Am I a bigot?

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: queenofswords
More indepth studies and studies done over longer periods of time should be carried out first, imo.

How can you carry out more in-depth studies if gay people aren't permitted to marry and adopt?

As I said, once marriage is allowed by law, you cannot discriminate when it comes to adoption.

Agreed. And there's no justification for continued discrimination.

Gay couples are raising kids even without the benefit of marriage. There are plenty of opportunities to study this more indepth. We need unbiased factual studies long-term before we can be sure children are not psychologically harmed by this. This is the only issue that concerns me. I am always about children first. That is not discrimination.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

I'd say you are comparing apples to oranges here. You are a person and a union is a labor organization. It falls under different rules and guidelines by the nature of it not being human.

So, AARP should be able to commit acts of violence against opponents of the social security administration?

Again you are talking about organizational rights versus human rights. Marriage is between two people not two organizations. For your comparison, you need to include humans being able to commit acts of violence against other humans.

I am certainly causing some thread drift.

Perhaps an argument for another thread. I have been formulating my thoughts on the subject for some time.

I will just say that union members are people (humans) and they commit acts of violence against people (also humans).

It is really no different than police violence against citizens with the important difference that they may not be held accountable whereas police can be.

Oh wait, they are a union too.....

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: greencmp

Like freedom of speech and religion... So what's your point?

My point is that freedom of speech is a negative right that cannot be taken away. That is, no one may prevent you speaking freely.

A positive right would be free lollipops for everyone.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's a contract, that is all.

Therefore, under equal protection under the law, if badgers are citizens, they can get married.

a reply to: queenofswords

So is the long and short of this that if the studies show it has a negative impact then we should not allow it?

If yes, how do you feel about single parenting? Should we not be allowing that.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ketsuko

Regardless of the government's original intentions as far as marriage goes this is where we stand now. To be honest, it was Christians themselves who got marriage intertwined with government. Funnily enough it is Christians who are the ones trying to change it when they don't like where government is going with it.

Spot on.

You were right in the first place, the state shouldn't be involved except if there is a contract dispute in civil court.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: queenofswords

So is the long and short of this that if the studies show it has a negative impact then we should not allow it?

If yes, how do you feel about single parenting? Should we not be allowing that.

I'm not trying to be difficult. Simply put, if the studies show it has a negative impact, then THAT fact should be a consideration when applying to adopt a child.

How do I feel about single parenting? I think THAT should also be a consideration when applying to adopt a child.

That's all. Simple.

originally posted by: Eunuchorn

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Then I guess everyone is a bigot in some form.
Especially people who call people bigots.

Paradox.

Very true, though.
Anyone who firmly believe marriage is between a man & a woman puts way too much value on words, definitions, ideologies, other people's business, & everything else probably.

Exactly, right wing socialists are just like the left wing socialists inserting their inflexible ideas of how the correct way to live is and leveraging the threat of coercive violence to punish or forbid non-criminal association.

a reply to: queenofswords

Alright, fair enough if we keep it at the adoption stand point.


ETA: Where would you like to see the studies come from?

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: queenofswords
More indepth studies and studies done over longer periods of time should be carried out first, imo.

How can you carry out more in-depth studies if gay people aren't permitted to marry and adopt?

As I said, once marriage is allowed by law, you cannot discriminate when it comes to adoption.

Agreed. And there's no justification for continued discrimination.

Gay couples are raising kids even without the benefit of marriage. There are plenty of opportunities to study this more indepth. We need unbiased factual studies long-term before we can be sure children are not psychologically harmed by this. This is the only issue that concerns me. I am always about children first. That is not discrimination.

And what do we do with all those children in need --- so you can ease your conscience?

LGBT until recently were only permitted hard to adopt kids. And they did. They stepped up to the plate adopting kids no one else wanted.

Only in states where it was allowed.

Because the self-righteous would even deny this right "because of the children".

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: queenofswords

So is the long and short of this that if the studies show it has a negative impact then we should not allow it?

If yes, how do you feel about single parenting? Should we not be allowing that.

If studies and statistics of psychological harm being done to children are to be taken into consideration with regards to whom is allowed to marry, then I'd say heterosexual people have failed miserably... since damn near all children who've grown up in dysfunctional families and have grown up to become a scar on society, have been raised in heterosexual home environments.

Um, oops ?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: EternalSolace

Can you answer my question since the OP won't. Forget about the benefits for a second. What is wrong with saying a man and a man are married or a woman and a woman is married? Why does that matter anyways?

OK, I will say it.

Procreation and the legal construct to assure the woman that he can't just dump her when she gets too old which was the norm when the legal institution was added to the religious one after Henry VIII.

The catholics handled it with hellfire.

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: EternalSolace
Your argument is still about a title and not the benefits.

Marriage is not a "title". It's a word that has several meanings. One of them is a secular contract offered by the government.

A civil union is a secular contract offered by the government. Only a civil union doesn't carry federal benefits. Why not extend the federal benefits to civil unions?

