| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
08 Sep 2005 09:19:14 AM |
| Object: |
California And Gay Marriage |
http://www.useless-knowledge.com/1234/sept/article102.html
California And Gay Marriage
By Nicholas Olson
Sept. 7, 2005
It was announced today that California is sending a bill to the governor
approving the rights of gays to marry. I say hurray for ending another form
of discrimination.
Republicans and their bible-thumping constituents can hem and haw all they
want about their sanctity and that it is against the nature of humanity and
whatever. All I have to say is that I am sick to my stomach that this form
of discrimination is even up for debate.
The stupidest argument I have heard in this whole ordeal is the one where
they have men and women marrying their pets. Let's be logical about this.
If a man wants to marry a woman, he needs her consent, at least in this
country. Since when does your dog ask you to marry it? I can see it now. It
gets down on one knee and pulls out this ring... Wait, that never happened.
The next argument is about sanctity. You know, when two heterosexual people
divorce at over 60 percent of all marriages and infidelity runs rampant and
don't get me started on alimony. Besides, if you want to get married in
this country, shouldn't gays have the same right to be as happy and
miserable as a hetero couple?
The most controversial reason why I am happy about this decision is because
it opens the door for the secular part of our culture to go for the jugular
of the religious right. You see, if you want to call marriage a religious
ceremony or a representation of their love before a spiritual being, then I
can go to the words of James Madison where he specifically noted that there
is a distinct separation of church and state. If religious people want to
keep their precious word "marriage," then they can do without the rights
afforded by our government to married people by having an equitable
separation of this right for all citizens. This would mean that you could
be married but get no benefit by it. After all, if it only matters in the
eyes of God that you are married then be married with no benefits.
Anti-homosexual sentiment is born out of need to discriminate against
something. At once mixed race marriage was looked down upon, so will we
adapt to gay marriage.
Americans are going to have to start realizing that change is going to come
in the form of the future youth, those that feel that the current adults
are messing things up, will not tolerate the indignities of the past. It
happened in the 1860s, it happened in the 1960s and it will happen in the
not-so-distant future. Learn to deal. California is on their way. Why not
in your state?
------------
About the author: Nicholas Olson is a long-time journalist who has been a
columnist at his college newspaper and is currently a military journalist.
***************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 07:42:38 AM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> posting the following on Mon, 19 Sep 2005
02:56:21 GMT iin alt.atheism?
No, those children would be denied their parentage, would never know
their biological mother and father, their lineage, their birthright.
Gary, what about the lineage from the adopting family? Doesn't that
count?
If my wife and I were to adopt a child, s/he would be raised with all
the Berry family traditions, and hear about his/her ancestors, and
(hopefully) be taken to England to visit the ancestral homestead.
That child would be a Berry, not matter what the biological background
says.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kelo Disaster" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 07:55:24 AM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:uccti19ni2vm4hpnjj39epbgsq8edpcc61@4ax.com...
What's so funny about peace, love and Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> posting the following on Mon, 19 Sep 2005
02:56:21 GMT iin alt.atheism?
No, those children would be denied their parentage, would never know
their biological mother and father, their lineage, their birthright.
Gary, what about the lineage from the adopting family? Doesn't that
count?
If my wife and I were to adopt a child, s/he would be raised with all
the Berry family traditions, and hear about his/her ancestors, and
(hopefully) be taken to England to visit the ancestral homestead.
That child would be a Berry, not matter what the biological background
says.
But...but you guys say environment doesn't count? You're born homosexual,
right? Let's see, here's one posted by someone sporting a number that says:
"You can raise a cat as a dog but it is always going to be a cat no matter
what you name it."
So, which way is it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 04:21:32 PM |
|
|
Kelo Disaster wrote:
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:uccti19ni2vm4hpnjj39epbgsq8edpcc61@4ax.com...
What's so funny about peace, love and Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> posting the following on Mon, 19 Sep 2005
02:56:21 GMT iin alt.atheism?
No, those children would be denied their parentage, would never know
their biological mother and father, their lineage, their birthright.
Gary, what about the lineage from the adopting family? Doesn't that
count?
If my wife and I were to adopt a child, s/he would be raised with all
the Berry family traditions, and hear about his/her ancestors, and
(hopefully) be taken to England to visit the ancestral homestead.
That child would be a Berry, not matter what the biological background
says.
But...but you guys say environment doesn't count? You're born homosexual,
right? Let's see, here's one posted by someone sporting a number that says:
"You can raise a cat as a dog but it is always going to be a cat no matter
what you name it."
So, which way is it?
A decent point.
Fellers, sometimes it helps to imagine a scenario that concentrates the
problem, in order to magnify it and understand it better.
