Battling Disinformation In The Ssm Debate

[Tacenda]

Quotes and links for the case of Gay's adopting......

"Keep in mind that even though adoptions of foster children have increased greatly, many children still in the system need families because so many children enter foster care. For example, according to national statistics released by the Children's Bureau of the Department of Health and Human Services, in fiscal year 2002, 302,000 children entered foster care, up from 295,000 children entering the system in 2001. An estimated 126,000 foster children nationwide were ready and waiting to be adopted, but less than half (51,000 kids) were adopted."

Read more on FamilyEducation: http://life.familyeducation.com/adoption/foster-care/45767.html#ixzz23GnktXTB

Julian Sanchez makes the same point in Reason Magazine:

...visit Florida and ask a child in foster care which makes him feel more threatened: the thought of being raised by homosexuals, or the prospect of an indefinite number of years spent passing through an indefinite number of homes.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/azliving/articles/2011/05/02/20110502gay-dads-ham-family-12-adopted-kids.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-02-20-gay-adoption-foster_x.htm

[Libs]

As indicted in In Re Marriage (The California Supreme Court case in regards to Prop 22--the predecessor of Prop , t isn't about the benefits (which were already available to SS couples by way of civil unions). Instead, it was about homosexuals "having their family relationship accorded the same respect and dignity enjoyed by an opposite-sex couple."

In other words, it is ultimately about normalizing homosexuality--Libs protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

Last night I saw a preview for a new sitcom called, not coincidentally, "The New Normal," featuring a gay couple and a surrogate. This is the latest in lengthy attempt by Hollywood to normalize homosexuals: http://www.nytimes.c...the-family.html

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What's wrong with "normalizing homosexuals"? It is normal. A lot of the hate and problems they experience within this society is caused by being marginalized. That really needs to end.

Edit: "Libs" never made a "protestation to the contrary". Why would I?

Edited August 11, 2012 by Libs

[CV75]

Bingo. Now you can appreciate one of the reasons why gays should be given the equal right to marry. You may think it is perfectly ok and not a big deal to have to go through probate when a partner dies or have to pay inheritance tax if you are the surviving partner, but then you aren't the one being discriminated against.

Bingo... NOT!!!

Changing marriage to accommodate gay people is not the right, fair, moral way to get financial advantage to this "special" group-- all other unmarried people have the same issues as you just stated. Changing tax, insurance, benefits, probate law is the right way to go about it. I understand the method to the madness (it's a shortcut), but it is horribly misguided, heterophic way to go about equal rights in these areas.

[ERayR]

The definition I posted was simply the one given in my computer dictionary word for word. If you don't like the way the dictionary defines discrimination, you are going to have to take that up with the publishers of the dictionary, not me..

I have two problems with your post. Why didn't you include the first usage of the word in your post? Maybe you don't know this as well but the order that the dictionary puts the definitions is based on the most popular usage of the word.

Second. evidently you don't quite understand how the dictionary works. I guess I will have to explain this to you. When a dictionary gives several definitions of a word, it does so because the word can be used in different contexts to mean different things. You don't just choose what definition you like better. The difference usages means the word had different meanings. And like I have stated repeatedly, the usage I am using for discrimiination is the first definition. Now you are dismissed for recess.

Well my definition was from the dictionary word for word. A direct copy and paste. I didn't post the first definition because it was covered in the other two and was irrelevant. But so that you know that I wasn't hiding anything here it is word for word - copy and paste. 1. an act or instance of discriminating.

Second - although you, in your infinite intelligence, may think my merely mortal wit does not measure up to your grand and lofty plain I do know how a dictionary works. I think I learned that in third grade but then I may have been given an inferior education and wouldn't recognize it.

Edited August 12, 2012 by ERayR

[ERayR]

I am surprised you do not know what I am talking about Zeta, I thought you would be well informed on this issue. There are literally hundreds of ways the government and corporations use to determine benefits. A FEW of them are how taxes are filed as a joint return rather than separate returns, how health coverage is extended to spouses and not to room mates, how inheritance tax is aplied etc.

Zeta must be as unlearned and ignorant as you think that I am. You must be lenient with us mere mortals or sub humans whichever you deem it to be.

