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.
Your argument makes 0 sense. There are just as many screwed up kids raise by straight parents. Bad parenting doesn't discriminate.
Anyway, economic factors have a bigger impact anyway. A poor kid raise by his mom and dad still has crappier odds in life compared to a kid raise by well-off gay parents.
On February 14 2011 00:07 lone_hydra wrote: 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.
I wasn't looking for any meaningful arguments.
Seriously, let's all talk more about Taeyeon guys.
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.
This is a horrible argument, and you also provide no evidence.
On February 14 2011 00:07 lone_hydra wrote: 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.
OK, first, bolded statements need sources.
Second, "I'm pretty sure nature intended us to reproduce/mate with the opposite sex" is a lousy sentence, as it requires the assumption that nature has a purpose.
Even so, if nature has an intent, then it was because of nature giving us humans the ability to love, couldn't it also be nature's intent for us to love and be with the one we're supposed to be with? Whether that person be male or female?
Third, if you consider that fact that children of gay couples will inevitably be harassed because of the sexual orientation of their parents, shouldn't you also consider banning wealthy couples from producing children? Wouldn't those rich children be also the target of harassment, as is the case with children of gay couples? How do you quantify the level of abuse, and where do you draw the line?
Hey homophobes Definition of MARRIAGE 1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law, OR (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
Well, the reason its a slippery slope is more of what it can be, not what it is.
By their logic,not neccesarily mine,: If we don't allow gay marriage, then we won't slip down the slippery slope. If we do allow gay marriage, then it will become a slippery slope and every type of marriage or a significant amount of unapproved marriages will be allowed.
It's funny because I remember seeing Chris Rock do a similar bit on this relation.
Just because somebody is not a homosexual, doesn't mean that they can't act "gay"
Gay again synonymous with annoying or idiotic. E.g somebody says or does some gay shit, and you call him out for it. Hey faggot ! Get moving ! Or... shit dude.. that shit you just did was so gay.. etc.
without having derogatory terms against the homosexuals, but sure I can see it can be offensive to some.
On April 24 2011 23:35 Bippzy wrote: Well, the reason its a slippery slope is more of what it can be, not what it is.
By their logic,not neccesarily mine,: If we don't allow gay marriage, then we won't slip down the slippery slope. If we do allow gay marriage, then it will become a slippery slope and every type of marriage or a significant amount of unapproved marriages will be allowed.
It's not a paradox, it's two if-then statements.
Edit: Taeyoon is SO beautiful. Dayum, jimmy.
My point is that gay marriage is the (at least) second stage of this slippery slope, not the first. So before this, fifty years ago:
"If we don't allow interracial marriage, then we won't slip down the slippery slope."
Well, we allowed it, and here we are at gay marriage, fifty years later, with opponents of it using precisely the same logic. Now if we don't allow gay marriage, then we have effectively stopped the "slippery slope" of allowing interracial marriage. In other words, allowing interracial marriage didn't cause us to slip down the slippery slope. But if that didn't cause it, then why would allowing gay marriage?
Due to my upbringing I find it weird how there's this seemingly unbreakable link between religious marriage and civil marriage.
As an idea in Romania there is marriage as defined by law, with all the rights granted and no mention of religion. You are compelled to go to the city hall and get married by someone there. The vows are generic in terms of respect blah blah, love, care and all that. For now this is man-woman in law.
After the civil ceremony you go to your respective church/temple/mosque/w/e (with the marriage certificate in hand, no clergy will perform a marriage ceremony between two people that are not legally married especially since it has no value in the eyes of the law if you're just religiously married - I suppose it's a common sense deal between church and state) and have the religious ceremony performed according to your faith, if you want to do it. It's not compulsory for being granted the rights but is done by probably 90% of couples that believe in some god - it's a bit of an extra cost and running around and effort.
I also assume that when they will make it possible for homosexual marriages the church might object to the use of the term marriage in law and it might get changed to civil union but that's about the only problem I can see.
EPT
