Marriage, Gays, and Atheists

[Zevico]

Alright. You have certainly shown that the Catholic conception of marriage differs from the 'Islamist' conception of marriage, or at the very least one shared by some Islamists. We are neither of us theologians, so let us leave the matter at that.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Not true. Marriage is 'recognised' by the state, not defined as such. Therefore the state only legally recognises that which already exists, it cannot redefine marriage, because it is not the creation of the state.

I do not see how this furthers the point you are making, nor do I wish to enter into a discussion upon it. Suffice to say that the law is defined by the state in all cases, and that the state may grant whatever rights or benefits it so chooses to whomsoever it so chooses. If conferring such benefits, conveniences or rights upon homosexuals changes the nature of the agreement such that you would no longer call it a 'marriage', then that is your opinion. But the real discussion is whether to grant those rights, benefits and conveniences. Let's leave the semantics out of this.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
With good reason. The state chooses to provide benefits such as tax breaks, because of the benefits that society obtains from marriage between a man and a woman.

I personally do not know of too many tax breaks that married couples receive. I chose to leave this out because I cannot argue this point in the abstract. Sorry that I didn't make this clear earlier. If you wish to provide a specific example of a tax or law and its purpose I suppose we can discuss that.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Secondly, Adoption is structured that way because a child has a need for both a mother and a father. Anyone who wilfully deprives a child of either does them a great harm.

Firstly, I entirely agree that it is not the 'right' of a married couples or anyone to adopt a child as such. In all cases, it is a consideration of the persons and how suited they are to the task at hand.
These children have already been deprive of their parents. When two persons adopt a child, they are signalling that they are willing to care for that child in the place of that child's original parents. The only thing that should matter to the state, is that two people are now focusing their entire lives on caring for this child or children. That is far better than the circumstances that a child would otherwise live in.
I do not know whether or not permitting homosexuals to adopt exposes them to instability in the general sense. It makes sense, in my opinion, to ensure that the persons adopting the child are likely to stay together. Frankly I do not myself know of any statistics regarding homosexual couples and the apparent stability of their relationships. Serenade me with statistics, darling.


[quote]
What about the chance of sexual abuse? I would argue that if you wilfully put a child in a situation by which they are abused, that is hardly 'infinitely' better, then the alternative. Abusive adoptive parents are far worse then say an orphanage.
[quote]
Obviously. What does this have to do with the discussion? There has never been any suggestion that homosexuals are more likely to be abusive.

[fed1943]

I agree with Ben when he says the rights of the children, not of the
parents, are the relevant ones.
But if a child has no father and no mother, wouldn't be a minor evil
to allow said child to have two fathers or two mothers?
Best regards,

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


No, it is the responsibility of those who are arguing that gay couples should be permitted to adopt to show that they will be able to raise the children properly. The burden is always to protect the children first, not about the people who want to adopt.

Gay/lesbian adoptive parents have already shown across the country that they provide a healthy, stable home for their kids.

And since children come first, there is no reason to deny foster children an excellent home that could be provided by gay/lesbian couples who wish to adopt.

[Ben Kenobi]

Suffice to say that the law is defined by the state in all cases, and that the state may grant whatever rights or benefits it so chooses to whomsoever it so chooses.

No, you've misunderstood my point.

The law is not DEFINED by the state, but RECOGNISED by the state. The state may choose what benefits (if any), are given to those that it recognises as married, but the state does not define the term. A state could say that there are no tax benefits whatsoever associated with marriage, but it could not redefine marriage as marriage is not a creation of the state.

If conferring such benefits, conveniences or rights upon homosexuals changes the nature of the agreement such that you would no longer call it a 'marriage', then that is your opinion.

That is the truth. The state has no authority to redefine a concept that predates the existance of a nation-state. The state has an obligation to recognise marriage.

If the state wishes to set up an alternative method by which gay people can receive the benefits of marriage, that is quite another thing, hence the concept of civil unions.

But the real discussion is whether to grant those rights, benefits and conveniences.

None of which make it necessary to permit gay marriage.

I personally do not know of too many tax breaks that married couples receive. I chose to leave this out because I cannot argue this point in the abstract. Sorry that I didn't make this clear earlier. If you wish to provide a specific example of a tax or law and its purpose I suppose we can discuss that.

It depends on the state, but probably the biggest one is income splitting, and dependent benefits. Some countries actually have a marriage penalty in that the taxes go up for those who are married. I don't think either of these are a particularly good argument for gay marriage, as they can be accomplished just as well through civil unions.