The state won't let it be called "marriage" because the FBI is afraid that organized criminals will use it to avoid being required to testify against their fellow gangsters.

That is true, believe it or not, and it is the reason we haven't seen this issue resolved.

originally posted by: CranialSponge

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: queenofswords

So is the long and short of this that if the studies show it has a negative impact then we should not allow it?

If yes, how do you feel about single parenting? Should we not be allowing that.

If studies and statistics of psychological harm being done to children are to be taken into consideration with regards to whom is allowed to marry, then I'd say heterosexual people have failed miserably... since damn near all children who've grown up in dysfunctional families and have grown up to become a scar on society, have been raised in heterosexual home environments.

Um, oops ?

You are so right, but this does not mean we should just throw another cog in the wheel of dysfunction. What harm would there be to do long-term studies and evaluations to make sure we aren't adding another reason for a child to suffer psychologically. As I stated earlier, imo, gay couples are perfectly capable of loving and nurturing children, but even so, you have to admit there are psychological and/or emotional ramifications to consider.

a reply to: queenofswords

As I stated earlier, imo, gay couples are perfectly capable of loving and nurturing children, but even so, you have to admit there are psychological and/or emotional ramifications to consider.

That was the same reasoning for not wanting interracial marriages, as well as mixed religion marriages in the past.

The psychological/emotional ramifications is being caused by other people not in acceptance of these types of marriages, not with the loving nurturing parents themselves.

But as society adapts and becomes accepting of said relationships, these problems have a way of ironing out and disappearing... as it did with interracial and mixed religion relationships, so will it too of same sex couples.

There is always an adjustment period for some segments of the population, some unfortunately never get over it.

It's a big bad cruel world out there.

Best to prepare our children on how to deal with it, rather than trying to bubble wrap them from it.

a reply to: CranialSponge

The psychological/emotional ramifications is being caused by other people not in acceptance of these types of marriages, not with the loving nurturing parents themselves.

This, just this 100 times.
If people treat your parents like an outcast then of course it is going to have affect on you.

I understand your reasoning. I simply think there should be more long-term in depth studies before gay couples are given the same consideration in adopting children as heterosexual couples....not that they shouldn't be allowed to do so, but that if the studies show a negative influence, it should be allowed as a factor to consider. That's all. Like others have said in this thread, interracial heterosexual couples are not even remotely the same thing.

Do you think polygamous marriages should be allowed as well? I have heard this brought up before, and think this will be the next flag to get waved around. Again...I don't have a big personal problem with it except for the children being considered for adoption into such arrangements.

a reply to: American-philosopher

I'll start by giving my position on this issue.

Gay people grew up in the same society as the rest of us. They work, pay taxes and contribute to society the same way as anyone else - so they are entitled to the same rights and privileges as any other adults. Consenting adults, in the case of marriage.

I don't like to see them considered or talked about as some sort of a sub-sect or sub-species. They had similar lives to everyone else, the same cultural influences, the only difference is that they'd rather be romantically engaged with persons of their own sex (and possibly been given a hard time over it).

Bigots - all of the above except for the same-sex thing They're entitled to their opinion, what is being asked is that people who have views very different from the majority, or disapprove of ideas that are starting to be considered normal, keep quiet about that opinion.

I like to be in a give and take sort of society so I don't object to that. A bigoted person can have as many opinions as they like, they just don't need to necessarily air them all the time and upset people.

If a person suspects themselves of being a bigot, it might be the time for them to indulge in a little self-reflection and ask themselves how they formed their opinions or why they couldn't 'move with the times' along with everyone else.

Now, I can see the unfairness of this. You are being asked to please not express your disapproval of other people's behaviour for the sake of unity and a peaceful society and yet, nobody is being mindful of causing offense to you.

A gay couple could happily tell you that they just got married and you are expected to smile and congratulate them.

I don't doubt that you are a decent person and most likely you would feign acceptance.

Well, on this issue, you may be bigoted. That doesn't make you any less of a person or mean that you should be ostracised. If you can play well with others, you're fine.

The problem with being labelled a bigot is that you can't ever prove otherwise. If you were unjustly accused of murder you might be able to successfully defend yourself in a court of law. You might be lucky and the real culprit would get caught.

But refuting an accusation of bigotry is just about impossible. So accept that you are a flawed human being just the same as everybody else. It's your behaviour that counts, not your opinions - as I think was pointed out earlier in the thread

a reply to: ketsuko
Gay couples might not be able to procreate, but they can adopt and care for a child. Can you cite evidence two opposite sex couples adopting a child parent better than two homosexual couples adopting a child in similar circumstances? (note I'm putting the 'biological child' thing aside.)

I agree, though. Marriage should be tied to procreation or children. Otherwise, it's a meaningless title IMHO. We could just allow children to get married, if all it represents is love. Or maybe people who love their car.

The right to marriage is determined by that religion and or the state as courthouses can marry too. Neither one should dictate what the other can do. They ( gays ) should have the same rights and privileges, i agree. But i don't think you are a bigot unless you are a hater.