|
On February 11 2011 23:38 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Well it sounds like something a crazy liberal would legislate.
2 Gay people cannot theoretically procreate therefore it isn't marriage , two men cannot provide a balanced upbringing for potential children (even if they could have any).
Lack of morals = one of the big reasons the west is in decline.
As long as stuff is CHEAP who cares if it's made by slaves in China working 16 hours a day for a bowl of rice.One example of many.
Based on "crazy liberal" and the disturbingly and the stereotypically disjointed logic, you're either trolling or you aren't older than fourteen years old, but I'll bite, and I'll put things as simply as possible.
Marriage is not legally defined by their hypothetical procreation. If it was, the legal code surrounding marriage would specify that x-couple is required to have y-number of babies, or procreation outside of wedlock would carry with it stringent legal consequences. The gay marriage debate is about the rights afforded spouses mentioned in this post.
Similarly, gay couples can and do adopt or they have surrogate donors (like surrogate mothers for gay men or sperm donors for gay women). Similarly, some of the most sane and logical people I have ever met were raised by two moms or two dads. Your hearsay, lacking in any substantive proof, is as good as mine, lacking in any substantive proof, beyond their canceling each other out.
Same for the implication that gay marriage directly leads to amorality. Here is some more hearsay: some of the hardest-working, busiest people I've met in my life were like radioactively gay; some of the laziest, most entitled people I've ever met were heterosexual Protestants. But this is not something to make legislation on, being that "gay" and "straight" are essentialist constructs as is (blah blah blah blah).
I have nothing to say about the last sentence besides noting that off-shoring and outsourcing manufacturing was a business strategy introduced by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher to deal with the previous labour crisis.
|
On February 11 2011 17:54 gork84 wrote:
Some food for thought. What about atheist couples who become married via a courthouse, with no religious involvement? That shouldn't be labeled a marriage either considering that there was no ceremony with no priest/pastor etc. You can't pick and choose the parts of the bible/religion you want to follow and ignore the rest.
Strike the term marriage from all legal terminology and replace it with civil union. Leave the term marriage in the churches where it belongs. If you are truly a christian, whether your government labels it marriage or civil union or whatever, their name for it shouldn't matter because you went through the steps of your religion to be married.
The argument isn't about the name, its about equal treatment of people. Its ridiculous how blind people can be.
Absolutely. I also became numb to this issue when people began to condemn the Catholic church for not allowing same-sex marriages inside the church... That goes beyond 'equality' and starts pushing the beliefs of the institution... But that's not really OT.
|
Why are straight people so interested in what gay people can and cant do?!
I guess its a defense mechanism, so those closet gays dont feel like they are losing by staying in the closet, so they bash em homos to no end, until they are forced into the same closet those guys are in.
|
What about polygamy? Is that part of the slippery slope or is it a legitimate issue? As I see it most gay marriage supporters I have met aren't in favour of polygamy but if our western values can allow for more than one kind of marriage then we may as well allow multiple partners. At least we an say that there is a history in some parts of the world for polygamy.
|
I'll just leave this here...
![[image loading]](http://www.leftycartoons.com/wp-content/uploads/slippery_slope.png)
|
On February 12 2011 02:47 D10 wrote:
Why are straight people so interested in what gay people can and cant do?!
I guess its a defense mechanism, so those closet gays dont feel like they are losing by staying in the closet, so they bash em homos to no end, until they are forced into the same closet those guys are in.
I'm just going to play a simple swap here and see how it goes:
Why are White people so interested in what Black people can and can't do?
Why are Rich people so interested in what Poor people can and can't do?
Why is anyone so interested in what anyone can or can't do?
Its a simple wish for your fellow man or woman to be afforded the same rights as anyone else. Something this country was supposedly founded on.
As for two men not being able to raise a balanced child, that is completely sexist. What about single parents? Its ridiculous to think that someone raised by two women or two men, gay or not has such an immense effect.
I do agree though that churches should not be forced into performing marriage ceremonies for gay couples. Not that there aren't churches out there that already perform the ceremonies if need be.
|
On February 11 2011 23:50 Romantic wrote:
Should sterile men or women be banned from marriage?
Well they did ban a guy with low IQ from having sex last week so who knows what is in the pipeline.
If they did choose to adopt children though (the sterile couple) then that environment would be better for raising kids.Kids brought up by two gay partners would be teased at school for that reason.
|
On February 13 2011 13:26 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 23:50 Romantic wrote:
Should sterile men or women be banned from marriage?
