News Is Polygamy Legally Permitted in Canada?

[LowlyPion]

read the section on "Tolerance,..."

I read the whole thing and it folds in on itself apparently justifying their brand of tolerance which is apparently not to be tolerant of others.

I think they should be ashamed for trying to meddle with things that actually don't affect them in any other way than that they don't approve.

 

[rcgldr]

Regardless of how USA states deal with same sex marriage, it makes little difference at the USA federal level. The USA congress passed the defense of marriage act as a law back in 1996. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

Regarding "seperation of church and state" in the USA, these words don't exist in the constitution. Instead it's an interpretation of the first amendment which applied to the federal legislator and not individual states at the time it was written. The words "wall of separation between church and state" were included in letters written by Roger Williams and later Thomas Jefferson in reference to the first amendment. This leter and later court decisions also distinguished between opinions (beliefs) as opposed to actions (behaviors). The point here being that Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

Regarding religion versus homosexuality, note that communist China had no history of an Abrahamic religion, but homosexuality was illegal and persecuted until 1997:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_laws_of_the_world

Regarding homosexuality being innate ("born that way") or fixed (note some individuals sexual orientation does change over their lifetimes): Researchers have looked into a variety of possible causes for a homosexual orientation, including biological influences, prenatal hormones, prenatal stress, fraternal birth order, and environmental influences. The American Psychiatric Association has stated "some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime." However, the American Psychological Association has stated "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality

 

[siddharth]

No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

Wow... it's amazing that such a bill was passed. I mean, how can people not cringe when reading the text?

Let's see if Obama repeals this.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Let's see if Obama repeals this.

Of course the President doesn't have the power to do that, it would take an act of Congress.

 

[LowlyPion]

Of course the President doesn't have the power to do that, it would take an act of Congress.

No but he can introduce legislation and he can sign it if passed.

Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as married couples, including the right to assist their loved ones in times of emergency as well as equal health insurance, employment benefits, and property and adoption rights. Obama also believes we need to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions.

Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/lgbt.pdf

 

[LowlyPion]

Regarding religion versus homosexuality, note that communist China had no history of an Abrahamic religion, but homosexuality was illegal and persecuted until 1997:

This seems not a useful argument. Merely because others have chosen through history not to take enlightened approaches is not exactly a valid precedent within the context of a republic founded on equality in terms of application of the law to all.

If it were then we would still have emperors and harems and slaves and the people of the US would be paying taxes on tea to the Parliament in Britain wouldn't they?

 

[Art]

I'm in favour of same sex couples enjoying the same legal rights as heterosexual couples in terms of inheritance and tax but I am decidedly queasy about them having the same rights in terms of adoption and fostering as I see this as (rightly or wrongly) having a detrimental effect on the children involved. Saying this shouldn't effect children is fine, in a utopian world. but it's like saying as there shouldn't be any crime why have policemen. The reality is never as the ideal.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Hmmm... have you known any children raised by same sex couples? As the usual rejoinder goes, I have seen children raised by hetero couples come out lots worse.

I think someone chimed in earlier in the thread who said they'd been raised by a same sex couple.

⚛​

 

[Art]

Hmmm... have you known any children raised by same sex couples? As the usual rejoinder goes, I have seen children raised by hetero couples come out lots worse.

I think someone chimed in earlier in the thread who said they'd been raised by a same sex couple.

⚛​

I'm open to changing my mind to which end I'd be interested to read any statistics or case studies on the subject you could reference.

 

[quadraphonics]

Saying this shouldn't effect children is fine, in a utopian world. but it's like saying as there shouldn't be any crime why have policemen.

Except that there is ample evidence that same-sex adoption does not negatively affect children, and also that policing is necessary to check crime. If some compelling evidence is discovered that same-sex parentage has some deleterious effect on child development, then you might have a point. But to date, the experts are not convinced (the American Psychological Association, Child Welfare League of America and American Academy of Pediatrics all hold that same-sex adoptive parents are as fit as opposite-sex adoptive parents, for example). To compare same-sex parents with criminals, and same-sex adoption with anarchy, it a disgusting tactic.

And then there's the practical issue: if you reduce the pool of potential adoptive parents by excluding same-sex couples, you necessarily condemn more orphan children to grow up in foster care, orphanages, or single-parents homes, all of which have been conclusively shown to have negative effects on childhood development (unlike same-sex parentage). Which is to say that your stance amounts to inflicting certain damage on disadvantaged children in order to avoid some hypothesized (and scientifically unsupported) negative effects of same-sex adoptions. So please spare us the "save the children!" polemics: it's people like you, who place their own prejudices above the science of child welfare, that they need saving from.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I'm open to changing my mind to which end I'd be interested to read any statistics or case studies on the subject you could reference.

