What Upsets People About Gay Marriage - Page 4 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

FoolThemAll · 06-28-2006, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

I've actually discussed it quite extensively.

Yes, you have. But "Whether you think that is justified doesn't matter at all to me" would seem to suggest a shift. I could've misinterpreted it.

Quote:

Actually, for me it is axiomatic. If someone tells me that gay marriage is wrong then i assume that they are a bigot. If we get to talking and it turns out that they were just using flawed logic, well, they aren't a bigot anymore. That doesn't mean my basic assumption was wrong. It just means that they got talked out of being a bigot.

You can define bigotry that broadly if you want, but you're left with a bigotry that is not necessarily malevolent and not necessarily dishonest. In fact, the only negative characteristic I could definitively assign to this bigotry is ignorance.

I don't find much value to this use of the word, but to each his own.

Quote:

Then it should all come out in the wash. In my experience it really never does, but i concede that it might happen.

The wash needs to be a clean wash. If you're labeling the washee a bigot from the onset, or if you don't do a very good job of refuting the arguments, or if you're antagonistic in some other way, it's like doing the wash with dirty water. I've seen this happen too many times. People aren't perfectly neutral, and bad or inflammatory arguments can poison them against a position that they might otherwise carefully consider.

Quote:

Most of them hate america too.

And they kick puppies.

Quote:

Okay, i'll concede this point. People who believe faulty logic, yet don't actually do anything that is implied by their belief in that faulty logic aren't actually bigots. They have the potential to be bigots, but being a bigot requires activity beyond just believing something.

To me, an essential ingredient of bigotry is disrespect, and I just don't see that in many of my friends/family who are opposed to same-sex marriage.

(To be clear, I do see it in some of them, including a member of my immediate family. I'm not trying to pretend that it's all honest and respectful disagreement.)

Quote:

It may not appear so on the tfp, but i'm a pretty civil person when it comes to face to face time if i feel like the civility is reciprocal. Just because i think someone is ridiculously mistaken doesn't mean i treat them like a piece of shit.

Yeah, I could've been clearer here. I wouldn't know how you treat the opposition, beyond the little you've said in this thread, and I didn't mean to imply that you treat them like shit. When I say that your mistake is more of a roadblock to civility than their mistake, I'm talking about the mistake of telling them they're bigots (when, imo, they're not). I see that as a bigger source of unfriendly situations than the mere declaration of opposition to same-sex marriage.

Of course, when one actually shows bigoted behavior (by my standards), then that's obviously the bigger problem by a few miles.

filtherton · 06-28-2006, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

To me, an essential ingredient of bigotry is disrespect, and I just don't see that in many of my friends/family who are opposed to same-sex marriage.

This is where we differ. I think bigotry applies to anyone who would knowingly or unknowingly seek or passively support efforts to deny civil rights or even basic respect to a certain subset of people based on arbitrary, selective, or faulty logic.

Let me be clear, though; i don't think bigots are automatically bad people. I know plenty of people whom i consider to be bigots, at least in some respect, that are actually great people(aside from the whole bigot thing). I think that it is also axiomatic that bigots are misinformed individuals. To me it makes no difference(in terms of the application of the term bigot) whether that misinformation is acted on or not.

Derwood · 06-28-2006, 08:09 PM

I'm late to the party here and most of my views (supporting gay marriage) have already been stated here, so I'll simply say this:

It's awfully easy to dismiss someone else's desire to have something when you already have it.

aberkok · 06-28-2006, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

Homosexuality in nature occurs for procreation purposes (All right, in some species which lack both sexual organs (Such as some primates), homosexual tendencies have been observed, but the actual act of sex between same genders have not). Nothing more, nothing less. Not to gay bash or offend anyone, but the reasons for homosexuality occurring in nature are far different than the reasons homosexuality occurs in humans, as two homosexuals can not reproduce (I believe someone stated that earlier).

Does anyone remember the gay penguins? This is one of many available articles about Wendell and Cass. Not to anthropomorphize these guys too much, but there are gay animals.

http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentw...-06-10/591.asp

Quote:

They're in love. They're gay. They're penguins... And they're not alone.

