in the data is so great that any average value would be meaningless.

The percentage gay in the population is not 20%!


How many do you want?

Yes, the practice of polygyny within polygynous societies is rare but for reasons of population of mechanics and not choice.

For example, the Incan king Atahualpa had 1500 wives in a society which had a heavily regulated practice of polygyny. Great lords had harems of seven hundred women, principal persons fifty women, leaders of vassal nations thirty women, down to chiefs of five men who got three. This lead inevitably to almost no women at all for ordinary men who were forced to a life of near-celibacy. Polygyny was a privilege which accompanied power and so practice of polygyny in societies where it was allowed was still exceedingly rare.

However, this doesn't change the fact that the number of societies which had polygyny as a feature far outnumbers those built on monogamy.

No it does not mean "a few people had thousands of wives leaving no wives for anyone else"

It means " it was allowed and not practiced" like homosexuality. It is not illegal but it is rare. It is not 20% of people!

Matt Ridley has a detailed analysis of this in Chapter 6 (Polygamy and the Nature of Men) of his book The Red Queen.

Once again you are trying to draw parallels between homosexuality and paedophilia. It is irrelevant and offensive. Do it once more and you're going on ignore and I will report the post.

No. re read the point. It compared polygany and pedophilia
I am saying people might have found it acceptable but later banned it and they don't want it in society. In fact it went the other way with homosexuality ( well homosexual acts) were decriminalized. I am on record as stating pedophilia isn't linked in my opinion to homosexuality. although abuse of older boys it is suggested might be. I would regard pre pubescent children as entirely different targets to older teenagers even if these teenagers are under age. Norris got in trouble on just this point and Norris isn't a pedophile.

If you want to complain about that then complain away and ignore me if you wish.

Let me ask you then
Do you think that if a society allows pedophilia than that society should be accepted?
Some societies like that exist in the Orient I believe.

ISAW

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Australian Psychological Society

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) parented families - A literature review

page 21 of this provides an argument that men/boys are becoming more effiminate and that not having traditional male roles or having gay or lesbian parents is a contributing factor to this

Drexler, who has compared
boys raised by lesbian couples and boys raised by hetereosexual couples, has reported differences
along these lines, and particularly, that boys of lesbian mothers demonstrate relatively higher levels
of sensitivity and relationship orientation than do boys who are parented by a male/female couple
(Drexler, 2002; Drexler & Gross, 2005). In the UK study comparing ‘father-present’ and ‘father-absent’
families (n=101 families), early adolescent boys who had been raised from infancy by mothers only
(either single heterosexual or lesbian women, or female couples) were found to rate themselves at the
same level on a scale of ‘masculinity’ as did boys who had a father, and more highly on the ‘femininity’
items (MacCallum & Golombok, 2004).

Not alone that but the above is presented as if it is more preferable for men to be like this ~ which is in fact the issue raised in this discussion.

gimmebroadband

Lesbian foster couple put six year old boy in girl's clothes and post photos on Facebook.

Sad!

http://www.news.com.au/national/lesbian-foster-couple-put-six-year-old-boy-in-girls-clothes-and-post-photos-on-facebook/story-e6frfkvr-1226134422557#ixzz1XhfL90qw