Well, is your belief that children would be detrimentally affected by growing up this way due to statistics or case studies you've read? If you could explain to me where you're coming from I could better find research to respond to your concerns.

⚛​

 

[Art]

Well, is your belief that children would be detrimentally affected by growing up this way due to statistics or case studies you've read? If you could explain to me where you're coming from I could better find research to respond to your concerns.

⚛​

As you are the one arguing to change the status quo the onus is on you to show no damage to children will result.

 

[Art]

To compare same-sex parents with criminals, and same-sex adoption with anarchy, it a disgusting tactic.

You either accidentally or perhaps more likely deliberately missed my point which was; although it would be nice if everything in life was perfect, unfortunately it isn't. The criminal analogy obviously refers to the bullies not the victims which would have been pretty apparent to most people. A Freudian slip by you perhaps?

Maybe times have changed which is why I said I am amenable to changing my opinion but when I was in school a child with same sex parents would have had a very miserable time of it. I know I found school a pain being the only Irish person there (this was in England) so I can empathise with the pain somebody would have felt having two same sex parents.

It is wrong and I in no way condone such behaviour but it doesn't change the fact that that is how things were and unless you can show otherwise still are and ultimately it is the well-being of the children which matters the most.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

As you are the one arguing to change the status quo the onus is on you to show no damage to children will result.

The status quo in the States where I am is that children who are raised in a damaging fashion by adoptive or foster parents are removed from the custody of those parents and that, for example, the possibility that a black child adopted by white parents might be picked on in school for it is not grounds for denying adoption, I don't believe. I would think the same thing would be true in the U.K. but I won't make assertions.

The highest quality and most comprehensive summarizing research paper I've come across in a brief search is http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/docs/Justice_Child_Development.pdf" . Here is a paragraph from the conclusion section of the report, p. 49:

Extent to which children's social competence differs in heterosexual versus lesbian and gay two-parent families

The strongest conclusion that can be drawn from the empirical literature is that the vast majority of studies show that children living with two mothers and children living with a mother and father have the same levels and qualities of social competence. A few studies suggest that children with two lesbian mothers may have marginally better social competence than children in ‘traditional nuclear’ families, even fewer studies show the opposite, and most studies fail to find any differences. The very limited body of research on children with two gay fathers supports this same conclusion. We can tenatively suggest that children with two gay fathers do not seem to differ in social competence from children with a mother and father, although more research on the families of gay fathers clearly is needed. Given the currently available literature, an objective evaluation of empirical research supports only one conclusion: Whether a child's two parents are heterosexual or lesbian or gay has no significant discernable impact on that child's social competence.

(My emphasis on the last sentence.)

⚛​

 

[kathrynag]

Hmmm... have you known any children raised by same sex couples? As the usual rejoinder goes, I have seen children raised by hetero couples come out lots worse.

I think someone chimed in earlier in the thread who said they'd been raised by a same sex couple.

⚛​

Yes, that was me. If you have any questions just ask.

 

[Math Is Hard]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lleannee/3032216313/sizes/l/

:)

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You either accidentally or perhaps more likely deliberately missed my point which was; although it would be nice if everything in life was perfect, unfortunately it isn't. The criminal analogy obviously refers to the bullies not the victims which would have been pretty apparent to most people. A Freudian slip by you perhaps?

Maybe times have changed which is why I said I am amenable to changing my opinion but when I was in school a child with same sex parents would have had a very miserable time of it. I know I found school a pain being the only Irish person there (this was in England) so I can empathise with the pain somebody would have felt having two same sex parents.

It is wrong and I in no way condone such behaviour but it doesn't change the fact that that is how things were and unless you can show otherwise still are and ultimately it is the well-being of the children which matters the most.

I think that the Cap'n probably provided a good source of information.
Aside from that I would remind you of a similar argument we've had on CTT. Kids in school get picked on. It just happens. When I was in school my peers were derided for all manner of reasons. They got picked on for being too ugly or being too pretty, for being geeks or being jocks, for being stoners or being straight edge (nondrug users), ect. And the best thing for any kid that may get picked on in school (which would be most of them) would be to have a strong sense of self and parents who will communicate with them about such issues. I would hazard a guess that homosexual parents would possibly be even better for a child in this regard since they themselves likely suffered issues of personal identity and ridicule in school.