By Cristina Cardoze
Wendell and Cass, two gay penguins at the New York Aquarium.

PHOTO: The New York Aquarium
Wendell and Cass, two gay penguins at the New York Aquarium.

Wendell and Cass, two penguins at the New York Aquarium in Coney Island, Brooklyn, live in a soap opera world of seduction and intrigue. Among the 22 male and 10 female African black-footed penguins in the aquarium's exhibit, tales of love, lust and betrayal are the norm. These birds mate for life. But given the disproportionate male-female ratio at the aquarium, some of the females flirt profusely and dump their partners for single males with better nests.

Wendell and Cass, however, take no part in these cunning schemes. They have been completely devoted to each other for the last eight years. In fact, neither one of them has ever been with anyone else, says their keeper, Stephanie Mitchell.

But the partnership of Wendell and Cass adds drama in another way. They're both male. That is to say, they're gay penguins.

This is not unusual. "There are a lot of animals that have same-sex relations, it's just that people don't know about it," Mitchell said. "I mean, Joe Schmoe on the street is not someone who's read all sorts of biology books."

One particular book is helpful in this case. Bruce Bagemihl's "Biological Exuberance," published in 1999, documents homosexual behavior in more than 450 animal species. The list includes grizzly bears, gorillas, flamingos, owls and even several species of salmon.

"The world is, indeed, teeming with homosexual, bisexual and transgendered creatures of every stripe and feather," Bagemihl writes in the first page of his book. "From the Southeastern Blueberry Bee of the United States to more than 130 different bird species worldwide, the 'birds and the bees,' literally, are queer."

In New York, it's the penguins.

At the Central Park Zoo, Silo and Roy, two male Chinstrap penguins, have been in an exclusive relationship for four years. Last mating season, they even fostered an egg together.

"They got all excited when we gave them the egg," said Rob Gramzay, senior keeper for polar birds at the zoo. He took the egg from a young, inexperienced couple that hatched an extra and gave it to Silo and Roy. "And they did a really great job of taking care of the chick and feeding it."

Of the 53 penguins in the Central Park Zoo, Silo and Roy are not the only ones that are gay. In 1997, the park had four pairs of homosexual penguins. In an effort to increase breeding, zookeepers tried to separate them by force. They failed, said Gramzay.

Only one of the eight bonded with a female. The rest went back to same-sex relationships, not necessarily with the same partner. Silo and Roy, long-time homosexuals, got together (or pair-bonded, in official penguin lingo) after that failed experiment.

At the New York Aquarium, no one suspected Wendell and Cass were gay when they first bonded. Penguins don't have external sex organs, so visually there's no surefire way to tell whether they are male or female. But over time, people began to wonder.

In all the years they had been together, neither Wendell nor Cass laid an egg. This was unusual because the keepers knew they copulated regularly. They had often seen Wendell submit to Cass, the more dominating of the two. But one day, a keeper saw Wendell on top.

When penguins have sex, the female lies on her belly and the male climbs on top with his feet and puts his rump around her rump. Then their cloacas (sexual organs) meet, and the sperm is transferred into the female. It's called the cloacal kiss.

Wendell and Cass were clearly kissing both ways. So in 1999, the aquarium did a blood test to determine their gender. It proved they were both male.

Today, they are one of the best couples at the aquarium. "Sometimes they lie on the rocks together," Mitchell said. "They're one of the few couples that like to hang out together outside their nest."

Wendell and Cass have a highly coveted nest. During mating season, several other penguins have tried to steal it. Cass, a fierce fighter, kept them at bay. (Wendell, on the other hand, is "afraid of his own shadow," said Mitchell.)

The appeal of their nest is the location: high up, close to the water and the feeding station. Rumors that they keep the neatest nest at the aquarium because they're gay are not true.

"These are penguins," said Mitchell. "They poop in their nest. Nobody's got a clean nest."

