mooeypoo

Research was done, research showed no effect of the sexuality of the parents or the fact that they were same sex or not same sex. "Technical Report: Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents", by Ellen C. Perrin, MD and Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health PEDIATRICS Vol. 109 No. 2 February 2002, pp. 341-344 http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;109/2/341 "Resolution on Sexual Orientation, Parents, and Children", Adopted by the APA Council of Representatives, July 2004 Includes research summary. http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parentschildren.pdf "Children in Lesbian and Single-Parent Households: Psychosexual and Psychiatric Appraisal" by Susan Golombok, Ann Spencer, and Michael Rutter 1983. Journal of Child Psychology, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 551-572. Showing no differences between children of straight parents to children of same-sex parents. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119540781/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 "Psychosocial Adjustment among Children Conceived via Donor Insemination by Lesbian and Heterosexual Mothers" by Raymond W. Chan, Barbara Raboy, and Charlotte Patterson Child Development, Vol. 69, No. 2, pages 443-457. http://www.jstor.org/pss/1132177 The APA (American Psychological Association) fully supports "SUPPORTS LEGALIZATION OF SAME-SEX CIVIL MARRIAGES AND OPPOSES DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LESBIAN AND GAY PARENTS" Also, more information (and a bunch of other research material from various years and different aspects) can be found here: http://gbge.aclu.org/parenting/summaries-leading-research-gay-parents And I recommend people read this quite excellent article summarizing the vast majority of the claims that were raised in the thread so far: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/200811/why-not-allow-gay-marriage quick excerpt: The results of this and other studies suggest that denying same sex couples marriage rights not only prevents them from reaping the psychological and health benefits of marriage, but the process of codifying the elimination of these rights has negative psychological impacts on LGBT people. ... Given the scientific evidence of the positive effects of same sex marriage on couples, the lack of negative effects on children reared in the context of these relationships, and the harm caused by preventing or eliminating marriage equality it doesn't seem that there is a solid foundation to stand on when arguing against allowing same sex couples to wed. From my perspective, it comes down to common sense. If it helps some people and it doesn't hurt anyone, why not let in happen. I think the comedian Wanda Sykes put it best, "It's real simple. If you don't believe in same-sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex." In other words, why not allow gay marriage? ~moo

It's also not secular.

As far as I understand it, it seems to be a basic property of the universe. Just like the existence of gravity. Why does gravity exist? It's a basic property of the universe.. the why part is a bit irrelevant for physics, as it's dealing more with the "what" and "how", the implications, mechanism and consequences.

That's why it's called relativity... it's relative. If you're moving quickly, then I will see YOU moving slower... relative to *my* frame of reference, your time slowed.

If the clocks slow down, and everything around the clocks slow down, including the human brain, light, any and all things that move in the same reference frame slow down (in comparison to another reference frame), then we define it as time slowed down. It's not just the clocks that slow, Peron. The environment slows.

Guys, I remind everyone once again to be civil. Please remember that some of the debaters in the thread are daily affected by this issue, which makes it personal. Before you post a reply, check yourselves to make sure you are being properly civil and respectful. That goes for both sides, and all debaters. We're having a good sharing of opinions so far, let's not ruin it.

Seriously!? That high!? Okay, okay, my mental estimations were way off. I came off it... Thanks for the clarification and sources, though, D H. Most helpful, and saved me the trouble of doing the math, which is always good ~moo P.S: Next time you put words in my mouth, use a puppet..

It's a definition, so there's really not something to argue about. We defined length in a specific way, such way that includes the definition that a ruler measures such length. Period. It's a definition created by man to measure a natural property. That property (called length) is changing in accordance to Relativity.. Same goes with time. Other than resurrecting some ancient fruitless issues, I don't quite see the point you're making...

The object's length. Length is the name of what we call the side that goes along the same direction as the movement. That thing is contracting.

