Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

The fact that your oppositors are so bad should not make you think that religion can be achievied trhough philosophy and rational thinking Ersi.

[Westboro Baptist Church] see the discontent over Trump and Clinton as their big chance and they might be right if they can get the word out.

Westboro Baptist Church is somewhere in his neighbourhood, if I'm not mistaken

Quote from: ersi on 2016-05-30, 04:07:49

Westboro Baptist Church is somewhere in his neighbourhood, if I'm not mistaken

Lol, no. And Europeans complain that an American might mistake. say the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Google informs me that Westboro Baptist church is a little under 1,300 miles (2029 km) from here.  Else where in the world, Europeans are feeling superior to Americans because we might misidentify their countries while forgetting one one those nations is the size of one of our states

You're the closest we have to a radical in this thread that we have on queer issues.

All I said was that the bible possibly doesn't say what you think it does.

Oh yeah, I also noted the queers were not even agitating about the stupid bathroom and that it was certain nutty sects of Christianity and the GOP that invented this whole "issue" and the LGBT just wanted to be left alone. What kind of person even sits around all day thinking of idiotic, spiteful laws like this anyway to address no-issues like this. They're the ones with mental problems.

don't know in what state you are. I don't mix up American states. I assumed you were somewhere South, but I was mistaken. I even explicitly allowed myself the chance to be mistaken.

This despite the fact that I have read it, even looked into some scholarly textual criticism, and you haven't? Frenzie here has commendably read it.

In what way am I radical? Is it radical to identify queerhood for what it is?

Quote from: ersi on 2016-05-31, 07:23:51

don't know in what state you are. I don't mix up American states. I assumed you were somewhere South, but I was mistaken. I even explicitly allowed myself the chance to be mistaken.

Nope, Las Vegas. Don't be so defensive, bro. On my part, I thought it was common knowledge in these forums so maybe I was mistaken. (in fact, Kansas is quit far from the South as well)

I made one mistake on the context meat and milk, but for the rest I was correct.

I didn't bother offering the full rebuttal because this thread is about what's happening in the Americas. It's not about the Bible.

The Bible itself has been argued over by people with more knowledge of it than both of us put together. Different equally knowledgable scholars read the bible in the original Greek and came to different conclusions.

As far as the Hebrew OT, the oldest very partial copies are from 600 BC and that's recent by biblical standards. More complete is the Nash Papyrus containing the Decalogue and Deuteronomy. You think it hasn't been altered the thousands of years prior to that?

Quote

In what way am I radical? Is it radical to identify queerhood for what it is?

Because you're blathering about how oppressive queers supposedly are.

So now with the ridiculous "bathroom bills" they're throwing rocks at him and will cry when they're in the hospital getting treated for snakebite again. And will even be surprised when that happens.  I think it was Einstein that said doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results is the definition of insanity. That's what's happening between the GOP and LGBT in America.

the gay lobby either demands the removal of "heteronormativity" or they try their best to teach "alternative family models" in schools and kindergartens.

marriage law itself was changed to specifically suit the gay lobby.

Of the religious right lobby that dwarfs the "gay lobby?"

Quote from: ersi on 2016-05-31, 11:38:15

the gay lobby either demands the removal of "heteronormativity" or they try their best to teach "alternative family models" in schools and kindergartens.

In other words, understand not all families are the same. A few percentage of kids might have same-sex parents and understand how to deal with it. Oh and the kids in those arrangements shouldn't be bullied because of it. Oh the horror This is not oppression by any reasonable stretch of the imagination.

Quote from: ersi on 2016-05-31, 11:38:15

marriage law itself was changed to specifically suit the gay lobby.

In America the solution was obvious except to the religious right. I mentioned the constitution, but there was also the idiocy of being married in one state, cross state lines and no longer being considered married (which is problematic for a variety of legal reasons.)

In America what you're talking about was called civil unions. The problem with that was also crossing state lines in that states didn't have to recognize them.

But neither civil unions type arrangements nor marriage oppress those that are offended by them. I do think clergy should be able to refuse to marriage the same-sex couple but a judge, as civil servant of ALL the people, should not be able to.

In America, religious right is at least putting up a semblance of a fight.

Ever considered it from the children's point of view? You know, they are supposed to learn in biology how kids are born, that everybody has a mother and father, biologically

So, now you call them civil unions. There should be no problem, as long as you don't mix them up with marriage.

Quote from: ersi on 2016-05-31, 15:38:19

Ever considered it from the children's point of view? You know, they are supposed to learn in biology how kids are born, that everybody has a mother and father, biologically

Wow is this getting silly. Sally being raised by Sue and Mary does not interfere with biology class. Grasp at straws much?

The idea of civil unions was thought up as an alternative to calling marriage. But there would be no requirement to recognize "civil unions" at the Federal level nor across state lines.

Further, it was questionable what a "civil union" was even supposed to be, ie would it have really granted equal protection under the law.

