Debate Same-sex marriage

The thing about incest- if they have a kid it is a known fact that the contract a desiease(look at old royalty-most well known look at Englands old royalty)


It's not right either way to judge someone on their opinions on if it's right or not. for one it isn't their fault that they grew up with those beliefs.


The Term GAY, practicly means something else now. You can look in the dictionary and read: 4 a : HOMOSEXUAL b : of, relating to, or used by homosexuals
Don't you remember reading **** and Jane and it ssaying "Oh! Look, Jane, Look, what a gay kite."
It is practicly ubsurd to thnk that when everyone says it that thats how they mean it.
But when exactly was that put there? I might be mistaken on the fact that it hasn't always said that.

Just like if you were to look up the word(I'm not racest at ALL) Nig*** never use to mean what it does today, and even today it's changing from a less offensive remark.



Here's a question, Why is it we take it upon ourselve to judge people about what they look like and how they act. If you truly believe in god then how could you disobey him and Judge someone for being gay? thats like me judging you because you listen to country music and go square dancing.

It doesn't matter if Homosexual marriages happen now or in 25 years from now, It WILL happen.

It's just like what Martin Luther King said, you can apply to this:

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal." I have a dream that one day at schools and working enviorments the sons of former homosexuals and the sons of former homophobics will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Texas, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my homosexual friends will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by what they do but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.

 

HOLD a second right there.

One thing is wondering and discussing WHY same sex "marriages" (and adoption) should be or not be allowed, and a VERY DIFFERENT thing is saying that homosexuals are less people than heterosexuals.

[example]
I recall some state law about elder people being taken to eyesight tests every year and not every 5 years, because of the increase of traffic accidents with elderly people involved.

Because of popular demand (by elders of course), this law was banned. As a result, car accidents caused by elderly people (with bad eyesight) still happen a lot.
[/example]

Moral: What is more popular is not necessarily the best. So it's not applicable to say "hey, yeah let's give homosexuals all the same right that heterosexual couples" just because people demand it. As I said, we have to analyse the possible consequences on their future children, and on society in general.

is that discrimination? I say not. Homosexuals can have a job, access health services, and they certainly have the right not to be insulted for their condition. If these rights are not respected by homophobes, then law must be applied.

But getting mad and calling people homophobes because they don't agree on giving certain concessions that someone considers his or her rights, i think is crossing the line.

-------

OK now for a historical analysis.

I remember having watched on A&E (yeah i know, bad source) that the concept of a "soulmate" or a "perfect one for you" came from the middle ages, in the times of knights and damsels. It was part of contemporary (at that time) literature. We all take it for granted, but it wasn't like that always.

So if homosexuals want to get "married" because they want their life with their "soulmate" legalized, certainly that's not part of human rights concern, but a consequence of culture.

Just as in other cultures, polygamy was accepted as normal. And so was homosexuality, and in some cultures, pedophilia. And in others, ritual orgies (It's kind of funny that people advocating "gay rights" cite the 'nice' parts of prechristian culture, but they don't cite the 'bad' parts.)

And let's go on... Marriage, why not? is part of culture itself. But there's one thing that has remained a constant: Family. From the union of a man and a woman, comes a child that needs to be raised, needs protection, education, so he or she will be able to become an adult with rights and responsibilities.

Laws regarding marriage have always taken into account the possibility (or necesity, or even fact) of raising a child.

With homosexual unions, however, it's different. Their sexual act is by nature sterile, it does not produce a child. So, laws concerning homosexual unions have to take into account their sterile condition.

Now if they want to adopt a child, the question arises:
WHY? Just because the heterosexual couples can have one and they (gay) can't ?

That's not asking for equality of rights, that's ENVY.

[corolary]
"Hold on, why heterosexual couples can adopt?" you may ask.
Sterile heterosexual couples are different, however. The sterility of the man/woman is *accidental*, not per-se. Let me clarify: SOME heterosexual couples are sterile. However, ALL homosexual couples are sterile. They (ALL OF THEM, no exception) need external assistance to have a child. Either adoption, artificial insemination, or why not? Cloning.
[/corolary]

In what terms, living with someone you love (or you THINK you love - or maybe even are CODEPENDANT to - let's remember love is subjective) gives you the RIGHT to bear a child?