There's another point here, too -- even if a person has an opinion/belief that originates from some bigotry, it doesn't mean that person is bigoted. It might just be that the person doesn't know enough about his/her own opinion to make the conscious choice to support a bigoted reason. The point, though, is that when you delve INTO those excuses, you see that a completely non-religious, rational reason is hard to find.

If you make a statement and your reasoning is based on religious reasons, which, as a whole, are not rationally deduced (by definition; they do not follow objective nature, they follow a subjective belief, however strongly one may support it), then your claim is not secular. Whether the person who makes the claim is secular or religious is besides the point. We're not "judging" people, we're judging claims. And they were shown, at least the absolute majority, to either have no logical sense (are irrelevant, are a red herring, are inconsistent) or are not based on logic but rather on reasons of tradition, which is not a secular reason. Don't get me wrong - I think people have a right to their opinion. However, people should also know where their opinions come from. If your opinion is based on logic, you should be able to show and support it. If your opinion is based on belief or tradition, you should be able to say that. But if you claim to have a logical reason when, in fact, your reason is religious or tradition, then you're being insincere to yourself as well as the argument at hand. No one here claims people have no right to state their opinion. Religious people have a right to state their opinion, too, and so are secular people who speak out of a religious subconscious reasoning, but others also have an equal right to call those out on their double-standards when they see it. That said, I think you are evading the question a bit. My question was quite clear, and simple, and I didn't quite understand if, in the bottom line, you would support those equal rights to LGBT couples or not. That is, you claim that those who oppose also have equal rights to speak- which I agree - but does that say that their "equal right" means that the LGBT couples lose theirs? So, please clarify - if instead of "wedding" we would call it "shmoonzipoo", a term that would otherwise be identical in terms of the law to the benefits given by marriage, would you fight against it, or would you support it? Because its original meaning came, historically, from the bible. Indeed. The problem, however, is that the law goes by that word now to define a set of lawful benefits those couples are getting. The bible define marriage with a Rabbi, by the way, not with a priest, and defines the way in which the bride is bought from her father and the symbolic breaking of the glass by the groom.It seems religious cultures had no problem adapting the meaning when it suited them, and screamed against adapting the meaning when it doesn't. Regardless, the religious meaning is irrelevant, because the US is supposed to have a separation of church and state. That means that whatever definition you use, *all citizens must receive the same benefits regardless of what religion dictates*. See the multiple problems here? You can't really play this both ways. You either use religion to explain why you disagree with gay marriage (and hence, your reasoning is religious, or at least its basis is in religion/tradition) *OR* you claim that your reasoning is secular. It cannot be both. You don't change anything other than drop the "man" / "woman". As long as its a couple that want to be bound by law and PROTECTED by law, who the hell cares. What's the problem? If there was a "white man" / "white woman" in front of the definition, would you be asking how to change that, as well? Besides, with law-linguistics the way they are, adding a sentence like "1 man, 1 woman, or 2 women, or 2 men" is REALLY not what is going to destroy your constitution. I have a feeling there's room on the page. Excellent. Example for what, though? iNow made a claim that the reasonings that exist so far in terms of opposing gay marriage are not secular, even if told by secular people, because when you delve into those reasonings, you find traditional/religious origins that are inconsistent with logic. So far, the members debating in the thread did a good job demonstrating some of the examples, while some did a good job refuting some of the examples. I don't see what iNow needs to deliver here. You are wrong. Immigrants who marry citizens get citizenship. ONLY IF THEY ARE STRAIGHT. LGBT couples do not enjoy the above. There are other examples, but this is the biggest one I can think of because it's relatively close to my heart (I know a few of those in this predicament). Also, workplaces are free to decide for themselves whether or not they give benefits to LGBT couples, while straight couples enjoy benefits automatically. There are more where this comes from. CORRECTION: Excuse me, I seem to have misread what you wrote. I am not sure I understand that part.. can you clarify what you mean? At the moment, equality does not exist. The questions are simple: Do you care to change the situation so equality exists, AND if so, how do you plan to do that. Yeah I don't take anything personally, I suggest others won't either. I take this as a debate for the sake of sharing opinions and refutations. I hope others won't take anything I say personally as well, since that's really not the way I mean it either. ~moo

Actually, this will be an excellent math exercise. When I get back home from work, I might try it.