Another huge problem was also that the wording of the state amendments would have also outlawed "civil unions" not to mention deny protections for many heterosexual couples.

Not just biology class, but biology itself. There is no Sally born of Sue and Mary. You are presenting an impossibility as if it were a reality.

Equal to what? And why should it be equal?

Hence Germany (and Estonia) instituted additional laws called "cohabitation law" which gave a chance for same-sex couples under a different name, duplicating a bunch of regulations about marriage

You are not even attempting to show how they are the same or why they should be the same.

Quote from: ersi on 2016-06-01, 03:02:10

Not just biology class, but biology itself. There is no Sally born of Sue and Mary. You are presenting an impossibility as if it were a reality.

This is beyond silly. By the time biology is even taught, the students already know this. There are a number of ways Sue and Mary could be raising a child together. And it doesn't even necessarily mean one had sex with a man, although one might have (possibly one's a little sexually fluid, or she was attempting to have sex with a man before realized it wasn't for her keeping in mind to get pregnant a women just needs to lay their and doesn't even have to enjoy what's happening...) Or the child might have been adopted. You're presenting situations as impossibilities when their are multiple ways it could have happened (and does...)

Quote from: ersi on 2016-06-01, 03:02:10

Equal to what? And why should it be equal?

To remain in compliance with the constitution, which is the supreme law of the United States. No state, county or city law may violate the constitution.

If all the rights and protections are duplicated, I don't see a problem.

Quote from: ersi on 2016-06-01, 03:02:10

You are not even attempting to show how they are the same or why they should be the same.

Of course not. Everyone is supposed to be subject to the same rules. Nor am I attempting argue in favor of civil unions.

You did not even begin to tell how a Sally could be born of Sue and Mary. But I knew you wouldn't.

In what rational case is there against equal marriage.

There's the "think of the children" argument. The studies conclude the children are fine. All it boiled down to was that people's precious little religious feelings were hurt.

Are you saying it's rational to keep inventing new and redundant laws just because somebody's feelings are hurt. That's the moral equivalent of making new laws just for the sake of PC, just for the Right instead of the Left. 

Quote from: ersi on 2016-06-01, 09:18:11

You did not even begin to tell how a Sally could be born of Sue and Mary. But I knew you wouldn't.

Have you never heard of artificial insemination? Do I have to spoon feed you everything?

Can you point to one such study? I'd be interested in seeing their definition of "fine".

Abstract

Background
It has been suggested that children with same-sex attracted parents score well in psychosocial aspects of their health, however questions remain about the impact of stigma on these children. Research to date has focused on lesbian parents and has been limited by small sample sizes. This study aims to describe the physical, mental and social wellbeing of Australian children with same-sex attracted parents, and the impact that stigma has on them.

Methods
A cross-sectional survey, the Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families, was distributed in 2012 to a convenience sample of 390 parents from Australia who self-identified as same-sex attracted and had children aged 0-17 years. Parent-reported, multidimensional measures of child health and wellbeing and the relationship to perceived stigma were measured.

Results
315 parents completed the survey (completion rate = 81%) representing 500 children. 80% of children had a female index parent while 18% had a male index parent. Children in same-sex parent families had higher scores on measures of general behavior, general health and family cohesion compared to population normative data (β = 2.93, 95% CI = 0.35 to 5.52, P = .03; β = 5.60, 95% CI = 2.69 to 8.52, P = <.001; and β = 6.01, 95% CI = 2.84 to 9.17, P = <.001 respectively). There were no significant differences between the two groups for all other scale scores. Physical activity, mental health, and family cohesion were all negatively associated with increased stigma (β = -3.03, 95% CI = -5.86 to -0.21, P = .04; β = -10.45, 95% CI = -18.48 to -2.42, P = .01; and β = -9.82, 95% CI = -17.86 to -1.78, P = .02 respectively) and the presence of emotional symptoms was positively associated with increased stigma (β =0.94, 95% CI = 0.08 to 1.81, P = .03).

Conclusions
Australian children with same-sex attracted parents score higher than population samples on a number of parent-reported measures of child health. Perceived stigma is negatively associated with mental health. Through improved awareness of stigma these findings play an important role in health policy, improving child health outcomes.

Claims that children need both a mother and father presume that women and men parent differently in ways crucial to development but generally rely on studies that conflate gender with other family structure variables. We analyze findings from studies with designs that mitigate these problems by comparing 2-parent families with same or different sex coparents and single-mother with single-father families. Strengths typically associated with married mother-father families appear to the same extent in families with 2 mothers and potentially in those with 2 fathers. Average differences favor women over men, but parenting skills are not dichotomous or exclusive. The gender of parents correlates in novel ways with parent-child relationships but has minor significance for children's psychological adjustment and social success.

Watched a passing news item on the Libertarian Party. I know they only get 1% and it was curious they are in fact the only third party in every election area. The item also mentioned a poll saying that  - can't recall the actual figure but was over 40% of people would like more than a two party choice.