Indiana AG: LGBT Parents should be stripped of Rights

[Grenartia]

So all governments are fascist?

Read the definition.

I honestly think you could simplify it to "authoritarian nationalism", and it still wouldn't apply to all governments.

[Telconi]

So all governments are fascist?

Read the definition.

I did, and it encompasses all governments. Which seems to be a pretty shitty definition of fascism.

[Grenartia]

it encompasses all governments.

No, it really doesn't. Unless you're grifting.

[Telconi]

it encompasses all governments.

No, it really doesn't. Unless you're grifting.

Name a single government that doesn't force people to do something against their will.

[Grenartia]

No, it really doesn't. Unless you're grifting.

Name a single government that doesn't force people to do something against their will.

That isn't the definition.

[Telconi]

Name a single government that doesn't force people to do something against their will.

That isn't the definition.

It was quoted, there are little links that carry you up a quote chain.

[Celritannia]

That isn't the definition.

It was quoted, there are little links that carry you up a quote chain.

Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.

So how many countries are ultranationalist with dictatorial powers that uses forcible suppression of it's oppositions with strong regimentation of society and the economy?

What Sundiata has proposed is LGBTQ+ and unmarried people should be denied freedom and be forced into celibacy (suppression of opposition) in a hypothetical authoritarian catholic theocracy (ultra nationalistic and societal regimentation via Catholicism and dictatorial powers via theocracy).

Also note, I said a group of people, refering specifically to LGBTQ+ people. That' would be a government target one specific group of people. That's part of fascism, targeting one specific group who you are opposed to.

[Grenartia]

That isn't the definition.

It was quoted, there are little links that carry you up a quote chain.

I saw. Still isn't the definition.

[Western Theram]

That isn't the definition.

It was quoted, there are little links that carry you up a quote chain.

it literally specifies fascism as a far-right ideology, not just "givernment does stuff" there are different types of authoritarians if you cannot tell the difference between the authoritarianism of nazi germany and fascist spain from the authoritarianism of the ussr or lenin you're stating that you're politically (and historically)illiterate

[Atheris]

What credible definition of fascism are you referring to? Every ideology you disagree with is not fascism. Furthermore, I am not advocating for any political ideology, let alone a fascist one.

Because Stalin and Lenin were authoritarians, not fascists.

Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.

See the bold part?
You want to forcefully supress LGBTQ+ and unmarried peoples into celibacy, in other words, having their freedoms removed in order to create this regimented society of a Roman Catholic Opus Dei society.
Forcing one group of people in society to do something against their will is fascist.

You have advocated this several times in this thread.

I don't know if this conversation is over, so please correct me if it is.

If I may weigh in with the definition of fascism I've found over my readings of fascist ideology and examining Mussolini and Hitler's policies;

Just the suppression of something and general authoritarianism is not even close to fascism. Stalinism, Maoism, Leninism, and crony capitalism have all done the same thing, and all four of those ideologies are directly opposed by fascism.

What Sundiata is proposing is authoritarian theocracy. Terrible? Yes. Fascist? Not remotely close. Fascism is inherently anti-religious, which is one of the reasons I don't believe that austrofascism and Francoism fit NEATLY into the definition of fascism (but still, debatably, in it), so that's already a huge peg off of defining Sundiata's plan as fascist. Fascism is inherently anti-LGBT+, as seen in the reign of Hitler and the heavily masculine and misogynistic theories proposed by Mussolini and other fascist and proto-fascist thinkers, but it takes a lot more than one or two traits to make something fascist.

Sundiata would have to flesh out his ideology a lot more than just "authoritarianism" and "fuck the LGBT+" to accurately define it as something.

Also, I disagree with the classification of fascism as far-right, as I think the farthest right something can be is hypermilitarist reactionary anarcho-capitalism, but that's a discussion for another thread.

Overall, it's just semantics, though. And as much as I enjoy talking political semantics, I'll try and leave the definition stuff out in the future.

[Grenartia]

Also, I disagree with the classification of fascism as far-right, as I think the farthest right something can be is hypermilitarist reactionary anarcho-capitalism, but that's a discussion for another thread.

