Federal Marriage Amendment

[Cairber]

Im most definitely against making an amendment to the constitution about this. Am i for gay marriage? really, to be honest, im not sure yet. It never really enterred my mind until this became a huge issue, and now I dont think Ive thought it out enough. Anyone who uses religion as an argument is just a fool in my book. Im more apt to listen to the concerns about children. Are they real? I dont know yet, but I did write my congressman (jack quinn...until i register in PA) and asked him what his fears about "children" are, since he has stated that is his hesitation. Im interested to know if he has actual evidence about this or just "a gut feeling." Id be interested to know the replies of others as well.

[Keevan_Colton]

Children are a seperate issue from marriage and frankly I've found you to be a fucking idiot on this topic. Welcome to the land of the red herring.

[darthdavid]

Not all homosexuals that marry would adopt children. And beyond that if you think they'd be bad parents for whatever reason then you'd also have to ban single parents from keeping children because it stands to logic that 2 parents of a given gender would be twice as good as 1 and if something that's 2x as good would harm children think of what they'd be suffering with the .5x as good situation .

[SecondStorm]

Civil Unions should be a matter of cource. The law should be equal for everyone.

Each religion should decide for themselves if they want to marry gay couples.
The Catholic Church wouldnt recognise any marriage done by a Catholic as would most of the fundamentalist Christian faiths like Mormons.
But I think many Protestant faiths would. At least in Europe.

[Cairber]

Children are a seperate issue from marriage and frankly I've found you to be a fucking idiot on this topic. Welcome to the land of the red herring.

its a poll, I voted and gave my opinon. Frankly, I dont give a damn what you think about me

The fact still remains that im still wavering on what I think about this. Its my right to do so, Ill come to a conclusion soon enough and at least Ill know I thought it through. Thats just how I like to do it. I weigh issues really on how they effect the things I value. Logically, i admit, that doesnt always work out to a perfect argument. And, ya know what? I dont mind that.

And i could say a whole lot about your "idiot" status on other topics, but frankly i think that kinda post is just stupid.

[Gandalf]

Marriage = Union between 2 or more people.

Simple eh? As you can see I'm also cool with polygamy.

[Darth Wong]

A marriage is an unusually binding union between two people. That is what distinguishes the word "marriage" from the word "union". There is nothing about the word "union" which suggests, implies, or requires any kind of permanence or penalties for dissolution.

People ask what the big deal is about one word. Well, that's it. The word "marriage" has a specific definition in the dictionary which is much more all-encompassing than the religious definition, because it is a much more binding form of "union". By saying that certain people can have "unions" but not marriages, people are saying that saying that they cannot sustain a binding relationship (which is indeed the widespread belief of homophobes).

And trying to ridicule people by saying that they're overreacting to a single word is fucking stupid; if the US government decided to count black people on the census as "niggers", you can fucking well bet that people would start getting pissed off over a single word.

[RedImperator]

Children are a seperate issue from marriage and frankly I've found you to be a fucking idiot on this topic. Welcome to the land of the red herring.

Was it entirely necessary for you to be a douchebag right there?

[SecondStorm]

I get your point DW. Words have power.
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck it should be called a duck as well.

I think gays that are Catholic or any other fundamentalist/bigoted faith might be hard pressed to find a priest that will wed them. But then again if that is the case perhaps perhaps they are better off practising something else.

In any case theres always City Hall. A marriage in City Hall is just as binding as one in a church. Both emotionally and legally.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

I voted no, because it seems that every argument I've heard for the FMA was either a slippery slope or a euphemism for "It makes the baby Jesus cry". Besides, support can change quickly, and in 20 years, we might end up with a population in which the majority doesn't care if gays marry, leaving the country with an amendment nobody wants.

[Xenophobe3691]

No. Being the child of an interracial couple (Black and White), all I had to do to convince me not to back a ban on gay marriage was to put the words "gay marriage" instead of "segregation" or "integration" in all of the Old South's protestations against the latter. Scary.

[Darth Raptor]

No. Being the child of an interracial couple (Black and White), all I had to do to convince me not to back a ban on gay marriage was to put the words "gay marriage" instead of "segregation" or "integration" in all of the Old South's protestations against the latter. Scary.

B-b-but, homosexuality is a lifestyle. You choose whether or not to be gay. You can't choose the color of your skin! [/stock response]

[The Kernel]

Was it entirely necessary for you to be a douchebag right there?

