Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry

[Roses]

This, it turns out, is the big issue that influenced the courts to allow same sex marriage, in that opposition to it was likened to opposition to mixed race marriage.

But the argument is specious. If we look at it from the viewpoint of the family, anti-miscegenation is based on ideas of preserving racial purity and maintaining racial supremacy in a region. Its motivation is bad. Opposition to gay marriage is based on connecting a child to his/her biological parents. It fundamentally supports the offspring of a man and a woman, thus its motivation is good.

It's not the opponents of gay marriage who should be likened to the opponents of mixed race marriage, but those who support gay marriage, because they advocate sterility and prevention of the natural conception and rearing (by both biological parents) of children.

As long as children are well cared for it matters not whether their parents are a same sex couple, or male and female.

[Aruntraveller]

because they advocate sterility and prevention of the natural conception and rearing (by both biological parents) of children.

Yes of course. Because what the world needs now is a larger population.

And just for your information I, nor indeed any gay person I know has ever advocated "prevention of the natural conception and rearing (by both biological parents) of children."

That's something you have made up in your own little mind.

[Nearly Sane]

...because they advocate sterility and prevention of the natural conception and rearing (by both biological parents) of children.

  lying homophobic drivel.

[ProfessorDavey]

But the argument is specious. If we look at it from the viewpoint of the family, anti-miscegenation is based on ideas of preserving racial purity and maintaining racial supremacy in a region. Its motivation is bad. Opposition to gay marriage is based on connecting a child to his/her biological parents. It fundamentally supports the offspring of a man and a woman, thus its motivation is good.

What on earth has this to do with children - there is no mention in a civil marriage ceremony of children. In terms of civil marriage and civil society a decision to get married and a decision to have children are entirely independent matters. You can get married and choose not to have children - you can choose not to get married and choose to have children.

[Gordon]

This, it turns out, is the big issue that influenced the courts to allow same sex marriage, in that opposition to it was likened to opposition to mixed race marriage.

By whom: citations please.

But the argument is specious.

You haven't made an argument though nor demonstrated that others have - hence we need citations.

If we look at it from the viewpoint of the family, anti-miscegenation is based on ideas of preserving racial purity and maintaining racial supremacy in a region. Its motivation is bad.

So we don't subscribe to it, for various reasons.

Opposition to gay marriage is based on connecting a child to his/her biological parents. It fundamentally supports the offspring of a man and a woman, thus its motivation is good.

Only if 'good' can be found in overt homophobia, which is a driver in opposition to SSM, where this is often expressed on the basis of religious traditions and a presumption that marriage is defined according to these religious traditions - and it isn't, being a social institution.

It's not the opponents of gay marriage who should be likened to the opponents of mixed race marriage, but those who support gay marriage, because they advocate sterility and prevention of the natural conception and rearing (by both biological parents) of children.

That will be because they are subscribing to outdated homophobic religious traditions that, of course, just make them look like intolerant bigots since they are intolerant bigots. 

[SteveH]

The sexual orientation of the owner is irrelevant here. If people can refuse to put certain messages then it doesn't matter who or why.

"Evasion noted", as you like to say.

[Nearly Sane]

"Evasion noted", as you like to say.

No evasion. Just pointed out that the sexual orientation is actually irrelevant to the principle.
What do think I'm evading?

Unlike you editing this out of my post

'BTW can you cover what specific exemptions you want to  give to 'religious' people to be able to discriminate against gay people and why'
And completely ignoring it.

[Outrider]

But the argument is specious. If we look at it from the viewpoint of the family, anti-miscegenation is based on ideas of preserving racial purity and maintaining racial supremacy in a region.

The viewpoint of what family?  That idea of 'family' is itself a term that religions - Christianity in particular - have coopted to fit their particular restriction and definition.

Its motivation is bad.

That's your subjective opinion; it has exactly as much weight as my judgement that opposition to extending marriage to gay people comes from bad motivation.

Opposition to gay marriage is based on connecting a child to his/her biological parents.

You know how reproduction works, right?  If gay people get married, there are no children, that's why so many anti-gay arguments have that specious 'but they can't have children' argument.

It fundamentally supports the offspring of a man and a woman, thus its motivation is good.

That expectation that marriage will produce offspring is a different argument to connecting children to their parents; it's also expressly part of most Christian conceptions of marriage, but there's nothing intrinsic to the concept of marriage.  We don't deny marriage to straight people with no intention or capability of having children, so whilst it might be seen as desirable in some parts of the community it's far from a deal-breaker.

It's not the opponents of gay marriage who should be likened to the opponents of mixed race marriage, but those who support gay marriage, because they advocate sterility and prevention of the natural conception and rearing (by both biological parents) of children.

