Supreme Court decision

[sanantone]

reminds me
Boy

That is pretty funny.

A Warning from Canada: Same-Sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights | Public Discourse

Try to see past the liberal conservative dogma and tell me if you think there are any legitimate arguments here?

This article was so bad, it made my head hurt. I don't know how the courts work in Canada, but the Supreme Court in the U.S. has allowed all kinds of speech. You can walk through a predominately Jewish neighborhood and chant Nazi rhetoric, you can burn crosses, and you can burn the flag. If Civil Rights and EEOC laws haven't made it illegal for private citizens to say racial slurs and post racist ideology online, then legalizing same-sex marriage is not going to outlaw speech against same-sex marriage and homosexuality. It's not legal to harass people whether you're using slurs or not, but that has long been determined to not be protected speech.

One cannot look to children who grew up in homes without fathers and make assumptions about how children in homes with same-sex parents will turn out. The children who end up in jail partially because they grew up in a single-parent home usually grew up in poverty and possibly with a mother who provided inadequate parenting. You have to consider the reasons why the mother ended up being a single parent in the first place.

I really don't understand this person's who argument about biological parents. If someone donated their eggs or sperm and gave up their rights to the child, then what else is there to it? Why would the child want a claim to a parent who didn't want to claim the child to begin with? Even without same-sex marriage, gay people will still be able to pay for eggs, sperm, and surrogate mothers. Clay Aiken and Ricky Martin did it. Single, straight people also do it.

That article links to a Federalist article that talks about the increase of people choosing not to get married. Well, that has nothing to do with same-sex marriage. As women became more independent, they felt less of a need to get married. There are also a lot of young men who don't see the value in marriage. Again, that has nothing to do with the existence of same-sex marriage.

Edit: I want to add something about adoption. There are many children in the U.S. who will age out of the foster care system. In other words, they will never be adopted. Research has shown that children are usually better off being left in abusive homes than being put in the foster care system. That is how bad it is. That is why child protective service agencies are often hesitant to remove a child from his or her home unless his or her life or health is in danger. With that knowledge, I doubt children would be better off in foster care than being placed with a same-sex couple.

[LaterBloomer]

Not even finished reading the article, soliloquy, and one thing comes to mind.

"Hate-crime-like policies using the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” create unequal protections in law, whereby protected groups receive more legal protection than other groups."

"...more legal protection than other groups." is already the law of the land. In my state, and I suspect it's a US federal law, too, but I'm too lazy to check, if you kill a police officer, a judge, a prison guard, etc. you face an enhanced charge. (I won't argue whether they should be protected groups, or not. I'm just sayin'.) Also, post 9/11, there are laws against terrorists. Killing someone is killing someone, regardless of the reason or purpose, but if the government determines you're a terrorist, there's enhanced punishment. (Okay, that last sentence was lazy. I didn't fact-check it, BUT the snipers we tried some years ago here in Virginia were tried under a terrorist charge. As far as I know, they weren't trying to over-throw the government or anything, they were just killing people. [Scared us quite a bit, but I don't know that it amounted to terrorizing us. Six of one, half a dozen of another.])

Justice is a system. No system is perfect.

Another thing. (Catch me folks if my logic is messy.) If folks have a right to parents, the next logical step would be to outlaw divorce in marriages where there are minor children. These children have a right to a home with two parents who are there for them 24/7. Oh, and while we're at it, maybe we should make sure that mom's not making more than dad 'cause it's "natural" for dad to be the provider. As a woman who loves her mother beyond life, I can tell you that at times I was embarrassed by her, etc. I'm sure that there are families with perfect parents, but as a child, someone who worked in the court system, and someone who worked in child welfare, I gotta say that I don't think THEY'RE natural! (Happy belated Mother's Day, Mom!)

[Johann]

"A warning from Canada" - nah, I don't think so. A warning from one Canadian, maybe! The voices in my head are ignoring her.
A quote: "Many of us struggle with our own sexuality and sense of gender because of the influences in our household environments growing up."

So many people without gay parents struggle with these issues, too. Parenting/upbringing of all sorts gets blamed for everything. I remember this poem from Developmental Psych class:

This Be The Verse by Philip Larkin : The Poetry Foundation

Yeah, they do!

J.