Well they did ban a guy with low IQ from having sex last week so who knows what is in the pipeline. If they did choose to adopt children though (the sterile couple) then that environment would be better for raising kids.Kids brought up by two gay partners would be teased at school for that reason.
I'm guessing this is the man you're talking about:
http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Judge bans with from having/4225699/story.html
A man with a low IQ has been banned from having sexual intercourse by a High Court judge who admitted the case raised questions about "civil liberties and personal autonomy".
The 41 year-old had been in a relationship with a man with whom he lived and told officials "it would make me feel happy" for it to continue.
But his local council, which provides his accommodation, decided his "vigorous sex drive" was inappropriate and that with an IQ of 48 and a "moderate" learning disability, he did not understand what he was doing. It started legal proceedings to restrict the relationship.
So no, this doesn't remotely help your case.
And as for gay couples with children:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07161/793042-51.stm
A number of professional medical organizations -- including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychiatric Association -- have issued statements claiming that a parent's sexual orientation is irrelevant to his or her ability to raise a child.
For the most part, the organizations are relying on a relatively small but conclusive body of research -- approximately 67 studies -- looking at children of gay parents and compiled by the American Psychological Association. In study after study, children in same-sex parent families turned out the same, for better or for worse, as children in heterosexual families. '
And before you say I'm cherry-picking:
"With all due respect to Cheney and her partner," Dr. James Dobson of the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, wrote in Time magazine in December, "the majority of more than 30 years of social-science evidence indicates that children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father."
Some liberals chimed in too, notably Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Leonard Pitts, who cited "a growing body of research that tells us the child raised without his or her biological father is significantly more likely to live in poverty, do poorly in school, drop out altogether, become a teen parent, exhibit behavioral problems, smoke, drink, use drugs or wind up in jail."
However:
The problem with the research cited by both Dr. Dobson and Mr. Pitts is that it compares children of heterosexual couples only with those of single parents and not with children of same-sex parent families, said Gary Gates, a senior research fellow at the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law and an expert on census data involving gay and lesbian households.
But there is also this fact:
The problem with these studies, Dr. Gates says, is that most of the children are from "intentional" same-sex parent families, where the parents tend to be better educated, more affluent and more open about their sexual orientation, and who deliberately conceive or adopt children with the intention of raising them in a same-sex parent family.
"My research suggests that's not the typical gay parent household," Dr. Gates said.
And if you read on, there's hubbub from both sides of the fence on this issue. There is no conclusive evidence, either way, to verify what you so blindly have stated. While based on your beliefs, you may think gay couples aren't as suitable parents as hetero couples are, going around and spouting that opinion as fact annoys the hell out of me.
|
On February 13 2011 15:12 TOloseGT wrote:
The problem with the research cited by both Dr. Dobson and Mr. Pitts is that it compares children of heterosexual couples only with those of single parents and not with children of same-sex parent families
Why on earth did you post this?
While based on your beliefs, you may think gay couples aren't as suitable parents as hetero couples are, going around and spouting that opinion as fact annoys the hell out of me.
Thousands of years of human evolution says otherwise.
|
I logged in to say that posting an argument on why gay marriage should be allowed on TL is 1 step short of posting it on Digg before it sold out completely. You aren't gonna get any meaningful arguments. Only people agreeing or disagreeing with minor points of the argument but not the entire message. And then people bicker over arguments that slowly develop farther and farther away from OP topic.
But anyways, about the whole whether or not gays should be allowed children, my 2 cents:
The thing to realize is that true homosexuality(they did not choose that they will be gay) will always be a small minority among humanity. As a result the unnatural nature (I'm pretty sure nature intended us to reproduce/mate with the opposite sex) of homosexuality will always be discriminated against in some way.
With that in mind, my idea is that homosexual couples should not be allowed to go through artificial insemination or whatever it is to produce children as they more often than not, will be raising a child that will be discriminated against and suffer a shitty childhood. I will go ahead and say they should be able to adopt as chances are, the life they can provide for the orphan is better than what they already have.
Gay parents can love/fail children just as much as straight parents can. Only difference is how the outside world is going to treat the children based on parents/family status. If you honestly don't think so, consider how kids are treated on parental wealth, single parenthood or not, parental occupation, cultural/ethic background, the cars they are picked up in if any... the fact that your parents are gay is gonna do a lot.
|
On February 14 2011 00:07 lone_hydra wrote:
Gay parents can love/fail children just as much as straight parents can. Only difference is how the outside world is going to treat the children based on parents/family status. If you honestly don't think so, consider how kids are treated on parental wealth, single parenthood or not, parental occupation, cultural/ethic background, the cars they are picked up in if any... the fact that your parents are gay is gonna do a lot.
