|
On July 16 2010 00:28 JWD wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 00:25 Magic84 wrote:On July 16 2010 00:18 Empyrean wrote:On July 16 2010 00:15 Magic84 wrote:On July 15 2010 22:45 Zurles wrote:On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote:
I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers. A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption? How can people automatically assume that such environment is healthy for the child? Healthy for his interaction with other kids and social life? Isn't it taking human's life worth of a risk for the sake or your own fun and pride? I would gladly have two fathers or two mothers instead of a father who drinks too much, gets violent and abusive towards my mother, and molests me at night. But what if there are 2 fathers who'd molest you at night instead, and no mom. See how easy it is to argue this way? Dude, come off it. You have to realize that what you are arguing (that same-sex parenting is inferior) is wrong wrong wrong, it's like arguing that the Earth isn't round. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parentingShow nested quote +There is a consensus among credible scientific researchers which confirms the abilities of gay and lesbian persons as parents, and finds positive outcomes for their children. Statements by the leading associations of experts in this area reflect professional consensus that children raised by lesbian or gay parents do not differ in any important respects from those raised by heterosexual parents. No credible empirical research suggests otherwise.[8] I mean this is Wikipedia here, not some "loony" gay rights blog. Get your facts straight, Magic84. Also I'll add that nobody is going to bug you if you change your mind on this issue. Actually that would be fantastic.
Scientific arguments have no impact on these people. Remember, there are still a vast number of people who refuse to accept Evolution.
I submit for your perusal http://creationmuseum.org/
That thing opened in 2007. It is a 27 million dollar attempt to show that evolution never happened, and lots of people go to it.
I am waiting for them to declare that the world is flat again.
|
17050 Posts
On July 16 2010 00:34 BillyMole wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 00:28 JWD wrote:On July 16 2010 00:25 Magic84 wrote:On July 16 2010 00:18 Empyrean wrote:On July 16 2010 00:15 Magic84 wrote:On July 15 2010 22:45 Zurles wrote:On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote:
I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers. A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption? How can people automatically assume that such environment is healthy for the child? Healthy for his interaction with other kids and social life? Isn't it taking human's life worth of a risk for the sake or your own fun and pride? I would gladly have two fathers or two mothers instead of a father who drinks too much, gets violent and abusive towards my mother, and molests me at night. But what if there are 2 fathers who'd molest you at night instead, and no mom. See how easy it is to argue this way? Dude, come off it. You have to realize that what you are arguing (that same-sex parenting is inferior) is wrong wrong wrong, it's like arguing that the Earth isn't round. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parentingThere is a consensus among credible scientific researchers which confirms the abilities of gay and lesbian persons as parents, and finds positive outcomes for their children. Statements by the leading associations of experts in this area reflect professional consensus that children raised by lesbian or gay parents do not differ in any important respects from those raised by heterosexual parents. No credible empirical research suggests otherwise.[8] I mean this is Wikipedia here, not some "loony" gay rights blog. Get your facts straight, Magic84. Also I'll add that nobody is going to bug you if you change your mind on this issue. Actually that would be fantastic. Scientific arguments have no impact on these people. Remember, there are still a vast number of people who refuse to accept Evolution. I submit for your perusal http://creationmuseum.org/That thing opened in 2007. It is a 27 million dollar attempt to show that evolution never happened, and lots of people go to it. I am waiting for them to declare that the world is flat again.