Well, when you look at a lot of the things the Nazis did during the Holocaust, it was clear they intended it to be a for-profit venture (I really don't want to look into whether or not it actually did turn a 'profit', so I'll leave it at that, aside from providing some examples). Boosting production by enslaving those who were able to work means you don't have to pay for the essentials necessary to keep the workers alive, much less pay them at all, therefore giving you various items at reduced price. Industrializing the process of murder with large rooms and some cheap, gaseous pesticide means you have more space for more slaves in your camps, and you're feeding less mouths, and you can give your "preferred" populace the living space you took from the victims, all for minimal cost. Doing highly unethical experiments on unwilling subjects gives you a bounty of research data on the extreme limits of the human body, without having to go through the expensive and time consuming process of compensating the test subjects and/or their families. Stripping them down and replacing their clothes with rags means you can re-sell their old clothes to "the preferred populace" for a tidy mark-up. Literally pulling the fillings out of the teeth of dead bodies means you can extract every last ounce of profit out of the bodies.

It was very much capitalism at its most extreme. Highly efficient at turning human suffering into potential profit.

[Nakena]

It was quoted, there are little links that carry you up a quote chain.

Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.

So how many countries are ultranationalist with dictatorial powers that uses forcible suppression of it's oppositions with strong regimentation of society and the economy?

What Sundiata has proposed is LGBTQ+ and unmarried people should be denied freedom and be forced into celibacy (suppression of opposition) in a hypothetical authoritarian catholic theocracy (ultra nationalistic and societal regimentation via Catholicism and dictatorial powers via theocracy).

Also note, I said a group of people, refering specifically to LGBTQ+ people. That' would be a government target one specific group of people. That's part of fascism, targeting one specific group who you are opposed to.

Sundiata actually wants an catholic world state under the Pope. He has posted that quite a number of times. He isnt a nationalist.

However, Israel, curiosily, is to remain a independent nationstate.

[San Lumen]

Because Stalin and Lenin were authoritarians, not fascists.



See the bold part?
You want to forcefully supress LGBTQ+ and unmarried peoples into celibacy, in other words, having their freedoms removed in order to create this regimented society of a Roman Catholic Opus Dei society.
Forcing one group of people in society to do something against their will is fascist.

You have advocated this several times in this thread.

I don't know if this conversation is over, so please correct me if it is.

If I may weigh in with the definition of fascism I've found over my readings of fascist ideology and examining Mussolini and Hitler's policies;

Just the suppression of something and general authoritarianism is not even close to fascism. Stalinism, Maoism, Leninism, and crony capitalism have all done the same thing, and all four of those ideologies are directly opposed by fascism.

What Sundiata is proposing is authoritarian theocracy. Terrible? Yes. Fascist? Not remotely close. Fascism is inherently anti-religious, which is one of the reasons I don't believe that austrofascism and Francoism fit NEATLY into the definition of fascism (but still, debatably, in it), so that's already a huge peg off of defining Sundiata's plan as fascist. Fascism is inherently anti-LGBT+, as seen in the reign of Hitler and the heavily masculine and misogynistic theories proposed by Mussolini and other fascist and proto-fascist thinkers, but it takes a lot more than one or two traits to make something fascist.

Sundiata would have to flesh out his ideology a lot more than just "authoritarianism" and "fuck the LGBT+" to accurately define it as something.

Also, I disagree with the classification of fascism as far-right, as I think the farthest right something can be is hypermilitarist reactionary anarcho-capitalism, but that's a discussion for another thread.

Overall, it's just semantics, though. And as much as I enjoy talking political semantics, I'll try and leave the definition stuff out in the future.

Fascism is not the topic

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Because Stalin and Lenin were authoritarians, not fascists.



See the bold part?
You want to forcefully supress LGBTQ+ and unmarried peoples into celibacy, in other words, having their freedoms removed in order to create this regimented society of a Roman Catholic Opus Dei society.
Forcing one group of people in society to do something against their will is fascist.

You have advocated this several times in this thread.

I don't know if this conversation is over, so please correct me if it is.