Red, I know Cairber is your friend but we already went through this exact same issue with her in another thread and all she did was present a bunch of red herrings combined with evasions of the arguments presented by others. Keevan is justified in what he's saying and I hardly need to remind you that SDN is a trial by fire for people who don't debate honestly.

[Keevan_Colton]

Children are a seperate issue from marriage and frankly I've found you to be a fucking idiot on this topic. Welcome to the land of the red herring.

Was it entirely necessary for you to be a douchebag right there?

Frankly, yes.
She's waving around a red herring that's been thoroughly hammered at least once and has IIRC been covered by an entire thread of it's own (I'll swing by the archive board and grab the link if I have to). The fact she is either too stupid or too intolerant to conceed that it's a red herring and she's full of shit is reason enough here, or at the very least always has been before. I refuse to play favourite based on who is friends with who on an issue like this. Sorry, but this affects a lot of people that I care about and I will not let idiocy on this issue go unchecked.

[Keevan_Colton]

Here, why dont we trot this out, yet again (It has been posted here before)...

APA SUPPORTS LEGALIZATION OF SAME-SEX CIVIL MARRIAGES AND OPPOSES DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LESBIAN AND GAY PARENTS

Denying Same-Sex Couples Legal Access to Civil Marriage is Discriminatory and Can Adversely Affect the Psychological, Physical, Social and Economic Well-Being of Gay and Lesbian Individuals

HONOLULU ? Prohibiting civil marriage for same-sex couples is discriminatory and unfairly denies such couples, their children and other members of their families the legal, financial and social advantages of civil marriage says the American Psychological Association?s (APA) Council of Representatives in a resolution adopted today. The APA also opposed discrimination against lesbian or gay parents adoption, child custody and visitation, foster care and reproductive health services.

Both policy positions were adopted at the recommendation of an APA Working Group on Same-Sex Families and Relationships. The Working Group, appointed by the APA Council of Representatives in February 2004, was charged with developing policy recommendations for APA that would guide psychologists in the current public debate over civil marriage for same-sex couples. The Working Group was directed further to base its policy recommendations on the research on same-sex relationships and families.

This seven-member team of psychologists with a combination of both scientific expertise in family and couple relations and professional expertise with lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations summarized the research that discrimination and prejudice based on sexual orientation detrimentally affects the psychological, physical, social and economic well-being of lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals, that same-sex couples are remarkably similar to heterosexual couples, and that parenting effectiveness and the adjustment, development and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation.

"The APA recognizes the importance of the institution of civil marriage which confers a social status with important legal benefits, rights and privileges," said psychologist Armand R. Cerbone, who is a private practitioner in Chicago and chair of the working group. "Discrimination of all kinds takes a toll on people's health and psychological well being. In the context of the huge social and political debate that is currently going on, APA and psychologists had to grapple with the issue of what psychology believes is in the public interest in this controversy.?

Given what research tells us about the impact of discrimination and given that the research further provides no justification for discriminating against same-sex couples in marriage or in parenting, the Working Group strongly recommended that APA support states in providing civil marriage to same-sex couples and fully recognizing the parental rights of lesbians and gay men. As a benefit for human welfare, it is important to point out that permitting same-sex couples to marriage may especially benefit people who also experience discrimination based on age, race, ethnicity, disability, gender and gender identity, religion and socioeconomic status, said Cerbone.

According to the United States Accounting Office (2004), over 1,000 federal statutory provisions exist in which marital status is a factor in determining a person?s eligibility to receive various benefits, rights and privileges.

Huge, fuck off, highlight mine.

[Keevan_Colton]

Red, I know Cairber is your friend but we already went through this exact same issue with her in another thread and all she did was present a bunch of red herrings combined with evasions of the arguments presented by others. Keevan is justified in what he's saying and I hardly need to remind you that SDN is a trial by fire for people who don't debate honestly.

Thank you.

I direct everyones attention to the top of their screen.

We've had this exact same argument out of her before, it was hammered then for being a red herring and it hasnt changed. We've also had an entire thread on the issue with the APA's findings concerning parenting and same-sex couples which showed it was also a non-issue...and now we have, the same thing again from someone who has already had their argument hammered...this certainly doesnt fall under the headings of sci-fi or science...