I still think debate is productive, though. Hearing and considering other people's opinions makes people question their own positions. It may be tempting to categorically dismiss people as not having the intellectual fortitude to examine their beliefs, but that attitude won't change anything.
|
United States12607 Posts
On July 16 2010 00:37 Empyrean wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 00:34 BillyMole wrote:On July 16 2010 00:28 JWD wrote:On July 16 2010 00:25 Magic84 wrote:On July 16 2010 00:18 Empyrean wrote:On July 16 2010 00:15 Magic84 wrote:On July 15 2010 22:45 Zurles wrote:On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote:
I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers. A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption? How can people automatically assume that such environment is healthy for the child? Healthy for his interaction with other kids and social life? Isn't it taking human's life worth of a risk for the sake or your own fun and pride? I would gladly have two fathers or two mothers instead of a father who drinks too much, gets violent and abusive towards my mother, and molests me at night. But what if there are 2 fathers who'd molest you at night instead, and no mom. See how easy it is to argue this way? Dude, come off it. You have to realize that what you are arguing (that same-sex parenting is inferior) is wrong wrong wrong, it's like arguing that the Earth isn't round. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parentingThere is a consensus among credible scientific researchers which confirms the abilities of gay and lesbian persons as parents, and finds positive outcomes for their children. Statements by the leading associations of experts in this area reflect professional consensus that children raised by lesbian or gay parents do not differ in any important respects from those raised by heterosexual parents. No credible empirical research suggests otherwise.[8] I mean this is Wikipedia here, not some "loony" gay rights blog. Get your facts straight, Magic84. Also I'll add that nobody is going to bug you if you change your mind on this issue. Actually that would be fantastic. Scientific arguments have no impact on these people. Remember, there are still a vast number of people who refuse to accept Evolution. I submit for your perusal http://creationmuseum.org/That thing opened in 2007. It is a 27 million dollar attempt to show that evolution never happened, and lots of people go to it. I am waiting for them to declare that the world is flat again. I still think debate is productive, though. Hearing and considering other people's opinions makes people question their own positions. It may be tempting to categorically dismiss people as not having the intellectual fortitude to examine their beliefs, but that attitude won't change anything.
Yeah I agree, but sometimes it can be frustrating. And you know, take a poster like Magic84. He's completely wrong but at least he's here laying his position out on the line and (hopefully) reading our responses. That's better than the 90% of TL users opposed to gay marriage who may have read one line of something they didn't like in this thread and then closed their browser window.
It's interesting though how steadily the debate over same-sex marriage is approaching stasis like the debate over creationism. We have one side that has all of the scientific evidence and all of the rational arguments, and on the other side a group of uninformed or obstinate, closed-minded people that are grasping at straws to justify their position.
|
On July 16 2010 00:32 keV. wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 00:27 Ossian wrote:
so is the law that all priests have an obligation to marry gay couples or is it just that the state will not interfere? Like someone said earlier. Getting married by a priest or elvis doesn't make a difference in law. You just need a marriage license.
yeah but does a priest have the right to refuse a couple trying to get married?
|
On July 15 2010 23:56 BillyMole wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 23:51 ggrrg wrote:On July 15 2010 23:32 Keniji wrote:On July 15 2010 23:15 ggrrg wrote:
In principle I don't see a reason why homosexuals shouldn't express their affection for eachother by getting married. However, when you think about it marriage doesn't only mean that you are allowed to have a big celebration, but also comes with many financial priviliges that are meant to encourage couples to be together and get children (e.g. tax cuts, money when you get a child, lower insurance rates, etc.). Most of those financial priviliges exist because for a family it means that they will lose income during the wife's pregnancy and while the child is very young. On top of that women are generally paid less than a man for an equal job. Financial advantages through marriage are meant to counteract those issues. However, in gay couples at least some of those issues don't exist. So what I wonder is: Should married gay couples really recieve all or any of those priviliges? Same-sex couples often do marry because they want to adopt kids. Why shouldn't they get the same financial privileges? Also there are a lot of straight married couples without kids, too. That women get paid less is a whole different problem which has nothing to do with financial benefits a marriage couple gets (besides a couple of two women should even get more money then). So yes, they should receive all of those privileges. Well, when a gay couple adopts a child they have skipped the 9-month pregnancy. If the child is not a newborn they have eventually skipped the first 9-12 months of the child's upbringing, which is a critical period in which a women cannot work. Thus such gay couples wouldn't suffer the loss of income a "normal" couple would have. In addition a women that gets out for pregnancy has severely diminished chances of being promoted (making a career) than both partners in a gay couple that can work without a break, when adopting (this also applies to lesbian couples, unless one of the partners gets artificially impregnated). Ultimately, I don't know what would be the best legislature on gay marriage. I agree that homosexual relationships should be accepted and not viewed as wrong. However, in many cases it seems difficult to justify all of the financial benefits gays would get by having a standard marriage. Maybe there should be special legislation on gay marriage taking different factors in consideration (e.g. female or a men couple). Again, see above. The laws predate the relatively modern convention that both parents work, and are from a time where women did not work at all. Moreover, having separate laws governing the same thing has never, ever worked well at any point in history, regardless of whether or not it makes sense. It's just a bad move, because it generates unrest amongst the segments of the population that get the worse deal. Basically, until the laws are equal, the lobbying to change it is never going to end.
