Arkansas judge strikes down same sex marriage ban.

[SMOGZINN]

What does that have to do with gay marriage? You don't need gay/poly marriages to get the desired results.

You can get the same results by having bothers, sisters, cousins, etc.

It is not a positive argument for gay marriage, it is a argument against the idea that homosexual couples are not the best setup as parents. It just shows that neither is heterosexual couples. At best is shows that 1woman + 1man != best possible situation.

 

[shira]

Actually, one man and four women might be better on average. And if that were true, would you insist that marriage be restricted to one man and four women?

Is it better on average?

I have no idea (I used the word "might" - see above).

I was trying to make the point to those who claim that child-rearing is the critical justification for marriage (a claim I think is nonsense) that - if that's true - we should be encouraging the type(s) of marital arrangements that maximize the welfare of children. And it seems pretty clear to me that a household with MULTIPLE mothers (who are more nurturing than fathers) is likely to be better for children then a one-mother household.

Those who embrace the "child-rearing" argument against same-sex marriage will obviously be huge advocates of alternatives to one-man/one-woman marriage, once we accurately identify the optimum "composition" of these marriages. In fact, they'll be quick to advocate that one-man/one-woman marriage be outlawed once it's demonstrated how much happier the children are with several mothers.

 

[Retro Rob]

Please provide examples of these "specifics" that need to be directly addressed.

I don't know. I'm just think there are some things regarding gay men specifically that aren't included in locker room behavior.

If it's already covered, good.

 

[smackababy]

Rules would need to address the specifics and not just male/female relationships to get rid of confusion if a possible scenario pops up. In other words, legal language needs to clear and concise.

Public Displays of Affection is pretty cut and dry from a legal standpoint. If a reasonable person would consider it a PDA, it is. Holding each other's helmets isn't going to have to be made "illegal" in the NFL because two players might actually be attracted to each other.

 

[Retro Rob]

It is not a positive argument for gay marriage, it is a argument against the idea that homosexual couples are not the best setup as parents. It just shows that neither is heterosexual couples. At best is shows that 1woman + 1man != best possible situation.

If there is science showing that there is virtually no specific ideal setup for parenting, then why not do away with "parenting"?

If we're going to promote the idea that it "takes a village to raise a child", then they should become community property then.

 

[Retro Rob]

Public Displays of Affection is pretty cut and dry from a legal standpoint. If a reasonable person would consider it a PDA, it is. Holding each other's helmets isn't going to have to be made "illegal" in the NFL because two players might actually be attracted to each other.

Agree.

 

[MrPickins]

If there is science showing that there is virtually no specific ideal setup for parenting, then why not do away with "parenting"?

There is no "specific ideal setup" for a lot of things in life... Are you saying that we shouldn't do those things?

 

[smackababy]

There is no "specific ideal setup" for a lot of things in life... Are you saying that we shouldn't do those things?

There is certainly no specific ideal setup for posting in P&N. Maybe...

 

[Retro Rob]

There is no "specific ideal setup" for a lot of things in life... Are you saying that we shouldn't do those things?

We're talking about parenting here, so please address that issue... and my point in saying that is what seems to be an effort to destroy the fact that traditional parenting has worked well for a long time and still does, gay advocates have destroyed their own opinion that same-sex parents can work equally as well (or better) than opposite-sex parents by virtue of having their own "science" turned against them.

The facts are is that parenting isn't so good today, which denotes a human problem and not one linked with sexual orientation or gender.

Let's go and advocate the science that improves parenting in general, not one that argues over whether gay parents or straight parents does the best for kids.

 

[alzan]

I simply said acting as your opponents act will not net positive results. I'm not saying what you're doing is the same as what they did -- however, the hateful attitude is manifest.

We're intelligent beings...we can sense a lynch-mob mentality without you having to actually do it.

I guess you didn't know about the Dolphins player who was fined and suspended for voicing his disgust over seeing two men kiss on ESPN.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on...es-fined-suspended-for-anti-michael-sam-tweet

Nowadays, you don't have to beat and kill pro-traditional marriage supporters -- you can seriously impact their abilities to earn a living and securing employment, something equally (if not more) bigoted.

Per the linked article: "...banned from team activities until he undergoes sensitivity training."

I wouldn't think it takes too long for sensitivity training, he can probably finish before training season starts.

My post has nothing to do with speech, and everything to do with the NFLs knee-jerk reaction being facilitated by the certain "off with his head" reaction sure to come from the gay community.

It's happened countless times.

Perhaps if Jones hadn't had a "knee-jerk reaction" he wouldn't have been fined and told to undergo sensitivity training.

 

[MrPickins]

We're talking about parenting here, so please address that issue...