Yeah, I didn't mean all the water go there, but doesn't the tidal force from the moon negates this?

Sorry, I might be missing somethig here but why do we assume the water will concentrate mainly on the equator? I thought the tidal forces from the moon and even the sun are bigger than the effect of centrifugal force, at least in terms of the oceans. But I'm not sure at all... ?

Guys, please avoid getting too personal here. We all seem to care about this subject, so let's keep it civil and on point.

Actually, seeing as the claim says there are none, the way to disprove it is to show that there actually are any such claims. That would mean someone coming up with those reasons... I don't think iNow's claim is that there are better claims on the other side, I think his claim is that the reasonings are either not secular (they are superstitious, or religious in origin) or not rational (are inconsistent, for instance). And I am still waiting for my two simple questions to be answered. ~moo

I don't assume anything, I asked for everyone (not just you) to address the questions I'm putting up for the third time.

Bigotry doesn't have to include hate. It can also come on its own as an irrational (meaning, without a justified logical reason) reaction. The word bigotry can cause people to flinch a lot, and get them to go on the defensive. It's totally understandable, but maybe we should take into account here that bigotry does not necessarily mean hate or ignorance. I have a few issues I used to be bigoted about, too, for various social reasons; the first step, in my opinion, to becoming a more rational and socially moral person (yes, taking into account that morality is generally subjective) is acknowledging where some of my opinions come from. Here's a generalized idea (the 'you' here is general, not meant for anyone in specific): Forget about the thread and a debate about this subject in public. If you ask yourself why you believe what you believe, truly, in your heart, you might find that your stances have a deeper cause. You don't have to have hatred for blacks to have bigotry towards blacks, just like you don't have to have hatred to homosexuals to be bigoted against homosexuals. But if your stance is that homosexuals cannot be equal citizens, that is a bigoted position. Unless someone brings forth some better explanation as to why this isn't true, maybe the next best step for those of you who argue against equality is to think a bit more about where your stances originate. I am definitely open minded to hearing of reasons that might show they stem from a rational explanation about gay marriage; so far, I've heard none, but worse than that, it seems that even those who argue "just about the definition of the word" seem to neglect the issue of practical equality by themselves. I know posts disappear in long threads, but this is an important issue, and for those who claim they have rational positions against gay marriage, I believe you're still missing an answer to these two basic questions: Regardless of definitions (that is, lets say that we all agree that gay marriage should have a different name, whatever it may be), do you support *total* equality in the eyes of the law? Take into account this equality does not currently exist. Would you support invent a new name for the marriage of blacks, jews, biracial couples, small people, mentally retarded couples, asian couples or any other "different" couples? If so, then surely you acknowledge that the debate is shifting towards a much deeper issue here. And if not, then what logical reasoning would you offer to disagree with #2 but still push for the same statements only regarding LGBT couples? I have asked these two questions in a few different methods twice in this thread, and while some answered, I didn't seem to get a satisfactory attention to these issues. It seems to me that if we're arguing about a logical reasoning, those two questions must be answered and addressed before we continue to nitpick about the value of a specific word or definition. ~moo