Let's imagine a future society that has gone through all of the
arguments you folks have pointed out about various people's rights to
marry and produce babies however they wish, as long as they will be
raised in a loving manner. The state decides that most people screw up
raising the children, so, since it doesn't matter how they are born
either, they might as well establish a baby university in which babies
are born to hired mothers and raised in schools by the state. The
substitute parents (foster parents, if you will) are professionals,
trained in the latest child psychology and able to teach them everything
from behavior to the technical subject matter that they have been
engineered for. The science kids are allowed to play with the art kids,
the left-brained with the right, and so on, so that they can learn what
the world will be like when they graduate.
Those adults who wish to be parents and raise the children can be
assigned to several of them and employed by the university. They can
even still work part-time at their old jobs. The nuveau family unit can
have a man and a woman, two men, or women, or a number of people, all
loving the children and passing on some of their family stories to them.
Pretty utopian picture, right? No more marriage, no more denying rights,
no more distinctions between gay and straight. But would something be
missing in this picture for the children? Hey, this is a scenario under
construction. I'm just thinking that there would be something wrong
here, in human terms.
Do you libs have any thoughts about this - I mean like what it means to
be human w respect to being in, or coming from, a family?
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 05:05:46 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 21:21:32 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
Kelo Disaster wrote:
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:uccti19ni2vm4hpnjj39epbgsq8edpcc61@4ax.com...
What's so funny about peace, love and Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> posting the following on Mon, 19 Sep 2005
02:56:21 GMT iin alt.atheism?
No, those children would be denied their parentage, would never know
their biological mother and father, their lineage, their birthright.
Gary, what about the lineage from the adopting family? Doesn't that
count?
If my wife and I were to adopt a child, s/he would be raised with all
the Berry family traditions, and hear about his/her ancestors, and
(hopefully) be taken to England to visit the ancestral homestead.
That child would be a Berry, not matter what the biological background
says.
But...but you guys say environment doesn't count? You're born homosexual,
right? Let's see, here's one posted by someone sporting a number that says:
"You can raise a cat as a dog but it is always going to be a cat no matter
what you name it."
So, which way is it?
A decent point.
Fellers, sometimes it helps to imagine a scenario that concentrates the
problem, in order to magnify it and understand it better.
Let's imagine a future society that has gone through all of the
arguments you folks have pointed out about various people's rights to
marry and produce babies however they wish, as long as they will be
raised in a loving manner. The state decides that most people screw up
raising the children, so, since it doesn't matter how they are born
either, they might as well establish a baby university in which babies
are born to hired mothers and raised in schools by the state.
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Thanks for the laugh, luckily for me, water doesn't burn as much as
alchol when propelled through one's nose.
Ah yes.. THE STATE..... they know how to raise kids.... You've fucked
up your "utopian" world before you even got running with it.
The
substitute parents (foster parents, if you will) are professionals,
trained in the latest child psychology and able to teach them everything
from behavior to the technical subject matter that they have been
engineered for. The science kids are allowed to play with the art kids,
the left-brained with the right, and so on, so that they can learn what
the world will be like when they graduate.
Your utopian world is now MORE screwed up. It doesn't take a
Professional or a Psycologist or a techical engineer to raise kid.
Don't tell us... you don't HAVE children, do you??
HINT: All a kid needs to thrive is basic food, water, some sort of
shelter (even a cardboard box will do quite honestly, and LOVE and
PROTECTION...
Those adults who wish to be parents and raise the children can be
assigned to several of them and employed by the university. They can
even still work part-time at their old jobs. The nuveau family unit can
have a man and a woman, two men, or women, or a number of people, all
loving the children and passing on some of their family stories to them.
Other than the 'univercity' part (it's not needed), yeah, the child
would THRIVE with any of the above conditions.
Pretty utopian picture, right? No more marriage, no more denying rights,
no more distinctions between gay and straight. But would something be
missing in this picture for the children?
Nope, the child would be perfectly happy... well, as much as any child
is 'perfectly happy' that is... Trying to draw the family tree might
require some extra trunks and maybe a bush nearby, but not impossible.
Hey, this is a scenario under
construction. I'm just thinking that there would be something wrong
here, in human terms.
Yeah, as soon as you substituted "loving parent(s)" for "STATE" you
lost it... quite literally.
Do you libs have any thoughts about this - I mean like what it means to
be human w respect to being in, or coming from, a family?
Us Libs? You mean 'liberals'? Well, the "leave-it-t-beaver" family
NEVER really existed if that's what you think of when you think
"family".
Most families are more of an Adams Family affair, or, Family Affair
(single parent) or The Courtship of Eddie's Father (god, I loved that
show as a child), or even, dare we say... The Osborns? (never saw it).