I'm pretty sure the same argument was made when inter-racial marriage was allowed. Now, the majority of people don't even care.
Years from now, the majority of the population will feel the exact same way about kids from gay parents.
|
On February 14 2011 03:48 Adila wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 00:07 lone_hydra wrote:
Gay parents can love/fail children just as much as straight parents can. Only difference is how the outside world is going to treat the children based on parents/family status. If you honestly don't think so, consider how kids are treated on parental wealth, single parenthood or not, parental occupation, cultural/ethic background, the cars they are picked up in if any... the fact that your parents are gay is gonna do a lot. I'm pretty sure the same argument was made when inter-racial marriage was allowed. Now, the majority of people don't even care. Years from now, the majority of the population will feel the exact same way about kids from gay parents.
Whatever, we'll see, arguing about it won't change much. But your argument has weak correlation. Although both are fighting for human rights, inter-racials it is biologically natural for them to procreate and have kids who will know their father and mother. Children of homosexuals will at best have the feeling of a divorced kid who has a gay-step parent, and at worst never know who their other true father/mother are.
|
On February 13 2011 22:22 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +The problem with the research cited by both Dr. Dobson and Mr. Pitts is that it compares children of heterosexual couples only with those of single parents and not with children of same-sex parent families Why on earth did you post this?
Because regardless of whether gay couples are always good at raising children, it tramples all over the idea that somehow children need to have both a mother and a father to develop properly.
On February 13 2011 22:22 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +
While based on your beliefs, you may think gay couples aren't as suitable parents as hetero couples are, going around and spouting that opinion as fact annoys the hell out of me.
Thousands of years of human evolution says otherwise.
Rofl, this doesn't even make sense.
|
On February 14 2011 04:43 lone_hydra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 03:48 Adila wrote:On February 14 2011 00:07 lone_hydra wrote:
Gay parents can love/fail children just as much as straight parents can. Only difference is how the outside world is going to treat the children based on parents/family status. If you honestly don't think so, consider how kids are treated on parental wealth, single parenthood or not, parental occupation, cultural/ethic background, the cars they are picked up in if any... the fact that your parents are gay is gonna do a lot. I'm pretty sure the same argument was made when inter-racial marriage was allowed. Now, the majority of people don't even care. Years from now, the majority of the population will feel the exact same way about kids from gay parents. Whatever, we'll see, arguing about it won't change much. But your argument has weak correlation. Although both are fighting for human rights, inter-racials it is biologically natural for them to procreate and have kids who will know their father and mother. Children of homosexuals will at best have the feeling of a divorced kid who has a gay-step parent, and at worst never know who their other true father/mother are.
Uhhhh what's your point? This is really not very coherent
|
Marriage is a Christian concept, correct? So, the only reason homosexual couples want to be married is because of the government benefits?
Why can't we just create an equal concept of marriage or give the same incentives to civil unions?
And if anyone complains, that would be an equal institution. Having different names does not imply different institutions in the legal system and therefore would be constitutional. It would hold hold a different demeanor because the public does not support one of them, not the government.
|
On February 14 2011 05:12 holynorth wrote:
Marriage is a Christian concept, correct? So, the only reason homosexual couples want to be married is because of the government benefits?
Why can't we just create an equal concept of marriage or give the same incentives to civil unions?
And if anyone complains, that would be an equal institution. Having different names does not imply different institutions in the legal system and therefore would be constitutional. It would hold hold a different demeanor because the public does not support one of them, not the government.
Incorrect - marriage is pretty much existent in some form or another in nearly every culture and religion*.
Therefore, claiming that it defies the laws of Christianity is a flawed argument. While your argument holds truth, if you are going to allow them the to be in a civil union, why not just allow them to be married by non-christian sources / give them the title of "marriage".
*I think?
|
On February 11 2011 07:12 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Slavery is between 1 master and 1 slave. Show nested quote +I don't understand why you would care about what other people do when it isn't anything that is causing harm to someone. As long as niggers sit at the back of the bus then i don't care.
|
I'm okay with gay marriage, but they shouldnt be capable of adopt a child, i dont think it will be good for the child to have gay parents, not good example etc.
|
On February 14 2011 06:14 SlyinZ wrote:
I'm okay with gay marriage, but they shouldnt be capable of adopt a child, i dont think it will be good for the child to have gay parents, not good example etc.
Can't be any worse than the shithole foster care system.
|
Poll: Was what Damon did wrong?Yes (0) 0% No (0) 0% 0 total votes Your vote: Was what Damon did wrong? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
test
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