[california boy]

california boy,

Those same economic issues apply to any non-married pair of people. You claimed that there were "REAL discrimination issues." But the examples you just raised are not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

The examples of discrimination are based on whether a couple is married or not. The problem is, when you tell gays that they can not get married, then it becomes discrimination. The way the majority of Americans think this and other problems is to eliminate this discrimination by allowing gays to marry. Not all gay couples will choose to get married either. But those that do should receive the exact same benefits as any other couple that chooses to marry.

If you see another solution being seriously considered, please come forward. Until then, marriage seems to be the preferred solution by both gays and straights in America.

[california boy]

The point isn't just to encourage stable relationships. It is primarily to encourage the "optimum" type of relationship.

Think of it as analogous to parents wanting their children to go to college because they figure that a college education will give the children the best chance for success. So, the parents offer incentives to their children, like graduation presents. However, if one of their children decides to drop out of high school to become a plumber, and later claims that the parents are discriminating against him, and he demands to be treated equally, and claims that he has a right to be called a graduate and to receive the incentives of graduation. Would this make sense to you?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Maybe you can explain how you think allowing gays to marry will eliminate the "optimum" type of relationship.

[california boy]

Well my definition was from the dictionary word for word. A direct copy and paste. I didn't post the first definition because it was covered in the other two and was irrelevant. But so that you know that I wasn't hiding anything here it is word for word - copy and paste. 1. an act or instance of discriminating.

Second - although you, in your infinite intelligence, may think my merely mortal wit does not measure up to your grand and lofty plain I do know how a dictionary works. I think I learned that in third grade but then I may have been given an inferior education and wouldn't recognize it.

Yeah well I went to your link. The first definition that you so conveniently left out of your post is, of course, the usage of the word we are talking about. But then you obviously knew that which is probably why you decided to not include the one part of the usage of the word that was relevant to the discussion.

I actually thought you did probably know how a dictionary works which makes what you did fall more into the deception category than the ignorance category of behavior. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in hoping that it was ignorance on your part rather than deception, since deception involves a lack of honesty.

Both of you ratchet it down.

[Libs]

Wade...stable relationships are optimal.

[Zeta-Flux]

The examples of discrimination are based on whether a couple is married or not. The problem is, when you tell gays that they can not get married, then it becomes discrimination. The way the majority of Americans think this and other problems is to eliminate this discrimination by allowing gays to marry. Not all gay couples will choose to get married either. But those that do should receive the exact same benefits as any other couple that chooses to marry.

If you see another solution being seriously considered, please come forward. Until then, marriage seems to be the preferred solution by both gays and straights in America.

As I said in my last post, the discrimination is not based on sexual orientation. Nobody is being denied marriage on the basis of sexual orientation.

What is being denied is that the government's purpose in supporting marriage is merely to promote stable couplings. It isn't that, as evidenced in the history of marriage, the case law surrounding the institution, etc...

The most you could argue is that gay couples stand in a situation so alike with respect to the purposes of marriage, that the differences are irrelevant. In other words, you have to argue that the essential part of marriage is the stable couple arrangement, and that any other parts are superfluous. But until you establish that, you cannot argue that marriage law, as it stands, discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation; because it doesn't. Anyone, regardless of sexual persuasion, can enter the institution.

(And, by the way, if marriage is all about promoting stable relationships, we should allow roommates to marry, and triples, and...)

Edited August 12, 2012 by Zeta-Flux

[wenglund]

What's wrong with "normalizing homosexuals"? It is normal. A lot of the hate and problems they experience within this society is caused by being marginalized. That really needs to end.

This has got to be your least intelligent response yet. A mere 4 -5% of the population does not a "norm" make. And if homosexuality (by this I mean desires and behaviors) were already accepted as "normal", the gay advocates and their Hollywood friends wouldn't be working so feverishly to gain normalcy. Not to put too fine a point on it, but a person would have to be incredibly gullible to accept that it is normal for two keys or two locks to inter-tangle with each other.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 12, 2012 by wenglund

[Deborah]

Last night I had an interesting conversation with my daughter who is gay. She is so disturbed by the hatred evidenced by the active gay movement to those who disagree with them. She was appalled at the actions against Chick-fil-a. She said she's never seen such hatred just because someone disagrees with you. We talked about how hatred is overtaking our nation as people start demonizing and acting against those who don't hold to their line of thinking. It all seems to be on one side, and that of those who protest the loudest about their rights.

