On July 16 2010 01:44 FabledIntegral wrote: To people talking about civil unions not having the same benefits as marriage, in California the civil union benefits are IDENTICAL to marriage with the exception of literally only the title "marriage" vs "civil union," but the fight for gay marriage is incredibly widespread - so I wouldn't look to that as a solution.
It's not a solution. "Separate but equal" has, historically, never worked.
I am sorry but your reasoning does not seem accurate here. The things you list that might cause social rejection are things that you choose to do. Having same-sex parents and thus becoming a social outcast is something that a kid cannot influence. Your comparison lacks...
Actually the only thing lacking is your comprehension skills.
He wasn't saying having gay parents and being in the chess club is the same thing.
He was making the point that if: A child's well being in school is the problem, then you shouldn't ALLOW any kid to put themselves at risk to being teased or bullied. IE-
- Males to be cheerleaders - Anyone to join the band - Anyone to perform significantly better in classes than others - Anyone ugly to attend school at all - Anyone to join any chess, math, debate, etc club, basically any pursuit seen as nerdy should not be allowed
On July 16 2010 00:25 Magic84 wrote: [quote] 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.
Indeed I see the point being made, but if you are going to make that point you better have something to back it up with. Were do you draw the line here? Should we not let black people have adopt, because of racism? should we not let people of other religions adopt, because of them having diffrent views of raising children? Or just other ethnicities.
What's the diffrence?
There is no difference. I was just saying that I could see where he was coming from, but that I disagreed with it (and provided my counterargument).
I do realise what he is comming from but it's just taken right out of the blue, and that requires the burden of proof to even be considered.
Right, I agree.
It would seem to me that part of his post was the doubt that same-sex couples could be as good parents as heterosexual couples. However, it also includes the fear that the child's "social life" could suffer from having homosexual parents. This is actually a pretty valid point.
Aseq wrote: If you ask me, having gay parents isn't really the best situation for kids either (gl in high school, son of a fairy ), but it can be a lot better than the situation they would be in otherwise.
Children can be pretty mean: there you are the only child that has two daddies and everybody makes fun of you. How do you make friends? In high school you will inevitably meet people, who will be incredibly close-minded and being called "son of a fairy" and ostracized is perfectly possible. The fact that you and I view same-sex parents as unproblematic doesn't mean that everybody does. These children will most certainly encounter a lot of people, who will be appalled by the idea that there are gays and that such individuals are actually allowed to have children. In fact, kids with homosexual parents will most certainly have problems in their social life, not because it's their parents' fault, but because society does not accept them. Maybe in several generations society's perception of gays will have changed and nobody will have a negative view on them, but that's not the situation in our times.
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.
Why wouldn't you just show raw data and list the people from complied it? If you go reading articles to educate yourself over every debate you stumble upon, it would eat too much time. For balanced profound opinion you need to know everything and you need to take data from multiple sources including the whole absolute of negative data and opinions of all opposition. In the end, it's an amazing, astonishing amount of work, that it needs to be done, done by unbiased people too and who can measure bias?
Currently it looks like an attempt to dissolve and ridicule a concept of marriage and whole of society and risks with lives of children to me. It's not just about the interactions with parents, it's about how other kids of same age would take that, how that would alter kid's social status and mental well being, what difference that would make? No expert can dig there in a mind and make indeniable conclusions, And I surely don't want solid cultural foundations to make steps into vague status.
Any argument based on social acceptance by peers during childhood is fundamentally flawed. Children do not utilize adult social concepts, and adhere to their own social constructs, especially during high school. It has been shown time and time again that adults can exert only minor influence on these social constructs.
The bottom line is, kids are bastards, and will treat each other very poorly given the slightest reason. Saying that having two same-sex parents will adversely effect a child's social acceptance during the school years is not a good argument, and moreover, can be applied to many, many things. By this same logic, you should not allow:
- Males to be cheerleaders - Anyone to join the band - Anyone to perform significantly better in classes than others - Anyone ugly to attend school at all - Anyone to join any chess, math, debate, etc club, basically any pursuit seen as nerdy should not be allowed
I could go on, but you get the point. Any of the above things can easily cause a child to be a social outcast, and nothing, I repeat, NOTHING that adults do will force that child's peers to accept them. (Note: school social constructs are highly varied, and in some places these things are acceptable, other places will cause you to be outcast)
The only arguments that can carry any weight must be based on the child's state of being upon entering the adult world. In that aspect, it has never been shown that having same-sex parents will adversely effect your adult life in any way. I am sure there are exceptions, since just as terrible straight parents exist, I'm sure there are terrible same-sex parents.
