Will Gay Marriage Pit Church Against Church?

[RubyTheDyke]

Fitz wrote:

<quoted text>
#1. By that logic polyamorist parenting is better than your arbitrary "two-person" model because it has multiple care givers.
#2. The cultural left has not come out against single parent households or done anything to promote marriage despite the bottoming out of marriage amoung the under-class to the tune of 70% illigitamacy rates. Indeed thye champion ALL familhy forms to be inherintly equal and wont go on record as being against the massive rise in single parent households. So the idea that Rubies momentary concension to the oimportance of a new and arbitrary "two-person" standard is clearly a strategic poltical move in support of same-sex "marriage" and not a principled stand for "two person" households as a new standard.
#3. The raft of social science that has determined and generated the consensus was not done on genderless "two person" households. On the contrary the consensus that has been generated amoung social scientists is that the natural married opposite sex hpouse hold is superior than every other adequetly studied household including single parents, adopted parents,step-families,divorced families, blended families and the like. What you have done above is simple conjecture on your part and has zero support in the social scientific literature.
#3.

I. Perhaps-I've never advocated against poyamorous relationships.
2. The "cultural left" has always advocated economic and social policies designed to enhance and aid families, especially with the idea of enhancing the quality of life for the poorest among us-which by the way includes reproductive power over when and if to have children in the form of contraception and family planning.
3 I'm sure you can can find some agenda-driven institutions and scientists to support your claims

[RubyTheDyke]

RubyTheDyke wrote:

<quoted text>
I. Perhaps-I've never advocated against poyamorous relationships.
2. The "cultural left" has always advocated economic and social policies designed to enhance and aid families, especially with the idea of enhancing the quality of life for the poorest among us-which by the way includes reproductive power over when and if to have children in the form of contraception and family planning.
3 I'm sure you can can find some agenda-driven institutions and scientists to support your claims

Also curious as to why my advocacy of two parent family is somehow that "slippery slope to polygamy" but your same advocacyis not

[RubyTheDyke]

Fitz wrote:

<quoted text>
I bet you would. But Jeff never said this. Because resonable people understand that the rights of both parent & child rightfully preclude the state from taking children away from their true parents. Just as it establishes the rights of parents to know and be known by their children and the children a right to know and be known by their true parents.
Only totalitarians support the removal of children fro their true parents becuase they see children as extensions of adult validation and not people in their own right... abortion and same-sex "marriage" and gay adoption are symptoms of this diseased mindset.

Really, Dumpling, you honestly don't know he's being facetious?

[No Surprise]

Dana Robertson wrote:

A church built upon hatred, discrimination, sexual perversions, and the fighting of and rejection of traditional marriage.
Hypocrite.

As I've told you before, you have no idea where your statements extend to when you say things.
Modern Christianity: A church built on centuries and centuries of murder, torture, violence, discrimination, racism, prejudice, wars for the slaughter of men women and babies for the possesion of lands, suppression of religious freedom, persecution of other religions, the conquest of other nations and the systematic murder of it's native people, sexual perversion, political influences for the almighty dollar and power. Did I miss anything? That's what modern Christianity is built on and you find fault with Mormonism? lolol....to fricking funny!!!!!

[Fitz]

RubyTheDyke wrote:

<quoted text>
I. Perhaps-I've never advocated against poyamorous relationships.
2. The "cultural left" has always advocated economic and social policies designed to enhance and aid families, especially with the idea of enhancing the quality of life for the poorest among us-which by the way includes reproductive power over when and if to have children in the form of contraception and family planning.
3 I'm sure you can can find some agenda-driven institutions and scientists to support your claims

#1. Nor could you and remain philisophically consistant

#2. Subsidizing the devestating effects of single parenting is not compassion its cheap grace. Much better to address at the same time family formation and encourage marriage. The facts is the left finds marriage to be archaic and patriarchal and outdated and oppresive to woman and sexually represive. So all your talk in support of "two-parent" families only goes as far as gay marriage. It is a momentary faint in an ongoing war against traditional sexual morality and the family.

#3. Im sure your ignorant of the facts but the natural two parent family has been studied widley for 40 years and has proven itself the gold standard on a fixed matrix of child-outcomes and parental well being. This is a social scientific consensus amoung those in the field and your protests and ignorance to the contrary cannot change those scientific facts.

[Fitz]

RubyTheDyke wrote:

<quoted text>
Also curious as to why my advocacy of two parent family is somehow that "slippery slope to polygamy" but your same advocacyis not

I can root mine in biology, you can only root yours in the feelings of the people involved.

[RubyTheDyke]

Fitz wrote:

<quoted text>
#1. Nor could you and remain philisophically consistant
#2. Subsidizing the devestating effects of single parenting is not compassion its cheap grace. Much better to address at the same time family formation and encourage marriage. The facts is the left finds marriage to be archaic and patriarchal and outdated and oppresive to woman and sexually represive. So all your talk in support of "two-parent" families only goes as far as gay marriage. It is a momentary faint in an ongoing war against traditional sexual morality and the family.
#3. Im sure your ignorant of the facts but the natural two parent family has been studied widley for 40 years and has proven itself the gold standard on a fixed matrix of child-outcomes and parental well being. This is a social scientific consensus amoung those in the field and your protests and ignorance to the contrary cannot change those scientific facts.

