Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by seer View Post
    BUT HOMOSEXUAL ORIENTATION IS NOT A PROTECTED CLASS in the civil rights act.
    And neither was skin color ... until the civil rights act ...

    So it is time for a new act to extend the same protection to people with differing sexual orientations. As I have said many times, that is the new civil rights battle of our time.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
      I don't understand your point about children being worse off in a two-parent family, could you elaborate?
      Sure! In order to justify your desire to shut down agencies that don't advance your pro-gay agenda, you'd need to prove that there is harm to children who are NOT placed with homosexual couples. You'd need to show that there is some legitimate reason - from the child's prospective, not just from a social engineering perspective - to require the agency to include homosexual couples as recipients.

      How is my reasoning biased and flawed?
      It's rather extreme that you would want an adoption agency shut down simply because they do not fit your agenda.

      Sure, there are a number of studies that show that homosexual couples do just as well as homosexual couples, but you'd really need to look at those studies, how they were researched, and who authored them....

      Many studies have been done allegedly proving that children of same-sex parents fare just as well emotionally as those of heterosexual parents.

      The problem with most of those studies, however, is that the parents were the ones who were interviewed. So how do you think those parents would have answered questions regarding child abuse – whether physical, sexual, or emotional? Obviously, they – like most parents – would downplay any abuse toward their kids.

      Not only that, but study subjects were obtained through newspaper advertisements, LGBT events, and LGBT bookstores. These were people who understood what the study was about and had a vested interest in giving same-sex parenting a good name.

      A new study – conducted by Donald Paul Sullins, a sociology professor at the Catholic University of America – has been released that is the first of its kind with regards to homosexual parenting. It took a longitudinal approach – meaning that the study focused on the same participants of the representative sample over the course of many years for the purpose of exploring the long-term effects of living under same-sex parents. This time, the children of same-sex parents were interviewed at different times in their lives – ages 15, 22, and 28. Not surprisingly, the study yielded a much different result compared with previous studies.


      And, naturally, you'll probably want to discount THIS study because it was done by Donald Paul Sullins, a sociology professor at the Catholic University of America.
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        Why is it you liberals always try to rip that one clause out of the First Amendment without also reverencing the "Prohibition Clause" -

        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
        Again - no one is prohibiting anyone from the free expression of their religion. What IS being prohibited is the use of religion as an excuse for prejudice in the public marketplace. That simply will no longer be tolerated. Not in our schools, our places of business, or our government. The white supremacist can rally, can be bigoted in their homes, but they cannot bring those things to our schools, government, or places of business. So to with the modern equivalent: denigration of those oriented towards same sex partners.
        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

        Comment


        • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          It also prevents "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion as well which many on the left seem to willfully ignore while demanding things like crosses be removed from cemeteries.

          Our Constitution is not a cafeteria where you get to pick and choose which parts you like and ignore the rest.

          ETA: Dang-blasted prodder of bovines ninja'd me
          I agree that anyone seeking to remove crosses form cemeteries is over-reaching and imposing their constraints on others. Each of us mourns/celebrates our dead in our own way, and for many this is a religious topic. To deny honoring our dead in a way that recognizes their (our our) faiths is inappropriate.
          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

          Comment


          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            Again - no one is prohibiting anyone from the free expression of their religion.
            Wait for it.....

            What IS being prohibited is the use of religion as an excuse for prejudice in the public marketplace.
            So, you are placing the "rights of gays" over the "rights of the religious".
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seer View Post
              That is exactly what happened in Massachusetts. Catholic Family Services (one of the best NGOs for placing kids) had to get out of the business because they would not place with homosexual couples.
              Which is as it should be...IMO. The same principle is at work.
              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                And shutting down an adoption agency because they didn't advance your pro-gay agenda would aggravate the problem of children having no parents. You care more about the pro-gay agenda than you do about children getting parents.
                No - it simply makes room for agencies that are not operating in a prejudicial fashion.
                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                Comment


                • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  Which is as it should be...IMO. The same principle is at work.
                  So, rather than advance the notion of a gay-friendly adoption agency, let's shut down any that don't advance the gay agenda? That's just so wrong on so many levels. It kinda supports the 'homophobic notion' that "they don't want equality - they want dominance".
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                    No - it simply makes room for agencies that are not operating in a prejudicial fashion.
                    Wrong. There can STILL be other agencies that would have gay-friendly policies -- but shutting down agencies who don't advance the gay agenda is totalitarian and controlling.
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      Sure! In order to justify your desire to shut down agencies that don't advance your pro-gay agenda, you'd need to prove that there is harm to children who are NOT placed with homosexual couples.
                      First of all, it's not a pro-gay agenda - it's an anti-discrimination agenda. Second, we need to show nothing of the kind. The issue is not that kids NOT placed with gay couples are harmed - the issue is that perfectly capable and loving parents are being denied an opportunity to BE parents because of a prejudicial point-of-view. It is not different than denying a couple an adoption because they are black, biracial, or white.

                      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      You'd need to show that there is some legitimate reason - from the child's prospective, not just from a social engineering perspective - to require the agency to include homosexual couples as recipients.

                      It's rather extreme that you would want an adoption agency shut down simply because they do not fit your agenda.

                      Sure, there are a number of studies that show that homosexual couples do just as well as homosexual couples, but you'd really need to look at those studies, how they were researched, and who authored them....

                      Many studies have been done allegedly proving that children of same-sex parents fare just as well emotionally as those of heterosexual parents.