I am sorry but your reasoning does not seem accurate here. The things you list that might cause social rejection are things that you choose to do. Having same-sex parents and thus becoming a social outcast is something that a kid cannot influence. Your comparison lacks...
Things such a looks or intelligence aren't chosen by the kid. They work with what they're given.
On July 16 2010 01:37 Empyrean wrote: Yeah, I'd think (and this is from perspective of a person with two straight parents) that being the child of two same-sex parents would probably be akin to being the child of an interracial couple in America in the fifties.
Could anyone weigh in on that?
This sounds like a perfectly reasonable comparison. As I said: Maybe in a few generations it won't be a problem anymore. Right now it is.
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.
Indeed I see the point being made, but if you are going to make that point you better have something to back it up with. Were do you draw the line here? Should we not let black people have adopt, because of racism? should we not let people of other religions adopt, because of them having diffrent views of raising children? Or just other ethnicities.
What's the diffrence?
There is no difference. I was just saying that I could see where he was coming from, but that I disagreed with it (and provided my counterargument).
I do realise what he is comming from but it's just taken right out of the blue, and that requires the burden of proof to even be considered.
Right, I agree.
It would seem to me that part of his post was the doubt that same-sex couples could be as good parents as heterosexual couples. However, it also includes the fear that the child's "social life" could suffer from having homosexual parents. This is actually a pretty valid point.
Aseq wrote: If you ask me, having gay parents isn't really the best situation for kids either (gl in high school, son of a fairy ), but it can be a lot better than the situation they would be in otherwise.
Children can be pretty mean: there you are the only child that has two daddies and everybody makes fun of you. How do you make friends? In high school you will inevitably meet people, who will be incredibly close-minded and being called "son of a fairy" and ostracized is perfectly possible. The fact that you and I view same-sex parents as unproblematic doesn't mean that everybody does. These children will most certainly encounter a lot of people, who will be appalled by the idea that there are gays and that such individuals are actually allowed to have children. In fact, kids with homosexual parents will most certainly have problems in their social life, not because it's their parents' fault, but because society does not accept them. Maybe in several generations society's perception of gays will have changed and nobody will have a negative view on them, but that's not the situation in our times.
If we waited on all Caucasian Christians to come around to new ideas, we'd still be living in castles and giving our daughters to the king.
So you are ready to make one or two generations of gay couple children have a suffering social life, so in the future such children won't? Harshly said (with a slight exaggeration) you want to "sacrifice" those children for the greater good. Isn't this a little bit unfair to them?
That's not an attack or provocation, but just a thought incentive. By the way, it is perfectly possible that even such a "poor" social life might be better for those children in comparison to being brought up in an orphanage.
I am sorry but your reasoning does not seem accurate here. The things you list that might cause social rejection are things that you choose to do. Having same-sex parents and thus becoming a social outcast is something that a kid cannot influence. Your comparison lacks...
Actually the only thing lacking is your comprehension skills.
He wasn't saying having gay parents and being in the chess club is the same thing.
He was making the point that if: A child's well being in school is the problem, then you shouldn't ALLOW any kid to put themselves at risk to being teased or bullied. IE-
- Males to be cheerleaders - Anyone to join the band - Anyone to perform significantly better in classes than others - Anyone ugly to attend school at all - Anyone to join any chess, math, debate, etc club, basically any pursuit seen as nerdy should not be allowed
Correct. If the argument of social well-being of a child is used to legally disallow something, then we must also disallow anything else that could cause a child to be an outcast. That includes all of the above, and more. Everyone should be wearing the same uniform, have the same haircut, attend the same classes and functions, the list goes on. Legally disallow any naming of a child that is not "normal," so no parents naming their children some name from another language, hippies naming kids Rain, etc. Everyone should eat the same lunch from the same lunchroom. Poor parents should not be allowed children, and neither should rich parents, only parents firmly in a narrow middle class. Mixed-race couples should not have kids. Children of single parents or orphaned children, should not be allowed to attend school at all, since they will never be accepted.