These children have already been deprive of their parents. When two persons adopt a child, they are signalling that they are willing to care for that child in the place of that child's original parents. The only thing that should matter to the state, is that two people are now focusing their entire lives on caring for this child or children. That is far better than the circumstances that a child would otherwise live in.

Not necessarily. Again, there is the possibility of abuse, which is worse then being left in an orphanage. This is why they have to be screened, and why a husband and a wife should only be considered for adoption.

I do not know whether or not permitting homosexuals to adopt exposes them to instability in the general sense.

They are far more likely to split, which does very little good to the child.

Among homosexual men in particular, casual sex, rather than committed relationships, is the rule and not the exception. And even when they do enter into a more committed relationship, it is usually of relatively short duration. For example, a study of homosexual men in the Netherlands (the first country in the world to legalize "marriage" for same-sex couples), published in the journal AIDS in 2003, found that the average length of "steady partnerships" was not more than 2 < years (Maria Xiridou et al., in AIDS 2003, 17:1029-1038).

Obviously. What does this have to do with the discussion? There has never been any suggestion that homosexuals are more likely to be abusive.

It destroys your assumption that adoption is always 'infinitely' better then an orphanage.

[Ben Kenobi]

But if a child has no father and no mother, wouldn't be a minor evil to allow said child to have two fathers or two mothers?

Primum non nocere.

[Ben Kenobi]

Gay/lesbian adoptive parents have already shown across the country that they provide a healthy, stable home for their kids.

They have higher rates of partner abuse, sexual abuse and other things as well.

And since children come first, there is no reason to deny foster children an excellent home that could be provided by gay/lesbian couples who wish to adopt.

Again, it's balderdash that just because someone wants to adopt that they must be permitted to do so. It's better that the child remain without a parent then to be placed in a home that subjects them to abuse.

Secondly, you are depriving the child of a mother and a father. Why shouldn't this child deserve to have both? If we are placing the child, why does this child not deserve the same as all the other children?

[Ming]

I see Ben is dragging out his tired and worn arguments that get blown away every time he uses them, and then he disappears in defeat...

First, the ole "it cheapens marriage between hetero couples"...

One last time Ben... If a couple feels less about their marriage simply because some gay couple gets married, they probably shouldn't be married. Being married is a commitment between two people... and has NOTHING to do with what others do. I laugh when you claim I will feel my marriage means less simple because gays get married.

Second, the ole More abuse and sexual abuse crap.
To begin with, partner and sexual abuse can happen with any type of couple, gay or straight. Using your logic, no child should ever be adopted because there is a chance, NO MATTER WHAT TYPE OF FAMILY ADOPTS THEM, that some type of abuse would occur. Also, I question your limited research and the amount of actual percentage difference as being meaningful.
PLUS, you can find studies showing how much sexual abuse and physical abuse occurs in state run facilities and foster homes...

And your whole argument that ONLY a hetero couple can provide a loving enviornment is also crap. Again, your logic is that it's better to keep a kid from getting ANY love, than the love they can get from a loving gay couple... If you ask the kids whether they would like to stay in cruel, and unloving state care vs. being part of a family, we all know what they will answer.

All your worn and tired arguments are empty and pure balderdash

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


They have higher rates of partner abuse, sexual abuse and other things as well.

Okay, I've had enough.

These statistics smell like bull****. I can GUARANTEE you that I know more gays in relationships than you do. I don't know of a single one with partner abuse, sexual abuse, and "other things". Zero. I know of a handful of my heterosexual friends who've had these kinds of issues in a heterosexual relationship, does this mean we should ban heterosexual marriage?

You need to cite reliable statistics on this, from real studies, from recent times. Do it now, or really shut the hell up because you incessant rhetoric and slander is deeply insulting to many people on this site and you're too dumb to realize it or too evil to care.

I am willing to believe that the average homosexual relationship is shorter than the average heterosexual relationship. And why is that? Part of the reason comes down to people like you. Society embraces relationships between men and women, and they try to tear down relationships between same-sex couples. There's no possibility of marriage in most countries that provide that "extra excuse" to try to save the relationship when things get tough. There's usually no kids so there's no "extra excuse" to try to save the relationship when things get tough.

