Debate Same-sex marriage

Oh, I'm not worried about Bush. Does anyone really listen to him? I was just using it as an example of the stupid lengths some people go over things that don't have any real part in their lives.

 

Bush is another topic entirely, and if you guys want to discuss him, please make a new thread to do so.

Anyways, so far I'm pleased with the points being made in this thread. I have noticed, however, that the anti-gay-marriage folks haven't really made any points so far. If one of you guys wants to play Christian's Advocate, it might help the poor guys out

Also, please watch the skirting of the ad-hominem line, you guys dance too close to it for my liking. I'm not going to edit anything at the current levels, but please, don't step over it

- Ark

 

Ah, the sound of backpeddling.

Saying "I don't support it because God says so" would tend to push you into being against gay marriage. Furthermore, if you actually feel the way you say you do, next time make sure you note that in your first statement instead of waiting for people to call you out on it.

 

I think that it is stupid that they now wish to BAN gay marriage... If you ask me, I believe you should be able to marry who you wish to. The person I love, I may never be allowed to marry, or openly love, and it really sucks. If I had a strong enough voice in this world, I would stand up to most of the world and use that voice, but unfortunately, I am not of any power in this world of ignorant, political adults, who really only care about saving thier own butts.

~~Aiko (Mika)

 

I'm not to worried either. You watch - if Bush loses this coming election, the issue of gay marriage will be a major nail in his coffin.

Now, as I see it, we're bound to have legalized gay marriage here in the US eventually. Why? There's not really any reason NOT to, other than the religious opposition to it. It's more a matter of when rather than if. This really is the big fight of our times - and it has a lot in common with minority rights and women's rights.

Actually, let me go into that for a moment. I can't remember who it was that was making the point that marriage is not necessary and therefor not a right... But since I've got myself thinking about that statement, I may as well address it. Voting is not "necessary" either, not for life. Many people who can vote don't bother. And yet, it's still something that ALL adults, regardless of gender or race, should be able to do. I think marriage IS a right. Besides, doesn't the Constitution of the United States gaurantee the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? I'd say that part of happiness is being able to marry whom you choose, provided the union is consensual.

 

Just a few tidbits I found humorous and interesting... the fact that ancient Greeks were expected to practice homosexuality (while they *were* in fact married to a woman, to procreate, it was beyond commonplace for them to have countless male lovers, especially of the younger-aged stature).

Also there have been reports of ancient church liturgical documents found in other countries, dating as far back as the 11th century, that hold rites that grant the unity of two men as in the same manner of a marriage between a heterosexual couple.

Not quite sure if anyone else had posted those, but I found them interesting.

 

Yeah, I posted the bit about the Ancient Greeks, but I couldn't find the source for the information, so a second witness strengthens the fact that it's true. In other words, I'm glad you posted what I did! :anime:

 

hi

i saw that to on the history channel to with haveing same sex realtionship

 

that post makes as much sense as your sig :anime: ...
personally i think it's all ok. i'm not too sure about marrige though. marriage has alot of religous connotations to it. i think it should be up to the respective religions as to whether they allow same sex marriages or not. either way, same sex couples should have the same rights as hetrosexual couples, with the exclusion of kids. i don't think it's right to raise a kid in a same sex relationship.

 

I dont think same sex couples should be allowed to adopt children either. That would not be fair to the child because there would be the possibility of gender confusion. Also as the kid gets older he/she will probably be bullied and harrassed because of their same sex parents.

 

I don't think different sex couples should adopt or have children. Why not? Look at any person like Charles Manson, Adolf Hitler, Ted Bundy, etc.

 

I know a kid whose mom left his dad for a woman. The kid is probably one of the coolest guys in school and never gets harassed.

Part of marriage is to care for a child (well, technically to procreate, but that not possible with two guys and only possible through artificial insemenation with two girls), so why should a homosexual married couple adopt kids. Unless your plan is to force them all in to an anullment.

And also, look at someone like Ed Gein. Both his parents were straight (presumanely) and he didn't turn out so good. You're saying that having homosexual parents will mess a kid up. Wrong, more pshyco children come from straight reltionships than homosexual. Any bad parent will mess a kid up, not just homosexual ones.

Yes, Ed Gein is a weird fella

 

PROVE IT.

