Prop 8 Passed

[curiosityandthecat]

Hey Curio, where's your Permabanned clip?

I'm here to please.

[Stoicheion]

LOLz what movie is that from?

[curiosityandthecat]

LOLz what movie is that from?

Probably 21 Jump Street, though I have no idea what episode. Aren't the internets fun?  

[Jolly Sapper]

I'll raise my glass in disappointment as well, Act 1 passed in Arkansas.  It is a ban against unwed or/or cohabitating people from adopting or fostering a child.

[jrosebud]

I'll raise my glass in disappointment as well, Act 1 passed in Arkansas.  It is a ban against unwed or/or cohabitating people from adopting or fostering a child.

That's rediculous.  

[rlrose328]

Yup, they knew they couldn't get away with banning gays from adopting, so they went with unmarried couples.  Because we know that having a married mom and dad guarantees all children will be straight and problem-free, right?  

[Stoicheion]

[silentone13]

What the hell?  :mad:

[Lila]

Thank God that a persecuted minority has finally had its rights taken away. If they are allowed to get married, they'll think they're equal to the straight folks! *sarcasm*

[crocofish]

This past election, it was almost like the religious right expected that the Republicans would not win the presidency with the low approval of the Bush administration.  They poured their energy and money into social issues on the ballots around the country, much of the money coming through churches that should have their tax exempt status seriously questioned.   It is fine if a church does not want to perform gay marriages within their walls, but it a much different matter when they directly affect the state constitution.  I know someone in Salt Lake City who is working with a group trying to challenge the tax exempt status of the Mormon church, although I think it is mostly symbolic since the Mormons have huge financial resources to fight back.

These same religious groups would gladly ban atheist marriage and atheist adoption if they could get away with it, but gays are an easier target because they can use the "it's a lifestyle choice", "cannot procreate", and "threat to children" angles.  It amazes me that so much money is spent by churches to take away other Americans' rights and to take adopted children away from gay parents and foster homes.  It just seems insane, but I'm "preaching to the choir" here.  I have not been much of an activist in the past, but crap like this makes me want to become more active fighting churches that cross the church-state boundary.  Unfortunately atheists and like minded people aren't as coordinated and don't have the resources that the religious organizations have.

Oh, and that "permabanned" animated GIF is hilarious.  

[karadan]

The bizarre thing about this is, my mum is as staunchly atheist as i am. We share the same beliefs and principals and i agree with almost everything she says...

But...

She doesn't believe gay people should be allowed to get legally married. This isn't from a religious standpoint but from a traditional one. Traditionally, gay people haven't got married therefore they shouldn't be allowed. She isn't homophobic so i can't really understand her stance. I try to ask her why she feels this way and she just shrugs and says "it is just wrong. Marriage should be for a man and a woman."

It is a strange contradiction.

I, of course, think that people should be allowed to do what the hell they want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. If they want to get married, good for them!

However, Is there something to debate on a same sex couple bringing up a child? Is there possible psychological ramifications down the line, or not? Is there a biological imperative inbuilt within humans to respond accordingly to nurturement from a man and woman and not two men or two women? Or are humans far more mutable and able to deal with situations like this more effectively than we give ourselves credit?

The only reason i ask is that we've evolved over millions of years and throughout that time, traditionally, kids have been brought up by a male and female. Is our ability to mature correctly based purely on our senses and the input we receive through them or is there something within our genes which recognises the mother and father as the support we need.

I'm just throwing this out there. it doesn't necessarily represent how i actually feel.

[Shard]

However, Is there something to debate on a same sex couple bringing up a child? Is there possible psychological ramifications down the line, or not? Is there a biological imperative inbuilt within humans to respond accordingly to nurturement from a man and woman and not two men or two women? Or are humans far more mutable and able to deal with situations like this more effectively than we give ourselves credit?

The only reason i ask is that we've evolved over millions of years and throughout that time, traditionally, kids have been brought up by a male and female. Is our ability to mature correctly based purely on our senses and the input we receive through them or is there something within our genes which recognises the mother and father as the support we need.

As far as I know, the whole 'one man one woman' raising a child thing is comparatively recent (we're talking thousands of years here maximum, not millions).  In more primitive hunter-gatherer times the great bulk of child rearing would have fallen on the mother alone for the breast feeding stage, and then quite possibly older members of the tribe (with closer relatives being the most likely) sharing the burden after that.  Every able bodied adult of child-bearing age  would have been required to be out all day either hunting or gathering (along with the kids as soon as they could manage it).  And I don't know that couples who had a child together would necessarily have stayed together either.  Only 7% of mammals are monogamous (as opposed to 90% of birds).  The relatively high incidence of extra-marital affairs in human society - despite social monogamy long being accepted as the 'norm' - would also indicate that monogamy may not have been the original human state, i.e. it's culture rather than evolution that is responsible.  

The evolution of monogamy is a fascinating subject in its own right.

[karadan]

Cool. I didn't know that. Thanks for clarifying it for me.  

[crocofish]

She doesn't believe gay people should be allowed to get legally married. This isn't from a religious standpoint but from a traditional one. Traditionally, gay people haven't got married therefore they shouldn't be allowed. She isn't homophobic so i can't really understand her stance. I try to ask her why she feels this way and she just shrugs and says "it is just wrong. Marriage should be for a man and a woman."

I saw something on TV a year or two ago that there are some historical records of same sex marriage being performed by some Christian churches in Europe in the distant past, before the "traditional" version that we are familiar with today.  A quick search on Google finds this link.  So "tradition" is dependent on how wide or narrow, culturally and historically, one considers traditional to be.

Here's an excellent editorial from Keith Olbermann about Prop 8.

[karadan]

She doesn't believe gay people should be allowed to get legally married. This isn't from a religious standpoint but from a traditional one. Traditionally, gay people haven't got married therefore they shouldn't be allowed. She isn't homophobic so i can't really understand her stance. I try to ask her why she feels this way and she just shrugs and says "it is just wrong. Marriage should be for a man and a woman."

I saw something on TV a year or two ago that there are some historical records of same sex marriage being performed by some Christian churches in Europe in the distant past, before the "traditional" version that we are familiar with today.  A quick search on Google finds this link.  So "tradition" is dependent on how wide or narrow, culturally and historically, one considers traditional to be.

Here's an excellent editorial from Keith Olbermann about Prop 8.

Cool! I can now tell my mum she is being silly and back up my statements with fact.