1. Yes, and honest

2. No, it simply represents what is realistically possible to address the issue in a society such as ours-would you rather us try to push legislation to madate a limit the number of children a couple can have? Do you want to put unwed mothers in prison, Fritz? It seems to me to honor families as we find them is a much more pro-family stance than to try to persecute families that don't meet some arbitrary ideological litmus yest by people who have no right to set them- that smacks of totalitarianism to me.

3. and I'm sure at one time racially pure families were "the gold standard" and the same arguments made against them you are making against same-sex couples. As I explained earlier that when disenfranchized groups are no longer perseculted by law or the vigilantism of social opinion and mainstream, the given time to cast of the residual effects of such legacy the group tends to assume the values, ideals and affectations of that society. The fact that gays and lesbians by virtue of social pressure were not allowed as individuals to develop their capacity for sustained intimate relationships and theirunions as venues for raising children. You know, Darling, for someone so preoocupied with "natural law" you seem to constantly kick against the nature of change, of societies to evolve, and whether the Fritzes of the world like it or approve, the fact is gay and lesbians are becoming more of an accepted part of the social fabric. And wether of not the Fritzes of the world like it or approve, gay couples are raising children and their relationship institutions deserve all the incentives for endurance and stability for the sake of their children that is given to their straight family couterpart. It's really time that people like you stop you pissing and moaning about your "good old days" and they way you want it, start acting like adults and deal with what is.

[RubyTheDyke]

Fitz wrote:

<quoted text>
I can root mine in biology, you can only root yours in the feelings of the people involved.

My partner is sufficient for me-must be my biology

[Tony C]

RubyTheDyke wrote:

<quoted text>
Also curious as to why my advocacy of two parent family is somehow that "slippery slope to polygamy" but your same advocacyis not

This is a common mistake from anti-gay people. They lack perspective. They see the current state of marriage as "the way it is/ has always been / will always be. Therefore, to them, anything "different" falls into one category. Homosexual marriage and polygamy are similar to them, simply because they are each different from male/female marriage.

What they fail to see is the obvious: Polygamists can fight for legal recognition right now. They don't benefit by waiting for same sex marriage to be legalized first. Heterosexual marriage is a much closer model to theirs. In fact, I presume they would likely be against homosexual marriage in most cases. Hence, why would they compare their own marriages to homosexual marriage?

The question isn't, "If two men can get married, why can't a man and two women?" The more closely linked question is: "If a man can marry a woman, why can't he marry two women?"

[Tony C]

Fitz wrote:

<quoted text>
#1. Nor could you and remain philisophically consistant
#2. Subsidizing the devestating effects of single parenting is not compassion its cheap grace. Much better to address at the same time family formation and encourage marriage. The facts is the left finds marriage to be archaic and patriarchal and outdated and oppresive to woman and sexually represive. So all your talk in support of "two-parent" families only goes as far as gay marriage. It is a momentary faint in an ongoing war against traditional sexual morality and the family.
#3. Im sure your ignorant of the facts but the natural two parent family has been studied widley for 40 years and has proven itself the gold standard on a fixed matrix of child-outcomes and parental well being. This is a social scientific consensus amoung those in the field and your protests and ignorance to the contrary cannot change those scientific facts.

Can you please get a dictionary if you want to be taken seriously?

Thanks in advance for putting in a little effort so as not to make a fool of yourself.

[Tony C]

Fitz wrote:

<quoted text>
I can root mine in biology, you can only root yours in the feelings of the people involved.

Pedophiles can root theirs in biology, too. Big whoop.

Try again.

[LowellGuy]

WasteWater wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you kidding me?
Many single people are great, loving parents.

Impossible. Didn't you see that Jeff has evidence that single parents do grave harm to their children, unlike married couples? Jeff must obviously want to protect children from such harm, and who am I to contest his facts? The guy's like friggin' Lincoln AND Douglas all up in this.

[LowellGuy]

Fitz wrote:

<quoted text>
#1. By that logic polyamorist parenting is better than your arbitrary "two-person" model because it has multiple care givers.
#2. The cultural left has not come out against single parent households or done anything to promote marriage despite the bottoming out of marriage amoung the under-class to the tune of 70% illigitamacy rates. Indeed thye champion ALL familhy forms to be inherintly equal and wont go on record as being against the massive rise in single parent households. So the idea that Rubies momentary concension to the oimportance of a new and arbitrary "two-person" standard is clearly a strategic poltical move in support of same-sex "marriage" and not a principled stand for "two person" households as a new standard.
#3. The raft of social science that has determined and generated the consensus was not done on genderless "two person" households. On the contrary the consensus that has been generated amoung social scientists is that the natural married opposite sex hpouse hold is superior than every other adequetly studied household including single parents, adopted parents,step-families,divorced families, blended families and the like. What you have done above is simple conjecture on your part and has zero support in the social scientific literature.
#3.