It doesn't matter what the origin of the law is. These laws have changed and developed through the years. Fact is, nowadays financial benefits for couples are a government incentive for family life with the final idea of getting children. Basically the benefits of marriage are a way to secure the future population of the country, especially in Western countries where people have generally become quite materialistic and the general trend is having a few (if any) children, because of the financial diffictulties they create.
I agree that in sterile couples and couples who don't want children the marital benefits don't cause the effects the government wants them to, but in same-sex couples there isn't even the chance that those benefits would make them bear children since it is generally biologically impossible for them to do so.
On the other hand you are completely right that separate laws about basically the same thing, would most likely cause unrest in parts of the population. So at the end it is probably the best to grant homosexuals the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples. It still feels partially "unfair" to normal couples.
|
United States12607 Posts
On July 16 2010 00:41 Ossian wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 00:32 keV. wrote:On July 16 2010 00:27 Ossian wrote:
so is the law that all priests have an obligation to marry gay couples or is it just that the state will not interfere? Like someone said earlier. Getting married by a priest or elvis doesn't make a difference in law. You just need a marriage license. yeah but does a priest have the right to refuse a couple trying to get married?
Sure he does, that's a religious matter (in fact the US government couldn't tell him he had to marry the couple, separation of church and state).
If the law allows it though, the couple can just go to the church next door that is more friendly to same-sex couples and get married there.
|
On July 16 2010 00:39 JWD wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 00:37 Empyrean wrote:On July 16 2010 00:34 BillyMole wrote:On July 16 2010 00:28 JWD wrote:On July 16 2010 00:25 Magic84 wrote:On July 16 2010 00:18 Empyrean wrote:On July 16 2010 00:15 Magic84 wrote:On July 15 2010 22:45 Zurles wrote:On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote:
I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers. A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption? How can people automatically assume that such environment is healthy for the child? Healthy for his interaction with other kids and social life? Isn't it taking human's life worth of a risk for the sake or your own fun and pride? I would gladly have two fathers or two mothers instead of a father who drinks too much, gets violent and abusive towards my mother, and molests me at night. But what if there are 2 fathers who'd molest you at night instead, and no mom. See how easy it is to argue this way? Dude, come off it. You have to realize that what you are arguing (that same-sex parenting is inferior) is wrong wrong wrong, it's like arguing that the Earth isn't round. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parentingThere is a consensus among credible scientific researchers which confirms the abilities of gay and lesbian persons as parents, and finds positive outcomes for their children. Statements by the leading associations of experts in this area reflect professional consensus that children raised by lesbian or gay parents do not differ in any important respects from those raised by heterosexual parents. No credible empirical research suggests otherwise.[8] I mean this is Wikipedia here, not some "loony" gay rights blog. Get your facts straight, Magic84. Also I'll add that nobody is going to bug you if you change your mind on this issue. Actually that would be fantastic. Scientific arguments have no impact on these people. Remember, there are still a vast number of people who refuse to accept Evolution. I submit for your perusal http://creationmuseum.org/That thing opened in 2007. It is a 27 million dollar attempt to show that evolution never happened, and lots of people go to it. I am waiting for them to declare that the world is flat again. I still think debate is productive, though. Hearing and considering other people's opinions makes people question their own positions. It may be tempting to categorically dismiss people as not having the intellectual fortitude to examine their beliefs, but that attitude won't change anything. Yeah I agree, but sometimes it can be frustrating. It's interesting though how steadily the debate over same-sex marriage is approaching stasis like the debate over creationism. We have one side that has all of the scientific evidence and all of the rational arguments, and on the other side a group of uninformed or obstinate, closed-minded people that are grasping at straws to justify their position.