FAMILY means those around you. The people around you who love and
protect you. Heck, for the last 15 years, my "family" has absolutely
*NO* blood relatives in it, but I feel warm, and protected, and LOVED
by them all, except Crazy Uncle Earl, but then... EVERYONE has their
own version of Crazy Uncle Earl in their families, don't they?.
James, Seattle (or close to there at least)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 09:04:25 PM |
|
|
RainLover wrote:
HINT: All a kid needs to thrive is basic food, water, some sort of
shelter (even a cardboard box will do quite honestly, and LOVE and
PROTECTION...
(!) Don't want to offend the homeless!
Us Libs? You mean 'liberals'? Well, the "leave-it-t-beaver" family
NEVER really existed if that's what you think of when you think
"family".
Most families are more of an Adams Family affair, or, Family Affair
(single parent) or The Courtship of Eddie's Father (god, I loved that
show as a child), or even, dare we say... The Osborns? (never saw it).
FAMILY means those around you. The people around you who love and
protect you. Heck, for the last 15 years, my "family" has absolutely
*NO* blood relatives in it, but I feel warm, and protected, and LOVED
by them all, except Crazy Uncle Earl, but then... EVERYONE has their
own version of Crazy Uncle Earl in their families, don't they?.
Kind of like in-laws.
Obviously, not all families are like the Beav, but they are more like
that than the Adams family. Mine was. My wife's was. All of our
relatives' were. Can't think of many fucked-up families in my relatives.
Maybe that's my problem. I am and was raised normal. So that's what I
want for everyone.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 09:12:47 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
RainLover wrote:
HINT: All a kid needs to thrive is basic food, water, some sort of
shelter (even a cardboard box will do quite honestly, and LOVE and
PROTECTION...
(!) Don't want to offend the homeless!
Us Libs? You mean 'liberals'? Well, the "leave-it-t-beaver" family
NEVER really existed if that's what you think of when you think
"family".
Most families are more of an Adams Family affair, or, Family Affair
(single parent) or The Courtship of Eddie's Father (god, I loved that
show as a child), or even, dare we say... The Osborns? (never saw it).
FAMILY means those around you. The people around you who love and
protect you. Heck, for the last 15 years, my "family" has absolutely
*NO* blood relatives in it, but I feel warm, and protected, and LOVED
by them all, except Crazy Uncle Earl, but then... EVERYONE has their
own version of Crazy Uncle Earl in their families, don't they?.
Kind of like in-laws.
Obviously, not all families are like the Beav, but they are more like
that than the Adams family. Mine was. My wife's was. All of our
relatives' were. Can't think of many fucked-up families in my relatives.
Maybe that's my problem. I am and was raised normal. So that's what I
want for everyone.
There's more than one kind of healthy family. It isn't up to you or me
to tell someone who can be in their family, so long as people aren't
being harmed.
When you can actually demonstrate that children are harmed when they
are raised by same-sex couples, or that "illegitimate" (as you define
it) are harmed just by being "illegitimate", then you'll have something
to offer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 09:53:54 PM |
|
|
There's more than one kind of healthy family. It isn't up to you or me
to tell someone who can be in their family, so long as people aren't
being harmed.
I am waiting when you going to demonstrate that same sex family is
healthy family. Two gays might be healthy among themselves, but it is
unhealthy for society, it is unhealthy for procreation and
reproduction. Purpose of marriage is to create a family, and puropose
of family to create (if possible) children and bring them up in such a
way, that every child after growning up would want to create a new
family with opposite sex. I think it is simple enough. All other
families are possible, but is is no healthy for reproduction of
society. For example, there is nothing wrong when person smokes
marijuana, however it is unhealthy for society, because it is a bad
example, other people might want to try stronger drugs. Gay marriage
is a bad example, consquently should be prohibited.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
20 Sep 2005 01:01:40 AM |
|
|
wrote:
There's more than one kind of healthy family. It isn't up to you or me
to tell someone who can be in their family, so long as people aren't
being harmed.
I am waiting when you going to demonstrate that same sex family is
healthy family.
Here ya go:
Gay and Lesbian Parenting Studies
This bibliography compiled by Tony Quirke. Thanks, Tony!