Zeraph · 06-28-2006, 10:14 PM

It's been said, but c'mon...no homosexuality in nature? That's almost as bad as "There's no war in nature." I've personally seen gay birds, dogs, primates, and dolphins, and heard about more species such as the penguins above. And I'm sure there's some gay animals in nearly every species. And as far as our culture goes there have been plenty of times and places were homosexuality was not only accepted, but expected of you. Spartans anyone? They actually cherished the relationship between two men more than a heterosexual one. Hijras (usually castrated males) from India also practice prostitution/homosexuality sometimes even marrying a man and being treated like a wife would. Hijras have been around since about 1000 BC...i think, either way for a very long time though (and spartans in that similar time as well, Im going off memory though).

Gilda · 06-29-2006, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

You can argue this for all you want, but being married is a privilege-- One which isn't given to any persons. This is evidenced by the fact that, in many cases, the Supreme Court has refused to make any direct ruling on the issue and, for the most part, has left it up to the states to decide from themselves whether or not they want to extend those privleges to another group of people.

I'm stating a fact. Marriage is a civil right in the United States. Loving v. Virginia. It has not been overturned since.

Quote:

Your reasons as to why incest are wrong, just like many other people, are only a facade to cover up the "I think it's wrong and it shouldn't be legalized!" aspect of it.

Similiarly, my reason as to opposing gay marriage is "I think it's wrong and shouldn't be legalized!". Therefore, what's the difference between my stance on gay marriage and your stance on incest?

In fact, aren't you guilty of doing the same thing in which people have accused me of? Your refusal to grant another group of the people the same rights in which you are advocating for would make you a bigot (At least, it would be some people's definition of the word).

I'm astounded. Really, truly astounded. You asked a question, and I answered. You then ignore my answer, make one up I manifestly did not give, argue against it, and call me a bigot for holding that position, a position which I did not take.

Quote:

You could try to make cases on keeping incest outlawed on the basis of bilogical reasons but, then again, I could make an argument to keep gay marriage outlawed on the basis of social structure.

Well, that would be different then, wouldn't it?

Quote:

As I posted earlier, I really don't care whether or not homosexual's are allowed to marry or not. However, for centuries, marriage has always been deemed betweeen a male and female. I could be wrong, but off the top of my head I don't know of any culture which has ever promoted gay marriages (If you know of any, then enlighten me). Whatever the reasons-- Religious, political, social or otherwise-- The status quo regarding marriage is that it's strictly between a man and a woman.

That was my original statement. Somewhere along the line you started to play semantics (That is you started to debate the meaning of words instead of the actual post), and took what I said completely out of context, if only to benefit yourself. I'm not exactly sure why everyone else knew I was referencing ancient cultures (Someone even responded as such) while you wanted to throw out recent examples

Semantics matter, esepcially in a debate regarding what a "marriage" is and should be.

The bolded part is an absolute statement. It has two smaller absolute statments in it.

Quote:

Erm... Once again, you're playing semantics. People have just recently tried to challenge the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman. And while, in some countries, they might have won that right, in others they've taken gigantic hits (That last sentence really wasn't relevant, but since you decided to throw in your $.02, I felt that I would do the same).

I see you recognize it as a right. I accept your concession.

Quote:

Are you not reading any of my posts? I already acknowledged the fact (Somewhere on the first page) that sometimes marriage occurs between multiple spouses. I have no problems with that (My grandfather in Nigeria has two wives, after all), as I deem marriage to be between a man and a woman. I have no problems with heterosexual marriage. Gay marriages, however, I do have a problem with.

Cool. So if Grace and I go out and find a man to marry, you'd be fine with the marriage? Hmmmm. There are a few gay male couples at church. We could marry one of those couples, the husbands would have their room, the wives thiers, and it's all kosher. A capital idea!

Ohh, and built in sperm donors for our children, and a surrogate for theirs! This idea just gets better and better.

Quote:

But I have a question for you: Was homosexuality commonplace, or was gay marriage an accepted practice? Don't mix up the two concepts. In the United States homosexuality is an accepted practice, but we don't legalize gay marriages.

Homosexuality isn't a practice, it's a condition.

