Log in to check your private messages
Homosexuality
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13, 14  Next
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    The EUCantina Forums Forum Index » The Meditation Grove View previous topic :: View next topic  
 PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2012 3:04 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Hogy
Master
Master

Joined: 14 Dec 2011
Posts: 888
Location: Nar Shaddaa

Autobon wrote:

No one on this board ever gave that argument. The argument that was given stated that if people lived faithfully in traditional marriage, it would decrease abortion, poverty, among other problems. Here is an article that uses statistics given by government agencies to prove this point (specifically poverty). There are hundreds, if not thousands of studies proving this same point. Same goes for abortion, abuse, etc.


This article is about marriage against (child) poverty. It does not include same- sex marriages. Do you belive that the results would be any different if homosexual marriages wouldn't be excluded?

Autobon wrote:
Corellias Dream wrote:
The article you link to states its bias in favour of marriage in its very title 'Marriage: America's greatest weapon again child poverty'. Its use of statistics is very selective and the data interpreted to support the writer's theory.


If the statistics show that marriage decreases poverty in a substantial way, then it would not be a bias title. The research article does indeed seem to show that this is the case, using incredibly reputable sources. So I am not sure why this bothers you.

Now, similarly, I would appreciate if the statistics would show a larger span of years, for greater accuracy. However, even at two years, the numbers are pretty telling. The stats also manage to stay incredibly consistent even when including different education levels, racial differences, and ages.

Now if you have sources to counter this research, or an argument to why its wrong, I am open to hearing it.


Although I'm quoting Autobon and Corellias Dream here this is meant more as a friendly warning for both sides: When dealing with statistics you should allways keep This and this in mind especially when we are talking about complicated and complex topics like human beings and human nature.


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2012 12:03 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Corellias Dream
Knight
Knight

Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 105
Location: UK

Oh, I always bear in mind that famous quote: "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics".

I quite agree that although the raw data of statistics is good, they can be selectively used to prove many, often contradictory points. And of course, statistics themselves take no account of human nature. After all, any survey is only as good as the questions it asks.


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2012 12:51 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Corellias Dream
Knight
Knight

Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 105
Location: UK

Quote:
I have yet to hear a compelling case why the state should value homosexual couples as an absolute equal to heterosexual couples.


Because homosexuals are people too. They are capable of falling in love and forming long-term partnerships.

Being ostracized by part of wider society, labelled as 'deviants' and blamed for immorality in society in general does not exactly make life easier for homosexuals. If they are rejected by society, they are more likely to reject social norms in return, and emphasize their rejection by taking drugs or promiscuity. Exactly the same happens in other social minorities, like criminal populations and the poor.

If homosexuals are disencouraged from forming stable relationships, and told that their feelings are of no value, is it any wonder that they are less likely to settle down ? It's not easy to form a lasting bond with someone when you are being told that your choice of partner is wrong, deviant, and generally unacceptable to society.
Imagine being told that your love for someone is of less value than another person's love for their partner. Knowing that you will never be able to have a love that is accepted, or be able to share your life with someone because your choice is deemed unnaceptable by others. To miss out on what others around you are free to experience, because their love happens to fit with what is 'acceptable'.
That's a hard life to live. It's no wonder that a percentage of homosexuals turn to drink and drugs for comfort.


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQjNJUSraY
 PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 12:14 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  australian
Padawan
Padawan

Joined: 17 May 2012
Posts: 1
Location: Australia

Reepicheep wrote:


On a realted note, I stumbled upon this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQjNJUSraY

It's a gay Christian arguing for same sex relationships and it is by far the best argument I have ever heard. It's an hour long, but if you're interested in this sort of thing, I'd recommend it.


That video is one-sided and misleading. It's best looked at alongside a critique, of which there are a few online, eg http://stasisonline.wordpress.com/2012/04/10/homosexual-marriage/


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 2:40 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Hogy
Master
Master

Joined: 14 Dec 2011
Posts: 888
Location: Nar Shaddaa

Welcome to the forums australian!

You can introduce yourself here if you want.

I promise to read your link, just not today.


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 5:50 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Salaris Vorn
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: 02 Feb 2008
Posts: 2200
Location: New York, USA

First off: Welcome Australian! We look forward to your involvement in our community! I hope you enjoy your stay.

Now on to business

So a fellow EUCer raised the question of whether debating the legal right of gay marriage was discrimination or not. As was explained if one replaced "gay" with "black" there would be no question over whether it was discrimination. In the interest of applying the same standard to everyone I'm proposing that questioning the legal rights of gays be off limits. I'm not saying people have to change their minds on this just that, in the interest of the harmony of the community, this not be discussed further on the forums.