If I may weigh in with the definition of fascism I've found over my readings of fascist ideology and examining Mussolini and Hitler's policies;

Just the suppression of something and general authoritarianism is not even close to fascism. Stalinism, Maoism, Leninism, and crony capitalism have all done the same thing, and all four of those ideologies are directly opposed by fascism.

What Sundiata is proposing is authoritarian theocracy. Terrible? Yes. Fascist? Not remotely close. Fascism is inherently anti-religious, which is one of the reasons I don't believe that austrofascism and Francoism fit NEATLY into the definition of fascism (but still, debatably, in it), so that's already a huge peg off of defining Sundiata's plan as fascist. Fascism is inherently anti-LGBT+, as seen in the reign of Hitler and the heavily masculine and misogynistic theories proposed by Mussolini and other fascist and proto-fascist thinkers, but it takes a lot more than one or two traits to make something fascist.

Sundiata would have to flesh out his ideology a lot more than just "authoritarianism" and "fuck the LGBT+" to accurately define it as something.

Also, I disagree with the classification of fascism as far-right, as I think the farthest right something can be is hypermilitarist reactionary anarcho-capitalism, but that's a discussion for another thread.

Overall, it's just semantics, though. And as much as I enjoy talking political semantics, I'll try and leave the definition stuff out in the future.

You never heard of clerical fascism?

[Sarderia]

I don't know if this conversation is over, so please correct me if it is.

If I may weigh in with the definition of fascism I've found over my readings of fascist ideology and examining Mussolini and Hitler's policies;

Just the suppression of something and general authoritarianism is not even close to fascism. Stalinism, Maoism, Leninism, and crony capitalism have all done the same thing, and all four of those ideologies are directly opposed by fascism.

What Sundiata is proposing is authoritarian theocracy. Terrible? Yes. Fascist? Not remotely close. Fascism is inherently anti-religious, which is one of the reasons I don't believe that austrofascism and Francoism fit NEATLY into the definition of fascism (but still, debatably, in it), so that's already a huge peg off of defining Sundiata's plan as fascist. Fascism is inherently anti-LGBT+, as seen in the reign of Hitler and the heavily masculine and misogynistic theories proposed by Mussolini and other fascist and proto-fascist thinkers, but it takes a lot more than one or two traits to make something fascist.

Sundiata would have to flesh out his ideology a lot more than just "authoritarianism" and "fuck the LGBT+" to accurately define it as something.

Also, I disagree with the classification of fascism as far-right, as I think the farthest right something can be is hypermilitarist reactionary anarcho-capitalism, but that's a discussion for another thread.

Overall, it's just semantics, though. And as much as I enjoy talking political semantics, I'll try and leave the definition stuff out in the future.

You never heard of clerical fascism?

Fascism itself is inherently secular in nature. Fascist leaders generally was not associated with religious movements except to further their goals in obtaining a fascist society. According to historian Stanley G. Payne (and frequently cited as a "standard" definition of fascism), it is based on three main concepts:

• The "fascist negations": anti-liberalism, anti-communism, and anti-conservatism;
• "Fascist goals": the creation of a nationalist dictatorship to regulate economic structure and to transform social relations within a modern, self-determined culture, and the expansion of the nation into an empire; and
• "Fascist style": a political aesthetic of romantic symbolism, mass mobilization, a positive view of violence, and promotion of masculinity, youth, and charismatic authoritarian leadership

Fascist leaders may use religion to further this ideology (as was the case of Hitler with "Positive Christianity", and possibly Franco with "National Catholicism"), but Fascism itself does not associate with religious principles, and remained a secular ideology. Whether a fascist identifies with a religious tenet/belief is in the end subject to their own personal views on how better to further their fascist ideology; however, the fascist ideology itself is not tied to said religious belief.

Good explanation on this topic.