Show me statistics comparing the number of mentally or emotionally disturbed kids from healthy (non-alcoholic, non-abusive, financially secure) families with homosexual parents to the number of disturbed kids from healthy (same criteria) heterosexual families. If you can't show me, with FACTUAL EVIDENCE, that homosexual couples will screw up their kids or cause them to be gender-confused, then I say you're being both extremely bigoted and extremely stupid.

There are incompetent parents in every category you could possibly look at - gay, straight, single, white, black, poor, rich, religious, atheist. But you know what? Good kids come from bad families all the time, and vice versa. Yes, certain factors tend to create problems - an abusive father often teaches his kids to abuse, for example. But a parent's sexuality has very little to do with their ability to parent well.

While it's true that children can often connect better to a same-sex parent (a girl connects more to her mother, generally, and a boy connects to his father), kids can get their mother or father image from an aunt, an older cousin, a family friend... To say that a homosexual couple would have gender-confused kids, or kids who grow up without appropriate models, is stupid. By that argument, single parents shouldn't be allowed to have kids or adopt because the child only gets one parent-figure.

Any competent individual or couple should be able to adopt. There are far too many kids in temporary/foster homes. Why limit their potential families to only heterosexual couples, if a homosexual couple can provide them with a stable home and support?

Your argument is about as valid as saying that a white couple can't adopt an Asian child, or an interracial couple can't have kids, because the child would grow up with racial identity issues. That's crap, absolute crap.

 

probably because there are a hell of alot more children in straight sex relationships .

define 'cool'. and does the fact that he's popular mean that he has been raised well or lives in a good environment?.
also, we're talking about a kid who was raised in a normal relationship, not born into a homosexual one. how old was he when this changed?, how long ago was that?, and who has custody of him if he's still young?.
and regardless of all this, a singularity doesn't rule.
i believe to think that kids living in a homosexual environment wouldn't be bullied, you would have be living in a fantasy land. Kids aren't politically correct.

there's plenty of proof that boys look up to their father, and girls their mother.
http://davidmorrison.typepad.com/sed_contra/2004/01/impact_on_kids_.html
plenty more where that came from....

granted, but why increase the likelyhood?

any competent COUPLE should, yes, but an individual is not a competent family, or a substitute for parents.

irrelavent comparison unless the couple are of the same sex. reguardless of their race, a father and mother is a family.

 

Actually, the comparison was completely relevant. After all, people are talking about denying two human beings a right because "then the child would not be raised as s/he should be" which is *more* than entirely possible in such a case that was presented.

"granted, but why increase the likelyhood?"

Why increase the likelyhood that we could have another Adolf Hitler, Ed Gein, Charles Manson, or Ted Bundy on our hands? You know what; from now on I proclaim that no children shall ever be created, whatsoever, by any means, and no human shall ever be cloned! I mean... why increase the likelyhood that we'll have another psycho on our hands? Let's nip the problem in the bud and erase the human existence.

 

Kids also get bullied because of financial status, looks, interests and hobbies... What's your point?

Besides, if homosexual couples raising kids weren't considered abnormal, if they became an accepted part of society, then their kids wouldn't be teased any more than kids from any other healthy family situation. So basically, the home situation isn't the root of this problem - bigotry is.

That's not what I was asking to have proven. If you noticed, I did address that point in my post. Guess what - I'm a girl who was raised mostly by my dad. Big deal. And I know plenty of other people who were raised by an opposite-sex parent, with no detrimental effect.

Well, that isn't the debate at hand. Two men can be a competent couple, as can two women.

It's perfectly relevant. Denying someone rights based on a physical characteristic - gender, race, height, etc. - is both stupid and bigoted. If the couple can provide a stable, loving situation for a child, why shouldn't they be allowed to?

If your definition of a family is a father and mother, then I guess kids should no longer be able to live with extended family like grandparents, or with a single parent. Let's just toss them all into foster care. e_e;

So... what if a pair of transsexuals want a kid? If one was born male and became female, and the other was born female and became male - you wouldn't have a problem with that, right? Because it seems that the only thing that matters to you is that the couple be comprised of one man and one woman.