This isn't to say the debate over "is homosexuality moral" and similar discussion is off limits. As several of you have demonstrated you can be personally be opposed to it on moral grounds and for gay rights at the same time. So I see no reason that homosexuality can't be debated as there is more to the issue than its legal aspects. Please keep that in mind in further debate that not everyone who is morally opposed is also legally opposed.

As always if any of you have questions or comments you are welcome to send me a PM.
_________________


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 7:31 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Autobon
Master
Master

Joined: 17 Apr 2008
Posts: 751
Location: Seattle, Washington

Salaris Vorn wrote:
As was explained if one replaced "gay" with "black" there would be no question over whether it was discrimination. In the interest of applying the same standard to everyone I'm proposing that questioning the legal rights of gays be off limits.


With all due respect Salaris, I believe it is highly inappropriate for an impartial moderator to interchange words that have no relation to one another in order to dictate what we can and can't discuss.

Interracial marriage is a wholly different topic then gay marriage. African-Americans were not asking for special rights or to change the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. They demanded equality. Many African Americans, even those who marched in the civil rights demonstrations, don't consider gay marriage a civil rights issue.

Sexual inclinations are not the same as race, and it is both offensive and self-serving of the GLBT community to hijack the centuries-long battle for racial equality. Homosexuals are not asking for equality. There is not a single thing I can do that they cannot. Instead, they are asking for special rights to redefine marriage, and to apply censorship on anyone that dares think differently then they do. That is a legal matter and so we should be able to discuss it.

Respectfully, I ask that you either remove such an unfair rule or shut down this thread completely.


-


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 8:57 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Old Master Ben
Administrator
Administrator

Joined: 10 Nov 2007
Posts: 2259
Location: Georgia

Autobon wrote:

With all due respect Salaris, I believe it is highly inappropriate for an impartial moderator


I believe it it entirely appropriate for our moderators to determine subject matter. That's their job.

At the same time, I personally think removing the ability to discuss the legal rights would make the thread rather empty, so indeed, if we were to do that, we might as well close it down. Unless the point of this thread is not debate.


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address

 PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 10:36 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Corellias Dream
Knight
Knight

Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 105
Location: UK

Quote:
Homosexuals are not asking for equality


Yes they are. Homosexuals in the USA are not necessarily asking for the traditional definition of marriage to be changed. They are asking for their relationships to be accorded the same legal status as a traditional marriage - hence the use of the expression 'gay marriage'.

In America, a Civil Union or Domestic Partnership does not carry the same rights as a marriage ceremony. A Civil Union doesn't even necessarily carry the same rights or recognition from one state to another. For many homosexual couples, what they want is for their partnership to be legally recognized, with the same rights and responsibilities, as a heterosexual relationship.

In the UK, the same-sex Civil Partnership has much the same legal status as a heterosexual marriage. There is debate in government about whether the term 'marriage' could or should be used for same-sex couples. However, for most practical purposes, marriages and civil partnerships can be considered equal.


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 12:59 am Reply with quote  
Message
  illogicalRogue2
Administrator
Administrator

Joined: 01 Sep 2009
Posts: 2854
Location: ....last know presence was near the Tingel Arm..

Old Master Ben wrote:
Autobon wrote:

With all due respect Salaris, I believe it is highly inappropriate for an impartial moderator


I believe it it entirely appropriate for our moderators to determine subject matter. That's their job.

At the same time, I personally think removing the ability to discuss the legal rights would make the thread rather empty, so indeed, if we were to do that, we might as well close it down.


Kill it!
Kill it!
Kill it!
Kill it!
Kill it!
Kill it!
Kill it!
Kill it!
Kill it!

Twisted Evil


This thread... this silly little homosexuality thread. It'll doom us all.
_________________

-Bring on your thousands, one at a time or all in a rush. I don't give a damn. None shall pass.
-
-To become a Jedi, it is not the Force one must learn to control but oneself.
-
-Podcasts: Star Wars Beyond the Films, The Star Wars Report, & EUCast


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger

 PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 2:22 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Hogy
Master
Master

Joined: 14 Dec 2011
Posts: 888
Location: Nar Shaddaa

From Should the Meditation Grove stay?

illogicalRogue2 wrote:
Kill
Kill
Kill
Kill
Kill
Kill

KILL IT. Laughing Twisted Evil

And on this thread....

illogicalRogue2 wrote:


Kill it!
Kill it!
Kill it!
Kill it!
Kill it!
Kill it!
Kill it!
Kill it!
Kill it!