[Turelisa-]

In a family raised by two lesbians, a child is getting an odd and deprived childhood. To be raised in such circumstances is to deny the childthe parental love, influence and responsibilities of a ever present father, and not as an unfortunate circumstance due to death or divorce, but by design. If a boy, he misses the chance to develop his personality under the influence of a manly role model.
The circumstances of the child's raising are going to expose themto inevitable hostility from some peers and the emotional impact of that may make them grow up to be extremely resentful toward their 'parents' and mutinous and rebellious. Of course, on the other hand, these circumstances may effectively be an indoctrinatimg influence upon their own opinions on homosexuality, the morality of which really should approach as an open minded adult who can think and evaluate the evidence for oneself wthout emotional bias one way or the other.

[Western Theram]

In a family raised by two lesbians, a child is getting a deprived childhood, being raing raised in circumstances in which he's denied the parental love, influence and responsibilities of a ever presentfather, not as an unfortunate circumstance due to death or divorce but by design. The circumstances of his raising are going to expose him to inevitable hostility from some peers and the emotional impact of that may make him grow up to be extremely resentful toward his 'parents' and mutinous. Of course, on the other hand, these circumstances may effectively be an indoctrinatimg influence upon his own opinions on homosexuality, the morality of which he really should approach as an open minded adult who can think and evaluate the evidence for himself without emotional bias one way or the other.

how about don't teach your kids not to bully? seems that would solve the issue of "inevitable hostility" better strip any opinions/influences on heterosexual couples then until they are old enough to evaluate without emotional bias.
overall stupid argument with no evidence to back it up

[Western Theram]

why are all the homophobes ultra-religious twats that can't make an argument without straw-manning or making vague comments about morality? ive still to find an ACTUAL argument against homosexuality that doesn't rely on religious propaganda or false claims of indoctrination/ or they're gonna ruin their kid some how.
you don't *HAVE* to like gay people, just mind your business, it doesn't effect you

[The Free Joy State]

In a family raised by two lesbians, a child is getting a deprived childhood, being raing raised in circumstances in which he's denied the parental love, influence and responsibilities of a ever presentfather, not as an unfortunate circumstance due to death or divorce but by design. The circumstances of his raising are going to expose him to inevitable hostility from some peers and the emotional impact of that may make him grow up to be extremely resentful toward his 'parents' and mutinous. Of course, on the other hand, these circumstances may effectively be an indoctrinatimg influence upon his own opinions on homosexuality, the morality of which he really should approach as an open minded adult who can think and evaluate the evidence for himself without emotional bias one way or the other.

how about don't teach your kids not to bully? seems that would solve the issue of "inevitable hostility" better strip any opinions/influences on heterosexual couples then until they are old enough to evaluate without emotional bias.
overall stupid argument with no evidence to back it up

*raises hand*

I have evidence on same-sex couples and parenting. Pick me!

Unfortunately for Turelisa's argument, it's a 32 year longitudinal study (the National Longitudinal Lesbian Study), and it finds that children raised by same-sex parents do as well in various measures of psychological health as those raised by opposite sex parents:

“When I began this study in 1986, there was considerable speculation about the future mental health of children conceived through donor insemination and raised by sexual minority parents,” said Dr. Nanette Gartrell, visiting distinguished scholar at the Williams Institute and lead author of the study. “We have followed these families since the mothers were inseminating or pregnant and now find that their 25-year-old daughters and sons score as well on mental health as other adults of the same age.”

[New Visayan Islands]

why are all the homophobes ultra-religious twats that can't make an argument without straw-manning or making vague comments about morality? ive still to find an ACTUAL argument against homosexuality that doesn't rely on religious propaganda or false claims of indoctrination/ or they're gonna ruin their kid some how.
you don't *HAVE* to like gay people, just mind your business, it doesn't effect you

Take the unofficial warning for trolling I'm issuing you as a suggestion to tone it down. Now.

Thanks!
NVI

[San Lumen]

In a family raised by two lesbians, a child is getting an odd and deprived childhood. To be raised in such circumstances is to deny the childthe parental love, influence and responsibilities of a ever present father, and not as an unfortunate circumstance due to death or divorce, but by design. If a boy, he misses the chance to develop his personality under the influence of a manly role model.
The circumstances of the child's raising are going to expose themto inevitable hostility from some peers and the emotional impact of that may make them grow up to be extremely resentful toward their 'parents' and mutinous and rebellious. Of course, on the other hand, these circumstances may effectively be an indoctrinatimg influence upon their own opinions on homosexuality, the morality of which really should approach as an open minded adult who can think and evaluate the evidence for oneself wthout emotional bias one way or the other.

