Gay colors?
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Arctic Circle
Age: 76
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The Case For Christ" is a work of unmitigated, easily refuted, tendentious garbage. For starters, https://infidels.org/library/modern/...r/strobel.html. It exists purely to reinforce the confirmation bias of the already pious, and has no merit as a work of purported critical investigation whatsoever.
Those attempting to cite this paean to irrationality and deficient scholarship, in order to provide an imprimatur to their line of "reasoning", have already lost the debate.
Those attempting to cite this paean to irrationality and deficient scholarship, in order to provide an imprimatur to their line of "reasoning", have already lost the debate.
Last edited by Fool Sufferer; 24th Feb 2017 at 07:27.
How will SSM fracture family structure more then it already is? My grandmother divorced her husband some 80 years ago because he repeatedly bashed her. My mother was born out of wedlock as a result. It's an ancient problem.
You're using the idea that SSM fails to meet an ideal to say it's unsuitable when the reality is a large majority of opposite-sex marriages also fail to meet the ideal. You're holding those who want SSM to a higher standard than you do heterosexual marriage.
Most Australians weddings are civil not religious so how is the Christian ideal relevant to those people? It's certainly not relevant to me as I'm not Christian and neither is my wife. I apply my own standards to my marriage.
"Civil celebrants have overseen the majority of marriages since 1999 and the proportion of marriage ceremonies overseen by a civil celebrant increased again to 74.9 per cent of all marriages in 2015."
www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/3310.0
"Equality" isn't about anything goes - it's about giving someone access to the same rights and privileges as others have. Opposite-sex marriage is between two people, not three or more, nor does it involve animals. That's all those who seek SSM are asking for. The polygamy gambit is a joke.
How are we changing the definition of your marriage? Explain that to me. Presumably you got married in a religious ceremony (which will be unchanged by SSM) and the civil part is just a legal contract that doesn't change for you - it is still between you and the missus.
Your marriage is still your marriage and Mrs Keg isn't suddenly going to want to include anyone else. The sun will still rise in the morning and the Keglets will still feel the same about their parents.
You're using the idea that SSM fails to meet an ideal to say it's unsuitable when the reality is a large majority of opposite-sex marriages also fail to meet the ideal. You're holding those who want SSM to a higher standard than you do heterosexual marriage.
Most Australians weddings are civil not religious so how is the Christian ideal relevant to those people? It's certainly not relevant to me as I'm not Christian and neither is my wife. I apply my own standards to my marriage.
"Civil celebrants have overseen the majority of marriages since 1999 and the proportion of marriage ceremonies overseen by a civil celebrant increased again to 74.9 per cent of all marriages in 2015."
www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/3310.0
"Equality" isn't about anything goes - it's about giving someone access to the same rights and privileges as others have. Opposite-sex marriage is between two people, not three or more, nor does it involve animals. That's all those who seek SSM are asking for. The polygamy gambit is a joke.
How are we changing the definition of your marriage? Explain that to me. Presumably you got married in a religious ceremony (which will be unchanged by SSM) and the civil part is just a legal contract that doesn't change for you - it is still between you and the missus.
Your marriage is still your marriage and Mrs Keg isn't suddenly going to want to include anyone else. The sun will still rise in the morning and the Keglets will still feel the same about their parents.
parabellum, we're talking marriage, the legal contract, not Holy Matrimony the religious ceremony.
Ken, the loving partner can be the same sex. The loving partner could easily be a relative taking a role as carer.
Ummm, tell that to all the kids resulting from donor sperm or eggs, and all the adopted and fostered kids. Where did they come from?
Ken, the loving partner can be the same sex. The loving partner could easily be a relative taking a role as carer.
Ummm, tell that to all the kids resulting from donor sperm or eggs, and all the adopted and fostered kids. Where did they come from?
Nunc est bibendum
As a couple a same sex couple have all the protections under law the same as any de facto relationship. That's a good thing as it protects the weaker (financial) of the partners in a relationship breakdown. It protects people in the event of death, etc. So the 'legal protection' of marriage idea is moot. A de facto couple of 22 years have basically the same legal rights as a same sex couple of 22 years as they do of my marriage of 22 years.
