| Blogs > Alou |
JWD
United States12607 Posts
On June 28 2010 15:33 kzn wrote: You'll find I'd actually be in favor of that as well, if it was done right. I'm consistent, even if I'm rarely popular :> haha ok I follow now. There is some method to your madness  unrealistic though. | ||
Manifesto7
Osaka27149 Posts
On June 28 2010 15:32 kzn wrote: I'm not sure anything major happened in 1975, I just picked a year when economics wasn't even vaguely understood. And 1066 was the first to come to mind >.> William the Conqueror was kind of a big deal. | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
But I suppose regime change would impact taxes quite a bit, heh. | ||
|
Manifesto7
Osaka27149 Posts
On June 28 2010 15:32 kzn wrote: I'm not sure anything major happened in 1975, I just picked a year when economics wasn't even vaguely understood. And 1066 was the first to come to mind >.> Also, change your quote please. | ||
|
Seraphim
United States4467 Posts
It seems to me that it's about time that same sex marriage is disallowed, but I also believe same-sex adoption is good thing as well. I've always believed that sexual orientation is very heavily based on biology and much less on social development (a lot of research suggests this as well), and that allowing adoption for same sex couples can only help children who are in need of parents. | ||
|
Masamune
Canada3401 Posts
| ||
|
JWD
United States12607 Posts
| ||
|
RageOverdose
United States690 Posts
On June 28 2010 14:21 Manifesto7 wrote: In my opinion marriage represents an important social purpose. It is a representation of commitment to the community and society in general that you are forming a union with another person. This includes not only the two people getting married but also their respective families and resources. I think this is an important bond that helps keep the fabric of society strong. It is also a commitment to raising a family, and while marriage is not a prerequisite obviously, it is still the most established environment for raising children. Your complaint about gifts has nothing to do with marriage, but rather weddings. That is an entirely separate issue. The state-sanctioned aspect of marriage is simply for tax and organizational purposes, (it saves you a lot of money, so it is useful) and if you are not comfortable with that you can simply have a ceremony and remain common-law, enjoying all the benefits of an officially married couple (at least in Canada). And finally, I don't care who marries who. If two dudes want to get married, it doesn't affect me whatsoever. If they want to adopt... well that is a different story. I don't dislike marriage, I hope you aren't getting that impression. I actually hope to be married one day. And your description of what marriage should be I agree with. Unfortunately, marriage doesn't really tend to be that way sometimes, in my opinion. I feel many people marry for a reason that is not really beneficial to society. Some people get married, I think, without the intent of really raising children. I think it's the idea/plan of raising that really contribute to those societal ties, not so much the couple themselves. Because, what is a couple with no children to society? I mean, I guess I'm not seeing it. But the thing is, I see marriage as something pertaining to raising kids, so we really aren't disagreeing I think. Although I never really saw it as a union of two families, which is a missed observation, to be sure. And I'm not disagreeing to the usefulness of the state-sanctioned aspects of marriage, that's why I mentioned that I'm talking about marriage in and of itself. And I always contributed gifts and such to the marriage, although that was definitely faulty on my part, because yeah, that's more of a ceremonial thing at the wedding, if it happens. And I wasn't complaining, I can't even see how I was implying any complaint. I'm not bitter or annoyed at the idea of marriage without intent of raising family, my personal opinion is just that I wouldn't do it if I weren't going to have children. | ||
|
ghrur
United States3786 Posts
On June 28 2010 15:34 Djzapz wrote: I don't believe that marriage is helpful in creating productive citizen. Look at Japan, those people are EXTREMELY career oriented and they don't get married as much as we do. Their productivity is by far higher than ours. And financially helping couples is almost certainly good idea so I would say why not just make "couples" do some paperwork to get whatever tax cuts based on whatever criteria. They need to live together - it's based on their income, the amount of kids, whatever. So you can have your marriage ceremony completely separate from whatever ties you have with your government. But see, there are more things that affect the productivity gap than simply "we have more marriages than them." There are cultural differences in the attitude toward education and what not. Idk, but I'm guessing Mani can speak about that much better than I can, lol. Also, Japan has a lower divorce rate :p. Maybe more stable families are helping their child development? And I honestly can't say about financially helping all couples. I have never thought about that, hahaha. Currently, I'm thinking Hollywood couples would make that kind of moot, but so does marriage. Idk, what makes them count as a couple? What is the criteria? How does it stop? etc. On the last point, you can keep marriage ceremonies separate anyway. That's why there are all sorts of marriage ceremonies which all provide the couple with the same benefits under the law. It's not completely separate, but the ceremony has no relation to the benefits you receive by getting a marriage license aside from the fact that both uses "marriage." | ||