Quote:

Because it's not. It has nothing to do with sexuality. It's main focus was social structure, in which either men took on the roles of women or women took on the roles of men. Not surprising enough, was the fact that these people played integral parts in the social structure of their native tribes.

Who's playing semantics now? By the way, I have no objection to semantic arguments. You ought to see a thread on my comic book website where I argue that a costume, a uniform, and an outfit are not all the same thing and shouldn't be used interchangably. My dear lord you cannot believe how some people would stretch logic to the breaking point to try to justify their unjustifiable position. A uniform by definition has to be designed as part of a set of similar garments, otherwise it isn't uniform. I just cannot see why such a simple concept is beyond some people.

Back on topic.

If a man dresses as a woman, takes on the social role of a woman, and forms a permanent mating pair with another male, I cannot see how that's not either transsexuality or homosexuality. If you accept that as a social sex change, it's transsexual, or at least bi-gender (like Ty Greenstein, my god s/he's hot), and if not, then you have a male/male pairing that is not only accepted but often celebrated, and in dozens of different cultures across pre-Colombian North America.

Quote:

I never said it was. Once again, you're taking one of my earlier quotes out of context. The homosexual tendencies which manifest themselves in nature either stem from procreation or social structure (And, even then, it is very limited). In humans, neither of the two is true (Though, I'm sure that you would like to convince yourself that the second is true).

So there we have it, homosexuality in nature.

Quote:

I could sit here and explain to you the institution of marriage and it's social implications, but you would more than likely try to challenge that, as well.

Maybe, maybe not. I am married by the way, just not civilly married, and I would prefer to be legally married, so I think I value the institution just as much as you do. Among other things, it provides a stable environment for the rearing of children.

Quote:

That wasn't exactly my claim. To quote myself, yet again:

When one says "Unnatural", I believe them to mean a deviance from the original function or purpose.

Another semantic argument. Again, I don't object in the least to semantic arguments, but for someone who dislikes them, you seem to use them quite a bit.

When I say "unnatural" I mean either "not ocurring in nature" or "actions deviating from one's own nature". If I were to have sex with a man, that would be unnatural for me.

Quote:

I'm not going to get into this too much, but the top two reasons why dogs will try to hump other males or even people usually boils down to one of two things:

1.) Hormonal imbalances and

2.) The exertion of dominance over another organism.

And lack of avaialable female partners when stimulated.

This explains the motivation for the behavior, it does not mean that it isn't homosexual.

Oh, and in response to 2, on a paersonal note, last weekend my wife dominance over me--I'm an organism, by the way--a whole lot of dominance. Yeah, that was very nice. I'm hoping for some more exertions of dominance this coming weekend when we both have time. Oh, yeah, I'm hoping for quite a lot of exerting.

Gilda

Derwood · 06-29-2006, 05:46 AM

Arguing this topic makes me sad and tired. I never thought we'd see a government that proactively tried to take rights away from the citizens of this country.

Infinite_Loser · 06-29-2006, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Whether or not a marriage is 'sacred' or not is irrelevant.

How is it irrelevant? Simply because you do not agree with an assumption does not mean that it's irrelevant.

Quote:

There are other reasons and traditions but in the end but what does it really matter in this day and age? Sacred is as sacred does? Who are you to judge and say that the committment between one couple (let's call them Grace and Gilda) is more meaningful than another?

What about this day and age? As I'm sure you are fully aware, gay marriage is still highly opposed in the majority of the world. Saying "what does it really matter in this day in age" is simply a way of ignoring other people's opinions and beliefs regarding gay marriage.

Quote:

If you have no problems with gays in general, you should have no problems with gay marriage.

Why do you deem it impossible for people to oppose gay marriage but have no problems with gays in general?

Quote:

Again, you have yet to provide any reason other than that you think it is "wrong"... and that's just not enough to deny someone's rights.

I'm sure that I more than likely stated this prior, but I suppose one more time couldn't hurt. It is my opinion that marriage is strictly between males and females. Unites States law as well as well as public opinion sees that marriage is between a male and female. Now, as I know what your counter argument will be, my question to you is who says that mariage should be extended to gays?