I know there's tons of families, and I know you know there's tons of families, that stay together "for the children" and stay together because they don't believe in divorce, since they got married and made their oaths. You refuse to give gay people these things, then you try to make a point out if as an excuse for why they should never get them.

Then there's the whole emotional trouble aspects. Society, even today, puts gay children and teenagers through hell. It really, really ****s with your head and emotions. Again, this comes down to people like you. As a result, gay people respond in different ways...after some people "come out" they feel like they need to catch up on what they've been missing out, so they go from one extreme to the other (celibacy for 20+ years to casual sex every night with random hookups). Others develop some mental issues that take years to work out, if they do at all (for me, I had major issues with depression and anxiety in my late teens that prevented me from entering into any healthy relationships).

Society is putting gay people at a mental health disadvantage, and that can be reflected into wide-ranging statistics on gays including life expectancy and relationship length. You are grossly mistaken if you think most gays have tons and tons of casual sex and don't care about long-term, committed relationships. Why do you think they want marriage so badly if it's not something they're interested in?

In summary, you're withholding important societal tools that encourage healthy long-term relationships from gays and you're also causing gay people untold mental issues and anguish with your genuinely evil and mean-spirited ostracization on the small scales (eg, gays are very rarely "out" in school) and on the large scale (eg, forbidding gays from marrying/adopting, spreading bull**** to perpetuate the stereotype that gays constantly have random sex with random people and for reasons you don't care to explain, can't have long-term relationships).

I don't even know why I posted this serious post. It's so much easier to call you a ****ing ******, because it doesn't matter -- you're not going to read this or if you do, you wouldn't understand it. Your mind is so feeble and brainwashed that the concept of right and wrong, fair and unfair, and genuine humanity has escaped you and has replaced itself with the hollow shell of biblical references and trash studies.

[Ben Kenobi]

I see Ben is dragging out his tired and worn arguments that get blown away every time he uses them, and then he disappears in defeat...

I think of all the polytubbies, you and I have had the most actual arguments none of which have resulted in a ban.

One last time Ben... If a couple feels less about their marriage simply because some gay couple gets married, they probably shouldn't be married.

That's because you believe there isn't a difference. Why don't you ask your wife if she believes there are no fundamental differences between men and women?

Being married is a commitment between two people... and has NOTHING to do with what others do. I laugh when you claim I will feel my marriage means less simple because gays get married.

In my eyes, that's not true. Marriage can't and won't change. It only makes sense if you sincerely believe that there is no difference between getting married to a woman or getting married to a man.

Second, the ole More abuse and sexual abuse crap.
To begin with, partner and sexual abuse can happen with any type of couple, gay or straight.

Which is why all couples should be scrutinised so that the child has the best chance of avoiding abuse. I confirmed this in insisting that adoptions must only be done when they are in the best interest of the child, not of the people willing to adopt. All I am saying is that abuse is more prevalent among gay couples then others.

Using your logic, no child should ever be adopted because there is a chance, NO MATTER WHAT TYPE OF FAMILY ADOPTS THEM, that some type of abuse would occur.

It's the same as in medicine. You have an obligation to treat the patient, but not if treating him would expose him to risks that would be far greater then the benefits of surgery.

My argument is very simple.

1. The best situation for a child to be adopted is into a stable family with a married mother and father.

2. All children who are adopted should have an equal chance for this outcome. We shouldn't shortchange children by placing them in options where there is greater risk for abuse. Otherwise you are not doing your job as an adoption agency.

Also, I question your limited research and the amount of actual percentage difference as being meaningful.
PLUS, you can find studies showing how much sexual abuse and physical abuse occurs in state run facilities and foster homes

That is exactly akin to saying that if you do not treat someone they will suffer. That does not justify doing a risky treatment where you might seriously harm the child just because of what they will suffer in state facilities.

And your whole argument that ONLY a hetero couple can provide a loving enviornment is also crap.

Again, I never said that. I said that the BEST outcome for a child in adoption is in a stable home with a married mother and a father. All children should have the right to receive this in adoption.

Again, your logic is that it's better to keep a kid from getting ANY love, than the love they can get from a loving gay couple...

1. I think that they can be loved in state facilities, so your argument is completely out the door.

2. I am arguing that it is worse to harm a child by placing him in a situation where they would be abused.

3. I am arguing that every child has a right to a mother and a father, and that includes adoptive children. We shouldn't shortchange the children by depriving them of this right.