No, they don't, they realise that some people don't want children, some people do, some people on both sides of that are gay, but despite those combinations it turns out that marriage is about commitment to each other and building stable homes that benefit society and culture as a whole, regardless of whether there are children in that household.

As it is, developments in technology and institutions like adoption are increasingly bringing the option of parenting to gay couples.

O.

[Roses]

Less people are opting to marry these days, particularly heterosexuals, which is fine as long as if there are any children of the relationship they are well cared for. Not that marriage ensures that children are looked after as they deserve.

[SteveH]

Less people...

Fewer.

[jeremyp]

Been out all afternoon and wanted to make this point earlier.

Regarding the case of B&B v. Cake Makers.

The cake makers refused to make a cake because it carried a political message that they considered promoted gay marriage which they felt was against their religious beliefs. They were happy to bake a cake with a different message on it. (Like "Fuck off you poofs")

The B&B owners refused a room because they did not want to endorse a gay relationship which they felt was against their religious beliefs. They were happy for them to stay in separate rooms, so it is clear that they objected to endorsing the relationship. Does it make a difference that their prejudice didn't involve icing on a cake?

Is there a difference between the two stances? I can't see it. And as I can't see it, all those of you that objected to Spud's support of the B&B owners have now got to amend your views.

Your descriptions are slightly disingenuous. The B&B couple weren't endorsing anything by providing a service. They were providing a service. They claimed that they would not allow any unmarried couple to share a double room. They lost the case because the gay couple were technically married (i.e. in a civil partnership at a time when that was all that was available to gay couples). They were discriminated against because the landlords refused to accept that they qualified for a double room. There was no free speech issue involved at all.

The cake case is a free speech issue because the baker was being asked to put a message (i.e. speech) that they disagreed with on a cake. There are two principles at play: one is that a right to free speech also includes a right not to speak and also your right to speech does not imply a duty on me to give you a platform for that speech.

If I, a heterosexual, had walked into that shop and asked for the same cake, do you think the baker would have refused me? I think he probably would. The person who actually did walk into the shop was not refused service on the grounds of their sexuality.

[jeremyp]

This, it turns out, is the big issue that influenced the courts to allow same sex marriage, in that opposition to it was likened to opposition to mixed race marriage.

The courts didn't make that decision. They allow same sex marriage because it is the law - a law that was created by the combined efforts of two governments.

[Spud]

What on earth has this to do with children - there is no mention in a civil marriage ceremony of children. In terms of civil marriage and civil society a decision to get married and a decision to have children are entirely independent matters. You can get married and choose not to have children - you can choose not to get married and choose to have children.

The problem is that same sex marriage opens the door to same sex couples having children by way of donors or surrogates. This prevents children from being raised in a natural way by both biological parents, or at least by an adopted mother and father. I don't know what the incidence of this is, but it seems likely to happen, since the instinct to have children is universal, in straight and gay people.
 

Gays and lesbians demand that they have a “right” to have children to complete their sense of personal fulfillment, and in so doing, are trumping the right that children have to both a mother and a father—a right that same-sex marriage tramples over.

https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/9622/

[Spud]

The courts didn't make that decision. They allow same sex marriage because it is the law - a law that was created by the combined efforts of two governments.

Thanks - I should maybe have written, 'U.S. government' rather than 'courts'.

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), was a landmark civil rights decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that laws banning interracial marriage violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[1][2] The decision was followed by an increase in interracial marriages in the U.S. and is remembered annually on Loving Day. It has been the subject of several songs and three movies, including the 2016 film Loving. Beginning in 2013, it was cited as precedent in U.S. federal court decisions holding restrictions on same-sex marriage in the United States unconstitutional, including in the 2015 Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

[jeremyp]

The problem is that same sex marriage opens the door to same sex couples having children by way of donors or surrogates.

I don't see that as a problem.

This prevents children from being raised in a natural way by both biological parents, or at least by an adopted mother and father.

Is there any evidence that the children of gay couples suffer in any way by not having a parent of each sex?

If there is (there isn't, but let's pretend for a minute), it's not an argument for stopping gay people from getting married, it's an argument for stopping them from adopting children.

[jeremyp]

Thanks - I should maybe have written, 'U.S. government' rather than 'courts'.
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

I thought you were talking about Britain. The situation is different in the USA

[Roses]

The problem is that same sex marriage opens the door to same sex couples having children by way of donors or surrogates. This prevents children from being raised in a natural way by both biological parents, or at least by an adopted mother and father. I don't know what the incidence of this is, but it seems likely to happen, since the instinct to have children is universal, in straight and gay people.
 https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/9622/

Biological parents aren't always the best people to bring up children by any means. We have two adopted sons as well as our birth children, the eldest was removed from his biological parents as they abused him and his siblings. Our younger son was given up for adoption as he has Down's Syndrome and his biological parents didn't wish to raise him. As long as a child is given the love, care and attention they require it doesn't matter if their parents are gay, straight or non biological.