Why should polygamy not be allowed? Religious arguments hold no sway, as this is not a theocracy. Let's hear it.

[RubyTheDyke]

Tony C wrote:

<quoted text>
This is a common mistake from anti-gay people. They lack perspective. They see the current state of marriage as "the way it is/ has always been / will always be. Therefore, to them, anything "different" falls into one category. Homosexual marriage and polygamy are similar to them, simply because they are each different from male/female marriage.
What they fail to see is the obvious: Polygamists can fight for legal recognition right now. They don't benefit by waiting for same sex marriage to be legalized first. Heterosexual marriage is a much closer model to theirs. In fact, I presume they would likely be against homosexual marriage in most cases. Hence, why would they compare their own marriages to homosexual marriage?
The question isn't, "If two men can get married, why can't a man and two women?" The more closely linked question is: "If a man can marry a woman, why can't he marry two women?"

Thanks Sweetie, I think you're on to something

[LowellGuy]

Fitz wrote:

<quoted text>
I bet you would. But Jeff never said this. Because resonable people understand that the rights of both parent & child rightfully preclude the state from taking children away from their true parents. Just as it establishes the rights of parents to know and be known by their children and the children a right to know and be known by their true parents.
Only totalitarians support the removal of children fro their true parents becuase they see children as extensions of adult validation and not people in their own right... abortion and same-sex "marriage" and gay adoption are symptoms of this diseased mindset.

Bullshit. Kids get taken away from their biological parents every day. Making children is a right. Keeping them is a privilege. Check the law books.

Also, how did you get from totalitarianism to abortion (exactly UN-totalitarian) and homosexuality (sodomy laws sure seemed totalitarian, didn't they)? What do you think "totalitarian" means? It obviously isn't anything like what it means out here in realityland.

[RubyTheDyke]

Fitz wrote:

<quoted text>
#1. Nor could you and remain philisophically consistant
#2. Subsidizing the devestating effects of single parenting is not compassion its cheap grace. Much better to address at the same time family formation and encourage marriage. The facts is the left finds marriage to be archaic and patriarchal and outdated and oppresive to woman and sexually represive. So all your talk in support of "two-parent" families only goes as far as gay marriage. It is a momentary faint in an ongoing war against traditional sexual morality and the family.
#3. Im sure your ignorant of the facts but the natural two parent family has been studied widley for 40 years and has proven itself the gold standard on a fixed matrix of child-outcomes and parental well being. This is a social scientific consensus amoung those in the field and your protests and ignorance to the contrary cannot change those scientific facts.

FYI, Fritz Doll, no one is seeking the destruction of the nuclear family. What we seek is CO-EXISTENCE, the right for the individual involved put together the family structure of their choosing.

[RubyTheDyke]

...sorry, make that the destruction of the TRADITIONAL family. Set it up any way you and your partner consent to-ain't nobody's business but your own

[LowellGuy]

Fitz wrote:

<quoted text>
#1. Nor could you and remain philisophically consistant
#2. Subsidizing the devestating effects of single parenting is not compassion its cheap grace. Much better to address at the same time family formation and encourage marriage. The facts is the left finds marriage to be archaic and patriarchal and outdated and oppresive to woman and sexually represive. So all your talk in support of "two-parent" families only goes as far as gay marriage. It is a momentary faint in an ongoing war against traditional sexual morality and the family.
#3. Im sure your ignorant of the facts but the natural two parent family has been studied widley for 40 years and has proven itself the gold standard on a fixed matrix of child-outcomes and parental well being. This is a social scientific consensus amoung those in the field and your protests and ignorance to the contrary cannot change those scientific facts.

Are children better off in a heterosexual couple's home where there are regular beatings and rampant alcoholism, or a single parent household where the parent lacks adequate time and resources to provide as well as they'd like to for the children, or a same-sex couple household where the relationship is stable, there is no violence, no addiction, there is plenty of time spent with the children by at least one of the couple, and they have the resources to provide an excellent education for the children?

By the way, show us the studies that isolate heterosexuality and homosexuality as the only variables. Then, we'll have something to discuss. Good luck!

[LowellGuy]

Tony C wrote:

<quoted text>
Can you please get a dictionary if you want to be taken seriously?
Thanks in advance for putting in a little effort so as not to make a fool of yourself.

Stop being such a totalitarian!

[WasteWater]

LowellGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
Impossible. Didn't you see that Jeff has evidence that single parents do grave harm to their children, unlike married couples? Jeff must obviously want to protect children from such harm, and who am I to contest his facts? The guy's like friggin' Lincoln AND Douglas all up in this.

You are very funny. What person would separate children from the biological mother if she is doing a good job of raising those kids?

You must be kidding me right?

BTW, poster Jeff cannot be compared to either Lincoln or Douglass. He is just a worthless troll.