[Cairber]

Maybe you didnt even read my post. My opinion on this has changed since the last thread (in which I did conceed to Wong...outright!) He was right, the burden of proof does not lie with those who are not discriminating, it lies with those who are. For the record, if there was a vote in PA today about whether or not to allow same sex marriage and I had to face the issue right now, I would probably vote yes. But i was just saying that there are concerns in my mind about other things related to the issue. I was not making an argument AT ALL...I was stating my FEELINGS. And children really dont have anything to do, up front, with the issue of gay marriage. But i do wonder what the concerns are, which is why I wrote my congressman about it.

FACT: to tell two law abiding citizens with human rights that they cant get married is discrimination.

OPINION/FEELING OF MINE: Will this affect children after its been passed? (I have no doubt in the years to come we will see gay married be OKed). I dont know, but I wonder, and Im researching it.

[Cairber]

side note: you talk about fallacies and what not, and thats fine (except when you ask an opinion...can get a little grey there) but yet you just come out at me with how im a "fucking idiot." Pray tell, how does that lend itself to good argumentation? I just write off people who say things like that. I dont think Red was saying he agrees with me at all...he was just pointing out that calling someone a "fucking idiot" instead of enumerating what issues you had with my post is just...well...childish. Although he would probably have a better way of putting it.

The weird thing about all of this is that I basically agree with you. I may be wavering a little, but I would vote YES to gay marriage if asked to today. I just have reservations...which I guess Im not allowed to be human and have.

[Keevan_Colton]

My god you are being a stupid little fuck and I am sick of it. Read the stuff from the APA it's been shown there isnt an effect on children so cram your bullshit back up your ass.

You are ignoring evidence in favour of some etheral fucking notion of potential problems with no evidence whatsoever for it. That is what makes you a stupid cunt and open for as much mockery as this board can muster no matter who you may be friends with.

*sighs*
I will consider your concession accepted and this closed, but only if you stop brining up such stupid fucking bullshit.

[Cairber]

I am not arguing that it will affect children!!!!! that IS NOT my argument! I have no argument!!! Just a concern. A CONCERN, I wonder...thats who I am...I wonder if it will affect them. I read that APA article and it doesnt prove a thing to me. I read senators that just blab about it affecting children but dont say how...Im not convince by them either. There is little evidence for or against it (quoting one APA article really doesnt convince me, especially considering the history of the organization). I can make no argument about it. Theres no credible research, and there wont be for some time.

You can call me what you want, I really dont mind what you N and P people say about me. You obviously havent grown up...or grown up with any manners. My little statements have gotten you so worked up...my concerns have made you really angry. I dont see why. So Im worried about something you feel is a nonissue...thats ok. We would both vote yes, but you would do it with no reservation and I would still wonder...will this eventually affect children? I wonder, I wonder. Thats all. Nothing to get worked up about.

And how can I conceed to you? theres no argument here. You are arguing that im a "Stupid fuck" and a "cunt." Say what you need to, I hope it makes you feel better. Im arguing nothing...except, perhaps, thats its ok to have concerns about issues..concerns that arent soothed by quoting internet articles or babbling on TV.

[Darth Wong]

Cairber, Keevan is being extremely aggressive about this, but he does bring up the valid point that bringing it up in this thread is a red-herring because the subject of the thread is the Constitutional amendment.

[Colonel Olrik]

Cairber, I share your concerns. In my mind there's no doubt that the best, healthier environment to raise a child is within a traditional family, with a father and mother who love each other and the children since they're born until they are past twenty.

However, only some children are given this life (me happily included). You must ask yourself why being raised by divorced parents, by fundie parents, by wife beating parents, all very real situations, would be better than being raised by two persons who love each other, love the child but happen to be of the same sex.

[Darth Wong]

If this thread were about allowing gay parents to adopt, this discussion might be relevant. As it is, neither you or Cairber are discussing the thread subject.

[Rogue 9]

Before anyone goes apeshit, the fourth vote for it is me, voting just because I always, always, always vote against the weighted option on a weighted poll just to piss off the idiot who thought he could sway my opinion by spinning his questions.

[Cairber]

My apoligies, kinda lost track on the thread topic. About the amendment...its complete idiocracy. I cant imagine teaching the amendments, reading the civil war amendments and following that with this one. I think back to my con law class...and I can just see the arguments now. Marriage is no where in the constitution. I guess people could argue that it falls as a "zone of privacy"...but then that would completely destroy the argument for the amendment. I was at the national constitution center a few weeks back..there is an area where you can vote about propositions via post-it notes on the issue board. For this one, almost all of them said NO to the amendment. There were so many notes you could hardly see the board. One of the people working the area told me that they just put it up the day before and they've had to change the board twice already.