While I agree in principle that debate is productive, I have to stipulate that I believe it is only productive when the parties to the debate are relatively open-minded. I have a friend from college who's views were mostly based in religion, and he adamantly refused to waver, no matter how persuasive the evidence was. I quickly realized that any argument with him was pointless, since he learned nothing from me, and, since his arguments were easily disproven, I learned nothing from him either. Well, maybe I gained a better understanding of just how stubbornly people will cling to their beliefs, so I guess it wasn't a total loss.
The most frustrating part of the whole business was that he would not only refuse to waver, but his arguments would quickly degenerate into personal attacks. Sadly, I've noticed that this is quite common.
|
On July 16 2010 00:41 Ossian wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 00:32 keV. wrote:On July 16 2010 00:27 Ossian wrote:
so is the law that all priests have an obligation to marry gay couples or is it just that the state will not interfere? Like someone said earlier. Getting married by a priest or elvis doesn't make a difference in law. You just need a marriage license. yeah but does a priest have the right to refuse a couple trying to get married?
Yes.
Currently a church and/or priest can deny marriage to anyone and this isn't going to change. Catholic priests don't have to agree to marry Muslims even though Muslims have all the same legal right to marriage as everyone else.
|
On July 16 2010 00:25 Magic84 wrote:
But what if there are 2 fathers who'd molest you at night instead, and no mom. See how easy it is to argue this way?
All gays are pedophiles. This is a fact (at least for some people).
Also, who the fuck cares if someone marries a dog? I don't. How does that affect you either?
On July 16 2010 00:44 GogoKodo wrote:
Currently a church and/or priest can deny marriage to anyone and this isn't going to change. Catholic priests don't have to agree to marry Muslims even though Muslims have all the same legal right to marriage as everyone else.
The Catholic Church will marry (as in have a legally moot ceremony) any two straight people so long as one of them is Catholic. Both people need to be christian for it to "count in the eyes of God", however. They'll still give you a marriage ceremony if you marry a non-christian.
|
Russian Federation1381 Posts
On July 16 2010 00:26 keV. wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 00:25 Magic84 wrote:On July 16 2010 00:18 Empyrean wrote:On July 16 2010 00:15 Magic84 wrote:On July 15 2010 22:45 Zurles wrote:On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote:
I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers. A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption? How can people automatically assume that such environment is healthy for the child? Healthy for his interaction with other kids and social life? Isn't it taking human's life worth of a risk for the sake or your own fun and pride? I would gladly have two fathers or two mothers instead of a father who drinks too much, gets violent and abusive towards my mother, and molests me at night. But what if there are 2 fathers who'd molest you at night instead, and no mom. See how easy it is to argue this way? Amazing that you missed his point completely. Amazing. /flabbergasted.
It's you who missed mine. Such limited hand picked comparisons are never the answer.