I just wanted to point out that not all people who have SSA follow the party line.

[wenglund]

Maybe you can explain how you think allowing gays to marry will eliminate the "optimum" type of relationship.

Maybe you can explain why you are ignoring busted myths #10 and 11 (see page 2 of this thread) and wasting our time asking questions that have already been answered?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Wade...stable relationships are optimal.

Wrong. You aren't thinking things through very well--at least not critically. A stable abusive relationship is far from optimal. It isn't the stability that is optimal, but the type of relationship.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Libs]

Wrong. You aren't thinking things through very well--at least not critically. A stable abusive relationship is far from optimal. It isn't the stability that is optimal, but the type of relationship.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

How do you figure an abusive relationship is stable? It's anything but.

Edited August 12, 2012 by Libs

[california boy]

Maybe you can explain why you are ignoring busted myths #10 and 11 (see page 2 of this thread) and wasting our time asking questions that have already been answered?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Quite honestly I have ignored all of your so called myths. Most of them are groundless and have no legal reality in their propositions. They rely heavily upon emotional rhetoric and little on what would be required in a court of law to actually prove something. Most of these myths were never even brought up during the prop 8 trial for that very reason. It is pointless to argue over things that are really not legal issues. I can't even get people in this form to acknowledge what the definition of discrimination is. They jump right over the first preferred usage of the word and start making a case for the second preferred usage. People see what they want to see. You argue what you want to believe. Would there be anything I could say that would change your mind one bit? No. And quite frankly it is not important for anyone's mind to be changed which is the only point I have made on this thread. It is not up to your opinion or my opinion. It is up to the case that will be brought before the Supreme Court. There, the lawyers will lay out their case for changing the marital laws of this country. The justices will come to a decision. And that will be the law in America.

Personally I feel pretty good about the logic and legal argument that has already passed two judicial reviews. You of course are free to vilify Judge Walker and the 9th districts decisions. But what you think of those rulings also has no bearing on the case. Their rulings however will be taken into account and weighed by the justices as will the arguments used by the loosing side.

Each year, headway is made in fighting discrimination against the LGBT community. More countries pass marriage equality laws, More states pass marriage equality. More court cases are decided in favor of marriage equality. The military eliminates its discrimination practices. DOMA starts to fall apart legally. Even Republican governors and congress members are understanding this issue better. Your emotionally charged logic and arguments are not effective to overcome the deep rooted belief of equality in this country. Fear is a powerful weapon, but it doesn't last forever.

[Zeta-Flux]

They jump right over the first preferred usage of the word and start making a case for the second preferred usage.

From dictionary.com, (repeated once again):

(1) to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality:

As we have shown, multiple times now, marriage does not make a distinction against sexual orientation. Historically, homosexual attraction had absolutely nothing to do with marriage. We do not inquire into these issues for those entering marriage. Marriage was not created to punish GLTBs. It was created entirely independent of such issues.

[Zeta-Flux]

Personally I feel pretty good about the logic and legal argument that has already passed two judicial reviews.

This misstates the current situation. The first case (by Walker) was a kangaroo court, with his actions needing to be overruled 3 separate times by higher courts. Further, his legal reasonings did not factor into the second ruling much. The second ruling was a split 2-1 decision, based not much on the arguments raised by either side, but on the specific timing of Prop. 8.

I can almost guarantee that the Supreme Court will rely on neither of those rulings, finding them both lacking. I'm a little less sure, but still highly positive that if they use rational basis review the result will be opposite that of the lower two courts. The true value of this case will be in the decision of the Supreme Court whether sexual attraction merits strict scrutiny, which, by the way, Walker's decision went against precedent on, and the Appelate court only ruled on rational basis.