---
"The Lesbian Mother," by Bernice Goodman [American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 43 (1983), pp. 283-284]
Kirkpatrick, Martha et al; "Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: A
Comparative Study," 51 American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 545 (1983)
"Homosexual Parents," by Brenda Maddox [Psychology Today, February,
1982, pp.66-69]
Riddle, Dorothy I.; "Relating to Children: Gays as Role Models," 34
Journal of Social Issues, 38-58 (1978)
"The Avowed Lesbian Mother and Her Right to Child Custody," by Marilyn
Riley [San Diego Law Review, Vol. 12 (1975), p. 799]
Susoeff, Steve; "Assessing Children's Best Interests When a Parent is
Gay or Lesbian: Toward a Rational Custody Standard," 32 UCLA Law
Review
852, 896 (1985)
Gibbs, Elizabeth D.; "Psychosocial Development of Children Raised by
Lesbian Mothers: A Review of Research," 8 Women & Therapy 65 (1988)
Green, Richard; "The Best Interests of the Child With a Lesbian
Mother," 10 Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry & Law 7
(1982)
Turner, Pauline et al; "Parenting in Gay and Lesbian Families," 1
Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy 55, 57 (1990)
Golombok, Susan; "Children in Lesbian and Single-Parent Households:
Psychosexual and Psychiatric Appraisal," 24 Journal of Child
Psychology
& Psychiatry 551 (1983)
Hoeffer, Beverly; "Children's Acquisition of Sex-Role Behavior in
Lesbian-Mother Families," 51 American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 536
(1981)
Green, Richard; "Sexual Identity of 37 Children Raised by Homosexual
or Transsexual Parents," 135 American Journal of Psychiatry 692 (1978)
Green, Richard; "Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: A Comparison with
Solo Parent Heterosexual Mothers and their Children," 15 Archives of
Sexual Behavior 167 (1986)
Gottman, Julie Schwartz; "Children of Gay and Lesbian Parents," 14
Marriage and Family Review 177 (1989)
Rees, Richard; "A Comparison of Children of Lesbian and Single
Heterosexual Mothers on Three Measures of Socialization," 40
Dissertation Abstracts International 3418-B, 3419-B (1979)
Sterkel, Alisa; "Psychosocial Develpment of Children of Lesbian
Mothers," Gay & Lesbian Parents 75, 81 (Frederick W. Bozett, ed.,
1987)
Mucklow, Bonnie M., & Phelan, Gladys K.; "Lesbian and Traditional
Mothers' Responses to Adult Response to Child Behavior and
Self-Concept," 44 Psychological Report 880 (1979)
Whittlin, William A.; "Homosexuality and Child Custody: A Psychiatric
Viewpoint," 21 Concilation Courts Review 77 (1983)
Herek, Gregory M.; "Myths About Sexual Orientation: A Lawyer's Guide
to Social Science Research," 1 Law & Sexuality: A Review of Lesbian &
Gay Legal Issues 133 (1991)
Cramer, David; "Gay Parents and Their Children: A Review of the
Research and Practical Implications," 64 Journal of Counseling &
Development 504 (1986)
Wismont, Judith M., & Reame, Nancy E.; "The Lesbian Childbearing
Experience: Assessing Developmental Tasks, 21 Journal of Nursing
Scholarship 137 (1989)
Meyer, Cheryl L.; "Legal, Psychological, and Medical Considerations in
Lesbian Parenting," 2 Law & Sexuality: A Review of Lesbian & Gay Legal
Issues 237 (1992)
"In the 'Best Interests of the Child' and the Lesbian Mother: A
Proposal for Legislative Change in New York," 48 Albany Law Review
1021
(1984)
Harris & Turner, "Gay & Lesbian Parents," 12 Journal of Homosexuality
101 (1985-1986)
Kleber, Howell & Tibbits-Kleber, "The Impact of Parental Homosexuality
in Child Custody Cases: A Review of the Literature," 14 Bulletin of
the
American Academy of Psychiatry & Law 81 (1986)
"The Avowed Lesbian Mother and Her Right to Child Custody: A
Constitutional Challenge That Can No Longer Be Denied," 12 San Diego
Law Review 799 (1975)
"Sexual Orientation and the Law" by the Editors of the Harvard Law
Review (Harvard University Press, 1989)
Green, G. Dorsey, & Bozett, Frederick W., "Lesbian Mothers and Gay
Fathers," in Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy,
ed. by Gonsiorek & Weinrich (Sage Publications, 1991)
Lewin, E., "Lesbianism and Motherhood: Implications for Child
Custody," 40 Human Organization 6-14 (1981)
Ricketts, Wendell; "Lesbians and Gay Men as Foster Parents"
(University of Southern Maine, 1992)
You can find many additional citations in this bibliography: "Lesbian
Mothers and Their Children: Annotated Bibliography of Legal and
Psychological Materials," by Donna J. Hitchens and Ann G. Thomas,
editors [San Francisco Lesbian Rights Project]
These studies, reports, and articles all reach the same conclusion:
Children raised by lesbians and gay men do not differ from children
raised by heterosexuals "on measures of popularity, social adjustment,
gender role behavior, gender identity, intelligence, self-concept,
emotional problems, interest in marriage and parenting, locus of
control, moral development, independence, ego functions, object
relations, or self esteem." Additionally, no significant differences
have been observed in regard to "teachers' and parents' evaluations of
emotional and social behavior, fears, sleep disturbances,
hyperactivity, and conduct differences." (Meyer, "Legal,
Psychological,
and Medical Considerations in Lesbian Parenting," 2 Law & Sexuality:
Rev. Lesbian & Gay Legal Issues 239-240 [1992])
The same article goes on to note that a very few differences HAVE been
reported by some researchers: One study found children raised by
heterosexual mothers had a HIGHER rate of psychiatric disorders and
psychiatric referrals than those raised by lesbians. Another study
found that those raised by heterosexuals were more domineering and
more
often engaged in power struggles. Other studies found that children of
lesbian parents showed greater tolerance for diversity and that
daughters of lesbians chose to play with opposite sex partners more
often than daughters of heterosexual mothers.
