« Is the Crucifixion Immoral? | Main | Links Mentioned on the Show »

December 09, 2011

Comments

I'm sorry, maybe if the kid stood up there to argue for the opening of a gay bathhouse next a school I'd feel differently, but he was simply trying to persuade the legislature not to overturn Iowa's Civil Union law by saying that gay families aren't much different from other families. I think you're making too much of this...

Alan, did you submit this video as a video response to the Zack Wahls video? It might get more hits that way.

This is really good.

Sam, I think Brett did.

Really good.

Wow. Cogent and comprehensive.

Well done Alan!

Alan would have done better to present a case that, taken as a whole, research shows that children growing up in gay or lesbian households are clearly threatened.

Unfortunately, he can't make such a case. The research, taken as a whole, isn't there yet either way. There hasn't been time. It's hard research to do. This says to me that if there is some disadvantage to having gay parents, it's not big.

The low point is Alan's long pointless discourse on discrimination. Yes the word can be used in a context where the difference matters or should matter, etc.

But, I think Alan knows that when people talk about discrimination against gays they mean to say This difference shouldn't matter here. So, we are back to the research.

So what if research does at some point show that kids with gay parents are at some disadvantage would that justify banning gay marriage?

Consider what other things research might show are disadvantageous to kids.

For instance, how about parents who...

who have been in jail

are poor

have alcohol problems

dropped out of high school

have certain ethic origins

What if research shows that some of these things threaten kids more than having gay parents?

Will you then say that those people must not be permitted to marry?

RonH

RonH: If there hasn't been time to accumulate sufficient research and "its hard research to do", could you explain how you came to the conclusion that "if there is some disadvantage...it's not big?" I lost the thread of reasoning there.

Thanks.

Well done.

But sadly, the difficulty with this issue is that those in favor of SSM are always presenting emotional arguments. (I know that's a contradiction in terms, but you know what I mean.)

You can't argue with emotions. You certainly can't argue with experiences. It leaves us in a nearly impossible spot. Anything we say - no matter how factual or how kindly said - is looked upon as being cruel or bigoted.

There's no way around it, I'm afraid. And that's why I don't have much hope that we are going to win this battle. I'm not one that ever gives up. But it's an uphill battle, for sure.

RonH,

Changing marriage to exclude any of the groups you listed would be redefining marriage. As Alan mentioned, he’s against that.

Most people would rather be raised and loved by two homosexuals than two drunks who beat the tar out of them on a daily basis. That still doesn’t answer the question: “Can marriage be defined any way we like?” If so, why place any restrictions on marriage at all?

An excellent point on what some would call the 'ontological' nature of marriage - marriage is what it is, and anything different should be called something different. We are having the same debate currently in Australia, and the same emotional 'arguments' are being used. Essentially it has come down to the postmodern view that the greatest sin is telling me that my choices are immoral, and that the state has no right to 'legislate on morality'. It's an incredibly selfish approach.

Carolyn,

It is a common, perhaps universal, theme in science that the smaller the difference is that you are trying to measuure the greater the difficulty in detecting that difference.

Read about opinion polls. You will find that you need a random sample of 600 voters to get a margin of error of 4% and you need 1000 voters to get a margin of error of 3%.

If 2 candidates score within the margin of error you are justified in saying "if there is some difference...it's not big".

KWM,

Looking at history, I'd say yes it can. Why is Alan against redefinition? Were the people who made the current definitions better than we are?

RonH

Ron, it may be the case that there haven't been many studies on the effects of having same-sex parents (I don't know whether there have or not), but you might be interested in looking up studies about the effects on children who do not have a father or who do not have a mother. Since men and women are different and each sex brings something unique to children, there are effects. And this is something that could be studied before same-sex marriages were a question, so you should be able to find them out there.

"gay families aren't much different from other families."

They are qualitatively different, since gay unions cannot by nature produce families, just as stones cannot compose concertos. Even sterile heterosexual unions can by nature produce families, since they, despite their defect, participate in acts of reproduction. A blind man is not the same as a cucumber, though both technically cannot see. A blind man is still a man, just as a male-female marriage of sterile partners is still marital.

This is so obvious, that it is only by cultural brainwashing that you begin to deny it.

RonH,

>>”Looking at history, I'd say yes it can. Why is Alan against redefinition? Were the people who made the current definitions better than we are?”

Who made up the definition of who a homosexual is? Can we change that definition? Could we call them heterosexuals so we wouldn’t have this problem?

You also left off my second question. Why place any restrictions on marriage at all?

Perfect example of what Alan is referring to: a 'thruple' as George calls it--2 man, 1 woman and 'how they make it work" http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-26797925/meet-a-real-life-modern-family-2-dads-1-mom-and-a-baby-27777247.html

Well put, STR. Marketing, mainstream media and the homosexual agenda pushers have an (pardon the pun) unholy alliance that viewers, hearers and readers need to be on guard against. On guard against what? On guard against buying into emotional rhetoric interwoven with half-truths. Cleverness and glibness wrapped in a suit is an age-old technique used to sell, yes, sell ideas. All the better if the seller can pluck the heartstrings of their audience. Devious. P.S. Shame on our educational system that plays to almost anything else, in many cases, rather than teaching our youth to think critically.

A lesbian mother is simply not going to be a part of a conventional marriage. Just ain't gonna happen.

What are you saying--that it's better for her to be on her own than to be part of a same-sex marriage? How would that improve things for the kids?

The comments to this entry are closed.