Which leads us to this line of thought.
That some traditional marriages can't uphold the ideal doesn't mean that we subsequently 'trash' what the ideal should be. I'm holding up all traditional marriage to the same standard ideal.
When a traditional marriage breaks down people are normally 'making the best of a crap situation'. That's a bit different to setting up from the outset what will likely be a 'crap situation'- at least when it comes to families.
A same sex 'marriage' will not ever be able to conceive of a child and have that child raised by it's father and mother as part of a marriage relationship- the ideal that we should be aspiring to. From the outset, a SSM deliberately, overtly, and explicitly excludes one of the parents of the biological child from being in the loving relationship the child has a right to. This is quite a distinct issue from the situation where many single parent families make a great go with their kids despite the family breakdown. A mate of mine is a loving father and husband but he has always regretted not knowing his dad as well as he'd like to because of family breakdown when he was young.
SSM doesn't 'make the best of a bad deal', it sets out with the 'best of a bad deal' being part of the inherent structure of involving children and being the absolute best that can be hoped for.
Sure. By all means apply your own standards. Personally I'd love to see kids only being born to families that have made a life long commitment to each other. I'd like to see husbands supporting their wives and giving up of themselves for their wives. i'd love to see wives doing the same for their husbands. I'd love to see kids growing up with both of their biological parents. I'd love to see that family unit and 'ideal marriage' championed and fought for. I'd don't want to see that 'ideal' deteriorating further where people view kids as accessories to their personalities or worse. You're asking me though to change what I picture as an 'ideal marriage'. If the picture of what an 'ideal marriage' is malleable, changeable and variable then it becomes a meaningless institution- which many people already view it as. Heck, if SSM gets up I'd tend to agree with them. This is how SSM impacts on my marriage to Mrs Keg? It turns marriage into a variable, malleable, whatever you want it to be institution. How sad for all of us.
How so? Is polygamy not the same principle? Why should you be free to marry someone of the same sex but someone else not be permitted to marry two, three or more people? What gives you the right to tell them who or how many people they can marry? Does all this sound familiar?
The SSM advocates do their best to avoid the polygamy angle and claim SSM is not a 'slippery slope'. On the final point I agree, it's not a slippery slope. It's actually the exact same principle. Only the wilfully blind or the deliberately misleading don't acknowledge that point. They avoid the principle and try and shout it down because they know that once people comprehend it, SSM is dead in the water.
Anyway, it's nice to be able to discuss this without some of the heat that High and Flighty brought to the discussion.
Which leads us to this line of thought.
When a traditional marriage breaks down people are normally 'making the best of a crap situation'. That's a bit different to setting up from the outset what will likely be a 'crap situation'- at least when it comes to families.
A same sex 'marriage' will not ever be able to conceive of a child and have that child raised by it's father and mother as part of a marriage relationship- the ideal that we should be aspiring to. From the outset, a SSM deliberately, overtly, and explicitly excludes one of the parents of the biological child from being in the loving relationship the child has a right to. This is quite a distinct issue from the situation where many single parent families make a great go with their kids despite the family breakdown. A mate of mine is a loving father and husband but he has always regretted not knowing his dad as well as he'd like to because of family breakdown when he was young.
SSM doesn't 'make the best of a bad deal', it sets out with the 'best of a bad deal' being part of the inherent structure of involving children and being the absolute best that can be hoped for.
"Equality" isn't about anything goes - it's about giving someone access to the same rights and privileges as others have. Opposite-sex marriage is between two people, not three or more, nor does it involve animals. That's all those who seek SSM are asking for. The polygamy gambit is a joke.
The SSM advocates do their best to avoid the polygamy angle and claim SSM is not a 'slippery slope'. On the final point I agree, it's not a slippery slope. It's actually the exact same principle. Only the wilfully blind or the deliberately misleading don't acknowledge that point. They avoid the principle and try and shout it down because they know that once people comprehend it, SSM is dead in the water.
Anyway, it's nice to be able to discuss this without some of the heat that High and Flighty brought to the discussion.