 

amon:
it's not relavent, because the situation is different.

and what's wrong with this?

we try not do this, thats why we have child services. we're talking about whats best for a majority here. the majority of hetrosexual relationships have good kids, the same may not be said for homosexual ones.

my point is why not give the kids a chance?

you can rationalise why these kids would be bullied, and you can blame it on the close-mindedness of the general population, but that aint gonna stop it is it? homosexual relations ARE considered abnormal, because they are not common, and part of the natural order.

i realise that, but the link was the proof you were asking for.

have you not wished to be raised with a mother as well? don't you consider it a right or feel jipped in any way?.

"this is not the topic at hand"
i didn't raise it, you did.

i don't believe that a same-sex couple has the right to decide whether to have a child to raise. Only the child has that right. You can't ask that child if it wishes to be born, so i believe that adoption is the only choice these couples should have. Provided of course that the adoptee consents to the adoption.

 

Can you prove that there's a higher incidence of "bad" kids raised by homosexual couples? I doubt it. you can't deny someone a right based on a maybe.

No, that won't stop it. The only thing that will stop it is people finally getting it through their thick heads that being homosexual is not a bad thing, and it's no grounds for being mocked or abused either. When people can learn to treat homosexuals as equals, by giving them the same rights to marriage and family life as everyone else, the problem will stop for the most part. There will never be total acceptance - we still have racism, after all - but when the majority recognizes the rights of same-sex couples, they will also be less tolerant of bigotry directed at gays.

Not really, no. I think there are a lot of different situations that make a family. The only things that EVERY family should share are love, responsibility, and acceptance of each other. The superficial structure of the family really isn't that big a deal.

In fact, when I was in elementary school - about 3rd grade - one of my friends came from a family in which the kids where being raised by their biological father and his boyfriend. She was perfectly happy, and as far as I know no one teased her about it. I never really thought about it until later, either; that was just her family.

You can't ask a child whether it wishes to be born into ANY family. A child has no choice in, say, it's family's religion - and plenty of people say that their religious upbringing was different than what they might have chosen if possible. But no one thinks that strict Christians shouldn't be able to have kids just because they might raise kids who'll grow up uncomfortable with their religion.

Besides, your "Provided of course that the adoptee consents to the adoption" doesn't really work. Many children are adopted as infants. You'd have to restrict gay couples to adopting children old enough to understand homosexuality for that to be applicable, and that's silly. Would you make a Christian family wait until the kid was old enough to agree to their religion to be adopted? I doubt it.

Bottom line: homosexuality is just one of many traits that make up a person. Quality of life should not be based on sexual orientation; therefor, homosexuals should be able to share the same rights to marriage and a family as anyone else.

 

maybe, maybe not. no ones done cloning yet, but it's illegal nearly everywhere. If you don't know the implications of something, it's stupid to dive right in and say, 'oh well evrything will be ok'. we've got no solid proof that these kids are behind the 8 ball, but we've got no proof that they're not. We need to look at how single parent families kids are before we draw any rash conclusions about the need of a kid and their family.

you sure can deny someone a right based on a maybe. If their right has the potential to infringe on another persons rights, then what they want is not a right at all.

how is legal acceptance going to change any of this?. How many religions will never recognise same sex couples?. can you see religous people or institutions re-writing their beliefs in the interest of being politically correct?
Have racism laws reduced racism?
they'll never be seen as equals because they are different, they defy most religion, and they defy the natural order.

how is a biological father and mother superficial?

you can denounce a religion and pick up another one anytime. no ones stopping you. a child born into a same-sex family can't decide to denounce his family and start a new one with their biological parents.
a child may not wish to be born into a particular family, but they've still got their biological parents in their blood. There's a difference to that, and wishing not to be born into a same-sex family, which you leave with the knowledge your biological parents are a test-tube and freezer.

an adopted child has the right to know what they're being put into. if they're not old enough to understand it, then they shouldn't be adopted. it's not a silly proposition. a religion is personal choice. as i said, it can be denouced at any time. if a religous family adopts a kid and trys to ram a religion down their throat that they don't want, then they shouldn't have been allowed to adopt in the first place. religion isn't a permanent or constant thing. the nature of your birth is.


bottom line:homosexuality defys nature and religion, it is an anomoly, and placing a child in this situation could have any number of ill affects. You cannot claim your own personal rights over those of another individual simply because they cannot speak for themselves. A biological mother and father is something that CANNOT be replaced or substituted in any shape or form.