What evidence do you have to support this ? Science disagrees with you. How about you reach your kids not to bully and be tolerant?

I went to college with someone who was raised by two men. They are the only family he’s ever known. He turned out just fine.

[Atheris]

In a family raised by two lesbians, a child is getting an odd and deprived childhood. To be raised in such circumstances is to deny the childthe parental love, influence and responsibilities of a ever present father, and not as an unfortunate circumstance due to death or divorce, but by design. If a boy, he misses the chance to develop his personality under the influence of a manly role model.
The circumstances of the child's raising are going to expose themto inevitable hostility from some peers and the emotional impact of that may make them grow up to be extremely resentful toward their 'parents' and mutinous and rebellious. Of course, on the other hand, these circumstances may effectively be an indoctrinatimg influence upon their own opinions on homosexuality, the morality of which really should approach as an open minded adult who can think and evaluate the evidence for oneself wthout emotional bias one way or the other.

[citation needed]

[Turelisa-]

I have some evidence to support my arguments, and it's...scientific!

A new study that finds children of a gay or lesbian parent may be more likely to have social and emotional problems has sparked controversy on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate.

The study, from Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at The University of Texas at Austin, surveyed more than 15,000 Americans between the ages of 18 and 39, asking them questions about their upbringings. Its findings are published in the July issue of Social Science Research.

One survey question asked whether a parent had been in a same-sex relationship during a child's upbringing; Regnerus wanted to see whether there were differences between kids raised in a household by a parent in a same-sex relationship compared with those who were raised by biological parents who were married and heterosexual.

The survey results were measured by a set of 40 outcomes on social, emotional and relationship factors. Outcomes included whether a child had grown up to need public assistance like welfare, were more likely to have anxiety or depression, were more likely to be abused, or were more apt engage in unhealthier habits such as having more sexual partners, smoking or using drugs.

Regnerus' analysis identified 175 now-adult children who said they were raised by a lesbian mother, along with 73 who said their father was in a same-sex relationship. Focusing on the larger sample, the study found respondents whose mother had a same-sex relationship fared worse on 24 of the 40 tested outcomes, compared with children of an intact heterosexual couple.

Sixty-nine percent of children of lesbian mothers reported that their family received public assistance, such as welfare at some point, compared with 17 percent from intact biological families. About half of children of an intact biological family said they were employed full-time, compared with 26 percent of those born to a lesbian mother. Fourteen percent of kids of a lesbian mom spent time in foster care at some point, compared with 2 percent of the rest of the children studied. Overall, less than 2 percent of all respondents who said their mother had a same-sex relationship reported living with their mom and her partner for all 18 years of their childhood.


With children of dads in a same-sex relationship, there were 19 outcomes they performed worse on, Regnerus told HealthPop, so they didn't have as many negative outcomes as kids born to a mom without the mother, but more than those who grew up in a home with married heterosexual parents, he said.

"Most conclusions about same-sex parenting have been drawn from small, convenience samples, not larger, random ones," Regnerus said in a news release. "The results of that approach have often led family scholars to conclude that there are no differences between children raised in same-sex households and those raised in other types of families. But those earlier studies have inadvertently masked real diversity among gay and lesbian parenting experiences in America."

Several experts and advocacy groups have taken issue with the study's methodology, saying a comparison of children of a lesbian mother -- who herself may have divorced the child's biological father, or may not even identify as a lesbian since the survey only asked if a parent had ever been in a same-sex couple during their childhood -- is an unfair, flawed comparison.

"Whether same-sex parenting causes the observed differences cannot be determined from Regnerus' descriptive analysis," said Cynthia Osborne, associate professor at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at The University of Texas at Austin. "Children of lesbian mothers might have lived in many different family structures, and it is impossible to isolate the effects of living with a lesbian mother from experiencing divorce, remarriage or living with a single parent. Or it is quite possible that the effect derives entirely from the stigma attached to such relationships and to the legal prohibitions that prevent same-sex couples from entering and maintaining 'normal relationships'."