Twisted Evil


This thread... this silly little homosexuality thread. It'll doom us all.


Well at least you're consistent. Very Happy


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 2:54 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Life Is The Path
Master
Master

Joined: 10 Sep 2010
Posts: 3867
Location: In a galaxy far, far - No, I'm behind you! Got you! Boo!

Corellias Dream wrote:
Quote:
Homosexuals are not asking for equality


Yes they are. Homosexuals in the USA are not necessarily asking for the traditional definition of marriage to be changed. They are asking for their relationships to be accorded the same legal status as a traditional marriage - hence the use of the expression 'gay marriage'.

In America, a Civil Union or Domestic Partnership does not carry the same rights as a marriage ceremony. A Civil Union doesn't even necessarily carry the same rights or recognition from one state to another. For many homosexual couples, what they want is for their partnership to be legally recognized, with the same rights and responsibilities, as a heterosexual relationship.

In the UK, the same-sex Civil Partnership has much the same legal status as a heterosexual marriage. There is debate in government about whether the term 'marriage' could or should be used for same-sex couples. However, for most practical purposes, marriages and civil partnerships can be considered equal.


An interesting fact: there are 1138 'benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law' (http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-overview-of-federal-rights-and-protections-granted-to-married-couples).
_________________
I am a Star Wars fan. That doesn't mean that I hate or love Jar Jar. That doesn't mean I hate or love Lucas, or agree or disagree 100% with him. That doesn't mean I prefer the PT over the OT, or vice versa. That doesn't mean I hate the EU, or even love all of it. These are not prerequisites. Being a man is not a prerequisite. Being a geek is not a prerequisite. The only prerequisite is that I love something about Star Wars. I am a Star Wars fan.


View user's profile Send private message

Re: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQjNJUSraY
 PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 9:52 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Reepicheep
Master
Master

Joined: 05 Feb 2008
Posts: 6771
Location: Sailing into the unknown

australian wrote:
Reepicheep wrote:


On a realted note, I stumbled upon this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQjNJUSraY

It's a gay Christian arguing for same sex relationships and it is by far the best argument I have ever heard. It's an hour long, but if you're interested in this sort of thing, I'd recommend it.


That video is one-sided and misleading. It's best looked at alongside a critique, of which there are a few online, eg http://stasisonline.wordpress.com/2012/04/10/homosexual-marriage/

I thought it represented the other side pretty well, a precious rarity in this debate on both sides. I'll look at the critique later.

I have no gripes with ceasing to discuss the legality of homosexual marriage. I never opposed that point anyway.
_________________

Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet,
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There is the utter east.


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 2:44 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Salaris Vorn
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: 02 Feb 2008
Posts: 2200
Location: New York, USA

I stand by my assessment of the legal issue. Thus I'm hesitatant to withdraw my statement.

However, I feel OMB raised a particularly important issue: what is the purpose of this thread? My understanding was this thread was for a discussion of homosexuality including different religious and cultural perspectives and associated interpretations of its morality where legal equality making up only one small aspect of the potential discussion and/or debate. As that was my impression of the thread it did not seem like prohibiting discussion of legal issues would leave the thread without a purpose.

It is possible I misunderstood the purpose of this thread and the community's impression was that a (or the) primary purpose of the thread was to discuss the legal status of homosexuality. If that is the community consensus on the purpose of this thread I would be more willing to retract my statement for obvious issues of incompatability.
_________________


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 4:26 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Autobon
Master
Master

Joined: 17 Apr 2008
Posts: 751
Location: Seattle, Washington

Salaris Vorn wrote:
legal equality making up only one small aspect of the potential discussion and/or debate. As that was my impression of the thread it did not seem like prohibiting discussion of legal issues would leave the thread without a purpose.


Let me clarify why I believe legal issues are the most important part of the debate.

I do not know anyone opposed to homosexuality that advocates dictating what homosexuals can or cannot do in their private lives, in their homes, or for that matter public discourse. It is precisely the fact that homosexuals have taken the fight to state and federal levels that is a cause for concern. If they succeed in changing the definition of marriage (legally), then it will have an effect on everyone, one way or the other.

So in that sense, the legal issue is actually a large aspect of the discussion.


-


View user's profile Send private message

Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    The EUCantina Forums Forum Index » The Meditation Grove

Page 12 of 14
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13, 14  Next

Display posts from previous:

  

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Jedi Knights 2 by Scott Stubblefield