What is the secular purpose of DOMA

[rat_avatar]

@hoopified

But they are not us. The U.S. For better or worse, we have an entirely different history and culture.

I would rather not become more like those countries. Would you?

You are correct, they do not have a proud history of the freedom or religion, nor were the first Country in the modern world founded by people not bonded by loyalty to a king or a god but because they were willing to be a persons together despite their differences.

I would prefer we had one, and that you, hoopified, could pray to your god as I do not.

The entire reason we are a representative republic is to protect the rights of the minority from the majority.

Why should my neighbors to be denied the ability to have the same legal protections that you are given.

[rat_avatar]

[quote=“hoopified, post:180, topic:616983”]

@rat_avatar

I’m not sure what that has to do with anything. The black man in the lobby doesn’t change the institution of movie going.

Who ways I’m a republican?

[

Republican can refer to: An advocate of a republic, a form of government that is not a monarchy or dictatorship, and is generally associated with the rule of law

](Redirect Notice)

I should have indicated better that it was a play on words.

[hoopified]

[quote=“rat_avatar, post:181, topic:616983”]

You are correct, they do not have a proud history of the freedom or religion, nor were the first Country in the modern world founded by people not bonded by loyalty to a king or a god but because they were willing to be a persons together despite their differences.

Yep. An excellent way to put it.

I would prefer we had one, and that you, hoopified, could pray to your god as I do not.

I don’t know what this means.

The entire reason we are a representative republic is to protect the rights of the minority from the majority.

I’m not sure I can support this as you’ve phrased it. There are lots of instances where the majority trumps the minority and we all seem to agree.

Why should my neighbors to be denied the ability to have the same legal protections that you are given.

I’ve given you a reason why a secular state should not recognize gay marriage. You disagree. Fine. That neither makes me evil nor you capricious.

[rat_avatar]

No you gave a statement that kids are better in a birth family, I disproved that with evidence, the fact that you restate it does not make it true.

[rat_avatar]

@rat_avatar

No you gave a statement that kids are better in a birth family, I disproved that with evidence, the fact that you restate it does not make it true.

[

Our findings revealed, for the first time, that young chil-
dren adopted early in life by lesbian and gay parents
were as well-adjusted as those adopted by heterosexual
parents. Our results suggest that lesbian and gay adults
can and do make capable adoptive parents. We found
no significant differences among families headed by
lesbian, gay, or heterosexual parents in terms of child
adjustment, parenting behaviors, or couples’ adjust-
ment. In addition, reports of children’s outside care-
givers were consistent with those of parents. It is
important to note in particular that gay fathers and their
children appeared to be faring as well as were lesbian
and heterosexual parents and their children. These find-
ings add to the very limited existing research on gay
fathers and their children, as well as to the relatively
sparse research on adoptive families with lesbian and
gay parents. In all, our results both lend support to ear-
lier research with lesbian- and gay-parented families,
and extend these findings to adoptive and gay-father
families.

](http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/ffp10b.pdf)

In case you missed it, hear it is again.

[hoopified]

@rat_avatar

No you gave a statement that kids are better in a birth family, I disproved that with evidence, the fact that you restate it does not make it true.

No, I didn’t. I stated that the state believes such. Please respond to what I actually write, not what you want me to write.

[hoopified]

New research: How traditional families help children succeed

[rat_avatar]

@hoopified

New research: How traditional families help children succeed | liturgical

never-married single-parent or living with a remarried widow(er) had the greatest impact on the academic achievement of children. When these variables are controlled, living with a cohabiting couple or a remarried widow(er) had the largest impact on the academic achievement of children.

So a study that shows that marriage is better for kids justifies denying homosexuals the right to marry how?

[rat_avatar]

@hoopified

No, I didn’t. I stated that the state believes such. Please respond to what I actually write, not what you want me to write.

Who is this state, how can I find out what they believe?

The “state” and documentation from the passage of DOMA is the most likely reason it will lose in a challenge to SCOTUS.

[Oldeb]

@hoopified

New research: How traditional families help children succeed | liturgical

Linking to a religous site to bolster an argument that a position is not religion-based is certainly a novel approach.

[gamerunknown]

Ah, yes; the good old bit where homosexuality and bestiality are equated.

Think is comes from Leviticus 19, where right after they say “man to lie with man”, they also mention “man to lie with beast”. Right before homosexuality comes incest, which is probably the other most frequent comparison. Paedophilia is less common, since consent was not a concept recognised by the Bible.

I would rather not become more like those countries. Would you?

Would I rather become a giant land mass? No, in all seriousness, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Spain, Canada and Iceland all have lower infant mortality rates. In other words, becoming more like those countries would be better for American children. They also have longer average lifespans, so becoming more like those countries would be better for American adults. They also have public healthcare, which is more likely than gay marriage to be the reason for the previous two factors, but a single variable leads to both gay marriage and public healthcare: social democracy.

then please provide evidence for your assertion.

Uh, Bos (2007). I posted it on the front page. By the way, the burden of proof was on you.

If you support gay marriage, you certainly are.

Well, I’d agree in one respect. If voting to define marriage is pushing one’s beliefs on someone, then voting to define marriage as a religious institution between one man and one woman is pushing one’s beliefs on someone as much as defining it as between two consenting adults. Voting against defining marriage is not pushing beliefs on someone though. Restricting a priest’s sacerdotal right to marry a couple would likewise be pushing one’s beliefs on someone.