Do all these things seem silly to you? That's because they are. But if you are truly concerned about a child's social acceptance amongst peers, you should be lobbying to illegalize everything that I just listed and more. If you do not, then you are not truly concerned about a child's social acceptance, you are just using that as a flimsy excuse to argue against same-sex couples having children.
I'll state it again, you cannot base any reasonable argument, particularly one advocating legal action, on anything children do internal to their social construct.
On July 16 2010 01:37 Empyrean wrote: Yeah, I'd think (and this is from perspective of a person with two straight parents) that being the child of two same-sex parents would probably be akin to being the child of an interracial couple in America in the fifties.
Could anyone weigh in on that?
This sounds like a perfectly reasonable comparison. As I said: Maybe in a few generations it won't be a problem anymore. Right now it is.
On July 16 2010 00:44 Magic84 wrote: [quote] 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.
Indeed I see the point being made, but if you are going to make that point you better have something to back it up with. Were do you draw the line here? Should we not let black people have adopt, because of racism? should we not let people of other religions adopt, because of them having diffrent views of raising children? Or just other ethnicities.
What's the diffrence?
There is no difference. I was just saying that I could see where he was coming from, but that I disagreed with it (and provided my counterargument).
I do realise what he is comming from but it's just taken right out of the blue, and that requires the burden of proof to even be considered.
Right, I agree.
It would seem to me that part of his post was the doubt that same-sex couples could be as good parents as heterosexual couples. However, it also includes the fear that the child's "social life" could suffer from having homosexual parents. This is actually a pretty valid point.
Aseq wrote: If you ask me, having gay parents isn't really the best situation for kids either (gl in high school, son of a fairy ), but it can be a lot better than the situation they would be in otherwise.
Children can be pretty mean: there you are the only child that has two daddies and everybody makes fun of you. How do you make friends? In high school you will inevitably meet people, who will be incredibly close-minded and being called "son of a fairy" and ostracized is perfectly possible. The fact that you and I view same-sex parents as unproblematic doesn't mean that everybody does. These children will most certainly encounter a lot of people, who will be appalled by the idea that there are gays and that such individuals are actually allowed to have children. In fact, kids with homosexual parents will most certainly have problems in their social life, not because it's their parents' fault, but because society does not accept them. Maybe in several generations society's perception of gays will have changed and nobody will have a negative view on them, but that's not the situation in our times.
If we waited on all Caucasian Christians to come around to new ideas, we'd still be living in castles and giving our daughters to the king.
So you are ready to make one or two generations of gay couple children have a suffering social life, so in the future such children won't? Harshly said (with a slight exaggeration) you want to "sacrifice" those children for the greater good. Isn't this a little bit unfair to them?
That's not an attack or provocation, but just a thought incentive. By the way, it is perfectly possible that even such a "poor" social life might be better for those children in comparison to being brought up in an orphanage.
The ground work has been laid, there is NO considerable proof that having two gay parents makes any difference in a child's adult life. It's not like we are guessing. The only people guessing are people with unyielding personal views. They have provided nothing but opinions, we have provided everything in our power. If you let those people dictate policy then nothing gets changed. <Insert 1 historical fact of your choice here; as an example>
On July 16 2010 01:37 Empyrean wrote: Yeah, I'd think (and this is from perspective of a person with two straight parents) that being the child of two same-sex parents would probably be akin to being the child of an interracial couple in America in the fifties.
Could anyone weigh in on that?
This sounds like a perfectly reasonable comparison. As I said: Maybe in a few generations it won't be a problem anymore. Right now it is.
On July 16 2010 00:44 Magic84 wrote: [quote] 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.
Indeed I see the point being made, but if you are going to make that point you better have something to back it up with. Were do you draw the line here? Should we not let black people have adopt, because of racism? should we not let people of other religions adopt, because of them having diffrent views of raising children? Or just other ethnicities.
What's the diffrence?
There is no difference. I was just saying that I could see where he was coming from, but that I disagreed with it (and provided my counterargument).
I do realise what he is comming from but it's just taken right out of the blue, and that requires the burden of proof to even be considered.
Right, I agree.
It would seem to me that part of his post was the doubt that same-sex couples could be as good parents as heterosexual couples. However, it also includes the fear that the child's "social life" could suffer from having homosexual parents. This is actually a pretty valid point.
Aseq wrote: If you ask me, having gay parents isn't really the best situation for kids either (gl in high school, son of a fairy ), but it can be a lot better than the situation they would be in otherwise.