Nunc est bibendum
Donor sperm and donor eggs is a more interesting one. A more nuanced discussion. I'm done for the day. Maybe another time I'll revisit that one.
Dear Keg, children that are raised by lesbian or gay parents are not disadvantaged by this. A great amount of (70+) scientific studies conducted on this subject have shown this.
The science is clear: children raised by same sex parents are at no disadvantage/
I very much respect that you raise your kids in the biblical conservative way.
But I still don't really understand why you want to impose your way of marriage, living and parenting on others, while others don't impose their ways on you?
The science is clear: children raised by same sex parents are at no disadvantage/
I very much respect that you raise your kids in the biblical conservative way.
But I still don't really understand why you want to impose your way of marriage, living and parenting on others, while others don't impose their ways on you?
Question for Moderators
How is it that threads on legitimately aviation-related matters such as MH370 get locked down quicker than you can blink but this ..., well, whatever this "discussion" has devolved into continues unabated?
Keg, the only reason your opposite-sex marriage ideal exists is because it's traditional. What about societies where kids are raised collectively? What about families where there are a dozen or more kids as there were in the past. You can't tell any of those kids received much in the way of individual love and attention from their parents.
On what basis are you claiming same-sex parents are any worse than having opposite-sex parents at bringing up kids in a loving and supportive environment?
On what basis are you claiming same-sex parents are any worse than having opposite-sex parents at bringing up kids in a loving and supportive environment?
Nunc est bibendum
It's funny how Christians are often accused of trying to 'deny' gay people the 'right' to marry (when really no such right exists and it's something for society to decide in the scheme of things). At least the adults in the discussion have the opportunity to argue their case.
On the other hand, creating a structure where a child (who has no opportunity to argue their own case) is explicitly and by design denied the opportunity to be raised by it's biological parents is no problem for the SSM advocates. It doesn't matter that we can point to any number of adopted people who wonder who their birth parents were even if these people still do well in life and tick the various boxes of 'no different than if they weren't adopted'. The fact that part of their story remains unknown is often a source of constant wonder and often sadness. Now adoption is an example where we make the best of a bad deal and often times that can be an awesome outcome anyway even if it's not the way we'd prefer it to be.
So the question is do you think a child has the right to be raised by it's mother and father? Or do you instead suggest that the child has no rights in this situation and it's rights are whatever happens to be defined by the whims of those who 'want a child'?
Please don't go down the road of 'some heterosexual parents are crap' because we can also point to some same sex parents being crap too- including a high profile QLD case. When parents are crap society makes the best of a bad deal and we ensure the kids are safe. That's not the point I'm talking about here and everyone knows it so I'm hoping we can head that off at the pass.
On the other hand, creating a structure where a child (who has no opportunity to argue their own case) is explicitly and by design denied the opportunity to be raised by it's biological parents is no problem for the SSM advocates. It doesn't matter that we can point to any number of adopted people who wonder who their birth parents were even if these people still do well in life and tick the various boxes of 'no different than if they weren't adopted'. The fact that part of their story remains unknown is often a source of constant wonder and often sadness. Now adoption is an example where we make the best of a bad deal and often times that can be an awesome outcome anyway even if it's not the way we'd prefer it to be.
So the question is do you think a child has the right to be raised by it's mother and father? Or do you instead suggest that the child has no rights in this situation and it's rights are whatever happens to be defined by the whims of those who 'want a child'?
Please don't go down the road of 'some heterosexual parents are crap' because we can also point to some same sex parents being crap too- including a high profile QLD case. When parents are crap society makes the best of a bad deal and we ensure the kids are safe. That's not the point I'm talking about here and everyone knows it so I'm hoping we can head that off at the pass.
Who is saying the both natural parents won't be known to the child and be involved in raising them?
Children clearly don't have a right to being raised by both parents - we have divorce and parents moving overseas.
Children clearly don't have a right to being raised by both parents - we have divorce and parents moving overseas.