And can an irishman have really had that bad a time dealing with it? Did you threaten to bomb them? ;-p

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lleannee/3032216313/sizes/l/

:)

That's awesome! Funny that I just read earlier on a friend's journal that someone was sneered at by their cohorts at a protest for carrying a sign that said "Prop 8 is so Gay".

Personally I thought the "Chickens have more rights than Gay people" bit was rather ridiculous.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

And can an irishman have really had that bad a time dealing with it? Did you threaten to bomb them? ;-p

Er, he may have been suffering because of exactly that kind of stuff...

⚛​

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Er, he may have been suffering because of exactly that kind of stuff...

⚛​

A joke. Hence the smiley. ;-p

 

[BobG]

And can an irishman have really had that bad a time dealing with it? Did you threaten to bomb them? ;-p

A joke. Hence the smiley. ;-p

One that probably wasn't in particularly good taste.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

One that probably wasn't in particularly good taste.

I apologize then to Art (or anyone else) if they took offense. I assume from other conversations we've had he probably took it in good humour, though I could be wrong.

 

[Art]

I apologize then to Art (or anyone else) if they took offense. I assume from other conversations we've had he probably took it in good humour, though I could be wrong.

I know TSA so no offence taken in the least, I took it as a joke as it was intended however just be careful opening your mail for the next week or two

 

[Art]

The status quo in the States where I am is that children who are raised in a damaging fashion by adoptive or foster parents are removed from the custody of those parents and that, for example, the possibility that a black child adopted by white parents might be picked on in school for it is not grounds for denying adoption, I don't believe. I would think the same thing would be true in the U.K. but I won't make assertions.

The highest quality and most comprehensive summarizing research paper I've come across in a brief search is http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/docs/Justice_Child_Development.pdf" . Here is a paragraph from the conclusion section of the report, p. 49: (My emphasis on the last sentence.)

⚛​

Perhaps the US is more enlightened than the UK in this regard but a fairly recent report says homophobic bullying in UK schools is still endemic

Bullying

*
Almost two thirds (65 per cent) of young lesbian, gay and bisexual people experience homophobic bullying in Britain’s schools (Stonewall, School Report 2007).
*
Seventy five per cent of young gay people in faith schools experience homophobic bullying and are less likely than pupils in other schools to report it (Stonewall, The School Report 2007).
*
Of those who have been bullied, 92 per cent have experienced verbal homophobic bullying, 41 per cent physical bullying and 17 per cent death threats (Stonewall, The School Report 2007).
*
Half of those who have experienced homophobic bullying have skipped school because of it and one in five has skipped school more than six times. A third of gay pupils who have been bullied are likely to miss school in the future (Stonewall, The School Report 2007).

http://www.stonewall.org.uk/education_for_all/research/1731.asp

 

[CaptainQuasar]

The U.S. is more enlightened? That study I showed you is from Canada. Does this mean you didn't even read that paragraph, much less the report you had me go find for you?

It's pretty obvious now that you simply sent me off on a wild goose chase for some research because you wanted an excuse to go dig up your own studies. Or perhaps you already had that prepared. You have represented your side of the argument very well.

By the way, you realize that "homophobic bullying" probably just means the bully called the other kid a "poof" or something in the course of the bullying, don't you? Did this never happen to you? Did having straight parents prevent kids from calling you names like that? Not that I expect you to answer any points like that, just as you ignored the issue of whether the potential for a child to be bullied is a criterion for straight parents adopting.

⚛​

 

[NeoDevin]

Perhaps the US is more enlightened than the UK in this regard but a fairly recent report says homophobic bullying in UK schools is still endemic

http://www.stonewall.org.uk/education_for_all/research/1731.asp

Do you have any statistics which compare this with the rate of bullying amongst all students?

 

[LowlyPion]

More layoffs at Focus on the Family
Ministry spent more than $500,000 to pass California's Prop. 8 gay marriage ban
By Cara Degette 11/17/08 11:50 AM
UPDATE: Focus on the Family announced this afternoon that 202 jobs will be cut companywide — more than 20 percent of its workforce. Initial reports bring the total number of remaining employees to around 950.

Focus on the Family is poised to announce major layoffs to its Colorado Springs-based ministry and media empire today. The cutbacks come just weeks after the group pumped more than half a million dollars into the successful effort to pass a gay-marriage ban in California.

Critics are holding up the layoffs, which come just two months after the organization’s last round of dismissals, as a sad commentary on the true priorities of ministry.

