Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There is no inherent right. From the second you are born you exist at the whim of your parents, society in which you live, and your own ability to maintain your own existence.
The Founding Father's maintained that we have certain unalienable Rights. Those words and ideas are only as good as their ability to protect them.
I know. I’m just giving SE a hard time. He seems to think that there is this thing called “inherent rights” but when asked to clearly define it, he can’t give me an intellectually consistent answer. He says that is comes from history. I show him that fallacy. He says that it comes from popularity. I show him that fallacy.
I beg to differ. I have an inalienable right to believe in God or not. I have an inalienable right to live or die.There is no inherent right. From the second you are born you exist at the whim of your parents, society in which you live, and your own ability to maintain your own existence.
The Founding Father's maintained that we have certain unalienable Rights. Those words and ideas are only as good as their ability to protect them.
Follow the link and find the first-hand accounts of children who do "well" being raised by homosexual parents.
Children Of Homosexual Parents Report Childhood Difficulties
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_homokids.html
Paul Cameron and Kirk Cameron
Summary: Referenced as both supporting and weakening the case for parenting by homosexuals, 57 life-story narratives of children with homosexual parents published by Rafkin in 1990 and Saffron in 1996 were subjected to content analysis. Children mentioned one or more problems/concerns in 48 (92%) of 52 families. Of the 213 scored problems, 201 (94%) were attributed to the homosexual parent(s). Older daughters in at least 8 (27%) of 30 families and older sons in at least 2 (20%) of 10 families described themselves as homosexual or bisexual. These findings are inconsistent with propositions that children of homosexuals do not differ appreciably from those who live with married parents or that children of homosexuals are not more apt to engage in homosexuality.
Correspondence to Paul Cameron, Family Research Institute, Inc., POB 62640, Colorado Springs, CO, 303 681-3113.
Children Of Homosexual Parents Report Childhood Difficulties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Research Report critically examines empirical data on families, sexual social policy, AIDS, drug addiction, and homosexuality, digging behind the 'headlines' and breaking new scientific ground.
FRR is published 8 times/year by the Family Research Institute.
Dr. Paul Cameron, Publisher
Dr. Kirk Cameron, Editor
Subscriptions: $25/yr ($40 foreign)
Family Research Institute
P.O. Box 62640
Colorado Springs, CO 80962-2640
(303) 681-3113
©2002
Okay. Help me get this straight. The right to privacy is an inherent right because the 14th amendment says that we have a right to privacy. Got it.
Do you think rights by and large are *poof* manufactured right on the spot in a legislature without no history or reason behind the lawmaking?
You have no reason to call anybody a moron, moron. Most heterosexuals (fyi as you probably are not one) have very good reasons for not wanting to expose their children to homosexual lifestyles. This attitude has roots deep in our social history for good reasons gay marriage has never succeeded because it does not do much good for society.
Seems to me it's the gay parents who are to blame here .not the others you call morons. Gays know that 99.99999% of the family world is heterosexually oriented, yet for their own self-serving and selfish reasons they still have/acquire children who then are euphemistically and unavoidably "thrown under the bus".
Yet pinheads like you point fingers, guilt-trip the rest of the world, expecting everybody else to change, and claim (with no real proof) that everybody else in the world is to blame .who are the real morons here?
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26549
Trophy children
Posted: February 21, 2002
1:00 am Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com
On Feb. 2, the American Academy of Pediatrics announced that it was endorsing homosexual adoption. The response from the pro-family community was woefully inadequate. It consisted of bellyaching about the flawed or biased nature of available studies, hand wringing about the lack of empirical evidence or the simple assertion that children of two-parent, married heterosexual couples do best.
The report made by the AAP's Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health says that there is "no existing data to support the widely held belief that there are negative outcomes" for children raised by homosexual parents. Furthermore, the committee asserts, "No data have pointed to any risk to children as a result of growing up with one or more gay parents."
