|
Good post CDRdude. You brought about some valid points in your argument, but I still disagree.
1) You can't compare polygamy and gay marriage. Gay marriage is a form of monogamy just like standard marriage. Monogamy and polygamy are completely different when you disregard the sexes of those involved. Monogamy is all about devoting oneself to one and only one other person, while polygamy is a whole different ballgame which violates long standing morals in many different cultures.
2) Also, I don't think it's valid to say that gay people shouldn't marry because their children could be adversely affected. In the 1950's, blacks were discriminated against, as were their children. I think we can all agree that saying black people shouldn't marry because their children would have tough lives is just ridiculous. The same could be said about poor people. Should we have an annual family income threshold to govern who can have children?
3) In response to others in the thread: Even if gay parents are more likely to bring up gay children (I doubt this is true but I don't know)... WHO CARES?!? Democratic parents are more likely to bring up democratic children and athletic parents are more likely to bring up athletic children. It's a fact of life that children in large take after their parents.
|
Wow, I had no idea that "people get married to have kids."
And here I thought people got married because they had found someone they wanted to spend the rest of their lives with in an a monogamous relationship! I had no idea that, all along, marriage was just a vehicle for procreation! How foolish of me!
(People who think that CDR's post is a "good one" further amaze me, and I am currently about four drinks past being totally fucking plastered. Even this drunk, I amazed that some people in California think the curtailing of one group's rights - on the basis of their sexual preference - is acceptable in a "democratic" society of "equality." Indeed, to vote in opposition to gay marriage is to condone the belief that religion should drive public policy and is a nod in the affirmative to condone, likewise, [from a religious point of view] the curtailing of women's rights not only in Islamic countries, but also in our own.
Then again, religious fundamentalists have always chosen to interpret the Bible in ways that are most conducive to their current agendas.)
|
I will also note that I am fucking beyond drunk, but I really wanted to respond to this because I am so infuriated at people who actually think it's okay to deny the rights of others on the basis of sexual preference.
THIS IS NO DIFFERENT THAN DENYING RIGHTS OF WOMEN, AFRICAN-AMERICANS, ETC.
|
The two people including me who said CDR's post was good are also adamantly AGAINST banning gay marriage, did you not read any of our posts? It's just that the OP who has since disappeared asked for the opposing side's arguments and he presented them very fucking well while still voting against it.
How could you miss that, seriously. Drunkenness or not.
|
I'm not a big fan of gays, but I honestly don't see a civilized reason to ban gay marriage.
|
I honestly think this is a fabricated issue; some cynical people realized the shock value of putting popular gaiety in everyone's face, so they kept running stories and radio talk shows on any "gay issue" they could think up--the gays trying to get married, gays trying to... etc. Whatever.
To me (and it seems like just about everyone else in this thread) the issue is pretty simple if you think clearly about the difference between law and religion. All the people upset about the gays getting married, have religious reasons for condemning it. Yet the arguments they put forth don't fly, because the government isn't what defines holy matrimony--your religion, your holy book(s), your god(s), your community leaders, etc. do that, and if they really cared about marriage being sanctified they would want government completely out of the business of legislating it and defining it (as many of you have suggested, and I think it's a fine idea).
But the gay haters don't call for this. They want to take rights away from gays, or at least some superficial status of "legal marriage", because they want to use the government to condemn them and punish them. They want their society (using the law) to send a clear message that homosexuality isn't on equal grounds with heterosexuality. Why they can't do this with their religion, or hell, why God won't do it for them, is anyone's guess.
Gay.
|
United States17042 Posts
On November 04 2008 18:21 benjammin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2008 18:05 Ki_Do wrote:
this would increase homo population
but not by choosing but by being influenced
any1 knows that even anatomically men were made for women, ppl choices aside lol wat
Not a well thought out argument. There are some good ones for you to consider though (I'm pretty sure the op went to bed).
Personally, I'm believe that marriage should be allowed by anyone (no on prop 8, even though you didn't specifically mention what state you were in (California)). Marriage, before the concept became important for taxes, was always based upon the idea that god accepted two people into holy matrimony. In the particular case of marriage, I think that the whole concept is one example of where church and state are too closely linked for most people (especially homosexual people's) liking, to the point where prop 8 is just discriminatory.