Heterosexual sterile couples have something to their favor. The heterosexual union has been proven (by tens of thousands of years of experience) ABLE to raise a child and prepare him to be a responsible member of society.

If homosexual couples want the right to bear a child, they need to prove a priori (and the only way I know is by some psychological tests) that they can be fit parents and raise a responsible (AND healthy) member of society.

[post-data]
BTW, if this thread is ever gonna be erased, can I have a copy of it? I might need it later
[/post-data]

 

I think they should be able to, because it's not the society's decisiion to tell people who they can love and who they can't love! Ack, this pisses me off, people have to deal with the fact that people aren't always going to love the same kind of people in which most oyhers love! Sheesh. I'm ok.

 

How is it that homosexuals raising a child would affect the way the child is?

like others said it's like your mom and your grandmother raising you.

That is just another excuse to give a reason to oppres another group that is comming out.

as soon as it's accepted the sooner it isn't an issue.

 

Ok, sorry to look like the devil's advocate here... but...

1) As for SerenityX:

I'm not against love... and neither are conservative parties. The guys and girls have the right to be together, AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T AFFECT third persons negatively (including, of course, any possible adopted child.

For Odango Rose:

Can _you_ guarantee it won't affect the child negatively? You're just asumming it won't, but then again, it's only an presuposition. EVERYTHING in a parent's personality - including his or her sexuality - affects the child.

If you want to say it won't, then bring some evidence of healthy people who were raised in a homosexual "family" (yes, in quotes) and let them give their personal testimony.

Until then, it's only presuppositions.

 

maybe you should take this advice for yourself. and bring someone here who knows it will hurt the child.

just as you said, the parents sexuality even affects the child... tell me how is it that straight people raise homosexual kids?

 

You misunderstood me. When I say sexuality i do NOT mean sexual preference. I mean ALL aspects of sexuality and personality.

Just an example: I know of a girl who was sexually abused by her parent. She is now a lesbian. And depressive. That's just an example why I want surveys to collect information about lesbians and gays. Because _IF_ there is a correlation (even a tiny little one) between sexual abuse, and/or disfunctional family with homosexuality, that means homosexuals can have psychological problems that they need to take care of, before thinking of raising a child. (Why take care of a child when you can't even take care of yourself?)

OK now some concrete statements.

According to freudian school of psychology (and perhaps other schools as well), a child needs _BOTH_ a paternal and maternal figure or role model to have a stable psyche.

Can a boy have a paternal role model when he was raised by a lesbian couple? Can a girl have a maternal role model when she was raised by a gay men couple?

OK, so that leaves us at least with one question: perhaps lesbians should not be allowed to raise boys, and viceversa?

Next. It is a FACT that most of the time we seek a couple that resembles our mother or father. What can a girl expect from a boy, if she was raised by a lesbian couple? How must that boy be, if she knows anything about it? If she has no role model to follow?

Just another example of parent-child sexuality. I've seen testimonies of women having repeated relationship with physically abusive men - and guess what. They had abusive fathers, so they consider it normal to be beaten by their husbands. Don't believe me. Believe a psychologist (any one around here?).
So, YES: People usually want a couple that resembles the parent of the opposite sex. How will a child of gay/lesbian parents learn how to deal with his/her own sexuality?

If children don't have access to good role models of mother and father, can we expect them to make the right choice when getting married later?

Perhaps you're just saying "oh poor gay people, they can't have kids, people are mean to them, boo hoo..."... and what about the children? Have you thought about them? Don't they count, too? But you're just pretending everything will be ok, they will have zero problems. Can you prove that?

When you're saying that I need proof to state that having homosexual parents can be bad for a kid, you're not thinking about the child. Wouldn't you want THE BEST for your child? Why not researching some?

Homosexual couples CAN live without children. But can children live a healthy life with homosexual parents? Can you GUARANTEE IT?

If not, then don't say you need proof of children being affected. Would you give YOUR child to someone you don't know will be a good parent?

At least give the biological parents or mothers the right to decide WHICH PARENTS (i.e. sexual preferences) they want their children to have. If they give up on their children it's because they don't consider themselves fit for the job. That means having at least a minimum responsibility.