Citations showing that children of gay parents are no more likely to
grow up gay:
Golombok, Spencer, & Rutter, Children in Lesbian and Single-Parent
Households: Psychosexual and Psychiatric Appraisal, 24, J. Child
Psychology and Psychiatry 551, 568 (1983)
Green, The Best Interests of a Child with a Lesbian Mother, 10 Bull.
Am. Acad. Psychiatry and Law, 7, 13, (1982)
Green, Mandel, Hotveldt, Gray, & Smith, Lesbian Mothers and Their
Children: A Comparison with Solo Parent Heterosexual Mothers and Their
Children, 15 Archives Sexual Behav., 167, 181 (1986)
Kirkpatrick, Smith, and Roy, Lesbian Mothers and their Children: A
Comparative Survey, 51 Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 545, 551 (1981)
Bozett, Children of Gay Fathers, in Gay and Lesbian Parents, F. Bozett
ed. (1987)
Two gays might be healthy among themselves, but it is
unhealthy for society, it is unhealthy for procreation and
reproduction. Purpose of marriage is to create a family, and puropose
of family to create (if possible) children and bring them up in such a
way, that every child after growning up would want to create a new
family with opposite sex. I think it is simple enough.
Same-sex marriages are occurring now. Same-sex couples have been
raising children for quite some time. We have no baby shortage. Those
industrialized areas which are showing low birth rates do not, in fact,
correlate with the presence of legal same-sex marriage.
People get married for reasons other than procreation. Procreation
occurs outside of marriage, and marriages occur without producing
children.
Children learn pretty quickly "where babies come from." There is
absolutely no evidence of the confusion you claim. None.
I've presented my evidence. Where's yours?
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
20 Sep 2005 07:20:43 AM |
|
|
Here ya go:
Gay and Lesbian Parenting Studies
Hey man, who you are trying to fool, I know how to use an internet.
Here is my search
Results 1 - 10 of about 65,500 for "gay marriage" harmful scientific.
(0.43 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 466 for "gay marriage" "not harmful"
scientific. (0.34 seconds)
Got it!
.
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
20 Sep 2005 08:44:24 AM |
|
|
On 20 Sep 2005 05:20:43 -0700, wrote:
Here ya go:
Gay and Lesbian Parenting Studies
Hey man, who you are trying to fool, I know how to use an internet.
Here is my search
Results 1 - 10 of about 65,500 for "gay marriage" harmful scientific.
(0.43 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 466 for "gay marriage" "not harmful"
scientific. (0.34 seconds)
Got it!
Yes.. Christian Bigots LOVE to post all their psuedu-science online...
what's your point? Why not post a few of the URLs, not just the
result numbers?
Do you REALLY put the "Institute for Family Values" at par with,
say... Journal of American Medicine?
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
20 Sep 2005 07:31:01 AM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and posting the
following on 20 Sep 2005 05:20:43 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
Here ya go:
Gay and Lesbian Parenting Studies
Hey man, who you are trying to fool, I know how to use an internet.
Here is my search
Results 1 - 10 of about 65,500 for "gay marriage" harmful scientific.
(0.43 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 466 for "gay marriage" "not harmful"
scientific. (0.34 seconds)
Got it!
You have got to be joking. Mr. Altarriba hanbds you a list of dozens
of peer-reviewed articles from respected medical and pyschological
journals, and you come back with a Google search? And don't even
refer to any of the hits for actual claims?
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
20 Sep 2005 09:32:51 AM |
|
|
You have got to be joking. Mr. Altarriba hanbds you a list of dozens
of peer-reviewed articles from respected medical and pyschological
journals, and you come back with a Google search? And don't even
refer to any of the hits for actual claims?