“If I were their membership I would be appalled,” said Mark Lewis, a longtime Colorado Springs activist who helped organize a Proposition 8 protest in Colorado Springs on Saturday. “That [Focus on the Family] would spend any money on anything that’s obviously going to get blocked in the courts is just sad. [Prop. 8] is guaranteed to lose, in the long run it doesn’t have a chance — it’s just a waste of money.”

In all, Focus pumped $539,000 in cash and another $83,000 worth of non-monetary support into the measure to overturn a California Supreme Court ruling that allowed gays and lesbians to marry in that state. The group was the seventh-largest donor to the effort in the country. The cash contributions are equal to the salaries of 19 Coloradans earning the 2008 per capita income of $29,133.

In addition Elsa Prince, the auto parts heiress and longtime funder of conservative social causes who sits on the Focus on the Family board, contributed another $450,000 to Prop. 8.

“They should do more with their half-million dollars than spending it to collect signatures to take the rights away from a class of people,” said Fred Karger, the founder of the anti-Prop 8 group Californians Against Hate. “I think it’s wrong and it’s hurtful to so many Americans.”

http://coloradoindependent.com/1528...prop-8-focus-on-the-family-announcing-layoffs

 

[drankin]

Regardless of who spent the money to get it going, the people voted for it. I think it's funny that people attack where the money came from on this issue when it was approved by people voting for it. Just could just as easily voted against it.

 

[LowlyPion]

Regardless of who spent the money to get it going, the people voted for it. I think it's funny that people attack where the money came from on this issue when it was approved by people voting for it. Just could just as easily voted against it.

It does make you wonder though about what kind of meddlesome busybodies from out of state would see fit to attempt to influence such mean-spirited Propositions that would attempt to impose faith based views of conduct on society.

 

[BobG]

Regardless of who spent the money to get it going, the people voted for it. I think it's funny that people attack where the money came from on this issue when it was approved by people voting for it. Just could just as easily voted against it.

It does make you wonder though about what kind of meddlesome busybodies from out of state would see fit to attempt to influence such mean-spirited Propositions that would attempt to impose faith based views of conduct on society.

$37.6 million spent to oppose Proposition 8. $35.8 million spent to support Proposition 8.
http://cbs5.com/local/proposition.8.spending.2.855582.html

Spending was roughly equal, so I don't think the money was an issue at all.

 

[NeoDevin]

$37.6 million spent to oppose Proposition 8. $35.8 million spent to support Proposition 8.
http://cbs5.com/local/proposition.8.spending.2.855582.html

Spending was roughly equal, so I don't think the money was an issue at all.

No, but honesty of those spending it was.

 

[LowlyPion]

Consider the hypocrisy supported by Gingrich.

It's these far right nutballs that are so keen to impose their version of marriage on everyone - to impose the tyranny of their vision of the rights of the married - to deny to committed gays and lesbians rights of marriage - and here Gingrich has the nerve to characterize his brand of fascism as justified in trying to disenfranchise those who merely want to be treated equally.

Would he have as well called the slaves fascists for wanting to be freed?

GINGRICH: Look, I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment. I think it is prepared to use the government if it can get control of it. I think that it is a very dangerous threat to anybody who believes in traditional religion. And I think if you believe in historic Christianity, you have to confront the fact. And, frank -- for that matter, if you believe in the historic version of Islam or the historic version of Judaism, you have to confront the reality that these secular extremists are determined to impose on you acceptance of a series of values that are antithetical, they're the opposite, of what you're taught in Sunday school.

O'REILLY: Are you surprised at the speed of it? You figure that there'd be --

GINGRICH: Oh, I --

O'REILLY: -- a two-week breathing, you know -- wham.

GINGRICH: No. I think -- I think when the left -- when the radicals lost the vote in California, they are determined to impose their will on this country no matter what the popular opinion, no matter what the law of the land. You've watched them, for example, in Massachusetts, basically drive the Catholic Church out of running adoption services, drive Catholic hospitals out of offering any services, because they impose secular rules that are fundamentally --

http://mediamatters.org/items/200811170014

 

[drankin]

Consider the hypocrisy supported by Gingrich.

It's these far right nutballs that are so keen to impose their version of marriage on everyone - to impose the tyranny of their vision of the rights of the married - to deny to committed gays and lesbians rights of marriage - and here Gingrich has the nerve to characterize his brand of fascism as justified in trying to disenfranchise those who merely want to be treated equally.