Children can be pretty mean: there you are the only child that has two daddies and everybody makes fun of you. How do you make friends? In high school you will inevitably meet people, who will be incredibly close-minded and being called "son of a fairy" and ostracized is perfectly possible. The fact that you and I view same-sex parents as unproblematic doesn't mean that everybody does. These children will most certainly encounter a lot of people, who will be appalled by the idea that there are gays and that such individuals are actually allowed to have children. In fact, kids with homosexual parents will most certainly have problems in their social life, not because it's their parents' fault, but because society does not accept them. Maybe in several generations society's perception of gays will have changed and nobody will have a negative view on them, but that's not the situation in our times.
If we waited on all Caucasian Christians to come around to new ideas, we'd still be living in castles and giving our daughters to the king.
So you are ready to make one or two generations of gay couple children have a suffering social life, so in the future such children won't? Harshly said (with a slight exaggeration) you want to "sacrifice" those children for the greater good. Isn't this a little bit unfair to them?
That's not an attack or provocation, but just a thought incentive. By the way, it is perfectly possible that even such a "poor" social life might be better for those children in comparison to being brought up in an orphanage.
The answer is yes. We did it with mixed-race children in the fifties, non-white children in the... actually I don't know when non-white children were first allowed to attend school. But we also did it with women, they weren't allowed to attend school either. All of these changes were made, and were positive. You cannot base anything on whether a child will be socially accepted by peers, you can only base it on the quality of their adult life.
Edit, because this is important : Change is hard. History always focuses on the positive aspects of those that herald change, and ignores the enormous personal trials that they go through. You always hear about how great Martin Luther King Jr. was, you NEVER hear about the enormous amounts of persecution, ridicule, and personal suffering that he went through to bring that change about. But if we do not push through the tough times, then positive change will never occur, because it DOES NOT happen on its own.
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.
A lot of people are under the opposite impression. I'm pretty sure there was a huge controversy in California, and it was the reason many people voted "Yes on 8" (Prop 8 to repeal the legality of gay marriage). There was supposedly a case where a priest refused to marry a gay couple, and the gay couple sued because they claimed it was discrimination based on sexual orientation. The priest (or church) supposedly lost the case. Many people who supported the idea of gay marriage, or were wavering, were swayed by the outcome of that case. That's what I've been told by peers. For the first time I tried looking up results myself on this supposed case, and couldn't find anything except "http://mediamatters.org/research/200811100003" which talks about how people were suggesting it would be forced, but would not actually be the case.
However the second article does have a quote in it that states
"Stern said some worry that in jurisdictions that allow same-sex marriages, clergy will be forced to perform the ceremonies, but he called that "a red herring."
"That does not appear to be on the horizon," he said."
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.
This was a mature way of expressing your opinion. I'll let you in on why it is necessary for same-sex marriages to be legal. Almost all countries grant different rights to married couples than to people who are just "together" in the eyes of the law. A gay couple in America, since they aren't married for instance, doesn't have the same rights as a married couple when hospital/taxes/military/etc... laws come into play. Due to that, everyone should be treated equal right? So allowing them to have married status in the eyes of the law gives them that equality.
Marriage isn't about making and raising offspring, passing on a bloodline or any of that, this is a common myth of marriage. If that were true, sterile couples shouldn't be allowed to be married due to them being sterile. Marriage is a legally binding contract declaring two people as a couple. That is it. In the eyes of the court system, there is nothing religious about it, nor can there be a religious involvement in the courts because it is unconstitutional.
On July 15 2010 23:38 BillyMole 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.
Most of the people who are against same-sex marriage would not accept that argument, because they are also totally against those couples being able to adopt. Which has always struck me as the most ludicrous thing about the whole issue, since there are so many kids stuck in the system. It shocks me that these self-proclaimed "family values" people would rather see these kids rot in the system than be adopted by loving parents just because they are gay.
As for the tax breaks, they are not founded on the concepts you mention, they were founded in the era when women did not work at all. The breaks were designed so that one man's income could better support his wife and children. And that is still perfectly valid in a same-sex marriage, since one partner may want to be a stay-at-home parent for the adopted children.