Besides, you haven't answered my question. What gives someone the RIGHT to raise a child, JUST BECAUSE he is in love with someone? Does being in love make you automatically fit for parenthood? You need to give me a GOOD reason to let homosexual couples raise a child. And compassion for them isn't a valid reason. If they are unhappy in their current situation, then a child isn't surely improving it.

OK, let me give you an example of approving things before they are tested and proven safe:

Some pills for headache were popular in europe. Researchs weren't done well, and we ended up with lots of children having malformations. Later the pills were banned, but the damage has been done.

If a parent's homosexuality can affect negatively the child, we need to KNOW all about it.

If homosexuality was just a matter of preference and free choice, perhaps there would be no problem regarding adoption. But it isn't. Homosexuality has causes, they can be physiological, hormonal, psychological. We do _NOT_ know the nature of homosexuality, we don't know its causes, and certainly, we don't know its effects on a person's (and his/her "children") psyche.

We need to know, and research, and discuss. BEFORE the damage is done. That's my whole point: Let's play safe. Why? Because adoption is a BIG CHOICE, it's a choice for life, it implies a responsibility.

If we're not responsible when deciding if a couple (gay or not) can adopt a child, are we being responsible with the future members of society?

Let's play safe. Is that too much to ask?

 

Well just let me say this... when you can GUARANTEE that a child is one-hundred percent safe living with a heterosexual couple, then I'll, personally, worry about a homosexual couple raising kids, because I'll tell you this much; I'd rather have a possibly-previously-psychologically-but-seemingly-okay pair of males raising a child than a crack-addict, alcoholic, verbally and physically abusive male and a submissive, whiny, *****y, pill-popping female anyday of the week, any week of the month, any month of the year and any year of my life.

The thing is, a male and a female have the equipment, so to speak, to make a child while as a homosexual couple doesn't, which means while homosexual couples are being put through hell and tormoil to see if they are mentally disturbed and capable of handling a child, a male and female could go out back and shag in the back seat of a Volkswagon, out pops a kid and who knows what could happen then? The father could run off, the mother and kid could starve, the father could stay and they couldn't afford to live thus putting the child through suffering. What people are seeming to neglect is that heterosexual couples are just as much, if not more so, capable of raising "dysfunctional" children as a homosexual couple is. And if you have never seen a child who HASN'T come from an abusive family with a mother and a father, well I'll tell you, you need to get outside of your dream-neighborhood because that doesn't chalk up to nothing in the real world.

 

You got a point in this... but speaking about dysfunctional heterosexual couples would be way OFF topic. I would start speaking about moral education, the banning of religion in schools, culture promoting anti-values, governments doing little or nothing against abusive parents, etc. etc. etc.

Then I would start debating about how right the catholic teachings were in the first place, and how the US society has gotten more and more self-destructive... etc. etc.

So, in order to keep some order in these debates, let's not mix apples with pears. We're not discussing dysfunctional families here, but the validity of homosexual couples and the reasons for them to (or not to) have a kid.

 

Oh, but I assure you greatly, that it is most certainly on topic. Because you are questioning the validity of homosexual couples and the reasons for them to (or not to) have a kid in comparison too...? That's right, the only other thing there is; heterosexual couples. If you talk about the one without even mentioning the other than you are down-speaking the other, you are insulting the other... you're not a homophobe or gay-basher are you, luv? Much like what happened in this "Jesus thread", the doors were thrust wide open into such a matter. It's only fair that if you talk about the defects of one said, that the other side is mentioned as well, sorry if you lived a life in which your methods aren't allowed to be questioned, because you'll learn to be sorely mistaken.

 

Alright then.

Now let me ask you a question.

What makes you think that homosexual couples will be in average, better parents than heterosexual couples? I say in average, because, if you say that heterosexual couples in average make disfunctional families, we're not talking about one being better than the other, but the failure of moral education in the country, and the world.

If that is so, perhaps we should go back in time a few centuries, (just 2 or 3, let's not be too archaic) and wonder if the educational system at the time was better than today's. Sure, we have more freedom, etc etc, but let's just cross the street and see how many people insult each other. Don't you agree with me that society is gradually degenerating?

Anyway. I still have not been answered my question. A valid reason for homosexual couples to adopt children. Is it their right? Yes, no and WHY? I have given my reasons.

In short, "Playing safe". I will not expose my arguments again, they can be read above on the thread.