Would he have as well called the slaves fascists for wanting to be freed?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200811170014

I don't think the slavery issue is a relevant analogy. Why would a majority of blacks support the Prop? Marriage between opposite genders is an ideology that the majority chose to uphold in their state. No one needs to be "freed" from anything.

 

[Art]

The U.S. is more enlightened? That study I showed you is from Canada. Does this mean you didn't even read that paragraph, much less the report you had me go find for you?

It's pretty obvious now that you simply sent me off on a wild goose chase for some research because you wanted an excuse to go dig up your own studies. Or perhaps you already had that prepared. You have represented your side of the argument very well.

By the way, you realize that "homophobic bullying" probably just means the bully called the other kid a "poof" or something in the course of the bullying, don't you? Did this never happen to you? Did having straight parents prevent kids from calling you names like that? Not that I expect you to answer any points like that, just as you ignored the issue of whether the potential for a child to be bullied is a criterion for straight parents adopting.

⚛​

Firstly I confess I missed the fact the report you quoted was for Canada. You had been talking about tolerance in the US and so I had it in mind that the source you quoted was intended to support your contentions re the US (silly me), however I did indeed read it and was tempted on the basis of the very small sample size used (as acknowledged by the author) to question the validity of any conclusions but rather than leave myself open to an accusation of being churlish and being genuinely grateful you had taken the trouble to go and find the data I instead decided to accept the conclusion verbatim, credit (wrongly) the US with it's enlightened view, and see how it compared with the UK which anecdotal evidence suggested to me was polar opposite to what your source suggested. The report I found reinforced my suspicions.

It appears not only did you not read the report I referenced but you didn't even read the extract I posted, wherein it categorises the specific types of bullying with 17% receiving actual death threats; somewhat more serious than verbal taunts which IMO are in themselves pretty serious. Would it be acceptable for people to bandy around taunts like cool person and wog in the school yard? I think you do the gay community a grave injustice by minimising the hurtfulness of such verbal assaults.

To address the other points you accused me of avoiding (though why you think I would I have no idea) In the UK straight adoptive parents are indeed ethnically matched with adopted children for a variety of reasons (unreasonably so some say, myself included) and though I'm not sure what it has to do with anything, no I was never called a poof or any other gay slur.

Adoption matches 'too stringent'

Some councils are too stringent in getting an exact match for ethnic minority children who are up for adoption, charities claim.

The children's charity NCH says councils should be putting more focus on the needs of youngsters.

Figures show non-white children spend many months longer in care waiting for adoption than their white counterparts. The UK's adoption association said it was important that children should be helped to be proud of their heritage.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7466949.stm

The pc attitude of the UK adoption board has been reinforced by the experiences of black children who are now themselves adults who were adopted by white parents and now claim 'Love is not enough' Will children adopted by gay couples be adding their voice to this chorus in years to come?

Race dilemma at the heart of our adoption crisis

The second are the new voices joining the debate - black and mixed-race children who were adopted by white families in the Sixties and Seventies are now adults and are becoming increasingly vocal about their experiences of lifelong identity issues, mental health problems and deep feelings of isolation that came with even the most loving of homes. Their mantra is that 'love is not enough'.
snip
His parents were 'supportive and loving', but for David that did not counteract what he describes as a 'lifelong experience of verbal and physical abuse and various types of sophisticated institutional racisms'. He has found tremendous similarities with other interracial adoptees and says: 'All of us are on a journey, but it will have no resolution for us. I don't think they [social workers] have a grasp of the enormity of it. People aren't tracked through life. Mental health services have no grasp of it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jul/06/children.communities1

I think we both actually agree on what the end result should look like but have very different views on how to achieve the goal. Correct me if I'm misrepresenting you but my impression is you believe change should be bulldozed through immediately over the objections of 'unreasonable' traditionalists whereas my thinking is that all the evidence shows a tremendous amount of ground work needs to be done first to pave the way, particularly in the area of re-education of today's youth, to prepare people to accept the change and thus avoid future conflict.

My concern remains solely that I would not like to see children being martyred in the cause of supporting an adult's strongly held views irrelevant of whether those views are correct or not.

 

[Art]

Do you have any statistics which compare this with the rate of bullying amongst all students?

Yes, 31% of people (including all sexualities) report being bullied at school which is far less than the 67 - 75% of gay people who suffered. If you removed the gay people from the sample the percentage difference of hetrosexual victims to gay victims would be even greater. http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/resourcesforprofessionals/Statistics/KeyCPStats/10_wda48744.html

Bullying in schools has been a key priority for the UK gov't with all schools obliged by law since 1999 to have anti-bullying policies.