Prejudice like this commonly makes one blind. Being against same-sex marriage makes you prejudiced. There is no logical, legal, philosophical, secular morally-binding methodology to justify being against same-sex marriage. It's commonly a deeply seeded prejudice that has to do with their religious views and/or upbringing. Your religious views or what irks you doesn't give you the right to deny others of rights.
I concur. They're not my views though.
Oh, and separation of church and state is a total farce. While technically a part of our laws, all non-religious arguments against same-sex marriage are spurious, thinly-veiled attempts by people to make their position seem like it's not based on religion. In reality, at least in the U.S., most people are against it because they have been brought up by the church to believe that it is evil. Regrettably, this religious population does still make up the majority of the voting adults, and their senators very much want to be reelected.
Despite the fact that not all Christians are Catholic, it really does come down to the Catholic Church's adamant refusal to adapt. I've seen many other sects of Christianity who either don't care, or wholeheartedly embrace the same-sex members of their congregations. Sadly, the Catholic church is generally seen as representative of the religion, at least in the eyes of the government.
Well possibly the largest reason money-wise why the campaign against same-sex marriage is so intense here is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (in lamens terms, Mormons). Basically there is a lot of evidence that the church invested millions of dollars into the Prop 8 debacle.
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?
What's next, marriage with female goats? Zoophiles have rights too. I hope you won't claim that's it's improper comparison, we talk about sexual orientations here, and those are notably common. So what if one is not human, the brain consists of pretty much same neural connections, dogs have feelings and love too. You won't believe how many people would marry a dog, and why would society deprive those people of their rights? And this married couple can always adopt a kid.
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?
Then there's some dude in Japan that married a pillow with anime face on it, let's just make marriage a joke, a vague concept just so everybody can have pride and equality, hell, just abolish marriage, this concept is outdated and unfair.
It's a logical fallacy, refrain from using it. Basically the slippery slope was used for blacks and whites getting married, for blacks desegregation in schools, etc... It was wrong every time to use that fallacious argument style. If you want to have an intelligent discussion in the future, refrain from logical fallacies.
For your 2nd point, you are automatically assuming that it's NOT safe for a child. There is no evidence either way, so this point is invalid and should not be part of your opinion. What independent studies have been done on the social life (however this could be scientifically measured) of children from gay couples in comparison to those from straight couples. I can tell you right now in America the average straight couple gets a divorce, has a single mother, is in poverty, and the children have very low education standards/results. It doesn't get much worse than that already.
That's Japan, over there, they can't have Gay marriages either, transsexuals/transgendered persons cannot be recognized legally as their transitioned sex, etc... The gay-trans rights in Japan are horrific when compared to the rest of the world, and socially they are ignored for the most part. Just recently have gays begun to be seen as human beings, thanks to, surprisingly, the antics of the gay stereotype "Hard Gay".
If you are using one of these 5 arguments in these videos, you should rethink your position since it is on very shaky ground philosophically and morally.
I am sorry but your reasoning does not seem accurate here. The things you list that might cause social rejection are things that you choose to do. Having same-sex parents and thus becoming a social outcast is something that a kid cannot influence. Your comparison lacks...
Actually the only thing lacking is your comprehension skills.
He wasn't saying having gay parents and being in the chess club is the same thing.
He was making the point that if: A child's well being in school is the problem, then you shouldn't ALLOW any kid to put themselves at risk to being teased or bullied. IE-
- Males to be cheerleaders - Anyone to join the band - Anyone to perform significantly better in classes than others - Anyone ugly to attend school at all - Anyone to join any chess, math, debate, etc club, basically any pursuit seen as nerdy should not be allowed
Correct. If the argument of social well-being of a child is used to legally disallow something, then we must also disallow anything else that could cause a child to be an outcast. That includes all of the above, and more. Everyone should be wearing the same uniform, have the same haircut, attend the same classes and functions, the list goes on. Legally disallow any naming of a child that is not "normal," so no parents naming their children some name from another language, hippies naming kids Rain, etc. Everyone should eat the same lunch from the same lunchroom. Poor parents should not be allowed children, and neither should rich parents, only parents firmly in a narrow middle class. Mixed-race couples should not have kids. Children of single parents or orphaned children, should not be allowed to attend school at all, since they will never be accepted.
Do all these things seem silly to you? That's because they are. But if you are truly concerned about a child's social acceptance amongst peers, you should be lobbying to illegalize everything that I just listed and more. If you do not, then you are not truly concerned about a child's social acceptance, you are just using that as a flimsy excuse to argue against same-sex couples having children.