You of course are free to vilify Judge Walker and the 9th districts decisions. But what you think of those rulings also has no bearing on the case. Their rulings however will be taken into account and weighed by the justices as will the arguments used by the loosing side.

Pointing out the shenannigans that Walker pulled, including being overruled 3 times by higher courts, breaking the law, breaking his word, etc... is not the same as villifying him.

Further, pointing out what the rulings actually say vs. what was argued before the courts, is taking the rulings into account.

Edited August 12, 2012 by Zeta-Flux

[Zeta-Flux]

Each year, headway is made in fighting discrimination against the LGBT community. More countries pass marriage equality laws, More states pass marriage equality. More court cases are decided in favor of marriage equality.

The same was true of pro-choice (aka pro-abortion) advocacy. The same was true of no-fault divorce. As more information is presented, people will come to understand the dangers inherent in redefining marriage and the mission-creep involved in merely centering it around stable-coupling. When people realize that polygamy, room-mate civil unions, and other alternate forms of coupling would similarly have to be allowed if this is a discrimination issue, they may begin to realize what marriage really is about.

[wenglund]

How do you figure an abusive relationship is stable? It's anything but.

You are misunderstanding, again, and missing the point, again. Neither stability or instability are causally a function of abuse--at least not directly. Instead, they are a function of other things--like the level of commitment, adherence to various stabilizing principles, etc.

While not all abusive relationships are stable, there are, contrary to your sweeping claim, some that are--not the least of which is codependency. It is also quite common for children and spouses to remain in abusive relationships (thus making them stable) for the wrong reasons, and those negative reasons can, in some cases, be stronger than positive reasons.

The point being, it isn't the stability, per se, of the relationship that is "optimal" (since the stability of bad relationships isn't good), but it is the type of relationship--at least that is how the legislatures and the courts have looked at it.

What will it take for you to finally understand this?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Quite honestly I have ignored all of your so called myths. Most of them are groundless and have no legal reality in their propositions. They rely heavily upon emotional rhetoric and little on what would be required in a court of law to actually prove something. Most of these myths were never even brought up during the prop 8 trial for that very reason. It is pointless to argue over things that are really not legal issues. I can't even get people in this form to acknowledge what the definition of discrimination is. They jump right over the first preferred usage of the word and start making a case for the second preferred usage. People see what they want to see. You argue what you want to believe. Would there be anything I could say that would change your mind one bit? No. And quite frankly it is not important for anyone's mind to be changed which is the only point I have made on this thread. It is not up to your opinion or my opinion. It is up to the case that will be brought before the Supreme Court. There, the lawyers will lay out their case for changing the marital laws of this country. The justices will come to a decision. And that will be the law in America.

Personally I feel pretty good about the logic and legal argument that has already passed two judicial reviews. You of course are free to vilify Judge Walker and the 9th districts decisions. But what you think of those rulings also has no bearing on the case. Their rulings however will be taken into account and weighed by the justices as will the arguments used by the loosing side.

Each year, headway is made in fighting discrimination against the LGBT community. More countries pass marriage equality laws, More states pass marriage equality. More court cases are decided in favor of marriage equality. The military eliminates its discrimination practices. DOMA starts to fall apart legally. Even Republican governors and congress members are understanding this issue better. Your emotionally charged logic and arguments are not effective to overcome the deep rooted belief of equality in this country. Fear is a powerful weapon, but it doesn't last forever.

All your demonstrably false assertions aside, I hold out no hope of convincing people, like you, whose minds are closed to anything other than their own selfish interests and who will seemingly stop at nothing when attempting to legitimizing their perversions. My responses to your posts are for the benefit of the reader who may care about looking at things more sensibly and critically and being less vulnerable to deleterious propaganda and unwittingly banal cultural trends.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Tacenda]