Derwood · 06-29-2006, 07:37 AM

How about the fact that Gays are absolutely the same as heterosexual people in every way besides who they chose to partner with,thus denying them a right/privelage of said heterosexual person is a gross display of bigotry?

lurkette · 06-29-2006, 07:49 AM

I think part of the problem is how we're defining "marriage." Why does it NEED to be defined as "one man, one woman" just because that's the way it has generally been? Arguing from tradition, history, even evolution, is irrelevant when those things have been discarded in countless instances to re-imagine social order. Look at monarchy, the class system, slavery, laws against miscegenation, etc. All of those institutions used the same arguments used by opponents of gay marriage to defend themselves from rational challenge. There's no reason inherent to marriage as practiced today why it should be defined as "one man one woman."

Look at the reasons for marriage, and you'll see:

- social institution for stability: Marriage keeps society stable because it defines relationships, places limits on behavior, and provides a structure for people to relate to each other. By this definition, including gays in "marriage" would add to social stability rather than detract from it.

- providing an environment for raising children: not all heterosexual married couples can or choose to procreate. All credible studies find gays and lesbians to be as competent as heterosexual couples at parenting.

- public recognition of a private physical, spiritual and emotional commitment. Again, no reason why two people of the same sex can't be just as physically, spiritually and emotionally committed as two people of the opposite sex.

- religious institution mirroring god's relationship with the church. Some religions DO recognize gay marriage, and a particular religious definition of marriage should not be privileged over another through state-sponsored legislation.

Given that homosexuality is widely accepted as a biological condition and NOT a "choice" I can't see any valid ethical reason for denying people public and legal recognition of a relationship that would be perfectly acceptable if one of them had a slightly different chromosome.

Infinite_Loser · 06-29-2006, 08:33 AM

Sorry for the extended time between posts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilda

I'm stating a fact. Marriage is a civil right in the United States. Loving v. Virginia. It has not been overturned since.

...Yet that "Right" can be taken away by a state-- Or even the Federal Government-- If the populace so wishes. While I understand what you're getting at, rights normally can't be abridged.

Quote:

Cool. So if Grace and I go out and find a man to marry, you'd be fine with the marriage? Hmmmm. There are a few gay male couples at church. We could marry one of those couples, the husbands would have their room, the wives thiers, and it's all kosher. A capital idea!

There'd be no point in doing that, as you and your partner wouldn't be receiving the legal benefits which you seek from marriage (Referencing one of your earlier anecdotes). And, by the way, no I don't support that.

[QUOTE]Ohh, and built in sperm donors for our children, and a surrogate for theirs! This idea just gets better and better.[QUOTE]

This and the former issues are seperate of each other. While I do have a problem with gay marriage, I have no problems with gays adopting and raising children. Therefore, if you want to do that then it's A-OK by me.

Quote:

Homosexuality isn't a practice, it's a condition.

All right. I'll change the word from "Practice" to "Condition", but my question still stands. Was homosexuality commonplace, or was gay marriage an accepted practice in the ancient Roman culture? Don't mix up the two concepts. In the United States homosexuality is an accepted condition, but we don't legalize gay marriages.

Quote:

If a man dresses as a woman, takes on the social role of a woman, and forms a permanent mating pair with another male, I cannot see how that's not either transsexuality or homosexuality. If you accept that as a social sex change, it's transsexual, or at least bi-gender (like Ty Greenstein, my god s/he's hot), and if not, then you have a male/male pairing that is not only accepted but often celebrated, and in dozens of different cultures across pre-Colombian North America.

All right. I'll concede the point about being paired with another man (Even though they weren't always expected to) as being an act of transexuality.

Quote:

Maybe, maybe not. I am married by the way, just not civilly married, and I would prefer to be legally married, so I think I value the institution just as much as you do. Among other things, it provides a stable environment for the rearing of children.

It sounds to me as if you value the legal benefits of marriage moreso than you do the "Love" aspects of marriage (That's simply my opinion).

Quote:

When I say "unnatural" I mean either "not ocurring in nature" or "actions deviating from one's own nature". If I were to have sex with a man, that would be unnatural for me.