Nunc est bibendum
Le Pingouin, are you advocating for those sorts of societal structures to be formally enshrined in law in Australia?
reivilo, I've covered this off a few times now. You may not agree. You may not 'understand' my reasoning but I have articulated them. Whilst they're informed by my Christianity, i'm not arguing against SSM because 'that's what the bible says'. I don't expect my religious beliefs to be the reason two gay people can't marry. I'm arguing that traditional marriage is the best thing for society, families and children.
reivilo, I've covered this off a few times now. You may not agree. You may not 'understand' my reasoning but I have articulated them. Whilst they're informed by my Christianity, i'm not arguing against SSM because 'that's what the bible says'. I don't expect my religious beliefs to be the reason two gay people can't marry. I'm arguing that traditional marriage is the best thing for society, families and children.
No, I think that would be classified as "bad law" because it wouldn't be enforceable in any meaningful manner, and you'd need to impose the same conditions on opposite-sex couples which I can see being very popular.
I think it's far more important that kids have a stable and loving environment to grow up in than having to have both biological parents present. My Dad lost his father at a very young age and was brought up by his mother and assorted extended family members - as you saying making the best of the situation.
My point being that rather than trying to hold to an ideal that most marriages fall short of as being the only acceptable way and providing no guidance for when it fails it's better to support something more realistic that still works very well.
I think it's far more important that kids have a stable and loving environment to grow up in than having to have both biological parents present. My Dad lost his father at a very young age and was brought up by his mother and assorted extended family members - as you saying making the best of the situation.
My point being that rather than trying to hold to an ideal that most marriages fall short of as being the only acceptable way and providing no guidance for when it fails it's better to support something more realistic that still works very well.
I'm arguing that traditional marriage is the best thing for society, families and children.
Scientific research on this matter does not support in any way that 'traditional marriage' is better than same sex marriage. I find it very sad that gay and lesbian couples are denied their marriage in Australia because it's not according to biblical tradition. We have seen so many 'great' traditions in the past that have gone, because of evolution in our way of thinking.
As we live in the 21st century I think we should make our political decisions based on science and not on how something was written down 1500-2000 years ago.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: shivering in the cold dark shadow of my own magnificence.
Posts: 522
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reivilo
In a world of literally billions of families, you wish to change society on the basis of 70 flawed studies that admitted to convenience sampling and excluding outlier findings that didn't meet their desired outcomes.
On the strength of this 'science' you could equally prove that children are not disadvantaged by being raised by a pack of wolves, due to their ability to work in a group environment and their desire to live on a low carbon diet of raw meat.
In a world of literally billions of families, you wish to change society on the basis of 70 flawed studies that admitted to convenience sampling and excluding outlier findings that didn't meet their desired outcomes.
On the strength of this 'science' you could equally prove that children are not disadvantaged by being raised by a pack of wolves, due to their ability to work in a group environment and their desire to live on a low carbon diet of raw meat.
As we live in the 21st century I think we should make our political decisions based on science and not on how something was written down 1500-2000 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lennox
Nunc est bibendum
Wow.
Both parents, iving in the home, every day? You're really stretching things if you reckon that what you're proposing is a substitute for a married relationships between mum and dad.
Thanks for making the point nicely. Children have no rights to their Mum and Dad. Their rights to know and be loved by their biological parents are subordinate to the various whims of adults.
We've already discussed how divorce and separation is a step away from the ideal structure of raising kids (as most research will show) but in some situations is the best of a bad situation. You've confirmed quite nicely here that you are quite happy to extend the concept of 'making the best of a bad situation' to simply endorse the 'bad situation' as the new baseline standard.
And you wonder why I'm anti SSM? This is a major part of it right here.
We've already discussed how divorce and separation is a step away from the ideal structure of raising kids (as most research will show) but in some situations is the best of a bad situation. You've confirmed quite nicely here that you are quite happy to extend the concept of 'making the best of a bad situation' to simply endorse the 'bad situation' as the new baseline standard.
And you wonder why I'm anti SSM? This is a major part of it right here.
Nunc est bibendum
Your knowledge of the bible really is quite deficient if you're quoting '1500' as part of that sentence!
Of course, having not read it, how can you claim whether what's inside it is relevant today or not? Perhaps you should have a read!
Of course, having not read it, how can you claim whether what's inside it is relevant today or not? Perhaps you should have a read!