The problem is that the vast majority of the loud voices against gay marriage use the "strict" definition of marriage as an excuse.. for that matter, they* shout and scream against any form of homosexual-couples unification (adoption of children, living together, the gay parade, you name it) and so the claim about definition isn't really going to be solved by replacing the name to something else. They will oppose anything gay-marriage'y. Hence the request to get secular reasoning (that is logical) for opposing gay marriage. It's not really about the strict definition; it's about the concept. Heck, if it helps, call it whatever you wish to call it. To be fair, it would still be considered bigoted to split the meaning here. If you compare to any other social group, such split in names would be considered utter bigotry, would it not? Can you imagine what the outcry would be like if people insisted that blacks could not be *married* but rather "bound by love" or something like that? Even if the definition held the same exact rights, the mere fact you are separating the two is hint of biggotry by itself. But if it gets the job done, whatever. Call it poopsieroll. Just give the same rights. * Note: By "they" I mean the loud voices not all those who oppose gay marriage, tho I'm still waiting to hear good reasons to oppose it that have nothing to do with religion.. am not convinced yet. ~moo

I was trying to make sure we differentiate between both arguments. It was unclear to me why we even talk about infertility. Without getting into the fact that there's a huge lobby against homosexuals in general in this country, which would comprise groups C, D, E and probably F, I would point out that in practice, there is a huge difference under the law between "marriage" and "a civil union". A civil union holds less rights than marriage. This, then -- -- is a bit meaningless, seeing as what group B is arguing for is something that already is inferior to marriage. Correct. Group B, opposing marriage and supporting Civil Union - as they both are defined currently, are either contradicting their own logic, or are against equality. Here's why: Mark and Jenny got married. Mark is Australian, Jenny American. Mark will be getting a green card soon because of Jenny's citizenship. David and Donald got civil union. David is British, Donald is American. David will be kicked out of the country if he doesn't find a company to sponsor him, because he will not be getting a green card -- or any form of permit to stay in the USA, regardless of his civil union. You tell me, Pangloss, is that equality? If the argument is that both couples should get the same rights but the ceremony should be getting a different name, then I would argue that this is semantics. I still wouldn't agree with its motives, and would claim that there is some underlying factor behind the notion but I would not make too much of a fuss over this.. it would be a good step towards equality. It seems, however, that people argue specifically about the notion of civil union which does not hold the same rights as a marriage. It is inferior to a marriage. By law. Then yes, whoever argues against marriage and for civil union -- the way they both are defined by law at the moment, in practice -- is promoting a system that will result in LGBT couples having INFERIOR benefits than straight couples, and is not following concepts of equality. I believe that's the very definition of inequality. Well, I didn't think it was about the specific names, Pangloss, that's not how I understood it. If it was just about the name, then - as i said before - you can call it oobapalooba for all I care, as long as both oobapalooba and marriage are equal in the eyes of the law. That is, as long as both mean the same benefits to both couples. That's not what is going on here in the past 100+ posts, though. They're not being logical because in PRACTICE civil union is inferior to marriage, and hence if they claim they want equality but they are only willing to give LGBT couples civil union they contradict themselves, and are being illogical. I haven't seen anyone yet saying that they want to change the benefit coming out of civil union. ~moo