|
Manifesto7
Osaka27149 Posts
On June 28 2010 15:25 JWD wrote: And while homosexuality certainly does influence behavior, you could make a strong argument that race does as well (isn't racism just race influencing behavior, for example?). But more importantly, on the issue of childrearing at least, homosexuality might certainly influence behavior (parenting) but we have to ask ourselves how? Without some proof that the influence is a negative one, it can't concern us as would-be policymakers. My point is: just as we should allow couples of all race combinations to raise children because, amongst other reasons, parents' race does not negatively influence childrearing, we should allow couples of all sexual orientations to raise children because, amongst other reasons, parents' sexual orientation does not negatively influence childrearing. That's the sense in which the race analogy is spot on. I am not out to deprive people of rights, so from a policy point of view gay couples can adopt children. That being said, race has no bearing on behaviour. Culture and society does, and they react to race, but you can take a child of any race, put them in any other society at birth, and they will adopt the behaviours and language of the society they are raised in flawlessly and without fail. An African taken at birth to live in Japan will not retain any African behavioural traits. However, as a parent, I cannot understand the paternal or maternal needs of a homosexual. Because I cannot understand that, I am at odds on how to deal with this issue. This is the difference between race and orientation that I think you are linking too closely, and where I see the difference. | ||
|
Masamune
Canada3401 Posts
| ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
If one can understand why and how people would adopt children that have no blood relation to them, then I don't understand why they wouldn't be able to understand the same for homosexuals. | ||
|
Manifesto7
Osaka27149 Posts
On June 28 2010 15:45 RageOverdose wrote: I don't dislike marriage, I hope you aren't getting that impression. I actually hope to be married one day. And your description of what marriage should be I agree with. Unfortunately, marriage doesn't really tend to be that way sometimes, in my opinion. I feel many people marry for a reason that is not really beneficial to society. Some people get married, I think, without the intent of really raising children. I think it's the idea/plan of raising that really contribute to those societal ties, not so much the couple themselves. Because, what is a couple with no children to society? I mean, I guess I'm not seeing it. But the thing is, I see marriage as something pertaining to raising kids, so we really aren't disagreeing I think. I don't think we are disagreeing either. But a couple of people who marry and do not have kids still support each other in their old age. I think there is benefit to that. Although I never really saw it as a union of two families, which is a missed observation, to be sure. Nobody lives in a vacuum. I'm not bitter or annoyed at the idea of marriage without intent of raising family, my personal opinion is just that I wouldn't do it if I weren't going to have children. Might be nice to have someone to play cribbage with when you get old  | ||
|
darmousseh
United States3437 Posts
There is a simple way of changing the law, the supreme court says "marriage has too many different meanings to be defined by the US government therefore it cannot be legislated and therefore all laws regarding marriage are not valid in that respect". | ||
|
Manifesto7
Osaka27149 Posts