As for so called leading experts in a quote from wiki, who are these experts? You know in some places circumcision of babies is considered a good idea, nobody asks them. Most destructive harms in the world were all the works of the "experts".
|
Good for Argentina. Perhaps America will eventually separate itself from the stupid church in the near future and there will be equality instead of religion-sponsored segregation!
|
On July 16 2010 00:43 ggrrg wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 23:56 BillyMole wrote:On July 15 2010 23:51 ggrrg wrote:On July 15 2010 23:32 Keniji wrote:On July 15 2010 23:15 ggrrg wrote:
In principle I don't see a reason why homosexuals shouldn't express their affection for eachother by getting married. However, when you think about it marriage doesn't only mean that you are allowed to have a big celebration, but also comes with many financial priviliges that are meant to encourage couples to be together and get children (e.g. tax cuts, money when you get a child, lower insurance rates, etc.). Most of those financial priviliges exist because for a family it means that they will lose income during the wife's pregnancy and while the child is very young. On top of that women are generally paid less than a man for an equal job. Financial advantages through marriage are meant to counteract those issues. However, in gay couples at least some of those issues don't exist. So what I wonder is: Should married gay couples really recieve all or any of those priviliges? Same-sex couples often do marry because they want to adopt kids. Why shouldn't they get the same financial privileges? Also there are a lot of straight married couples without kids, too. That women get paid less is a whole different problem which has nothing to do with financial benefits a marriage couple gets (besides a couple of two women should even get more money then). So yes, they should receive all of those privileges. Well, when a gay couple adopts a child they have skipped the 9-month pregnancy. If the child is not a newborn they have eventually skipped the first 9-12 months of the child's upbringing, which is a critical period in which a women cannot work. Thus such gay couples wouldn't suffer the loss of income a "normal" couple would have. In addition a women that gets out for pregnancy has severely diminished chances of being promoted (making a career) than both partners in a gay couple that can work without a break, when adopting (this also applies to lesbian couples, unless one of the partners gets artificially impregnated). Ultimately, I don't know what would be the best legislature on gay marriage. I agree that homosexual relationships should be accepted and not viewed as wrong. However, in many cases it seems difficult to justify all of the financial benefits gays would get by having a standard marriage. Maybe there should be special legislation on gay marriage taking different factors in consideration (e.g. female or a men couple). Again, see above. The laws predate the relatively modern convention that both parents work, and are from a time where women did not work at all. Moreover, having separate laws governing the same thing has never, ever worked well at any point in history, regardless of whether or not it makes sense. It's just a bad move, because it generates unrest amongst the segments of the population that get the worse deal. Basically, until the laws are equal, the lobbying to change it is never going to end. It doesn't matter what the origin of the law is. These laws have changed and developed through the years. Fact is, nowadays financial benefits for couples are a government incentive for family life with the final idea of getting children. Basically the benefits of marriage are a way to secure the future population of the country, especially in Western countries where people have generally become quite materialistic and the general trend is having a few (if any) children, because of the financial diffictulties they create. I agree that in sterile couples and couples who don't want children the marital benefits don't cause the effects the government wants them to, but in same-sex couples there isn't even the chance that those benefits would make them bear children since it is generally biologically impossible for them to do so. On the other hand you are completely right that separate laws about basically the same thing, would most likely cause unrest in parts of the population. So at the end it is probably the best to grant homosexuals the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples. It still feels partially "unfair" to normal couples.
I'll agree with that. And I also agree that there are many laws that are somewhat unfair to subsets of society. But since it is totally impossible to please everyone, a uniform treatment under the law is probably the closest we can come to a universally fair system.
|
On July 16 2010 00:44 Magic84 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 00:26 keV. wrote:On July 16 2010 00:25 Magic84 wrote:On July 16 2010 00:18 Empyrean wrote:On July 16 2010 00:15 Magic84 wrote:On July 15 2010 22:45 Zurles wrote:On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote:
I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers. A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption? How can people automatically assume that such environment is healthy for the child? Healthy for his interaction with other kids and social life? Isn't it taking human's life worth of a risk for the sake or your own fun and pride? I would gladly have two fathers or two mothers instead of a father who drinks too much, gets violent and abusive towards my mother, and molests me at night. But what if there are 2 fathers who'd molest you at night instead, and no mom. See how easy it is to argue this way? Amazing that you missed his point completely. Amazing. /flabbergasted. It's you who missed mine. Such limited hand picked comparisons are never the answer. As for so called leading experts in a quote from wiki, who are these experts? You know in some places circumcision of babies is considered a good idea, nobody asks them. Most destructive harms in the world were all the works of the "experts".