If you ask the kids whether they would like to stay in cruel, and unloving state care vs. being part of a family, we all know what they will answer.

Ask anyone who's been abused by their adoptive family.

[Asher]

And answer me this, Ben: Why do you stand in the way from me marrying my SO? We're engaged and plan to marry either in '09 or '10 (after he finishes university and we get settled in a permanent home). At this point, we've been together for over 5 1/2 years. There's no abuse, there's no cheating/promiscuous sex, and it's a happy relationship. We just want to marry to get the same benefits, in name and otherwise, as my brother and his girlfriend and my parents. Why is that so wrong? We aren't even having a religious ceremony for it, so you can kick the church excuse to the curb.

Around ~30 we're seriously considering adopting a kid or two. There's tons of kids living in group homes looking for a loving family, why would you stand in my way and tell me I can't do that? Why would you tell that child they can't have a loving family in their own home, and they must continue to live in a group home?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Ask anyone who's been abused by their adoptive family.

You keep clinging to this claim that gay relationships are abusive, with no cite.



Over half of heterosexual marriages end in bitter divorce. I'm certain the rate of gay abusive relationships is far less than that, I'm also certain the rate of abusive heterosexual relationships is also probably 'round the same as homosexual, if not higher -- mainly because much of the heterosexual abuse comes from people of your value types. You've said yourself how different men are from women...the men should bring home the bacon, the woman should sex up and feed the man...and beat them if they don't. That's how you guys are. You shouldn't be married and have kids.

Using your logic, married people should not have kids due to the astoundingly high divorce rate.

Using your logic, married people should not have kids due to their being instances of relationship abuse (physical and otherwise) in their relationships.

Why do you not see how incredibly shallow and poor your arguments are? You hope from one to another when the first gets demolished rather than simply being an honourable man and recognizing you are wrong.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Hmm, let me check on that.

1. I don't hate gay people at all.

You may not think you do, but when you go so far as to lie about gay people burning down religious buildings in order to try and substantiate your anti-gay views, your actions speak louder than your words. Couching hatred in rosy-hued religious bull**** doesn't change the fact that it's hatred.

[Ben Kenobi]

These statistics smell like bull****. I can GUARANTEE you that I know more gays in relationships than you do.

You also are a hostile witness.

I don't know of a single one with partner abuse, sexual abuse, and "other things".

Really? All the folks I've known have suffered from such in the past.

I know of a handful of my heterosexual friends who've had these kinds of issues in a heterosexual relationship, does this mean we should ban heterosexual marriage?

I wasn't even saying that. You missed my point. I was only saying that in the context of adoption the fact that gay and lesbians are more likely to suffer from partner abuse is a good reason why they should not be permitted to adopt.

You need to cite reliable statistics on this, from real studies, from recent times.

It seems I'm the only one here who has to provide evidence of such.

One survey found that same-sex cohabitants reported significantly more intimate partner violence than did opposite-sex cohabitants. Among women, 39.2% of the same-sex cohabitants and 21.7 of the opposite- sex cohabitants reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a marital/cohabiting partner at some time in their lifetime.

Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 181867, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, at 30 (2000), available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/181867.htm

Do it now, or really shut the hell up because you incessant rhetoric and slander is deeply insulting to many people on this site and you're too dumb to realize it or too evil to care.

And you owe me an apology.

I am willing to believe that the average homosexual relationship is shorter than the average heterosexual relationship.

Thank you Asher. That's all I needed. So you agree then that their relationships are less stable.

You refuse to give gay people these things, then you try to make a point out if as an excuse for why they should never get them.

You don't "get" children, Asher. You make it sound like they are an item to pick up at a convenience store.

(for me, I had major issues with depression and anxiety in my late teens that prevented me from entering into any healthy relationships).

I'm not surprised. I've yet to meet anyone who is gay or lesbian who hasn't had prior issues with abuse in their life.

Why do you think they want marriage so badly if it's not something they're interested in?

They want love and acceptance and believe that marriage is the only way that they can achieve such.

In summary, you're withholding important societal tools

So you consider children to be a 'tool' to encourage healthy long-term relationships?

you're not going to read this

I read everything people reply to me. Every word.

mind is so feeble and brainwashed that the concept of right and wrong, fair and unfair, and genuine humanity has escaped you and has replaced itself with the hollow shell of biblical references and trash studies.