All right. I agree with that point.

Derwood · 06-29-2006, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Was homosexuality commonplace, or was gay marriage an accepted practice in the ancient Roman culture?.

Don't know. But slavery was. So if the populace of a given state were to vote on readopting slavery, you'd be cool with that too?

Frosstbyte · 06-29-2006, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

Why do you deem it impossible for people to oppose gay marriage but have no problems with gays in general?

I tire of this argument. The logic is simple. If you have no problems with gays, then they are just like everyone else with the exception of one attribute. It's like me saying I have no problem with people with brown hair. They exist, they do their thing, I couldn't care less what color their hair is. It's just a part of what makes up other people with whom I interact.

The fact that you want to deprive them of a right/privilege that you think is fine for everyone else means that you think of them differently. And that difference degrades their status in your eyes because they don't deserve whatever right/privilege you don't want them to have. So when you say you have no problems with gays, you don't actually mean you have no problems with gays. The fact that they are gay, to you, means they're not good enough to get married because their condition is unnatural or wrong or something to that effect.

I suppose I threw around the word bigot a little loosely earlier. I don't mean you gay-bash or won't interact with gay people or actively hate them, but it's patently untrue that you don't have any problems with them. You're seeking to deprive them of something they desperately want and, as far as the law is concerned, is a civil right in this country. You're entitled to that opinion, but you can't hold that opinion and simultaneously have NO problems with gays. They're mutually exclusive conditions.

Also when I said "a church" (as opposed to the church) I meant a religious institution, as opposed to the Christian Church. Guess I should've used less specific nomenclature.

filtherton · 06-29-2006, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

I'm sure that I more than likely stated this prior, but I suppose one more time couldn't hurt. It is my opinion that marriage is strictly between males and females. Unites States law as well as well as public opinion sees that marriage is between a male and female. Now, as I know what your counter argument will be, my question to you is who says that mariage should be extended to gays?

Seems rather arbitrary. Though you are entitled to your opinion, it doesn't mean your opinion must make sense in any kind of broader context.

Quote:

Why do you deem it impossible for people to oppose gay marriage but have no problems with gays in general?

Well, to me it's like saying, "I'm not racist, and i don't have any problems with teh blacks, but i just don't want them marrying our women."

Charlatan · 06-29-2006, 08:52 AM

Frosstbyte... I believe you have nicely summarized all the issues most of us are having with infinite_loser.

Thank you.

Infinite_Loser · 06-29-2006, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frosstbyte

The fact that you want to deprive them of a right/privilege that you think is fine for everyone else means that you think of them differently. And that difference degrades their status in your eyes because they don't deserve whatever right/privilege you don't want them to have. So when you say you have no problems with gays, you don't actually mean you have no problems with gays. The fact that they are gay, to you, means they're not good enough to get married because their condition is unnatural or wrong or something to that effect.

Sure, you could take my reasons as to why I oppose gay marriage and equate them to me having a problem with gays in general, but this simply isn't so. While I understand where your reasoning is coming from, I don't agree with it. As odd to you as it may seem, my opposition to gay marriage has little to do with fact that two people are gay as opposed to keeping marriage between a man and a woman (If someone wanted to marry their pet, I'd be opposed to that under the same reasons I oppose gay marriage, if that makes sense).

Derwood · 06-29-2006, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

(If someone wanted to marry their pet, I'd be opposed to that under the same reasons I oppose gay marriage, if that makes sense).

Wow, if that's not one of the most insulting things in this thread....

Infinite_Loser · 06-29-2006, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

Wow, if that's not one of the most insulting things in this thread....

I didn't mean it to be insulting. I apologize if I came off that way.

What I was trying to say is that my opposition to gay marriage doesn't stem from people being gay, but rather that-- In my opinion-- Marriage is defined as strictly between a man and a woman, and not anything else.

Edit: Let me clarify something. When I made the pet comment, I wasn't trying to compare gay marriage to that. Don't get me wrong. Both are seperate. Under the same grounds in which I oppose gay marriage, I would oppose something of that nature (If that makes an sense).