No I am not joking, we cannot just throw long lists of articles to each
other trying to prove the point. You know very well that I can go on
the internet and find much more articles against gay marriage; it does
not change the essence of the issue.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
20 Sep 2005 10:54:20 AM |
|
|
wrote:
You have got to be joking. Mr. Altarriba hanbds you a list of dozens
of peer-reviewed articles from respected medical and pyschological
journals, and you come back with a Google search? And don't even
refer to any of the hits for actual claims?
No I am not joking, we cannot just throw long lists of articles to each
other trying to prove the point. You know very well that I can go on
the internet and find much more articles against gay marriage; it does
not change the essence of the issue.
There's an American saying: "Put up or shut up."
You say you can find "much more articles against gay marriage". OK,
let's see some *journal articles* from *peer-reviewed, authoritative
sources*, not more of the level of unsupported opinion that you've been
giving us.
Remember, it isn't enough that someone puts words on a web page that
happen to agree with you...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
20 Sep 2005 05:10:37 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and posting the
following on 20 Sep 2005 07:32:51 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
You have got to be joking. Mr. Altarriba hanbds you a list of dozens
of peer-reviewed articles from respected medical and pyschological
journals, and you come back with a Google search? And don't even
refer to any of the hits for actual claims?
No I am not joking, we cannot just throw long lists of articles to each
other trying to prove the point. You know very well that I can go on
the internet and find much more articles against gay marriage; it does
not change the essence of the issue.
Do you understand the difference between a list of peer-reviewed
articles and a random listing of webpages bragged by Google?
Do you even know what peer-review is?
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
20 Sep 2005 06:38:42 PM |
|
|
Do you understand the difference between a list of peer-reviewed
articles and a random listing of webpages bragged by Google?
Looks like you do not understand what statistics is if you find 10
times more articles that mention that gay marriage is harmful, then
there is high probability that majority of articles are about harmful
effect of gay marriage. You have a long way to go in your education
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
20 Sep 2005 06:50:13 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and posting the
following on 20 Sep 2005 16:38:42 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
Do you understand the difference between a list of peer-reviewed
articles and a random listing of webpages bragged by Google?
Looks like you do not understand what statistics is if you find 10
times more articles that mention that gay marriage is harmful, then
there is high probability that majority of articles are about harmful
effect of gay marriage. You have a long way to go in your education
ROTFLMAO!!!
That is the single most idiotic argument I have seen in close to
fifteen years on Usenet. Seriously. You don't even understand what
Google searches for! If a webpage happens to have those three words
on it, Google will return a hit. Page doesn't even have to be about
marriage!
You snipped out where I asked if you knew what peer-review is, and why
it is important. Do you?
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
20 Sep 2005 07:06:18 PM |
|
|
That is the single most idiotic argument I have seen in close to
fifteen years on Usenet.
Your arguments are not better.
You snipped out where I asked if you knew what peer-review is, and why
it is important. Do you?
What do you want from me and how it is related to gay marriage. I am
not going to answer those questions that are irrelevant.
I have no doubt that those people that promote homosexuality are not
stupid people, and most of them have degrees, but it does not mean they
are right. They are very far from reality, like lawyers, honestly I do
not give a ***** about what they are saying in their peer review. If
you want to know what AMA (American Medical Association) is saying
about gaye, they say that average gay marriage does not last more then
one month. At least it was 10 years ago, now probably due to political
pressure, something has been changed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
21 Sep 2005 03:21:01 PM |
|
|
<chirabbit@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127261178.010596.57680@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
That is the single most idiotic argument I have seen in close to
fifteen years on Usenet.
Your arguments are not better.
You snipped out where I asked if you knew what peer-review is, and why
it is important. Do you?
What do you want from me and how it is related to gay marriage. I am
not going to answer those questions that are irrelevant.
I have no doubt that those people that promote homosexuality are not
stupid people, and most of them have degrees, but it does not mean they
are right. They are very far from reality, like lawyers, honestly I do
not give a ***** about what they are saying in their peer review. If
you want to know what AMA (American Medical Association) is saying
about gaye, they say that average gay marriage does not last more then
one month. At least it was 10 years ago, now probably due to political
pressure, something has been changed.
I am beginning to think that you are a lair. Please support assertion on AMA
and gay marriage or withdraw it!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
21 Sep 2005 09:57:40 AM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and posting the
following on 20 Sep 2005 17:06:18 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
That is the single most idiotic argument I have seen in close to
fifteen years on Usenet.
Your arguments are not better.
My arguyments are based on the laws of the United States, court
precedent, and scientific research into how children raised in
same-sex parent households are affected.
Your argument is.. nothing. Just constant declarations without any
support.
You snipped out where I asked if you knew what peer-review is, and why
it is important. Do you?
What do you want from me and how it is related to gay marriage. I am
not going to answer those questions that are irrelevant.
In other words, no.
