Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>The two situations aren't similar, so it's impossible to draw parallels.<< They're not similar -- they're practically identical. Every objection you raise is a slight variant of the objections raised against interracial marriage. I realize this causes you discomfort, because I don't think you truly, in your heart, want to be bigoted. But it isn't impossible at all to see the similarities. Both types of relationships challenge the "traditional", both were said to be bad for children, both faced legal challenges, both slowly gained in acceptance after initially being "unpopular." And a younger generation made the difference. The same thing will happen with gay marriage, as it should.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I also agree that the parallels between gay marriages and interracial marriages are not as strong as advocates feel. They are not the same.<< Why? What are the differences? >>But it isn't impossible at all to see the similarities. Both types of relationships challenge the "traditional", both were said to be bad for children, both faced legal challenges, both slowly gained in acceptance after initially being "unpopular." And a younger generation made the difference. The same thing will happen with gay marriage, as it should.<< And both used religion, the Bible, and God to justify their bigotry. "I'm not a racist, I'm just doing what God wants."
Originally Posted By DAR <<But it isn't impossible at all to see the similarities. Both types of relationships challenge the "traditional", both were said to be bad for children, both faced legal challenges, both slowly gained in acceptance after initially being "unpopular." And a younger generation made the difference. The same thing will happen with gay marriage, as it should.>> And then the people who really love animals will start.
Originally Posted By mele I find it interesting that I should be expected to live my life differently because other people don't want to explain my "lifestyle" to their kids. Grow up. Teach your kids that there are other people in the world. Hell, even take the time to tell them why you believe homosexuality is wrong but don't expect me to live up to your expectations for my own life. (Of course, like everyone else, overt displays of sexual behavior are gross and inappropriate but most of the time, simple hand-holding or small kisses are just as upsetting to these people.) I should be able to show affection for the people I love. If you can't deal with people who aren't exactly like you, maybe you should just stay home. I'm sure as hell not going to hide out at home because you don't like looking at me. Your views are YOUR problem, not MINE. I'm supposed to volunteer to defer to your wishes, to bow to what makes you "comfortable"...yet there is no reciprocation there. You automatically assume that your comfort is far more important than mine and I should be happy to bow to it. If you leave your house, you're going to meet people from different walks of life. It's up to you to learn from it or run away from it but you have no right to try to make ME hide out from it or stop it from happening at all. Some of the very same people who whine about gays kissing each other in public are the same people who cry about how their religion (key words: THEIR religion-they'd be outraged if it was another religion) is being forced from the "public square" (whatever that means.) They are often also in favor of prayer in schools and seem to be perfectly fine with their views being shoved on everyone else, they sometimes even expect people to participate, but I can't hug or kiss my (hypothetical) girlfriend because somehow it infringes on THEIR lives somehow? Poor them, they have to discuss things with their children. Sad that "discussing" things with their children is such a rare event that it causes them pain. Oy.
Originally Posted By ecdc Post 465 - spot on. And full of the logic and reasoning that opponents simply lack on this topic. There's no way to be logical or reasonable about bigotry.
Originally Posted By DAR <<There's no way to be logical or reasonable about bigotry.>> Which also applies to religious bigotry.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Poor them, they have to discuss things with their children. Sad that "discussing" things with their children is such a rare event that it causes them pain. Oy.>> I don't think it's sad that parents have to discuss things with their children, well it depends on what your discussing. I'll always be in favor of just letting kids be kids, discuss the adult stuff later.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Well, no I didn't, and you haven't been able to show I did.>> <Anybody taking the time to actually read the article will see that you did. And I'm not the one confusing things.> Funny. There are a lot of "anyones" here saying it's you who's confusing things, and no "anyones" yet saying it was me. <<What he does is offer his OPINION why factor a or b is "not a cause." That's not proof, that's opinion. Once again, you can't seem to tell the difference.>> <When did I ever say it was proof? It's you that keeps conflating proof and opinion.> Oh please. You said (about Kurtz): "That's how you show cause." Meaning that Kurtz supposedly "showed cause." You can get all semantic again (and probably will), but when you say someone "showed cause," that's a lot closer to saying he "proved" something than "he gave his opinion." <<Um, I did. There have been no negative effects in Massachusetts.>> <Then present the numbers.> Glad to. Golly, sometimes you make it so easy. <Show me the numbers of out of wedlock births in the years before it was mandated, and the ones after. Show me the marriage rate in the years before, and the ones since. Saying that Massachusetts has a low rate compared to the nation is useless; we need to see if or how it's changed. You can't show it hasn't had a negative effect just as I can't show it has;> Oh, but I can. As usual, that's the difference between us. <we don't have the numbers. Until we do, it's useless to point to it for anything.> I couldn't find the out of wedlock birth rates, but... <a href="http://www.beaconbroadside.com/broadside/2008/05/california-the.html" target="_blank">http://www.beaconbroadside.com...the.html</a> "In 2004 the Massachusetts divorce rate, at 2.2 per 1,000 residents per year, was considerably lower than the US national average rate for that year, 3.8 per 1,000. Indeed, it was lower than the national average rate for 1950 (2.6 per 1,000) and even approached the national rate of 1940 (2 per 1,000). In 2003, total divorces in Massachusetts declined 2.1% relative to 2002. But in the first two years of legal same sex marriage in the Bay State, Massachusetts showed a more rapid decline and will very likely hold on to its title as the US state with the lowest divorce rate in the nation. The field is hotly contested -- divorce rates have fallen dramatically in the last few decades. The institution of marriage in Massachusetts, as measured by the rate of divorce, has not been healthier in at least half a century regardless of dire predictions of Christian Right leaders and Catholic Bishops. But the states that have taken aggressive action against same sex marriage, have not done nearly as well during the two year period of legal same sex marriage in Massachusetts."