OK then, forget the experts. I say that gay couples can provide a healthy environment for raising children. The end.
I've now brought to the table about as much as you have.
|
On July 16 2010 00:39 JWD wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 00:37 Empyrean wrote:On July 16 2010 00:34 BillyMole wrote:On July 16 2010 00:28 JWD wrote:On July 16 2010 00:25 Magic84 wrote:On July 16 2010 00:18 Empyrean wrote:On July 16 2010 00:15 Magic84 wrote:On July 15 2010 22:45 Zurles wrote:On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote:
I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers. A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption? How can people automatically assume that such environment is healthy for the child? Healthy for his interaction with other kids and social life? Isn't it taking human's life worth of a risk for the sake or your own fun and pride? I would gladly have two fathers or two mothers instead of a father who drinks too much, gets violent and abusive towards my mother, and molests me at night. But what if there are 2 fathers who'd molest you at night instead, and no mom. See how easy it is to argue this way? Dude, come off it. You have to realize that what you are arguing (that same-sex parenting is inferior) is wrong wrong wrong, it's like arguing that the Earth isn't round. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parentingThere is a consensus among credible scientific researchers which confirms the abilities of gay and lesbian persons as parents, and finds positive outcomes for their children. Statements by the leading associations of experts in this area reflect professional consensus that children raised by lesbian or gay parents do not differ in any important respects from those raised by heterosexual parents. No credible empirical research suggests otherwise.[8] I mean this is Wikipedia here, not some "loony" gay rights blog. Get your facts straight, Magic84. Also I'll add that nobody is going to bug you if you change your mind on this issue. Actually that would be fantastic. Scientific arguments have no impact on these people. Remember, there are still a vast number of people who refuse to accept Evolution. I submit for your perusal http://creationmuseum.org/That thing opened in 2007. It is a 27 million dollar attempt to show that evolution never happened, and lots of people go to it. I am waiting for them to declare that the world is flat again. I still think debate is productive, though. Hearing and considering other people's opinions makes people question their own positions. It may be tempting to categorically dismiss people as not having the intellectual fortitude to examine their beliefs, but that attitude won't change anything. Yeah I agree, but sometimes it can be frustrating. It's interesting though how steadily the debate over same-sex marriage is approaching stasis like the debate over creationism. We have one side that has all of the scientific evidence and all of the rational arguments, and on the other side a group of uninformed or obstinate, closed-minded people that are grasping at straws to justify their position.
it's the same with racism. In germany you have a lot of workshops about racism / neo-nazis and how you discuss with / handle them. One of the first points you learn is that when you argue with them / prove them wrong the chance that fanatics switch their opinion is very rarely (close to zero). You still should prove them wrong so people who are undecided (or at least not fanatics) see that their stand point is wrong. So keep that in mind, when you prove them wrong they will most likely not change, but everyone who reads that don't read their stupid stuff without beeing showed that they are just wrong.
Still it's of course utterly frustrating.
|
On July 16 2010 00:44 Magic84 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 00:26 keV. wrote:On July 16 2010 00:25 Magic84 wrote:On July 16 2010 00:18 Empyrean wrote:On July 16 2010 00:15 Magic84 wrote:On July 15 2010 22:45 Zurles wrote:On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote:
I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers. A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption? How can people automatically assume that such environment is healthy for the child? Healthy for his interaction with other kids and social life? Isn't it taking human's life worth of a risk for the sake or your own fun and pride? I would gladly have two fathers or two mothers instead of a father who drinks too much, gets violent and abusive towards my mother, and molests me at night. But what if there are 2 fathers who'd molest you at night instead, and no mom. See how easy it is to argue this way? Amazing that you missed his point completely. Amazing. /flabbergasted. It's you who missed mine. Such limited hand picked comparisons are never the answer. As for so called leading experts in a quote from wiki, who are these experts? You know in some places circumcision of babies is considered a good idea, nobody asks them. Most destructive harms in the world were all the works of the "experts". I would like you to ask what basis you use when you conducted the reasoning that chosing to stick your stick in other men rather than women would somehow diminish your skills when handling children.