The problem with homophobic bullying is that studies (such as the one I cited) show schools seem to treat this as outside the scope of their general anti-bullying policy with at worst teachers actively participating in using derogatory gay terminology themselves or at best condoning it by ignoring it's use by their students.

 

[LowlyPion]

I don't think the slavery issue is a relevant analogy. Why would a majority of blacks support the Prop? Marriage between opposite genders is an ideology that the majority chose to uphold in their state. No one needs to be "freed" from anything.

Well in the day, slaves didn't get much of a say about anything now did they. And Gingrich's statements would seem to me to be tantamount to any slaveholder that would have suggested that blacks were being uppity fascists for wanting to free themselves in order to enjoy the same rights as all people in the supposed land of the Free.

Should we have allowed then the states of the Confederacy to have maintained slavery simply because a majority vote said that they must be in order to get the crops in?

It's equally analogous that today's moral ideologues are attempting to create a tyranny of a majority against the equal enjoyment of the law by a minority with which they do not agree. It is precisely this kind of tyranny of the many against the few that the US Constitution should insure against.

 

[NeoDevin]

Marriage between opposite genders is an ideology that the majority chose to uphold in their state. No one needs to be "freed" from anything.

If "back in the day" a majority chose to uphold the ideologies prohibiting interracial marriage, would you say that the minority of interracial couples who wanted to marry were being discriminated against?

It's the same thing, you have the minority of homosexual couples and a few heterosexual supporters who want the same freedoms for homosexuals that heteros have, against the majority of closed minded (and misinformed) heterosexuals who wish to deny them that right.

 

[NeoDevin]

I've had a little time now to read through your stats Art,

Yes, 31% of people (including all sexualities) report being bullied at school which is far less than the 67 - 75% of gay people who suffered. If you removed the gay people from the sample the percentage difference of hetrosexual victims to gay victims would be even greater. http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/resourcesforprofessionals/Statistics/KeyCPStats/10_wda48744.html

From your earlier http://www.stonewall.org.uk/education_for_all/research/1731.asp":

Research carried out in 2003 found that 51% of gay men and 30% of lesbians reported being bullied physically at school, compared with 47% of heterosexual men and 20% of heterosexual women.

There is still an increase between homosexuals and heteros, but not nearly as drastic as the 31% vs. 75% you get by comparing the two different sources. What's more, assuming approximately equal numbers of men and women, the statistics from your earlier link claim that about 34% of heterosexuals experience physical bullying, as compared to your later link's claim of 31% for all forms of bullying. Clearly no conclusions can be drawn from the comparison. I would imagine the studies used in your earlier link had a much looser definition of bullying than your later one. So the difference between bullying between heteros and homos is probably on the order of 10-20%, rather than the 35-45% you were claiming (no direct comparison of all forms of bullying is given, this is just a guess on my part). That being said, there is still an increase in bullying between the two groups, and it must be taken into account when deciding about adoption (the well being of the children should be the first consideration, not the rights of the parents-to-be, we agree on that much Art).

Also from your earlier source:

Seven in ten gay pupils have never been taught about lesbian and gay people or seen lesbian and gay issues addressed in class

Lesbian and gay pupils who have been taught about gay issues are 13 per cent less likely to experience homophobic bullying

So it seems from this that providing an education about gay issues would reduce the difference from 10-20% to under 10%, further, if this statistic holds if the education is given at home as well as at school, then proper parenting could do this, without the burden on the school system (and conservative parents complaining about their children being taught about homosexuality). Given the alternative of the child being raised in foster homes, I think a <10% increase in can be considered to be in the child's best interests.

And finally, this entire discussion is a red herring, since the statistics are for gay or lesbian children, and not for children of gay or lesbian parents. It could be argued that children of gay or lesbian parents are more likely to be gay or lesbian themselves, and that may be, but again since that would only be a fraction of cases, then you will only have a fraction of a <10% increase in bullying to worry about.

 

[Art]

I've had a little time now to read through your stats Art,From your earlier http://www.stonewall.org.uk/education_for_all/research/1731.asp":There is still an increase between homosexuals and heteros, but not nearly as drastic as the 31% vs. 75% you get by comparing the two different sources. .

I think you are misreading the data. My first link detailed the findings of a 2007 report and referenced a 2003 report where the lower figures you cite came from. Whether the intention of the author was to show things had deteriorated between 2003 and 2007 or whether the original report was flawed isn't made clear. Regardless it is safe to say the authors figure the 2007 data supersedes the older data otherwise they wouldn't have published it.