All your demonstrably false assertions aside, I hold out no hope of convincing people, like you, whose minds are closed to anything other than their own selfish interests and who will seemingly stop at nothing when attempting to legitimizing their perversions. My responses to your posts are for the benefit of the reader who may care about looking at things more sensibly and critically and being less vulnerable to deleterious propaganda and unwittingly banal cultural trends.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think you're fighting a losing battle. The Archie Bunker types are getting to be fewer and fewer in my estimation. And I liked Archie but he, like me, at the time in the 70's, didn't quite understand the homosexuals back then. We just automatically thought they were queer, oh, maybe that's how they got the name? We treated them almost like they weren't part of the human race. I think we were mostly just ignorant. But now we get to see that it's different, they are coming out of the closet and we get to see them up front and personal. It's time to smell the coffee. They were born that way, shall I say it again, they were born that way. Most want to do the right thing and get married and have families, some even hide their sexuality and get married to the opposite sex and some of those marriages work but most don't (down below I posted some of their stories). Did Jesus say anything about homosexuality behavior being an abomination in God's eyes? Or did man say it?

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/2826/does_the_bible_really_call_homosexuality_an_%e2%80%9cabomination%e2%80%9d/

http://www.soulforce.org/resources/what-the-bible-says-and-doesnt-say-about-homosexuality/

[wenglund]

....the mission-creep involved in merely centering it around stable-coupling...

Part of the reason for this mission-creep (speaking of instability), as with most mission-creeps, has to do with people's anchor points--i.e. that to which they anchor their beliefs. In the case of SSM, the anchor point for many gay advocates, is the ever shifting sands of pop culture; whereas, the anchor point for many advocates of traditional marriage, is the Rock that is Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 12, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

I think you're fighting a losing battle. The Archie Bunker types are getting to be fewer and fewer in my estimation. And I liked Archie but he, like me, at the time in the 70's, didn't quite understand the homosexuals back then. We just automatically thought they were queer, oh, maybe that's how they got the name? We treated them almost like they weren't part of the human race. I think we were mostly just ignorant. But now we get to see that it's different, they are coming out of the closet and we get to see them up front and personal. It's time to smell the coffee. They were born that way, shall I say it again, they were born that way. Most want to do the right thing and get married and have families, some even hide their sexuality and get married to the opposite sex and some of those marriages work but most don't (down below I posted some of their stories). Did Jesus say anything about homosexuality behavior being an abomination in God's eyes? Or did man say it?

http://www.religiond..._“abomination”/

http://www.soulforce...-homosexuality/

I may be fighting a loosing battle, but if so that is likely because so many people like you have been uncritically drinking the gay advocacy Kool-aid and have anchored you beliefs to the ever shifting sands of pop culture (see my post above), and are mindlessly, in "What? Me worry?" Alfred E. Newman style (or as Lenin called them: "the useful idiots"), being tossed to and fro by every wind and doctrine, and lulled into deep sleep such that you fail to be awakened to the reality of bad being passed off as good.

All I and others can do is sound the clarion call and provide viable weapons of critical thinking and argumentation. We can't guarantee that people will come to their senses--though, thankfully, there still seems to be enough rationally minded voters, legislators, and judges/justices out there that may, in small ways, stop the madness.

To coin a phrase from Dr. Phil: "You can either be a part of the problem, or you can be a part of the solution, the choice is yours." Don't you think it is about time you stopped condoning and embracing the problem and become a part of the solution?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 12, 2012 by wenglund

[ERayR]

Yeah well I went to your link. The first definition that you so conveniently left out of your post is, of course, the usage of the word we are talking about. But then you obviously knew that which is probably why you decided to not include the one part of the usage of the word that was relevant to the discussion.

I actually thought you did probably know how a dictionary works which makes what you did fall more into the deception category than the ignorance category of behavior. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in hoping that it was ignorance on your part rather than deception, since deception involves a lack of honesty.

Both of you ratchet it down.

Please I posted #1 Here it is again 1. an act or instance of discriminating. The definition of discriminating is as follows:

dis·crim·i·nat·ing (d-skrm-ntng)

adj.

1.

a. Able to recognize or draw fine distinctions; perceptive.

b. Showing careful judgment or fine taste: a discriminating collector of rare books; a dish for the discriminating palate.

2. Separating into distinct parts or components; analytical.

3. Serving to distinguish; distinctive: a discriminating characteristic.

4. Marked by or showing bias; discriminatory.

PLEASE NOTE: The #1 meaning. It comes nowhere close to your implications