Even if I were to agree with you (which I don’t) it was Christians, based on their religious beliefs, who argued for emancipation.

Christians with good grounding in scripture also argued against it.

All different kinds of religions, not just the Christian one.

Native Americans did not define marriage as between a biological male and female. Why restrict their religious freedom?

I don’t think we view that marriage restriction as being borne out of religious doctrine.

Actually, if we utilise Malthusian reasoning, in order to preserve a relatively comfortable state then the US would want to either adopt a one child policy or promote contraception, planned parenthood and homosexuality (or irrumato / any other form of non-generative sex) as much as possible. Exhortations to abstinence have been demonstrably ineffective.

Which acts would be passed if the state was actually concerned about underpopulation? Loosening immigration restrictions. Outlawing contraception. Increased expenditure on education and other childcare services. Forcing couples that have children into marriage. “Please think of the children” is just a smokescreen that was previously used to ban cinema in New York by the Christian Women’s Association.

As for laws being based on ignorance (consensus) and not sociological data: good call. I don’t think sociological data need necessary be collected before a law is passed. However, once a law is found to be useless based on the evidence, don’t you think it should be repealed? Or are you in favour of more government regulations in spite of the evidence?

Edit: realised this was about racial miscegenation.

[BigT]

@Der_Trihs

What if you aren’t religious? It’s religion, not government that shouldn’t have anything to do with marriage. Including imposing its religious dogma on who can and can’t get married by using the government.

Depends. Do you want a religious concept of marriage? Well, then you pretty much need to join a religion. You want the civil concept of having the state recognition of your de facto relationship, along with the various contracts this entails? The proposal is usually that these should be called “civil unions.” You just want to call yourself married and proclaim that to the world? Well, you already have that right–it’s called “freedom of speech.”

And, I know, you’d object to letting the religious have the word “marriage” when it’s been a civil institution just as long or longer. So I’d propose having a term “civil marriage.” I’d be perfectly fine with religious people deriding same sex couples as being “only civilly married, but not married in the eyes of [their] God.”

[DrFidelius]

@hoopified

Because the state, the people that make up that state, the culture in which the state exists, recognizes that a child is raised best by a man and a woman married to each other.

Well then, The State is wrong, and as a good citizen I am obligated to do everything I can to get The State on to the right track.

[BigT]

@Terr

You seriously think that this statement:

“It is better for children to bring them up within the marriage that produced them than outside of it or without it.” is bigoted?

If so, I am sorry, we’re so far apart, there is nothing to discuss.

Yes, there is. If you don’t see something as bigoted, and someone else does, there’s obviously at least room for that person to try to explain to you why they think it is bigoted.

The argument is that the statement is bigoted in that it counts one group of people, i.e. adoptive parents, as being inferior to another group, i.e. biological parents, when this has been proven to be untrue. The person making it is gravely intolerant to this truth. Only their own ideas have merit. That’s the definition of bigotry.

Also, despite your earlier contentions, it is not a secular reason. The entire concept is based on a religious tradition. As mentioned, the secular studies show that biological parents do not have any advantage over adoptive ones. Current secular thought says that your argument is false. It may have at one time been a secular reason, but it can be no longer. A legislator may not have to conduct a study, but they sure as heck can’t ignore already existing ones when the law (or traditional interpretation thereof) is being challenged.

Furthermore, your so-called secular argument is not even what the State actually thinks. If they did think that, then children would never be taken from their (married) biological parents. The State recognizes that biology does not somehow make you a superior parent. Heck, a state that did that wouldn’t allow adoption at all!

There may actually be an argument that it’s better to raise children by a married couple, I don’t know. But that would mean DOMA is actually working against children by decreasing the number of married couples. That’s a secular reason, sure, but it’s a secular reason against DOMA.

[tomndebb]

@The_Tao_s_Revenge

7I think you sympathies with the bigots, probably you are one yourself. Otherwise why the interest in promoting bigotry under such a stupid and transparent guise?

Knock it off. This thread is sufficiently hostile without making personal remarks.

[ /Moderating ]

[Steve_MB]

@hoopified

The secular interest is in preserving the best, most enviable environment

So saith your religion, on faith. Sorry, you don’t get to assume what you’ve been assigned to prove.

[Steve_MB]

@Terr

Depends on how micro is micro. Having to do full fertility testing before marriage would be much more micro. Just saying “man and woman? okay” is a bit more macro.

Nope. It’s equivalent to the old joke about losing a quarter on First Street and searching Third Street because there’s more light there.

[Steve_MB]

@Tristan

One hopes that Terr will return to post cogent facts to defend his stance

Well, returning from the alternate universe where these facts actually exist requires him to wait for anther ion storm to interact with the transporter beam just so.

[Steve_MB]

@Terr

I also don’t think it is the government’s business if the “marriage” is more than two people, or if they are related to each other outside of marriage. But the government decided to draw the line there. You want it drawn somewhere else. But once you want the line, you have accepted the idea of the line. Haggling where it is drawn is just details.

Once you draw the line between cases where the government is and is not allowed to kill people, haggling over where it is drawn is just details. Either become an absolute pacifist, or accept the Holocaust as just another policy decision.

(Some arguments are just so idiotic that it’s time to break out the Godwinizer to autoclave the stupidity virus away.)

[Steve_MB]

@Terr

Because the state needs population to propagate itself.

I swear to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I determined that Terr’s arguments had reached the level of inanity that justified breaking out the Godwinizer before I saw this post.