Let me quote you, Zack. You said:

So we're not talking about an official husband-wife marriage, we're talking about a guy and a girl doing it "for fun" or what else. Is that playing safe? I don't think so. So, yes, I'm not only "against homosexual couples adopting", but also against premarital sex (yes, I have my reasons and we can open another debate about that), abortion, sexism, racism, and certainly against the lack of moral education (with good examples to follow) in today's families.

So, am I for "letting everybody raise a kid, JUST BECAUSE they're not gay"? Of course not. That's where religious and moral education would come into the scene. Yes, I believe that people's morals, attitudes and actions CAN change with the appropriate help. And that is the difference between functional and disfunctional families.

Also, disfunctional families aren't just "born" that way. A parent is disfunctional because he was raised in a disfunctional family, in the first place. (Off topic: How are we supposed to stop that? This, I think, is the 1 million dollar question. Shall we start a debate about it?) Another question. Perhaps we've heard the story that the percentage of homosexuals [edit] and lesbians [/edit] has remained constant. They just were "hiding in the closet".

BUT WHAT IF NOT? What if some child "turns gay" or "remains gay" because of he/she was raised in a disfunctional family? I said it before, we do NOT know the causes of homosexuality, and the possibility of being psychological, at least IMHO, is very high. How do we know homosexuality is not a symptom of a greater psychological disorder, that COULD affect an adopted child?

Now let's think about the consequences of NOT raising a child.
In my personal opinion, if a gay or lesbian couple can't have a kid, they're not dying for depression, are they? If they say that I'm discriminating gays just because of that, I would need to be given reasons of why raising a kid is a RIGHT. Because it IS an act of discrimination if i deny, or support those who deny someone from his or her human rights.

QUESTION #1. What gives one person the RIGHT to raise a child?

Is it the declaration of human rights? Extreme left-wing parties have been pressing to add that "right", so they could be recognized. But a human right is not so just because it appears in an international document.

So, instead of being given the answer for question #1, I've been given reasons for why heterosexual couples should not be given the right to raise a child. Good point, and valid point. But still, that doesn't give me the answer that I require.

So, please answer my question.
What gives a couple - more specifically, a homosexual couple - the RIGHT to raise a child?

 

I have a better question, Luvweaver: What gives you (or anyone) the right to deny them a child?

- Ark

 

wow i have to agree with this post you raised a very intersting subject.

i have a sister thats bi and shes dated other chicks and stuff like that

but no one has the right to tell another that there wrong for loveing the same sex or they can't raise a child because the kid might come out the same way. people forget that, thats the kids deicision to make not theres they have no clue how the kids gonna trun out . we know thet'll more likely come out better then a child raised in an abusive family because abuse might be the only thing they know they grew up around it . some people disagree with both abusive parenting ( but who wouldn't disagree with abusive parenting) and bisexual parenting but hey thats them bi couples arent unable to raise a perfectly normal children. There not gonna grow up to be some unfortunate side effect to an experimant of some kind. they most likely won't go throw stuff thats would happen between a man and a women . its just like haveing mom and sister or grandma and mom or dad and brother, grandpa and dad some people just don't make sense about the stupid things they say

 

Your question only deserves an answer if you can point out why homosexual couples needed to be singled out in such a manner in which you say that "more specifically, a homosexual couple". For someone who is against so many things, that seems to be one thing you aren't; singling out homosexuality. So tell me that, and as Ark said, just who you, or anyone, are to deny them such a right (I'd like to hear a better excuse than "God says it's so), and maybe your questions could be answered.

 

There is actually a passage in the New Testament as well that denounces homosexuality. Romans 1:26-27, 32 - "for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature, and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of women, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet ... who knowing the judgements of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death" Rather harsh really, (though it makes it a bit easier to know why so many christians are against same sex anything)

Note however bible does not say that we are to be the ones to judge homosexuals (parable of the mote and the beam in the eye for example, which says not to be the pot that calls the kettle black) As Novus pointed out, the bible says to love everyone; judgement is up to God, who is just, and who knows if those passages really do express his opinion.

"what, conflicting messages in the Bible?"

 

And who are you grant everyone such a right? I can think of a lot of people though who would make the world a better place by not having children..