In a joint statement from the Family Equality Council, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), Freedom to Marry, and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance against Defamation (GLAAD), advocates called the study a "flawed, misleading, and scientifically unsound paper that seeks to disparage lesbian and gay parents."

"Because of the serious flaws, this so-called study doesn't match 30 years of scientific research that shows overwhelmingly that children raised by parents who are LGBT do equally as well as their counterparts raised by heterosexual parents," said Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin.

Gary Gates, a researcher at the Williams Institute, a sexual orientation policy think tank at the University of California, Los Angeles, told LiveScience that a more fair comparison would've been of children of heterosexual or same-sex couples who were raised in similar homes, with no divorces, separations or foster care.

"All he found is that family instability is bad for children and that's hardly groundbreaking or new," Gates, who was not involved in the research, told LiveScience.

Other critics have alluded to the study's funding from conservative groups the Witherspoon Institute and the Bradley Foundation, suggesting Regnerus had a right-wing agenda.

Regnerus defended his study to HealthPop, saying he set out to do a population-based study, which is considered the "gold standard" in his field. Other study's samples, he said, interviewed "convenient samples" of people researchers knew, friends, or groups that are linked together somehow, but he wanted a totally random sampling.

"People will say I'm irresponsible without weighing in with stronger data," he said. "This is the best quality data we've seen so far. If they don't like the results, I'm sorry."

Regnerus was upfront about the funding from conservative groups, and said he pledged to groups involved that he would report whatever the data found, regardless of which way it leaned. What's more, he says some of the criticisms are valid and plausible.

"There are some valid criticisms that are being made, such as the measurement decision on who should be called a lesbian mother in this study," Regnerus said. "People might say that's irresponsible to do this study without all these stable lesbian couples in the study," he said, adding the random sampling only found two out of the 175 children who said they lived in a home with both same-sex parents throughout all 18 years. "I would have been happy to compare them but they did not exist in large enough numbers."

Regnerus said it's entirely possible that instability in the household led to some of the reported negative outcomes in adult children of same-sex parents. He said children of heterosexual couples in an unstable home were also found to fare worse than those in a stable environment.

"People gay or straight should stick with their partners, he said. "I think the study provides evidence of that."

In a commentary in Slate, William Saletan writes, "What the study shows, then, is that kids from broken homes headed by gay people develop the same problems as kids from broken homes headed by straight people. But that finding isn't meaningless. It tells us something important: We need fewer broken homes among gays, just as we do among straights. We need to study Regnerus' sample and fix the mistakes we made 20 or 40 years ago."


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kids-of-ga ... m-experts/

So there!

[Atheris]

-snip snip snip HOOOOLY SHIT-

dude holy shit snip this

Anyways, you've been disproven in your own article.

"adding the random sampling only found two out of the 175 children who said they lived in a home with both same-sex parents throughout all 18 years. "I would have been happy to compare them but they did not exist in large enough numbers.""

"What the study shows, then, is that kids from broken homes headed by gay people develop the same problems as kids from broken homes headed by straight people."

""Because of the serious flaws, this so-called study doesn't match 30 years of scientific research that shows overwhelmingly that children raised by parents who are LGBT do equally as well as their counterparts raised by heterosexual parents,"

Read articles before posting them.

[Nakena]

-snip snip snip HOOOOLY SHIT-

dude holy shit snip this

Anyways, you've been disproven in your own article.

"adding the random sampling only found two out of the 175 children who said they lived in a home with both same-sex parents throughout all 18 years. "I would have been happy to compare them but they did not exist in large enough numbers.""

"What the study shows, then, is that kids from broken homes headed by gay people develop the same problems as kids from broken homes headed by straight people."

""Because of the serious flaws, this so-called study doesn't match 30 years of scientific research that shows overwhelmingly that children raised by parents who are LGBT do equally as well as their counterparts raised by heterosexual parents,"

Read articles before posting them.

I literally imagined you being in Ace Attorney style taking apart an argument in court.