[ProfessorDavey]

If there is (there isn't, but let's pretend for a minute), it's not an argument for stopping gay people from getting married, it's an argument for stopping them from adopting children.

True, but it is far more nuanced than that.

You'd have to demonstrate that all gay couples provide a worse home environment for adoptive children than all straight couples to justify a blanket ban. Decisions on adoption should always be made on a case by case basis taking account of the needs of the child and the individual circumstances of the potential adopting parents.

[Outrider]

The problem is that same sex marriage opens the door to same sex couples having children by way of donors or surrogates. This prevents children from being raised in a natural way by both biological parents, or at least by an adopted mother and father.

And why's that a problem?  Numerous studies have shown that there's no significant impact on children of gay couples compared to children of straight couples, whilst there's a notable impact on children of divorced or separated parents, especially those who end up being raised by a single parent.  That can be reduced by implementing policies which increase the likelihood of have more, longer-lasting, stable marriages - like implementing gay marriage.

I don't know what the incidence of this is, but it seems likely to happen, since the instinct to have children is universal, in straight and gay people.

It's not universal by any stretch, but it's certainly more likely than not.
 

https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/9622/

So many fallacious arguments in one place, it's no surprise I've not seen this cited before.

It starts by saying the equality arguments originally deployed were based on reason, but now they're based on sophistry, but the arguments in favour of decriminalising homosexuality and affording gay people equal rights haven't changed.

Then he spouts nonsense about how opening marriage to gay people won't redefine it it will 'undefine' it, which is obviously untrue; if marriage still exists, in any form, then it can't have been 'undefined'.

And then with the pearl-clutching 'won't somebody think of the children' wail - it will deny children the right to a mum and a dad.  Children don't do any better or worse with two mums or two dads than with one of each, they do worse when they have only one parent, or when they don't have any at all.  There are continuously children growing up in care because there aren't stable families for them to be fostered or adopted by - the longer that gay couples are excluded from contributing to that solution the longer we'll see children being negatively affected by not having enough parental figures.

Drivel.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

The problem is that same sex marriage opens the door to same sex couples having children by way of donors or surrogates. This prevents children from being raised in a natural way by both biological parents, or at least by an adopted mother and father. I don't know what the incidence of this is, but it seems likely to happen, since the instinct to have children is universal, in straight and gay people.
 https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/9622/

But there are already countless heterosexual couples and individuals having children via donors and surrogates - are you planning to ban them from doing so.

[jeremyp]

True, but it is far more nuanced than that.

You'd have to demonstrate that all gay couples provide a worse home environment for adoptive children than all straight couples to justify a blanket ban.

I don't agree. I think you'd have to demonstrate that gay couples provide a dangerous home environment to justify a blanket ban.

Decisions on adoption should always be made on a case by case basis taking account of the needs of the child and the individual circumstances of the potential adopting parents.

Agreed. As a rule, we should alway treat people as individuals rather than assign them characteristics based on a group stereotype.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't agree. I think you'd have to demonstrate that gay couples provide a dangerous home environment to justify a blanket ban.

I think we are actually in agreement - we are effectively saying the same thing, albeit in a slightly different way.

[jeremyp]

I think we are actually in agreement - we are effectively saying the same thing, albeit in a slightly different way.

I was nit picking to an extent. Being bad at something is not a justification for legal restrictions, but being dangerously bad at something is.

However, it is a bad idea to legislate against a whole group just because some - or even most - of them would be dangerously bad at the activity. Spud's thesis is that same sex marriage should be banned because it will lead to dangerously bad parenting. It fails on two grounds: 1. marriage does not automatically mean children. 2. the generalisation "gay people make bad parents" is false.

[Outrider]

I was nit picking to an extent. Being bad at something is not a justification for legal restrictions, but being dangerously bad at something is.

However, it is a bad idea to legislate against a whole group just because some - or even most - of them would be dangerously bad at the activity. Spud's thesis is that same sex marriage should be banned because it will lead to dangerously bad parenting. It fails on two grounds: 1. marriage does not automatically mean children. 2. the generalisation "gay people make bad parents" is false.

Rest assured, gents, the data seems to show that they're no better or worse than anyone else

https://theconversation.com/factcheck-are-children-better-off-with-a-mother-and-father-than-with-same-sex-parents-82313

https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6309949/

https://qz.com/1320434/new-research-debunks-old-science-about-the-negative-effects-of-same-sex-parenting/

O.

[jeremyp]

Rest assured, gents, the data seems to show that they're no better or worse than anyone else

What a surprise.

Actually, I would have thought that they would be marginally better on the grounds that gay people don't have children by accident as a rule.