Originally Posted By mele Most discussions can be tailored to be kid-appropriate. Usually just saying that "sometimes boys love boys and girls love girls" has always been enough. My kids don't think about it beyond those few times when I explained it to them when they were young. To them, it's natural to see hugging and kissing because, as children, they often receive so much of it themselves. They are fine with the "love" explanation and usually don't give it as second thought. If a parent freaks out then the child is going to instantly be far more curious about it than if they had just answered briefly but honestly. As parents, I think it's important to teach our children and give them answers even if doing so makes us uncomfortable. You'd want them to do the same as adults, no? Everything is a learning experience. My point was that I think it's sad that people seem to be so scared of discussions and that they don't happen more often. I understand the age-appropriate idea. My kids don't know that I am bisexual. I'm in a monogamous heterosexual marriage. There is no need for them to know. Maybe someday, once they're adults or if I get divorced. It just isn't something that I feel I need to parade around. I'm not ashamed but I do wonder how it will affect them. More so because I am currently married. It's far more complicated when kids are involved. I definitely think you can give a kid too much information but honestly, kids usually get bored when you start getting too detailed. That's one easy way to tell if you're saying too much about sex or our bodies, etc. (Sometimes you get a look of horror. LOL)
Originally Posted By DAR <<I definitely think you can give a kid too much information but honestly, kids usually get bored when you start getting too detailed. That's one easy way to tell if you're saying too much about sex or our bodies, etc. (Sometimes you get a look of horror. LOL)>> Ever see the South Park episode where a Lord of the Rings tape got mixed up with an adult movie tape.
Originally Posted By jdub Crikey, I would be SO upset if I were to happen to rent an "adult movie" and instead wound up being subjected to a buncha hairy hobbits. I don't even want to THINK about it! Talk about UNCOMFORTABLE.
Originally Posted By mele <<When did I ever say it was proof? It's you that keeps conflating proof and opinion.>> So, you keep arguing that Kurtz's conclusions are correct. You say that we are all wrong and continue to parrot him...and now you're saying that you've never said there was proof? Why do you believe it then? ("Truthiness", anyone?) Well, for once I agree. There is no proof here. Just a desire to believe that gay marriage has caused these problems.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <They're not similar -- they're practically identical.> Well, no, they aren't. Unlike interracial marriages, gay marriages were unheard in almost every society. Unlike interracial marriages, gay marriages cannot produce children. While almost no state recognized gay marriage until recently, most states recognized interracial marriages most of the time, and very few states ever forbid interracial marriages.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <There are a lot of "anyones" here saying it's you who's confusing things, and no "anyones" yet saying it was me.> We obviously have different ways of defining "a lot". Just because one or two people believe you because they agree with you doesn't mean they've read the articles, and examined the issue honestly. <You can get all semantic again (and probably will), but when you say someone "showed cause," that's a lot closer to saying he "proved" something than "he gave his opinion."> We wouldn't have to argue semantics if you wouldn't distort the meaning of words. <Oh, but I can.> But you didn't, as I expected.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan This report on the state of Missouri is from back in 1999, long before the topic of gay marriage was being discussed all that much. <a href="http://www.dhss.mo.gov/FOCUS/Aug99Vol33No6.html" target="_blank">http://www.dhss.mo.gov/FOCUS/A...No6.html</a> >>Marriage rates in Missouri have continued to decline since 1990. In 1998, the marriage rate fell to its lowest since 1960, 8.0 marriages per 1,000 population. In general, Missouri marriage rates followed the same pattern as the nation's: low in 1960's; relatively high in 1970's and early 1980's; declining in 1990's. However, Missouri rates fluctuated more dramatically than those of the United States. Figure 1 shows three stages of change in the past 39 years. Between 1960 and 1966, Missouri marriage rates were lower than those of the nation's; starting from 1968 its increase surpassed the national pace; then from 1990 on the Missouri marriage rate decreased faster, dropping below the nation's rate again. Over the past 39 years, Missouri population increased 26 percent, while marriage numbers increased 24 percent. << >>The marriage rate has continued to decline in Missouri as in the United States. There are several possible reasons for the downward trend, including: 1. Young men and women are delaying their marriage to pursue an education or career goal first. 2. Increasing numbers of people are staying single. 3. Many people are choosing to live together before marriage or in place of marriage. 4. Many may have experienced a bad marriage when their parents divorced, and they are leery of trying it themselves.<< No mention of gay marriage being responsible, or even a factor in this trend. Interesting.