Just because I disagree with you does not make me retarded. If disagreement were enough to preclude difficulties in cognition, I could just as easily ascribe such to you.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
That's because you believe there isn't a difference. Why don't you ask your wife if she believes there are no fundamental differences between men and women?

Of course there is a fundemental difference between men and women... but what does that have to do about how gay marriages "cheapen" hetero marriages. The answer is... NOTHING. Again, what other people do doesn't have any effect on a marriage... and if it does, the people shouldn't be married.

Which is why all couples should be scrutinised so that the child has the best chance of avoiding abuse. I confirmed this in insisting that adoptions must only be done when they are in the best interest of the child, not of the people willing to adopt. All I am saying is that abuse is more prevalent among gay couples then others.

More prevalent based on questionable studies which show only a small percentage difference. And totaly ignores that the highest rate of sexual abuse and physical abuse can be found in state run instititutions.

1. The best situation for a child to be adopted is into a stable family with a married mother and father.

Stable family... yes. Simple screaning can show no matter WHAT type of coupld can offer a loving home.
Again, the worst possible situation is leaving them in state care.

2. All children who are adopted should have an equal chance for this outcome. We shouldn't shortchange children by placing them in options where there is greater risk for abuse. Otherwise you are not doing your job as an adoption agency.

I say we ask the kids if they would prefer to continue getting no love and abused in a state institiution or whether they would rather have a loving family even if it's a gay couple That would be doing the real job... which is getting kids the hell out of a miserable situation.

That is exactly akin to saying that if you do not treat someone they will suffer. That does not justify doing a risky treatment where you might seriously harm the child just because of what they will suffer in state facilities.

Using your logic, EVEN IF, the slim percentages show that abuse might be slightly higher with a gay couple, it is still FAR lower than the abuse they take in state facilities.... So... it's better to get them to gay couples as soon as posible because it's better for the kids

Again, I never said that. I said that the BEST outcome for a child in adoption is in a stable home with a married mother and a father. All children should have the right to receive this in adoption.

The world isn't perfect. Every child should be adopted by the Cleavers and live happily ever after. Well this is the real world. Why should we DENY children the chance for happiness with a gay couple, and FORCE them to continue to live in state facilities where they are getting abused.

1. I think that they can be loved in state facilities, so your argument is completely out the door.

I think you can be loved by a gay couple, so your argument is completely out the door

2. I am arguing that it is worse to harm a child by placing him in a situation where they would be abused.

I am arguing that it is worse to leave a child in a situation where the HIGHEST RATE of abuse occurs

3. I am arguing that every child has a right to a mother and a father, and that includes adoptive children. We shouldn't shortchange the children by depriving them of this right.

Again... I say let them choose... You would be shocked at how few would choose the state over a gay couple.
By not giving them that chance, you are the one depriving them of their rights

Ask anyone who's been abused by their adoptive family.

Ask anyone that has been abused in state facilities and foster homes. It's easy to find them since there are FAR more of them.

And using your logic of slight percentage differences for abuse... You do know what the worst rate of child sexual abuse by a profession is. Yep, Clergy. So using your logic, we should not ever expose chilidren to religion since that is the highest chance of being abused.... Probably a higher chance than if they were adopted by a gay couple

Again... none of arguments stand up to the light of day or God

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


You also are a hostile witness.



Really? All the folks I've known have suffered from such in the past.

You are a hostile witness. Pretty much the definition of it.

It seems I'm the only one here who has to provide evidence of such.

You have not.

And you owe me an apology.

You owe me and every other homosexual the most intense apology ever delivered on Apolyton.

I'm not surprised. I've yet to meet anyone who is gay or lesbian who hasn't had prior issues with abuse in their life.

Well, I've never been abused. My SO has never been abused. So, there you go -- you now know too. You know a helluva lot more but your puny brain cannot comprehend that you do because it flies in the face of your preconceived bigotry.

So you consider children to be a 'tool' to encourage healthy long-term relationships?

Nope, but they statistically do affect relationship length. I know quite a few couples -- including my SO's parents -- who stayed together "for their children". My SO's parents actually divorced this year now that the last child was out of school.

So it affects your statistics on how long relationships last.

I read everything people reply to me. Every word.

It's one thing to read the words, it's quite another to ponder it and comprehend it with a genuine open mind, which you never have had.

Just because I disagree with you does not make me retarded.

The retardation is not because you disagree with me. The retardation comes from how consistently terrible, bigoted, and obvious your arguments are in every conversation, ever on this site.