You're the one with the burden of proof here, ýou're the one stating the ridiculous.
|
17050 Posts
On July 16 2010 00:44 Magic84 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 00:26 keV. wrote:On July 16 2010 00:25 Magic84 wrote:On July 16 2010 00:18 Empyrean wrote:On July 16 2010 00:15 Magic84 wrote:On July 15 2010 22:45 Zurles wrote:On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote:
I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers. A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption? How can people automatically assume that such environment is healthy for the child? Healthy for his interaction with other kids and social life? Isn't it taking human's life worth of a risk for the sake or your own fun and pride? I would gladly have two fathers or two mothers instead of a father who drinks too much, gets violent and abusive towards my mother, and molests me at night. But what if there are 2 fathers who'd molest you at night instead, and no mom. See how easy it is to argue this way? Amazing that you missed his point completely. Amazing. /flabbergasted. It's you who missed mine. Such limited hand picked comparisons are never the answer. As for so called leading experts in a quote from wiki, who are these experts? You know in some places circumcision of babies is considered a good idea, nobody asks them. Most destructive harms in the world were all the works of the "experts".
My original point was to address your point that gay parents are unfit to raise children because they may become socially maladjusted or grow up weird. I posed the question as to whether or not you think two mentally deranged straight parents were fit to have children. If you think they're not, then where do you draw the line as to who is allowed to have children? Are gays to be categorically denied the right to raise children because they are "unfit" in some way? Then why do you not believe straight parents to be able to be unfit to raise children?
As for your point on not trusting experts, while it is true that some "experts" have espoused very dangerous beliefs (for example, South Africa's Health Minister in the 90's), there are many more examples of experts creating positives for society. Pasteur and the development of pastuerization and vaccines, for example. Fleming and antibiotics.
And as for your point about circumcision, in some cases circumcision is medically necessitated (for example, in cases of severe infection or inflammation). The medical establishment currently doesn't actively promote circumcision.
|
United States12607 Posts
On July 16 2010 00:44 Magic84 wrote:
As for so called leading experts in a quote from wiki, who are these experts? You know in some places circumcision of babies is considered a good idea, nobody asks them. Most destructive harms in the world were all the works of the "experts".
Dude, go read the studies yourself.
If the argument you are making is really just that "we can't trust experts"...that's ridiculous.
|
17050 Posts
On July 16 2010 00:51 Hynda wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 00:44 Magic84 wrote:On July 16 2010 00:26 keV. wrote:On July 16 2010 00:25 Magic84 wrote:On July 16 2010 00:18 Empyrean wrote:On July 16 2010 00:15 Magic84 wrote:On July 15 2010 22:45 Zurles wrote:On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote:
I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers. A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption? How can people automatically assume that such environment is healthy for the child? Healthy for his interaction with other kids and social life? Isn't it taking human's life worth of a risk for the sake or your own fun and pride? I would gladly have two fathers or two mothers instead of a father who drinks too much, gets violent and abusive towards my mother, and molests me at night. But what if there are 2 fathers who'd molest you at night instead, and no mom. See how easy it is to argue this way? Amazing that you missed his point completely. Amazing. /flabbergasted. It's you who missed mine. Such limited hand picked comparisons are never the answer. As for so called leading experts in a quote from wiki, who are these experts? You know in some places circumcision of babies is considered a good idea, nobody asks them. Most destructive harms in the world were all the works of the "experts". I would like you to ask what basis you use when you conducted the reasoning that chosing to stick your stick in other men rather than women would somehow diminish your skills when handling children. You're the one with the burden of proof here, ýou're the one stating the ridiculous.