 

So what? Does that mean that you, MamiyaOtaru, have the right to deny people having children because you THINK they won't be good parents?

That's Zack's whole point, I think - That it's not for any of us to decide who is "worthy" to have kids and who isn't. As long as they don't have a criminal record or something, everyone should be treated equally. And even if the Bible were to specifically denounce homosexual behavior, the US is a secular nation (At least we're supposed to be). There should be NO laws based on the writings of the Bible or any other religious text.

And luvweaver, you ask what gives homosexuals the RIGHT to raise a child. I point to the same banner of equality that the people of the US love to wave (Though some people only like waving it at certain times). EVERYONE, as long as not being a criminal or sex offender or anything, should be treated equally. And since heterosexuals have the right, homosexuals should have the right as well.

Just for the record, I believe that gay rights is going to be the big civil rights "battle" of our generation. First it was the rights of African-Americans and other minorities, then the rights of women, and more recently issues like abortion (Though even that isn't fully resolved). Still, history shows, thankfully, that eventually people wise up and realize that it's inclusion, not exclusion, that makes the nation - and world - better.

 

OK, regarding the bible: Loving is not the same than being in love. So I can love everyone, and do my best so everyone can be happy, but does that make me wanting to have sex with everyone? Of course not.

So, two grown up men can grow love for each other, and still not have sex. Now, as a christian, I can give my arguments against the sexual act... but that's not the topic of this thread. Rather, why homosexual marriages should (or should not) be allowed. My main concern is the adoption of children.

Now, regarding this subject, allow me to answer Billy277:

Helloooooo... you haven't answered my question...

You say:

But what makes it a RIGHT, in the first place?????????? All it seems is that you guys don't have an answer to begin with. Yes, as a human being, and devil's advocate if you want, I have all the right to question attitudes or actions, and whether they should be considered "human rights" or not.

Yes, this debate can go as deep as the declaration of human rights, and what makes a human worthy of life. Sure, we can explore the depths of law or whatever.

Anyway.

Having a child is not just "a right" (if it IS a right). It implies many responsibilities. People weren't born being parents, this is a talent that has to be learned.

Now let's think:

Is heterosexual parenting necessary, PER-SE (in itself) for the survival of human society (or mankind for that matter)? Yes.
Is homosexual parenting necessary? Is it? Really?

So, if it's not necessary, what makes it a right? And since you guys cannot prove it to be a right, therefore, denying it cannot be proven as discrimination. As simple as that.

Wanna rebate me? Prove your point. That simple. Sure, people can get upset at us "right wingers" for "denying such rights"... but if you're attacking the person, and NOT disproving the argument, you acomplish absolutely nothing.

[note]
For those interested in debating, this act of attacking the person instead of the argument, is called "Ad hominem", and has been known by professional debaters as a dirty trick.
Well, that was our cultural brief of the day. See ya next time! ^_^
[/note]

 

It's also clearly as simple as you, yourself, have no answers but your passed-down beliefs and thus have no "reason" to prove yourself right because, after all, you are right and that's that. At least, that's what I think. The only remote hint that you gave is that homosexuality might be a psychological disease of sorts and thus it could alter the child, just like anyone with any psychological disease could. As far as I can tell, with your theory, I don't think you're far behind from limiting adoption to white, Christian suburban people. And I'm sure limiting adoption from homosexuals is accomplishing everything, making the world safe from more people possibly growing up to be homosexuals, right? Because it's a clearly evident message hidden in what you're trying to say for everyone who really opens their eyes.

 

Zack:
Look, I never said anything about preventing children to become gay. And I'm not a brainwashed zealot, either. I don't think gay people are automatically going to hell, nor anything like that. If you think I do, then you're pretending to read my thoughts, and that's very dangerous.

I never said limiting adoption from homosexuals was the solution for everything. The world's society is a very complicated system, and there are many problems intertwined with each other. But we can't speak about all the problems in a single thread dedicated to just one of them. If anyone wants to know my opinion, or wants to clear some thoughts, or even tell me to die, they're welcome to do so _in private_. But not in an open forum, please.

But regarding the question itself, I don't think I have anything to add (for now). I think that what I've said is enough for reasonable people to understand my point of view.

Anyway, I saved the data in this debate for my future use elsewhere. It's been a pleasure debating in this thread.

See ya...