I see. Well, if we were to discuss aspects of social behavior, that might've been an interesting point to make. Since we're discussing a term that involve equality in the eyes of the law (or, in this case inequality in the eyes of the law), the point is totally moot. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Not sure if I'd call it a psychological impact, but to be fair, I don't think we're discussing passing a new law here.. there is a definition in the law that - by itself - does NOT exclude gay couples, does it? It's a manner of *including them* into the definition. To be honest, I really don't get what the deal here is.. Blacks were excluded from the definition of citizens and could not vote--- until they were included. Women were excluded from the definition of citizens and could not vote --- until they were included. Those decisions to "Change the law" or "adapt society" or "make a new law" -- whichever one you choose to call it -- were done because social changes led to changes in our morality. Excluding women from voting was no longer considered moral because it's unequal... so we changed it. Excluding blacks from voting was no longer considered moral, because it's unequal, so we changed it... How is the LGBT couples' argument any different? They wish to be included as citizens and hence recieve ALL rights given to citizens. The right to marry whomever they wish is included. I see absolutely not a shred of difference between those cases. Not a difference that matters. The excuse of 'infertility' with lgbt couples (which science makes moot btw, but whatever) is the same style of excuse that was used to say that biracial couples will produce children that will have much more trouble growing up in an intolerant society. Same excuses, same biggotry, it all stems from one simple thing: The horrifying thought of adding yet another "DIFFERENT" to our definition of normal society. There is a decision to be made here: Are LGBT people included in the definition of citizenship - in which case regardless of what anyone may think or feel of their behavior they are to be treated as equal in the eyes of the law. The naming is irrelevant. Call it oobapalooba if you want, really, that's not the issue; the issue is the same rights as others, period. Civil union does NOT yield the same rights Federally (the simplest example is that LGBT couples that have one member a non citizen does NOT get a green card or any process of immigration, as opposed to straight couples who do under the same conditions). So, those who oppose Gay marriage, here's some food for thought: LGBT Couples, at the moment, are unequal in the eyes of the law. The question is -- do you SUPPORT equality? If you do, then there should be no reason to oppose gay marriage. If you don't, well, our disagreement originates in a much deeper level. ~moo

Syractos, you seem to tend towards a mixture of strawman and red herring. I explained that the fact I call men men and women women (hence, I note the differences) is irrelevant. Your claim that "I still call them by different names" is avoiding answering my point. Of course I call them differently. I don't think you should call them the same. African american couples ARE different than caucasians - is that relevant to the equality we should give those? If you say yes, then please explain how that isn't biggoted. If you say no, then please explain what the difference would be if you would have simply replaced "LGBT" with "African American" in that sentence. You can give equality without destroying the differences between people. I don't see how your point is relevant.

I didn't dismiss it as non existent, I dismissed it as irrelevant. No one argues there's a difference. The argument is whether or not this difference should be used as an excuse to prevent equal rights, and whether or not these excuses are relevant secular reasons. Women are different than men, do you agree? They are different physically, there's no doubt about that, and the *generalized* differences between women and men can't really be denied. And yet, would you object to an argument of equal rights between men and women? Would you claim that the argument for equality should be first changed to include an argument of difference? You either include them both as citizens and give them the rights a citizen receives, or you don't. The fact they aren't like everyone else is irrelevant. You are again raising the same red herring and trivializing the matter. Biracial couples may not have had to deal with the inability to produce children, but they did have to deal with arguments about their biracial children, and about the individuals' differences, and many other excuses before these marriages were legal, let alone accepted in society. If you claim any of those archaic excuses today in the context of biracial marriages, you will undoubtedly be endowed with the label "biggot". And yet, the same *type* of generalized argument (even if not the same wording or specific meaning) done towards LGBT couples is, suddenly, a relevant concern? Do yo not see the irony here? You haven't seen a valid argument because this is irrelevant. As I said, women are different than men; and yet the argument about boobs and penises is irrelevant when speaking of equality in the work force. Or at least, it's supposed to be irrelevant. I'm not dismissing the differences because I don't think there are differences, I am dismissing the differences because they're utterly irrelevant. African american couples are also different than caucasians, and yet are still treated equally. Biracial couples are also different than caucasians and African American couples and they're still treated equally. LGBT couples are different than caucasian, biracial and african american couples, and yet that is irrelevant to the fact they should be treated equally. I don't quite mind about your personal reservations, to be honest, and I don't mean that as an offensive remark. I can't know what your personal feelings are, I can just work with the claims you're making. The claims you're making do not seem to conform with the paragraph you put up, though. Your claim is noteworthy, but is completely irrelevant to the debate at hand. ~moo

I'm still waiting for my post #79, which makes valid points on those subjects, to be addressed.

If that's the case, you'd have a democracy of Plato (which today we don't quite consider democratic), you'd be buying your bride from the father when you get married (granted, some societies still do that) and probably a few more things I am assuming you are at least partially happy to see changed. Definitions change because societies change. ~moo