On June 28 2010 15:52 koreasilver wrote: I'm not sure how you have a difficult time understanding why homosexuals wouldn't have the wantings to care for a child. Humans have been adopting children from completely outside of their blood and making it work for thousands of years. Even animals adopt - even homosexual animals; and animals also adopt young beings that are outside of their species, not unlike how we humans have endearing relationships with pets. If one can understand why and how people would adopt children that have no blood relation to them, then I don't understand why they wouldn't be able to understand the same for homosexuals. I don't see the connection between "children who are not blood" and homosexuality. Those seem like two completely different issues to me. Obviously there are homosexuals who want to be parents, otherwise this would be a moot issue. I am not denying it exists, and I am not out to prevent anyone from it. I think a loving home is the most important thing, and if someone can create that loving home with a homosexual partner, then all the power to them. What I can't reconcile is that people would want to have children and nurture them, but not want to (or be able to) exist in a relationship were children are the result of that relationship. Is it just nature's cruel joke to make gay people, give them the same paternal urges as straight people, then point and laugh? That seems pretty unfortunate. | ||
|
GogoKodo
Canada1785 Posts
On June 28 2010 15:47 Manifesto7 wrote: I am not out to deprive people of rights, so from a policy point of view gay couples can adopt children. That being said, race has no bearing on behaviour. Culture and society does, and they react to race, but you can take a child of any race, put them in any other society at birth, and they will adopt the behaviours and language of the society they are raised in flawlessly and without fail. An African taken at birth to live in Japan will not retain any African behavioural traits. However, as a parent, I cannot understand the paternal or maternal needs of a homosexual. Because I cannot understand that, I am at odds on how to deal with this issue. This is the difference between race and orientation that I think you are linking too closely, and where I see the difference. I'm not really sure what behavioral differences you might be talking about. The only thing I can think of is that gay men are sexually attracted to men, and thus their different behavior would include same sex intercourse. Same deal for women. I'm not sure why a sexual attraction would have any bearing on maternal/paternal needs/feelings. It would be like puzzling over whether or not the shoe fetishist across the street truly feels the same way about parenting as I do. Gay people come in all shapes, sizes, degrees of bisexuality, colors, personalities, etc, just like any straight person. If a gay person says, I want to raise an adopted (or otherwise) child because I want to be a parent, it means the exact same thing as when a straight person says it. edit: I see your post above. You've got it about right I think. There are gay people that want to have children that cannot do so on their own, sucks, but that's how it is. Also, these discussions never seem to mention couples that actually do have children through forms other than adoption. Either through medical procedures or naturally with the help of a willing surrogate or sperm donor. So in those cases generally 1 parent would be blood related. | ||
|
omninmo
2349 Posts
User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On June 28 2010 16:14 omninmo wrote: if you legalize gay marriage then you have to legalize incest User was temp banned for this post. Irrefutable logic. If you legalize weed you have to legalize meth and mass murder. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
On June 28 2010 16:04 Manifesto7 wrote: I don't see the connection between "children who are not blood" and homosexuality. Those seem like two completely different issues to me. Obviously there are homosexuals who want to be parents, otherwise this would be a moot issue. I am not denying it exists, and I am not out to prevent anyone from it. I think a loving home is the most important thing, and if someone can create that loving home with a homosexual partner, then all the power to them. What I can't reconcile is that people would want to have children and nurture them, but not want to (or be able to) exist in a relationship were children are the result of that relationship. Is it just nature's cruel joke to make gay people, give them the same paternal urges as straight people, then point and laugh? That seems pretty unfortunate. I don't understand why the ability to procreate must be such a fundamental part of nurturing a child. There is nothing lesser about raising a child that is not of your blood. On June 28 2010 16:14 omninmo wrote: if you legalize gay marriage then you have to legalize incest User was temp banned for this post. rofl slippery slope. | ||
|
hi19hi19
United States163 Posts
It surely will change his experience subtly in the long run, just like any other kid is influenced by their parent's ideals, but from my limited experience there's nothing that makes him some aberration of society just because he was raised by a same-sex couple. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games summit1g10080 shahzam1764 WinterStarcraft383 ViBE236 Maynarde130 Livibee67 NeuroSwarm62 RuFF_SC260 JuggernautJason32 |
|
Wardi Open
OSC
Stormgate Nexus
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
Replay Cast
LiuLi Cup
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
RSL Revival
RSL Revival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