And finally, this entire discussion is a red herring, since the statistics are for gay or lesbian children, and not for children of gay or lesbian parents. It could be argued that children of gay or lesbian parents are more likely to be gay or lesbian themselves, and that may be, but again since that would only be a fraction of cases, then you will only have a fraction of a <10% increase in bullying to worry about.

Are you seriously suggesting the school homophobes aren't going to leap onto a situation where a fellow student has two same sex parents ? You have got to be kidding!

 

[mgb_phys]

I'm not saying that children of gay couples don't get teased at school. 30 years ago children of mixed race parents got teased, 20 years ago children of Irish parents get teased. Today they probably get teased for not having an iPhone.

But you have to take any survey of schoolkids, especially a self selected one, with a large pinch of salt.
If you ask children about sex / drug taking/ crime etc in front of their peers you tend to get a slightly skewed answer. This is usually the methodolgy behind shock headlines showing that 90% of 11 year olds have sex, steal cars and take coke.

Add in a requirement to have a bullying policy, a bullying reporting stats and a keen young teacher as bullying coordinator and suddenly a spitball becomes a terrorist attack.

 

[Art]

I'm not saying that children of gay couples don't get teased at school. 30 years ago children of mixed race parents got teased, 20 years ago children of Irish parents get teased. Today they probably get teased for not having an iPhone.

But you have to take any survey of schoolkids, especially a self selected one, with a large pinch of salt.
If you ask children about sex / drug taking/ crime etc in front of their peers you tend to get a slightly skewed answer. This is usually the methodolgy behind shock headlines showing that 90% of 11 year olds have sex, steal cars and take coke.

Add in a requirement to have a bullying policy, a bullying reporting stats and a keen young teacher as bullying coordinator and suddenly a spitball becomes a terrorist attack.

Teased? 17% of gay students received death threats! That's some serious teasing!

At least 16 children a year in the UK commit suicide because of bullying; to trivialise this as they were being teased is pretty disgraceful.

 

[mgb_phys]

Yes bullying happens and needs to be dealt with.
The solution is to allow teachers to discipline, punish and ban students like they could years ago. The solution is not to put an inexperienced new teacher in charge of designing a coordinated bullying reporting policy and website.

I'm saying that you cannot believe the majority of psychology 101 type surveys of school kids. And as NeoDevin said the whole point is irrelevant anyway.

 

[drankin]

Well in the day, slaves didn't get much of a say about anything now did they. And Gingrich's statements would seem to me to be tantamount to any slaveholder that would have suggested that blacks were being uppity fascists for wanting to free themselves in order to enjoy the same rights as all people in the supposed land of the Free.

Should we have allowed then the states of the Confederacy to have maintained slavery simply because a majority vote said that they must be in order to get the crops in?

It's equally analogous that today's moral ideologues are attempting to create a tyranny of a majority against the equal enjoyment of the law by a minority with which they do not agree. It is precisely this kind of tyranny of the many against the few that the US Constitution should insure against.

Again, you cannot compare slavery to same sex marriage. It's not relevant to this conversation. A majority rules in a Democracy. History has shown that is not good for minorities in rights the majority holds. These wrongs have been righted. Homosexuals cannot be classified as a minority. It's a preference. People of the same race and gender have the same rights in this country. Marriage isn't a Constitution right. It's not in the Bill of rights. You can't compare marital rights to these things. It's a state by state issue. And California, the most lib state in the union has voted.

 

[NeoDevin]

I think you are misreading the data. My first link detailed the findings of a 2007 report and referenced a 2003 report where the lower figures you cite came from. Whether the intention of the author was to show things had deteriorated between 2003 and 2007 or whether the original report was flawed isn't made clear. Regardless it is safe to say the authors figure the 2007 data supersedes the older data otherwise they wouldn't have published it.

The reason I chose those statistics to quote was because they were the only ones for which a direct comparison from the same source was possible, thus we can assume that the two figures are using the same definition of bullying (some may include minor teasing or avoidance, others may only consider outright insults, etc.). I highlighted the discrepancy between the two sources to show why a direct comparison is impossible without more information.

Are you seriously suggesting the school homophobes aren't going to leap onto a situation where a fellow student has two same sex parents ? You have got to be kidding!

They won't be nearly so quick to criticize as when their fellow student is themselves homosexual.