As long as you go vote though, I'm okay with whatever you vote for.
|
On November 04 2008 17:41 Ki_Do wrote:
i dont care, any1 can do anything
im only against gays adopting childs, its certainly a dangerous thing since childs would grow thinking that homo is a normal thing and would try that too.
check real stories, a lot of homos and trannies have lost their parents while only a lil boy and had to live with:
sisters, grandmas...
uh
what?
"so you can get married... but yeah kids, no"
that sounds so great! you're such an awesome person for not discrimating marriage but when a gay couple wishes to have a child, and adopts, it's suddenly a terrible thing?
so the kid is raised with a more open mind, gee that sounds dreadful. there are good parents, there are bad parents, i see no correlation between a heterosexual couple adopting a kid and a gay couple adopting a kid, it's dependant upon the people raising the child, not their sexuality.
i'm sure you can find an equal amount of stories about gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender people that were raised with both their parents. you realize how diverse the world is? just because someone is different doesn't mean they the same as everyone else that's different.
blah.
k done ranting, that post just threw me for a loop : |
oh and LOL: "i dont care, any1 can do anything, im only against gays adopting childs"
somehow i missed that first sentence, seriously way to contradict what you say, apparently you DO care about what people do.
|
On November 04 2008 18:06 CDRdude wrote:
People get married to have kids.
Perhaps the most important part of caring for a child's basic needs is protecting their mental health. A marriage between a man and a woman is the tried and true method for producing the maximum number of healthy children. With heterosexual marriage as the standard, the mental health of a child from this union can be measured against the mental health of children from nonstandard marriages. However we can't just experiment on children. That would be testing non-consenting humans in experiments where their mental health could be irreparably damaged. So we have to make do with the data we already have.
First of all, your argument hinges on the fact that marriage is for kids. As long as gays don't have kids, you have no objection to them getting married then, right? Because I don't think marriage is necessarily for the purpose of having kids anymore, especially gay marriages...
To sum it your whole argument though: kids are important--so is their mental health. So you're saying we can't experiment on kids. Kids with straight parents are of normal mental health. We don't know whether kids with gay parents will have inferior mental health, and we sure can't experiment, so we better just not do anything different than the norm as far as raising kids goes.
There are all kinds of wrong all over this argument. Your argument yields absurdities, first of all: basically, whatever is normal regarding children, we must not ever deviate from it. We can't ever try a surgery or a medicine on them--we can't introduce video games to them at the point when we did--all of this was horribly wrong because we put their very mental health at risk by doing anything different from the previous generation. This is an incredibly stifling conservative conclusion you've got here. Anything that may have any different effect on their mental health, but we don't know the effect, we must never do and must prevent, as far as the children go. That's your conclusion.
Frankly, I disagree. We can experiment on children. Every couple is an experiment. Furthermore we don't actively prevent couples from raising children just because we feel there are too many unknowns with what the effect will be on their children's mental health. Your policy would have banned interracial couples of all kinds before they were a mass reality. And you can divide up people a nearly infinite amount of ways. Maybe children with both parents being lawers have an increased chance of this or that--does that mean we must actively prevent it? If not, then why? Your policy seems to be to use the law to maximize the mental health of our children, by forbidding all unknowns (everything but the typical), and that seems to mean we should also prevent all the KNOWN bads, at least. I don't think preventing the known bads would even fly, let alone the unknown. And to some extent every marriage is an unknown, but we can have estimates. So you are saying that gay marriage's risk of being bad is estimated at such a level that we must not let them raise children--too much risk to the child. Well just how much risk is that, sir? And if we can estimate a similar potential risk elsewhere, must we also ban those types of marriage (blue collar marriages with certain genes, ugly people, etc.?)
To sum up with my disagreements with you above, (1) marriage is not for the purpose of raising children--when two men want to get married they aren't asking to have children obviously--therefore your whole essay is really only talking about gay adoption, which we can clearly forbid without even touching the issue of gay marriage, and I have to conclude that the issue is framed as gay marriage to bias people because trying to ban gay adoption doesn't fly the way the gay haters want it to; (2) we do not forbid marriages based on performance estimates regarding the child's likely mental health let alone the risk--and it's debatable whether this is ever allowable at all, let alone in the case of gay marriage.