                      The problem with most of those studies, however, is that the parents were the ones who were interviewed. So how do you think those parents would have answered questions regarding child abuse – whether physical, sexual, or emotional? Obviously, they – like most parents – would downplay any abuse toward their kids.

                      Not only that, but study subjects were obtained through newspaper advertisements, LGBT events, and LGBT bookstores. These were people who understood what the study was about and had a vested interest in giving same-sex parenting a good name.

                      A new study – conducted by Donald Paul Sullins, a sociology professor at the Catholic University of America – has been released that is the first of its kind with regards to homosexual parenting. It took a longitudinal approach – meaning that the study focused on the same participants of the representative sample over the course of many years for the purpose of exploring the long-term effects of living under same-sex parents. This time, the children of same-sex parents were interviewed at different times in their lives – ages 15, 22, and 28. Not surprisingly, the study yielded a much different result compared with previous studies.


                      And, naturally, you'll probably want to discount THIS study because it was done by Donald Paul Sullins, a sociology professor at the Catholic University of America.
                      Ran out of time... maybe later.
                      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        The difference, Jim - is that white supremacy is a political position - not a state of being. Homosexuality is a state of being. That is what makes the former rejection of service acceptable and not prejudice/bigotry, and the latter not.
                        Bring white is something you are. Being a white supremacist is to be a subset of the group that is white with a specific opinion about how being white should be expressed.

                        Being same-sex is something you are. Being same-sex and for same-sex marriage is to be a subset of the group that is same-sex with a specific opinion about how being same-sex should be expressed.

                        I can go however many rounds of this you like carpe. If the analogies are equivalent, and I believe I have shown quite clearly in logical terms that they are, then that would mean that no matter what element you pull out and try to claim defines some critical difference, I will always be able to express each component you have picked in terms that show they are logically the same.

                        Jim
                        Last edited by oxmixmudd; 05-12-2018, 07:58 PM.
                        My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                        If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                        This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                          First of all, it's not a pro-gay agenda - it's an anti-discrimination agenda.
                          We're going to disagree on this - any other person or entity can start an adoption agency that is "gay friendly". If I were to - for whatever reason - have to give up a child for adoption, I would not want them raised in a manner inconsistent with my faith. To rob me of that religious conviction is against the first amendment - prohibition clause. I should have the option of 'giving up for adoption' to an agency that will honor my faith.
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                            Again - no one is prohibiting anyone from the free expression of their religion. What IS being prohibited is the use of religion as an excuse for prejudice in the public marketplace. That simply will no longer be tolerated. Not in our schools, our places of business, or our government. The white supremacist can rally, can be bigoted in their homes, but they cannot bring those things to our schools, government, or places of business. So to with the modern equivalent: denigration of those oriented towards same sex partners.

                            When you force a man to violate the morals his religion dictates, you are prohibiting the free expression of the religion. You can't turn a conscience off and on to please some tyrant. And you can't make a person violate their religions morals without seriously compromising who they are and wounding them at the very core of who they are. Maybe you can't quite figure that out because you don't have anything at your core that would approximate the religious persons commitment to their God and how they believe they would have them act.

                            But stop just a minute and ask yourself what it would do to you to be forced to create something for a group of people that truly hated same-sex people. Would you do it even if the law 'demanded' it? Try some empathy carpe for a position that is not your own. Without THAT tolerance is just a meaningless buzzword.

                            Jim
                            My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                            If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                            This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                            Comment


                            • Here's what's amazing about this whole gay agenda thing.

                              Christian baker declines to cater a same-sex wedding.
                              Reasonable remedy - "let's open another bakery that is more 'gay friendly', and let the market forces play out!"
                              This, of course, has the affect of INCREASING the choices consumers have, and rewarding entrepreneurs.
                              Totalitarian remedy - "let's use the hammer of justice to destroy the business those Christians have built, because they don't want to compromise their deeply held religious convictions.
                              This, of course, has the affect of LIMITING the choices consumers have, and punishing entrepreneurs.

                              Christian Adoption Agency declines to adopt babies to same-sex couples.
                              Reasonable remedy - "let's open another Adoption Agency that is more 'gay friendly', and let the market forces play out!"
                              This, of course, has the affect of INCREASING the choices adoptive parents have.
                              Totalitarian remedy - "let's use the hammer of justice to destroy the services those Christians Adoption Agencies have been providing, because they don't want to compromise their deeply held religious convictions.
                              This, of course, has the affect of LIMITING the choices consumers have.

                              Liberals, who love the rallying cry "PRO CHOICE", can be incredibly ANTI-CHOICE. "You do it our way, or you shut down!"
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                                And shutting down an adoption agency because they didn't advance your pro-gay agenda would aggravate the problem of children having no parents. You care more about the pro-gay agenda than you do about children getting parents.
                                It's not about promoting the "gay agenda" or promoting the Evangelical agenda. Its about Constitutional rights. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments limit the power of the federal and state governments to discriminate. The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly prohibits states from violating an individual's rights of due process and equal protection. This applies to gays as well as every other citizen as has been so ruled by the Supreme Court. Christians are not entitled to special treatment.

                                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                                Here's what's amazing about this whole gay agenda thing.

                                Christian baker declines to cater a same-sex wedding.[indent]Reasonable remedy - "let's open another bakery that is more 'gay friendly', and let the market forces play out!"
                                No, the "reasonable remedy" is to obey the Constitution and don't promote bigotry.
                                Last edited by Tassman; 05-12-2018, 08:26 PM.
                                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                160 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                379 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X