No, we're discussing same-sex marriage. The parenting issue is a tangent that Atreus21 brought up to distract from the real debate.

 

[werepossum]

It is important, because unlike allowing a black man, gay men are attracted to men, and there could be a possible scenario where two football players are in an open sexual relationship in the workplace. The NFL may have to change some rules to address this possibility.

I think it doesn't matter as long as he can play and respects the sexuality of his teammates (which I think he will). Since there is an openly gay player, it does change things a bit.

You see the extreme reaction of some morons on Twitter? Yeah, this is a big deal when it comes to the workplace, though it shouldn't and should be expected.

But again, why is it an issue if two players have an openly sexual relationship in the workplace, or an important deviation the current possibilities of a player having an openly sexual relationship in the workplace with a coworker's wife or a female attached to the team?

Except, participation in sports is merely one aspect. And it is a highly public aspect at that. We accept that we don't allow gays to participate, or at least allow the culture of homophobia to continue, what is to stop it from spreading to restaurants, or schools, or jobs?

The fact is, Michael Sam's ability to be a good football player is not effected in any way by who he is attracted to. It has zero effect on his job, but the fact that there have been zero openly gay professional football players shows that even in 2014, we are still creating situations where simply being gay can get you fired. And that is bullshit.

You'd have a good point IF we were actually prohibiting or firing gay players. We have not, for a very long time. It's probably a confluence between not many gays wanting or being able to do the job and a machismo atmosphere in which gay players were not willing to come out and lose that ultra-alpha make image.

It is not a positive argument for gay marriage, it is a argument against the idea that homosexual couples are not the best setup as parents. It just shows that neither is heterosexual couples. At best is shows that 1woman + 1man != best possible situation.

From where do you get this information? Everything I've seen on children of poly marriages suggests they are fucked up at higher rates than the rest of us. Note also that as someone mentioned, the number of available adult caretakers does not have to be within a marriage, as family members also provide supplemental child rearing and support.

 

[MrPickins]

NVM, misread

 

[alzan]

We're talking about parenting here, so please address that issue... and my point in saying that is what seems to be an effort to destroy the fact that traditional parenting has worked well for a long time and still does, gay advocates have destroyed their own opinion that same-sex parents can work equally as well (or better) than opposite-sex parents by virtue of having their own "science" turned against them.

The facts are is that parenting isn't so good today, which denotes a human problem and not one linked with sexual orientation or gender.

Let's go and advocate the science that improves parenting in general, not one that argues over whether gay parents or straight parents does the best for kids.

Off Topic: No ones had their "science turned against them". All we can really say for sure is that we don't have enough good data to tell us how well two men or two women would raise a child. We say that one man/one woman works best but that's due in large part to it being the "only" parenting mode we are used to seeing and measuring.

 

[sportage]

I loved the tweet "the kids might see this".
i.e. the kiss.
Apparently the kids better do a little skoolen to the parents out there.

 

[mikeymikec]

If marriage is about sex and not love it is very important.

Because society clearly has more interest in heterosexual than homosexual sex.

Considering that the species is not at any risk from dying out due to lack of sexual reproduction, furthermore, heterosexual people already have the right to marry and allowing gays to marry isn't going to affect heterosexual marriage in the slightest, I think this point carries zero relevance to the topic of giving gay people the right to marry. I've also given logical reasons why society should give gay people the right to marry.

If the law changed so that you had to be 18 instead of 16 to get a driver's license would you say that fundamentally changed what a driver's license was?

Not seeing the relevance to the topic, except this seems like your way of labelling all the things I pointed out as being "not fundamental" changes to the concept of marriage without any justification of how they're not fundamental.

I would pose a counter-question but frankly your point of view bores me. I think the topic of "should gays be allowed to marry" would have a heck of a lot more honest a title if it was instead "why do some people not want gays to marry", because all we're arguing about is your narrow-minded concept of what marriage is about. You haven't provided any evidence for possible negative effects of allowing gays to marry, for example.

You don't ever concede any points, you just ignore them and move on to something else, or you'll make some irrelevant point or insinuation that you have absolutely no evidence for, like your idea that gay people only want to marry to screw the system for benefits which you dropped in this thread and then ignored as if it had never happened once your point had been blown out of the water.

Ask yourself why you need to harbour an attitude that advocates inequality. If you want to continue discussing this, then think about your argument: Why shouldn't gays be given the right to marry. Don't get side-tracked and start thinking about toasters, benefits etc because it simply isn't relevant (unless you can come up with a logical reason - and evidence if you're going to make another dodgy insinuation - for why it is directly relevant to the topic of legalising gay marriage).