Peer review is a process that academic papers, like the ones cited, go
through beofre being published. An astronomer friend refers to it as
"turning your child over to the wolves." People in your field rip
your paper apart. They examine the methodology, the experiemtns, the
raw data, and the conclusions. Any flaw will be pointed out, and
error revealed. All this happens before publication. After
publication, expect more attention to each step of the research.
I have no doubt that those people that promote homosexuality are not
stupid people, and most of them have degrees, but it does not mean they
are right. They are very far from reality, like lawyers, honestly I do
not give a ***** about what they are saying in their peer review. If
you want to know what AMA (American Medical Association) is saying
about gaye, they say that average gay marriage does not last more then
one month. At least it was 10 years ago, now probably due to political
pressure, something has been changed.
Except ten years ago there was no gay marriage. So, show me the cite
for this article. From a peer-reviewed source, of course.
What I think the AMA was talking about was the average length of a
relationship. And that one month number is pretty good for unmarried
straights as well. Hell, my sister dated so many guys my mom and I
just starting numbering them. She's no happily married.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
20 Sep 2005 07:10:09 PM |
|
|
You snipped out where I asked if you knew what peer-review is, and why
it is important. Do you?
Hey man this article is written by M.D. In U.S. M.D. cannot lie under
the law.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
21 Sep 2005 02:34:18 AM |
|
|
On 20 Sep 2005 17:10:09 -0700, wrote:
You snipped out where I asked if you knew what peer-review is, and why
it is important. Do you?
Hey man this article is written by M.D. In U.S. M.D. cannot lie under
the law.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html
What does that have to do with the question? It is almost as if you
are avoiding facing up to the difference between a peer-reviewed study
and an article based on opinion.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
21 Sep 2005 09:15:54 AM |
|
|
What does that have to do with the question? It is almost as if you
are avoiding facing up to the difference between a peer-reviewed study
and an article based on opinion.
My article based on proven facts supported by American Medical
Association (if you know what it is). Unlike garbage presented by
Michael Altarriba, list of research papers that supports an idea that
kids grown in families of gay and lesbians are healthy. So what?, it
does not mean that gay families are healthy for society. Michael
Altarriba conviniently forgot that we are talking about society and the
system of procreation and reproduction of society.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
21 Sep 2005 10:08:43 AM |
|
|
wrote:
What does that have to do with the question? It is almost as if you
are avoiding facing up to the difference between a peer-reviewed study
and an article based on opinion.
My article based on proven facts supported by American Medical
Association (if you know what it is).
Insults don't make your arguments any stronger... and neither to lies
(see below).
Unlike garbage presented by
Michael Altarriba, list of research papers that supports an idea that
kids grown in families of gay and lesbians are healthy. So what?, it
does not mean that gay families are healthy for society.
Lying about me won't make your arguments any stronger. I posted a list
of references to (mostly) peer-reviewed papers in academic journals. Do
you know what the significance of phrases "peer review" and "academic
journal" are?
I presented evidence which supports my position.
Here's what you presented:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html
I searched the article for "American Medical Association" or "AMA" and
found no references. None. So, it would appear that you are most
definitely a liar, and that your lie about me isn't your first. How
very disappointing. Now, if you're just being weasely about "based on
proven facts supported by American Medical Association", you certainly
have a chance to clear your name.
The author of the above reference is a member of the "Corporate
Research Council" (aka the "Population Research Institute", whose
self-description is "a pro-life educational organization dedicated to
protecting and defending human life, ending human rights abuses
committed in the name of family planning, and dispelling the myth of
overpopulation.")
And, even if you had given us a legitimate and relevant reference,
you've given us only one. You said you could provide many more. Where
are they? Was that another lie?
Did you look at *any* of the references I provided?
Michael Altarriba conviniently forgot that we are talking about society and the
system of procreation and reproduction of society.
And you, Sir, "forgot" that you were the one claiming that same-sex
marriage will cause harm to society, yet you failed to present any
credible evidence to that effect.
So, you appear to be untrustworthy *and* incompetent when it comes to
supporting your assertions.
Give up. You're obviously out of your depth, and, given your seeming
need to resort to insults and lies, you've reached the current limits
of your intellectual resources.
If you have new data to present, or a cogent argument, we're all ears.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
21 Sep 2005 10:38:41 AM |
|
|
I searched the article for "American Medical Association" or "AMA" and
found no references.
Author is an M.D. and when he speaks publicly he cannot state facts not
approved by American Medical Association, otherwise doctor might face
criminal charges. Researcher on the other hand have no responisbility
for their actions.
And again we are taliking about whether gay and lesbian families are
healthy for society, for the whole system. And you did not present any
evidence that it is true. Like I said before marijuana is pretty
healthy for individual, because it does not cause drug dependence,
however it is prohibited due to danger to public.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
21 Sep 2005 03:18:48 PM |
|
|
<chirabbit@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127317121.492949.325380@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I searched the article for "American Medical Association" or "AMA" and
found no references.
