posted
But I wasn't offended! I liked your post! I thought it was funny! (Edit: I was going to mention how much I'd love to marry Claire Danes and Jennifer Garner, among others )
I'm solidly opposed to deleting posts in most cases; even if I've said something terrible I think it's better to leave it there so I won't forget what I've done.
posted
Amka, that makes no sense. Children raised by divorced parents, widowed parents, test tube babies, army brats, stay at home moms. . . they all are "different" in some way. How exactly do you propose to conduct such a study?
Would be willing to give up no-fault divorce and women in the workplace in order to have a marriage be between a "man and a woman?"
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:We are stuck between a rock and hard place, Bob, on that. To me, that is like experimenting with a drug that may have some harmful side effects. But we'll just give it to everyone because they want it now, without doing the studies first. Need to know more? Those are just delaying tactics.
I already dealt with how this analogy doesn't hold water. Basically, in the case of a new drug, we have ample evidence of past drugs to suggest that there might be unanticipated side effects and thus it would be foolish to rush a new drug to the public without adequate testing. We also have established scientific methods for testing drugs so that there's little disagreement or room to argue about the results of the testing.
In the case of gay marriage, we don't have a history of demonstrating harm to "society in general" when we extend rights to a broader group within our society. Quite the opposite, actually. Again, I call your attention to the now defunct laws against racial intermarriage. Good laws? No. Took too long to get rid of them? Yes. Harm to society? I don't think you'll find any.
quote:This actually happened, but not with a drug. The American Public demanded that the government mandate airbags in cars. The car companies said that they were still conducting studies on safety issues. The American Public said it was a delaying tactic. Do it now. So they did. And they found that airbags could kill children, even in an accident that would otherwise have been minor (such as in a parking lot). In fact, airbags could kill small adults too. People died, because of what the Amercian Public wanted NOW.
Hey, guess what, air bags save more lives than they cost by a VERY wide margin. The people who have died from air bag deployment were: - small stature adults who adjusted the seat to be too close to the steering wheel. - small children riding in the front seat with regular seatbelts. - infants in rear-facing car seats improperly installed in the front seat.
Those deaths are tragic, to be sure, but they aren't the result of a mad rush to implement air bags. They are the result of improper use of airbags despite warnings on seat adjustment and placement of children in vehicles.
quote:I don't think that stress from being a marginal group would necessarily affect the sexuality of the children growing up with homosexual parents.
Says you. I'm just trying to point out that if the study came out showing that kids in homosexual households do less well on ANY metric you care to propose, the problem with drawing any conclusions from that result are legion. You can't eliminate the 3rd variable problem of social inequality having SOME effect. Since you can't measure that effect, and you can't control for it in your experimental design, it's a confounding variable. It's presence makes any study open to question.
In other words, all the studies in the world would not solve this debate unless the results came in showing that such children are actually better off then kids raised in heterosexual-led homes.
This is basic Research Methods stuff. It has nothing to do with social issues in general or gay marriage in particular. It is simply a fact of research in naturalistic environments. You can't control for things that may be very important in determining the outcome of your study. ANY built in bias against one group of a two-group study renders the results of that study open to alternative interpretation.
In other words, why should we wait for a study whose results can't definitively answer the question?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I am obviously in the deleting posts I don't want to claim camp, not because of the damage to my reputation, but if I delete it fast enough, I'll offend fewer people.
I only occasionaly do this in real life - talk before my brain is finished filtering. I usually win one enemy and two friends, but it still isn't a good idea.
I said, basically, that denying polygamy is denying the basic rights of all those people who want to marry all those people.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would homosexuals be happy with legalized civil unions, but not being allowed to adopt or get state or federal monies to help get themselves or a surrogate pregnant?
I am actually more motivated to see gays be able to adopt than gays be able to marry.
You keep comparing adopted kids of gay couples to adopted kids of straight couples. You should be comparing them to non-adopted kids in care of the state. Is nothing truly better than half a loaf?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I had to wait for this to come around full circle, but here goes...
I've heard Mormons argue against same sex unions, and also that the Church didn't condemn polygamy but just no longer allowed it. You see though, there might be a small hole in the whole situation.