I'll state it again, you cannot base any reasonable argument, particularly one advocating legal action, on anything children do internal to their social construct.
I never argued that homosexual couples shouldn't have children. In fact, I said that I support them. The whole point of my previous posts was to show that there is room for consideration if it is always beneficial to children to be adopted by gay parents. By doing this you might impose a negative situation on these children that could have been avoided (unlike being "fat/ugly/stupid", which you can rarely change). Hypothetically, it could have been better for the child to live its youth in the orphanage than to have loving parents but no social life at all. + Show Spoiler +
This is also the response to the comment you posted next. The examples you give about the past all included the possibility of the people involved to choose if they wanted to take the hard path or not. You cannot choose if you want to be adopted by homosexuals. + Show Spoiler +
Trivia: In Germany courts do disallow names that might be problematic for children. There have been multiple cases in the most recent past. + Show Spoiler +
Final statement: "I never argued that homosexual couples shouldn't have children. In fact, I said that I support them.The whole point of my previous posts was to show that there is room for consideration if it is always beneficial to children to be adopted by gay parents." This being said, I don't think there is any reason for me to dive any further into this argument. It was meant to be merely a thought incentive. In fact, I believe that gay couples should be allowed to have children, since this way the children will probably recieve more love, better education, and generally a better start in life. I actually think that only a very tiny percentage of such children will face significant problems in their social life and that even less of them will have a worse adult life this way than they would have if they spent their childhood in an orphanage.
On July 16 2010 01:37 Empyrean wrote: Yeah, I'd think (and this is from perspective of a person with two straight parents) that being the child of two same-sex parents would probably be akin to being the child of an interracial couple in America in the fifties.
Could anyone weigh in on that?
This sounds like a perfectly reasonable comparison. As I said: Maybe in a few generations it won't be a problem anymore. Right now it is.
On July 16 2010 01:39 keV. wrote:
On July 16 2010 01:34 ggrrg wrote:
On July 16 2010 01:11 Empyrean wrote:
On July 16 2010 01:10 Hynda wrote:
On July 16 2010 00:59 Empyrean wrote:
On July 16 2010 00:58 Hynda wrote:
On July 16 2010 00:52 Empyrean wrote:
On July 16 2010 00:51 Hynda wrote: [quote] 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.
Indeed I see the point being made, but if you are going to make that point you better have something to back it up with. Were do you draw the line here? Should we not let black people have adopt, because of racism? should we not let people of other religions adopt, because of them having diffrent views of raising children? Or just other ethnicities.
What's the diffrence?
There is no difference. I was just saying that I could see where he was coming from, but that I disagreed with it (and provided my counterargument).
I do realise what he is comming from but it's just taken right out of the blue, and that requires the burden of proof to even be considered.
Right, I agree.
It would seem to me that part of his post was the doubt that same-sex couples could be as good parents as heterosexual couples. However, it also includes the fear that the child's "social life" could suffer from having homosexual parents. This is actually a pretty valid point.
Aseq wrote: If you ask me, having gay parents isn't really the best situation for kids either (gl in high school, son of a fairy ), but it can be a lot better than the situation they would be in otherwise.
Children can be pretty mean: there you are the only child that has two daddies and everybody makes fun of you. How do you make friends? In high school you will inevitably meet people, who will be incredibly close-minded and being called "son of a fairy" and ostracized is perfectly possible. The fact that you and I view same-sex parents as unproblematic doesn't mean that everybody does. These children will most certainly encounter a lot of people, who will be appalled by the idea that there are gays and that such individuals are actually allowed to have children. In fact, kids with homosexual parents will most certainly have problems in their social life, not because it's their parents' fault, but because society does not accept them. Maybe in several generations society's perception of gays will have changed and nobody will have a negative view on them, but that's not the situation in our times.
If we waited on all Caucasian Christians to come around to new ideas, we'd still be living in castles and giving our daughters to the king.
So you are ready to make one or two generations of gay couple children have a suffering social life, so in the future such children won't? Harshly said (with a slight exaggeration) you want to "sacrifice" those children for the greater good. Isn't this a little bit unfair to them?
That's not an attack or provocation, but just a thought incentive. By the way, it is perfectly possible that even such a "poor" social life might be better for those children in comparison to being brought up in an orphanage.