[AkaiOkami]

Want to put this out to think about. The big picture gets missed. The court battles are not over gay marriage in the long run; repeat, long run! The long run goal is getting the Christian churches to hand over everything related to marriage; everything. When the government gets full control over marriage, a bureaucrat gets to decide who,what,when,where,why,how, etc, because, what are to two main things associated with marriage? Money and land! Elite bureaucrats, billionaire tech company owners, oil tycoons etc, will marry themselves and their cronies into massive wealth, like never seen before. They will all prevent competition by bring back the old feudal system. The poor/middle class will not be able to marry into wealth only out of it. Gay marriage is purely emotion based to get people stirred up so that it is an easy victory in the courts to further and painlessly gain more control. Take money and land out of the equation and then the government would not care about marriage at all.

[andrewtn]

Want to put this out to think about. The big picture gets missed. The court battles are not over gay marriage in the long run; repeat, long run! The long run goal is getting the Christian churches to hand over everything related to marriage; everything. When the government gets full control over marriage, a bureaucrat gets to decide who,what,when,where,why,how, etc, because, what are to two main things associated with marriage? Money and land! Elite bureaucrats, billionaire tech company owners, oil tycoons etc, will marry themselves and their cronies into massive wealth, like never seen before. They will all prevent competition by bring back the old feudal system. The poor/middle class will not be able to marry into wealth only out of it. Gay marriage is purely emotion based to get people stirred up so that it is an easy victory in the courts to further and painlessly gain more control. Take money and land out of the equation and then the government would not care about marriage at all.

I'm not following this logic. I don't see how making the opportunity to marry more inclusive gives the government more power over it than it has already.

Many of those that wanted the government to provide special benefits to married people, in order to encourage certain societal behaviors, are the same ones that argue the government shouldn't be involved.

[Johann]

Elite bureaucrats, billionaire tech company owners, oil tycoons etc, will marry themselves and their cronies into massive wealth, like never seen before. They will all prevent competition by bring back the old feudal system.

This could make an excellent fantasy novel.

Rich people can marry whomever they want, right now. Church or Civil, as they choose. So can the rest of us. Nobody needs marriage to stifle competition or control assets. They use corporations to do that, every day.

Potential fiction-talent here. Puts me in mind of "Strange Empire."

J.

[Johann]

I'm not following this logic.

Are you sure that's what it is?

J

[sanantone]

"A warning from Canada" - nah, I don't think so. A warning from one Canadian, maybe! The voices in my head are ignoring her.
A quote: "Many of us struggle with our own sexuality and sense of gender because of the influences in our household environments growing up."

So many people without gay parents struggle with these issues, too. Parenting/upbringing of all sorts gets blamed for everything. I remember this poem from Developmental Psych class:

This Be The Verse by Philip Larkin : The Poetry Foundation

Yeah, they do!

J.

If there are genes that predispose someone to being homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, etc., then that would probably be the more likely explanation for why some of these kids are struggling with their sexuality. Most gay people grew up in homes without a same-sex couple, which makes this person's argument even more illogical.

Want to put this out to think about. The big picture gets missed. The court battles are not over gay marriage in the long run; repeat, long run! The long run goal is getting the Christian churches to hand over everything related to marriage; everything. When the government gets full control over marriage, a bureaucrat gets to decide who,what,when,where,why,how, etc, because, what are to two main things associated with marriage? Money and land! Elite bureaucrats, billionaire tech company owners, oil tycoons etc, will marry themselves and their cronies into massive wealth, like never seen before. They will all prevent competition by bring back the old feudal system. The poor/middle class will not be able to marry into wealth only out of it. Gay marriage is purely emotion based to get people stirred up so that it is an easy victory in the courts to further and painlessly gain more control. Take money and land out of the equation and then the government would not care about marriage at all.

Marriage is not an invention of Christianity. Marriage exists in many different religions and was around before Christianity was even a thought.

[Johann]

...Most gay people grew up in homes without a same-sex couple, which makes this person's argument even more illogical.
Marriage is not an invention of Christianity. Marriage exists in many different religions and was around before Christianity was even a thought.

Yeah! What Sanantone said!

J.

[Johann]

I don't know how the courts work in Canada, but the Supreme Court in the U.S. has allowed all kinds of speech. You can walk through a predominately Jewish neighborhood and chant Nazi rhetoric...

Maybe you can. I can't. And I'm OK with that. Yes, Canada does have hate-speech laws. Explanations thereof here. Hate speech laws in Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In Dawn Stefanowicz's article, this legislation and the Human Rights Commission were presented as oppressive bogeymen, to put fear into all non-toers of the party line. I don't agree with this view one bit.

In my experience, Americans tend to think of our hate-speech provisions as weird and overly repressive. I'm used to them, I guess. But even I will admit they don't always work.

J.