I think his point was that children who have two parents of the same gender are more likely to be maladjusted to society (this is actually false). It's a valid point to raise, however.
|
On July 16 2010 00:51 Empyrean wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 00:44 Magic84 wrote:On July 16 2010 00:26 keV. wrote:On July 16 2010 00:25 Magic84 wrote:On July 16 2010 00:18 Empyrean wrote:On July 16 2010 00:15 Magic84 wrote:On July 15 2010 22:45 Zurles wrote:On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote:
I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers. A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption? How can people automatically assume that such environment is healthy for the child? Healthy for his interaction with other kids and social life? Isn't it taking human's life worth of a risk for the sake or your own fun and pride? I would gladly have two fathers or two mothers instead of a father who drinks too much, gets violent and abusive towards my mother, and molests me at night. But what if there are 2 fathers who'd molest you at night instead, and no mom. See how easy it is to argue this way? Amazing that you missed his point completely. Amazing. /flabbergasted. It's you who missed mine. Such limited hand picked comparisons are never the answer. As for so called leading experts in a quote from wiki, who are these experts? You know in some places circumcision of babies is considered a good idea, nobody asks them. Most destructive harms in the world were all the works of the "experts". My original point was to address your point that gay parents are unfit to raise children because they may become socially maladjusted or grow up weird. I posed the question as to whether or not you think two mentally deranged straight parents were fit to have children. If you think they're not, then where do you draw the line as to who is allowed to have children? Are gays to be categorically denied the right to raise children because they are "unfit" in some way? Then why do you not believe straight parents to be able to be unfit to raise children? As for your point on not trusting experts, while it is true that some "experts" have espoused very dangerous beliefs (for example, South Africa's Health Minister in the 90's), there are many more examples of experts creating positives for society. Pasteur and the development of pastuerization and vaccines, for example. Fleming and antibiotics. And as for your point about circumcision, in some cases circumcision is medically necessitated (for example, in cases of severe infection or inflammation). The medical establishment currently doesn't actively promote circumcision.
I've been to the south of america many times in my life and I can tell you right now, they have alot of people that are socially maladjusted and really weird, but very few gays. I wonder why.
|
On July 16 2010 00:52 Empyrean wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 00:51 Hynda wrote:On July 16 2010 00:44 Magic84 wrote:On July 16 2010 00:26 keV. wrote:On July 16 2010 00:25 Magic84 wrote:On July 16 2010 00:18 Empyrean wrote:On July 16 2010 00:15 Magic84 wrote:On July 15 2010 22:45 Zurles wrote:On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote:
I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers. A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption? How can people automatically assume that such environment is healthy for the child? Healthy for his interaction with other kids and social life? Isn't it taking human's life worth of a risk for the sake or your own fun and pride? I would gladly have two fathers or two mothers instead of a father who drinks too much, gets violent and abusive towards my mother, and molests me at night. But what if there are 2 fathers who'd molest you at night instead, and no mom. See how easy it is to argue this way? Amazing that you missed his point completely. Amazing. /flabbergasted. It's you who missed mine. Such limited hand picked comparisons are never the answer. As for so called leading experts in a quote from wiki, who are these experts? You know in some places circumcision of babies is considered a good idea, nobody asks them. Most destructive harms in the world were all the works of the "experts". I would like you to ask what basis you use when you conducted the reasoning that chosing to stick your stick in other men rather than women would somehow diminish your skills when handling children. You're the one with the burden of proof here, ýou're the one stating the ridiculous. I think his point was that children who have two parents of the same gender are more likely to be maladjusted to society (this is actually false). It's a valid point to raise, however.
It's quite possibly true if you live in a society that violently hates same-sex relationships for no apparent reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