The ground work has been laid, there is NO considerable proof that having two gay parents makes any difference in a child's adult life. It's not like we are guessing. The only people guessing are people with unyielding personal views. They have provided nothing but opinions, we have provided everything in our power. If you let those people dictate policy then nothing gets changed. <Insert 1 historical fact of your choice here; as an example>
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.
Why wouldn't you just show raw data and list the people from complied it? If you go reading articles to educate yourself over every debate you stumble upon, it would eat too much time. For balanced profound opinion you need to know everything and you need to take data from multiple sources including the whole absolute of negative data and opinions of all opposition. In the end, it's an amazing, astonishing amount of work, that needs to be done, done by unbiased people too and who can measure bias?
Currently it looks like an attempt to dissolve and ridicule a concept of marriage and whole of society and risks with lives of children to me. It's not just about the interactions with parents, it's about how other kids of same age would take that, how that would alter kid's social status and mental well being, what difference that would make? No expert can dig there in a mind and make indeniable conclusions. And I surely don't want solid cultural foundations to make steps into vague status.
You, as a person making an assertion, are REQUIRED to have evidence to back up your point. You made an assertion, obviously, that it is bad for children, so you have to prove that. When evidence is shown to disagree with your opinion, you are not allowed to get away with "well show me the evidence" an Infinitesimal amount of times, that's called willful ignorance. It's intellectual dishonesty, and it is NOT debating.
This is why someone accurately drew a parallel earlier to young earth creationists and them believing that the earth is 6000-10000 years old and that evolution is a lie. You can show them the evidence, ask them for evidence that goes against your evidence, they show you, then you prove it wrong, and then they say "well show me the evidence" over and over without acknowledging what you showed them. Extreme personal bias doesn't make you RIGHT, no matter how passionately you WANT to believe something.
Here's some more evidence. I'd advise people who think that same-sex marriages are bad for the kids look to the scientific research that was conducted for proof.
I don't believe marriage should be a function of the state. It only became a state institution here in the US because of visiting rights in hospitals and then evolved into a nightmare of legislation involving taxes and other things.
You shouldn't be able to force a religious institution to do something that they don't want. What if a homosexual couple wants to be married by a priest, does the priest have the right to decline? Who knows? Everyone in the United States is now forced to buy a product or pay a fine.
I don't have the right to force my views on others, but nobody has the right to force their views on me.
On July 16 2010 03:26 Jenbu wrote: I don't believe marriage should be a function of the state. It only became a state institution here in the US because of visiting rights in hospitals and then evolved into a nightmare of legislation involving taxes and other things.
You shouldn't be able to force a religious institution to do something that they don't want. What if a homosexual couple wants to be married by a priest, does the priest have the right to decline? Who knows? Everyone in the United States is now forced to buy a product or pay a fine.
I don't have the right to force my views on others, but nobody has the right to force their views on me.
As mentioned above, the legal system cannot force priests to do anything. It's a paranoid argument that has no basis in fact. A priest can refuse to marry a same-sex couple for any reason he wants, just as they can refuse to marry straight couples for any reason. When my wife and I got married in the church in her hometown, we had to jump through a whole bunch of hoops to meet their criteria. Otherwise, the church would have refused to marry us.
On July 15 2010 22:52 Amber[LighT] wrote: $20 says that this thread will be closed due to excessive controversial discussion that turns into a flame war.
I am personally thrilled that Argentina is making these steps forward. After working for a gay boss over the past two years my perception on homosexuality as a whole has been completely turned upside down. There's really no reason for two men or two women to get married aside from the religious aspect, at least that's what it seems like nowadays. To be honest I don't know why I was against gay marriage prior to 2008 anyway. Bah brainwashing
The can adopt as a couple now. If one of them adopted (say a guy by her own) and started living with another man and the first man died. The child would be left alone in the streets.
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.
A gay couple can rent an uterus, which costs a lot of money.
Also, if an heterosexual couple adopts a child they skip the 9-month pregnancy as well. They still get the benefits.
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.
A gay couple can rent an uterus, which costs a lot of money.
Also, if an heterosexual couple adopts a child they skip the 9-month pregnancy as well. They still get the benefits.
Shhh, don't let a little logic get in the way of him! Them heteros, who have on average like two or three babies over the course of a marriage, get lifelong benefits because the wife is physically unable to work due to child birth for 27 months!
EPT