While there is ample evidence to show that children of married couples in intact families fare better than children of single parents or divorced couples, reliable studies comparing children raised in traditional families to those raised by cohabitating adults who engage in homosexual practices are few and far between but they do exist and should have been cited to refute the AAP's claims.
The study with the largest number of children was completed by Cameron and Cameron of the Family Research Institute and published in 1998. It examined all appellate cases of custody disputes involving a homosexual parent in 29 states to 38 appeals cases involving custody disputes drawn randomly from 1956 to 1991.
The advantages of selecting cases that reach the appeals court level are many: They offer official distillations of large bodies of information that have passed through two or more layers of the legal system. Also, the children in these studies tend to be older, thereby providing evidence of long-term effects. Furthermore, unlike studies done with volunteers, in which all relevant data is available only to the investigator, the relevant data in Cameron and Cameron is available for public inspection in essentially every law library in the United States.
It was the first study to examine the character of homosexual and heterosexual parents in an adversarial setting. The results were startling. Eighty-two percent of the homosexual parents versus 18 percent of the heterosexual parents were recorded as having poor character. More importantly, of the recorded harms to children, which included molestation and physical abuse, 97 percent were attributed to the homosexual parent.
The study with the second largest number of children of homosexuals is the only one that has compared children of coupled married heterosexual parents and coupled cohabiting heterosexual parents to coupled paired homosexual parents.
Dr. Sotirios Sarantakos, an associate professor of sociology in Australia, ran an investigation to compare the school performance of 58 children who were being raised by homosexual couples to 58 closely matched children being raised by married couples and 58 children being raised by cohabiting partners.
The children's school teachers were ask to rate their scholastic achievements, participation in varies group activities as well as their socialization skills. The teachers also reported on parental involvement through their observations as well as by interviewing the children.
The children of homosexual couples scored dramatically lower than the average of the children of the other two groups in verbal skills, vocabulary, composition and basic mathematical skills. The children of the homosexual couples performed better in social studies but only slightly. Also, there was an important difference in the social development. The children of homosexual parents were less likely to be involved with sports or other group activities. They were considered by their teachers to be introverts and loners, and were uncomfortable when having to work with students of a sex different from that of their co-habiting homosexual parent.
Far from being ideal parents, the homosexual couples were less likely to visit the children's schools, volunteer or help the children with their homework.
Sarantakos was published in 1996 in the obscure journal, Children Australia. He gave no indication that he was aware of the "best interest of the child" argument being used to promote gay adoptions. He made no reference to any of the published studies regarding homosexual parents that could best be described as "junk science," nor has his report been cited in any of the contentious literature about homosexual parenting.
Pro-family groups can be forgiven for not citing Sarantakos. It is not available in any of the conventional databases or indexes. (A synopsis is available through Family Research Institute.) However, Cameron and Cameron should be a primary weapon in the quiver of those who defend children and work to keep them from being used as trophies for the mainstreaming of homosexuality and the advancement of gay rights.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Chastain a southern California-based broadcaster, author and political commentator. If you would like to comment on this column, go to Jane's blog.
History does indeed provide a basis for rights. Your right to vote today is based on the history of America. Sure, there are exceptions. Slavery rights were wrong..mankind is not perfect and it is a better world today without slavery. History has not borne out any great positive results for gay marriage either. There is no real historical basis in our society for gay marriage.
Sure heterosexual marriage exists in Skandinavia .but it is becoming less and less important. More and more young people are not getting married .attitudes toward marriage are changing. Whose fault is that? Society's fault. Their society is allowing gay marriage and other attitudes to debase marriage and make it seem not that important anymore. Hey, if two queers can get married, then it appears that marriage is not really about children and family anymore, is it?
Spoken like a true relativist. History has no meaning. Tradition has no meaning. Nature has no meaning. Normal has no meaning. The Bible has no meaning. Life has no purpose or meaning. Welcome to the World of Meaninglessness.