One of the few abnormal marriage types most people are aware of is polygamy. If we open the door to gay marriage, are we also opening the door to polygamy? Isn't it discrimination to tell someone how many people they can love? How is it any different from discrimination against gay marriage? The answer is that polygamy has been shown to harm childrens mental health. If you google 'effects of polygamy on children', you'll come up with some behavioral studies that paint polygamy in quite a poor light. For better results you can search Google Scholar, here. If you don't go look it up yourself, what these articles say is that polygamy is bad for kids.
Unless gay adoption is shown to be harmful to children, it's unfair to take an unknown and say, "the only abnormal marriage we know of, is bad." Truth is, we have 2 parent marriage and we have polygamy, and even if we accept your conclusions about polygamy, that's still two types of marriage, one is popular and the unpopular one has inferior mental health results. Gay adoption according to you is an unknown, which means it might have better children than both the hetero and the polygamous, for all we know. So you can try to argue that we shouldn't experiment, but it's ridiculous to use one example and conclude that the less typical a marriage is the more harmful it is to the children. That obviously doesn't fly.
I object to your logic, basically.
|
If you allow gay marriage, the whole world is gonna go gay, and the NAZI will return riding dinosaurs.
Come on, if a homosexual couple wants to get married because they love each other, what is so wrong with that?, children are not gonna become gay just because this is allowed, its a matter of simple equality. You may not like homosexuality or homosexuals, that is your right, but so its their right to get married if they wish to do so. A different sexual orientation doesnt make you less human, so i dont see why they shouldnt have the same rights as everyone else.
|
If an entire nation was homosexual then we wouldn't survive. We would cease to exist. Given the period of time it takes us to die.
I think thats the argument without mentioning any religion, or whatever. Although a nation in the scriptures did perish from homosexuality. Sodom and gamora I believe. However you spell it. They were lovers of themselves.
|
|
|
On November 04 2008 22:51 HooHa! wrote:
If an entire nation was homosexual then we wouldn't survive. We would cease to exist. Given the period of time it takes us to die.
I think thats the argument without mentioning any religion, or whatever. Although a nation in the scriptures did perish from homosexuality. Sodom and gamora I believe. However you spell it. They were lovers of themselves.
This argument only works against homosexuality if it is seen as a choice, which it isn't.
|
You aren't magnetized to someone else's penis when you are gay. There's a choice in everything.
The fact is, if everyone was gay, we wouldn't progress as the human race. Not for very long anyways.
Regardless of the genetics or whatever the mumbo jumbo is, or whatever you feel.
|
Yeah but not everyone is gay so why are you using it as an argument.
|
On November 04 2008 17:41 Ki_Do wrote:
i dont care, any1 can do anything
im only against gays adopting childs, its certainly a dangerous thing since childs would grow thinking that homo is a normal thing and would try that too.
check real stories, a lot of homos and trannies have lost their parents while only a lil boy and had to live with:
sisters, grandmas...
See, except the problem is, unlike the stuffy, conservatives who preach absinence education and suppress homosexual feelings, gays are open minded. Because it's kind of hard to agree with normal society if you're less than 10% of the entire world.
Not to mention that it would be pretty damn impossible to not realize that a majority of the world is hetero. We don't live under a rock.
|
So why do you think there isn't a choice? You digressed from your own statement.
|
On November 04 2008 17:41 Ki_Do wrote:
i dont care, any1 can do anything
im only against gays adopting childs, its certainly a dangerous thing since childs would grow thinking that homo is a normal thing and would try that too.
check real stories, a lot of homos and trannies have lost their parents while only a lil boy and had to live with:
sisters, grandmas...
This is not how you make a point, "check some stories". How the hell is that supposed to convince anyone? You're implying that not having a mother and father heightens the chance of being gay, either come up with facts and statistics or shut up.
Ignorant crap like that is why gays are being discriminated against and have limited personal freedom.
|
On November 04 2008 23:45 HooHa! wrote:
So why do you think there isn't a choice? You digress from your own statement.
I didn't really think that needed answering. If you are sexually attracted to men you can still have sex with women I don't contest that. But the point is that you don't WANT to have sex with women because you aren't sexually attracted to them.
It's not a fair choice.
|
Well, I knew a lesbian girl who had lesbian moms, and she was a bad driver, actually a horrible driver. Theres one stat. Include it into the tranny data that doesn't exist yet. We'll file it one by one.
Life isn't fair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