The concept of polygamy in the Mormon Church came from a very male-centric point of view. Each of the wives entered into a marriage with their husband, but also joined into a marriage with the whole household, correct? In effect, they weren't just marrying the man, but his family. Isn't this a form of same sex marriage? Even if there were no sexual relations between the women, they were still bound within the family unit by bonds of marriage. (And remember, we don't know and don't have the right to know, if there was any homosexual activity between the multiple wives.)
Looking into it, I tend to see that the Mormon Church may have already set a precedent within their own ranks. Brigham Young's marriages featured 27 women and one man, 21 of them being married and alive at the time of his last marriage in 1868. googled
If you take one man out of the situation, it becomes more than 2 dozen women married together. Does the one man in the equation make it alright? Or is it simply okay because they were just women? Had a founding matron of the LDS church decided to marry a total of 27 men, many in wedlock at the same time, would it have been wrong? And if so, why?
It still comes down to one of the people making a marriage with one person of the opposite sex and literally a marriage with a gaggle of people of the same sex.
But you see, what business is it of mine how Brigham Young and his family got along, or how he and his chose to live their lives? Why should a church leader's life have any bearing on how I see the members of a strong and wonderful faith? Hopefully I won't have to spell out the otherside of the coin.
posted
Actually, I don't think that is the comparison at all. I think they are comparing biological children raised by heterosexuals to adopted children raised by homosexuals.
posted
You know, marrying a hatracker seems like an awfully good idea
I actually used hatrack as a dating criteria once... she didn't like the site, so I didn't go on another date with her...*Grin*
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've only met one girl with whom I'd say I'm sufficiently compatible that I would consider showing her Hatrack. I'm currently sort of seeing her, and she does know that I post on various internet fora (she and I actually happen to post on one of the same ones), but I've never linked her to Hatrack.
Kasie is certainly a cutie.
pH hasn't been around for quite a while now. Dunno where she ran off to (or who she ran off with )...
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
edit: oh, and no matter *what* you choose, you have to begin the duel by smacking each other across the face with a glove. i've always wanted to see that.
posted
I was thinking earlier this week about how incongruous it was that this serious, heated, debate-heavy thread had the word "Funniest" in the title. ....Now, i suppose, the title fits again.
edit: you know, Jon Boy, i always thought superfluous Hear Hears were vastly underrated.
So, it's decided then, is it? Now we just have to prod my champion, the esteemed Sho'nuff, to accept the challenge formally. Or with slang terms.
posted
stupid women and their stupid love of dudes in bands...
Hey! I aint no dancing monkey. Maybe an evil one over at Grenme, but that mostly involves pointing at people and looking evil.
Posts: 251 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Is this smilie supposed to be animated? Because it is just a guy in a hat to me, and ever since he showed up, my other smilies won't move at all. While that's wonderful for the party and wave smilies, bad things are happening with the duece smilie.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
a little arm comes out, lifts up the hat to reveal a tuft of hair, the hat goes down to the side as the little head bows, and as he puts the hat back on he winks.
what a great smilie. Posts: 251 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Someone somewhere, in some other thread, said that if you push the Esc key on some computers it stops the smilies in their tracks. I'm not sure if that's the case with your computer, or even how to make them start again. But that's sad. Because the Hat Tipper is a worthy new addition to our ever-growing smilie collection.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some observations about homosexuality threads
1. No one will ever change their minds, admit that the other side might be right, agree on basic terms of debate or do anything that could conceivably result in any sort of agreement.
2. Things are said that I have deep, personal issues with. They are said by people I like a lot. That makes me sad.
3. KarlEd is amazing. Respeck, dude. I don't know how you keep so calm.
4. It's great that religious conservatives (Scott, Kat) can talk about this without foaming at the mouth (Ryan Hart). While there's no agreement, at least there is dialogue and perhaps some understanding on the part of both sides.
5. Fluff, fluff, fluff. Thanks for restoring my faith in Hatrack after 16 pages of debate and blegh.
Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's great that religious conservatives (Scott, Kat) can talk about this without foaming at the mouth
Alas, you should have seen the napkins I went through yesterday. . . thought about borrowing LiteBrite's bib a time or three. . .
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Maybe they get to pick? Maybe both?![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