Another thing we need to keep in mind when reading these statistics is subjective bias of the respondents. For example, I don't know how many times growing up I heard someone say "you're such a fag", or "that's gay" or something similar (in the same way as they might say "you're such a loser" or "that sucks", without actually intending to refer to sexuality, losing at a particular activity or whatever). As a straight white male, I never thought twice about people using such an expression, and would never have claimed to have been bullied just because someone said I was a fag. A homosexual student on the other hand, if called a fag would be far more likely to take that as bullying, and, in particular, as bullying because of the fact that they are homosexual.

Without a consistent (and explained) definition of what they are considering bullying, what they are considering homophobic bullying, etc. between studies, any comparison is pointless. Further, because of the subjectiveness I just explained, you can't extrapolate from homosexual students to students with homosexual parents.

I'm not saying that your argument is wrong, just that you haven't yet presented data which supports it. I fully agree that, if it can be shown that being raised by same-sex parents is more detrimental for the children than the alternatives (foster care), then it should not be permitted. I haven't yet seen any good argument that this is the case.

 

[drankin]

I hear that kids are getting harassed for having red hair and freckles.

 

[NeoDevin]

Homosexuals cannot be classified as a minority. It's a preference. People of the same race and gender have the same rights in this country.

In that case a religious group cannot be classified as a minority.

 

[drankin]

In that case a religious group cannot be classified as a minority.

Not in a legal sense, no.

 

[Art]

The reason I chose those statistics to quote was because they were the only ones for which a direct comparison from the same source was possible, thus we can assume that the two figures are using the same definition of bullying (some may include minor teasing or avoidance, others may only consider outright insults, etc.). I highlighted the discrepancy between the two sources to show why a direct comparison is impossible without more information.

They won't be nearly so quick to criticize as when their fellow student is themselves homosexual.

Another thing we need to keep in mind when reading these statistics is subjective bias of the respondents. For example, I don't know how many times growing up I heard someone say "you're such a fag", or "that's gay" or something similar (in the same way as they might say "you're such a loser" or "that sucks", without actually intending to refer to sexuality, losing at a particular activity or whatever). As a straight white male, I never thought twice about people using such an expression, and would never have claimed to have been bullied just because someone said I was a fag. A homosexual student on the other hand, if called a fag would be far more likely to take that as bullying, and, in particular, as bullying because of the fact that they are homosexual.

Without a consistent (and explained) definition of what they are considering bullying, what they are considering homophobic bullying, etc. between studies, any comparison is pointless. Further, because of the subjectiveness I just explained, you can't extrapolate from homosexual students to students with homosexual parents.

I'm not saying that your argument is wrong, just that you haven't yet presented data which supports it. I fully agree that, if it can be shown that being raised by same-sex parents is more detrimental for the children than the alternatives (foster care), then it should not be permitted. I haven't yet seen any good argument that this is the case.

I've provided plenty of evidence to support my opinion that there are some fundamental flaws in society that need fixing before you could even think of dropping an adopted child into the potential minefield of a same sex parent relationship.
If you and some others here choose to ignore or deride the studies done on homophobic behaviour in schools and how it affects children on the grounds your opinions outweigh any facts I produce then there really isn't much point in continuing this discussion

I am glad that you, as a self proclaimed white straight person, are not offended to hear terms like fag tossed around By the same token not many white people would be too offended by being called a wog or a cool person but one would have to be really obtuse not to see how these terms would be highly insulting and/or threatening to someone who actually meets the criteria particularly if the person making the comments knows or suspects you meet the criteria.

 

[Art]

Homosexuals cannot be classified as a minority. It's a preference.

Just to clarify are you saying one's sexual preference is a matter of personal choice? like you wake up one morning and say hmmm I think I'll be a homosexual today?

 

[drankin]

Just to clarify are you saying one's sexual preference is a matter of personal choice? like you wake up one morning and say hmmm I think I'll be a homosexual today?

I'm not getting sucked into your argument. I've had plenty of homosexuals ask me to "try it". In which case I might wake up one morning and say just that.

 

[Art]

I hear that kids are getting harassed for having red hair and freckles.

Harassed? You mean like this?

“I’ve been stabbed because of my sexuality.”
Joe, now 19, comprehensive school (West Midlands)

“On three occasions I have been assaulted and had to
go to hospital to be examined and get the police
involved.” Ali, 17, secondary school (Greater London)

“Beaten up, unable to walk for nearly a year, only
recovering after an operation.” Jamelia, 18,
grammar school (South East)

http://www.stonewall.org.uk/documents/school_report.pdf

Some kids just don't know how to take a bit of harmless teasing