Author is an M.D. and when he speaks publicly he cannot state facts not
approved by American Medical Association, otherwise doctor might face
criminal charges. Researcher on the other hand have no responisbility
for their actions.
And again we are taliking about whether gay and lesbian families are
healthy for society, for the whole system. And you did not present any
evidence that it is true. Like I said before marijuana is pretty
healthy for individual, because it does not cause drug dependence,
however it is prohibited due to danger to public.
Please give a reference on your assertion that doctors cannot state facts
not approved by the AMA. Either support it or withdraw it!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 09:00:27 AM |
|
|
On 21 Sep 2005 08:38:41 -0700, wrote:
I searched the article for "American Medical Association" or "AMA" and
found no references.
Author is an M.D. and when he speaks publicly he cannot state facts not
approved by American Medical Association, otherwise doctor might face
criminal charges.
Where in the hell did you get that piece of Crap? Medical Doctors can
write and publish anything they want, look to any anti-gay Christian
group for evidence of this... just like "scientists" can say the
earth is only 6,000 years old, all the while ignoring Iraq's 9,000
years of history.
Researcher on the other hand have no responisbility
for their actions.
They ALL have responsiblitiy, but sady, some 'researchers' and
'doctors' are more responsible to promoting their ideology's than the
facts or truths about a topic.
And again we are taliking about whether gay and lesbian families are
healthy for society, for the whole system. And you did not present any
evidence that it is true.
So you admit that gay and lesbian families can raise perfectly healthy
children... yet, for some unknown reason, this is BAD for the whole
system?
How do you reach THAT conclusion?????
Like I said before marijuana is pretty
healthy for individual, because it does not cause drug dependence,
however it is prohibited due to danger to public.
So why is Alcohol legal since it's more dangerous than marijuana?
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
21 Sep 2005 01:55:56 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and posting the
following on 21 Sep 2005 08:38:41 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
I searched the article for "American Medical Association" or "AMA" and
found no references.
Author is an M.D. and when he speaks publicly he cannot state facts not
approved by American Medical Association, otherwise doctor might face
criminal charges. Researcher on the other hand have no responisbility
for their actions.
There is no such law. None.
And again we are taliking about whether gay and lesbian families are
healthy for society, for the whole system. And you did not present any
evidence that it is true. Like I said before marijuana is pretty
healthy for individual, because it does not cause drug dependence,
however it is prohibited due to danger to public.
Actually, he provided a pile of references to studies done on same-sex
families. You ignored it.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
21 Sep 2005 10:58:58 AM |
|
|
On 21 Sep 2005 07:15:54 -0700, wrote:
What does that have to do with the question? It is almost as if you
are avoiding facing up to the difference between a peer-reviewed study
and an article based on opinion.
My article based on proven facts supported by American Medical
Association (if you know what it is).
Unlike garbage presented by
Michael Altarriba, list of research papers that supports an idea that
kids grown in families of gay and lesbians are healthy. So what?, it
does not mean that gay families are healthy for society.
Actually it means exactly that.
Michael
Altarriba conviniently forgot that we are talking about society
Society is made up of individuals. Healthy individuals make a healthy
society. That is not really a difficult concept to grasp.
and the
system of procreation and reproduction of society.
You continue to talk about some imaginary system. The marriage laws
say absolutely nothing about children. We are talking about marriage
not about your fantasies concerning "procreation and reproduction".
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
21 Sep 2005 10:00:12 AM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and posting the
following on 20 Sep 2005 17:10:09 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
You snipped out where I asked if you knew what peer-review is, and why
it is important. Do you?
Hey man this article is written by M.D. In U.S. M.D. cannot lie under
the law.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html
This article has nothing to do with marriage or raising children. And
one of his main points, promiscuity, is exactly the opposite of what
you would get with gays living in committed relationships.
Oh, and the citation for the section of US Code that makes it a
Federal Offense for a MD to lie is what, exactly?
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 02:28:14 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:00:12 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and posting the
following on 20 Sep 2005 17:10:09 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
You snipped out where I asked if you knew what peer-review is, and why
it is important. Do you?
Hey man this article is written by M.D. In U.S. M.D. cannot lie under
the law.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html
This article has nothing to do with marriage or raising children. And
one of his main points, promiscuity, is exactly the opposite of what
you would get with gays living in committed relationships.
Oh, and the citation for the section of US Code that makes it a
Federal Offense for a MD to lie is what, exactly?
His claim is even more ludicrous, since he claims that a doctor cannot
disagree with the AMA.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