A society based upon relativism means that anything goes. Anything goes because everything is meaningless.
The Marxist-like movement in this country today depends upon people like you to spread relativism. Historically, Marxists attacked the bourgeois (the middle class). They do the same thing today. To Marxists things like ethics and morality and truth are only "bourgeois" ideas. That's why they hate and attack Christians. However with relativism you can do almost anything you want. One can even rationalize killing. Relativism means that power trumps. And, surprise, surprise, what is the goal of the Marxist types? Power, of course....down with middle class values and down with America.
Yes, other than our God-given rights, I would agree that most rights are "invented" as you say. However, they are not normally invented out of nothing and for no reason.Rights are *poof* invented but they are still fictions invented by people who use good or bad (fallacious) reasoning. Times change. Circumstances change. New discoveries are made. We arrive at new understandings (particularly when don’t restrict ourselves on the basis of faulty reasoning). Yet, even those understandings are subject to change in light of new discoveries. Practically nothing is permanent or absolute.
Yes, other than our God-given rights, I would agree that most rights are "invented" as you say. However, they are not normally invented out of nothing and for no reason.
Sure, times change. And some things change and some things don't. But that's no reason to support your argument for gay marriage. However, if you think can convince America to vote for gay marriage, go right ahead and try.
Just because you say that gay marriage is a "right" does not mean that it instantly is one.
I've discussed the inherent history of heterosexual marriage "rights" and the lack of gay marriage "rights". That supports my argument for het marriage a whole lot more than your empty argument for gay marriage. Or is there some inherent historical right and reason for gay marriage that you would like to point to?
The Marxist-like movement in this country today depends upon people like you to spread relativism. Historically, Marxists attacked the bourgeois (the middle class). They do the same thing today. To Marxists things like ethics and morality and truth are only "bourgeois" ideas. That's why they hate and attack Christians. However with relativism you can do almost anything you want. One can even rationalize killing. Relativism means that power trumps. And, surprise, surprise, what is the goal of the Marxist types? Power, of course....down with middle class values and down with America.
You didn't answer my question. A simple yes or no would suffice.Rights are *poof* invented but they are still fictions invented by people who use good or bad (fallacious) reasoning. Times change. Circumstances change. New discoveries are made. We arrive at new understandings (particularly when don’t restrict ourselves on the basis of faulty reasoning). Yet, even those understandings are subject to change in light of new discoveries. Practically nothing is permanent or absolute.
Where? Everywhere.mattskramer said:Where is this God that supposedly gives these rights? What God are you referring to? See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God#Conceptions_of_God
Again, it is all based on your invention. There is no concrete irrefutable proof that god exists – much less that he, she, it, or they gave us rights one-way or the other.
Wants do not necessarily equate to "rights".There is just as much, if not more, reason to support gay marriage than there is to keep it illegal.
Check out these reasons: http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexm...civilunion.htm
I agree. I've been attempting to point out to you that heterosexual marriage did not become an "instant" right either. It has been in the making for eons…..whereas gay marriage has been rejected for eons.Just because you say that heterosexual marriage is a “right” does not mean that it instantly is one.
You haven't knocked down a thing. For some reason you seem to think that your relativism is something I must believe in too.What are you drinking? I have given plenty of reasons why we should allow gay marriage. I have also knocked down every argument that you have given to keep it illegal.
mattskramer said:I don’t think your comparison of relativism to Marxism is valid but I’ll admit that I am not that knowledgeable about the finer points of Marxism. From what I understand, I think that Marxism is opposed to the notion of independent critical individualist thought. As I said before, I don’t necessarily agree with what is popular or unpopular. I’m not always ready to jump on the bandwagon because everyone else seems to be doing it. I don’t limit myself to tradition or conventionality. I’m not afraid to experiment and try new, unusual or even unnatural things. I consider myself to be very individualistic (and perhaps even unorthodox) and I doubt that Marxism likes such ideas.