Frosstbyte · 06-29-2006, 10:20 AM

I won't speak for anyone else, but your logic baffles me. I suppose I see what you're saying-that your definition of marriage requires it to be only between a man and a woman-but I don't understand why that definition isn't adaptable to new definitions. There is nothing forcing that definition on marriage besides you. If you don't have any problems with gays, why do you have a problem expanding your defintion of marriage to include them?

filtherton · 06-29-2006, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

What I was trying to say is that my opposition to gay marriage doesn't stem from people being gay, but rather that-- In my opinion-- Marriage is defined as strictly between a man and a woman, and not anything else.

So it's like a dictionary thing?

The_Jazz · 06-29-2006, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

...Yet that "Right" can be taken away by a state-- Or even the Federal Government-- If the populace so wishes. While I understand what you're getting at, rights normally can't be abridged.

Can you give me an example of a group unable to marry the person of their chosing of the opposite sex (assuming they're not in MA)? Prisoners are allowed to marry, as are mentally and physically challenged and paroled felons. I don't see how you can even begin to argue that marriage is a privledge, not a right considering that the RIGHT to vote is commonly forfeited by those convicted of a felony, yet I can come up with no other group commonly barred from the practice. You have yet to explain identify anyone anywhere and this seems to be a critcal point in the whole of your arguement.

pig · 06-29-2006, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

If someone wanted to marry their pet, I'd be opposed to that under the same reasons I oppose gay marriage, if that makes sense.

vs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

Under the same grounds in which I oppose gay marriage, I would oppose something of that nature (If that makes an sense).

Are you just fucking with us? Because I feel really pretty certain, particularly throwing out semantic discussions, those are the same sentences with very mild rewording.

I think the interesting question is what, precisely, is it about gay marriage that you oppose? It sounds to me like you're saying that you don't like it, you view it as unnatural and icky, and you think you can find some rationalizations to oppose legalization of it. What I think might be more interesting, is what do you think is wrong with it?

Gilda · 06-29-2006, 12:44 PM

Quote:

There'd be no point in doing that, as you and your partner wouldn't be receiving the legal benefits which you seek from marriage (Referencing one of your earlier anecdotes). And, by the way, no I don't support that.

She is my wife. Please refer to her in that manner.

Quote:

It sounds to me as if you value the legal benefits of marriage moreso than you do the "Love" aspects of marriage (That's simply my opinion).

Your opinion is misinformed. If we did not value the love, commitment, and spiritual aspects of marriage, we would not be married.

We also value the several dozen legal rights that come with civil marriage. We also value the social aspects of a state-recognized marriage. It isn't a matter of picking one, all of them matter. Everything on lurkette's list is something that is valueable to us as a married couple.

Quote:

(If someone wanted to marry their pet, I'd be opposed to that under the same reasons I oppose gay marriage, if that makes sense)

And there it is, the inevitable comparison to bestiality. You know, in addition to my marriage being homosexual, it's also interracial. Would you compare that to marrying an animal?

Gilda

Infinite_Loser · 06-29-2006, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pigglet

Are you just fucking with us? Because I feel really pretty certain, particularly throwing out semantic discussions, those are the same sentences with very mild rewording.

I never said that they were two different statements. I tried to reword it and further elaborate on what I meant, as to not be offensive.

*Points to post #137*

Quote:

I think the interesting question is what, precisely, is it about gay marriage that you oppose? It sounds to me like you're saying that you don't like it, you view it as unnatural and icky, and you think you can find some rationalizations to oppose legalization of it. What I think might be more interesting, is what do you think is wrong with it?

What do I find wrong with gay marriage? Plain and simply put, in my opinion, it undermines the core values of marriage (Not to say that marriage in most "Western" countries hasn't been undermined already, but gay marriage would further that process along).

Whether one wants to acknowledge it or not, the issue of children is still a driving force for marriage. I'm not sure of other countries, but I'm perfectly aware that nearly 1/3 of births which occur in the United States each year occur outside of wedlock and I'm also aware of the fact that there are adoptions for single parents. However, it is well documented that children in families which have both a mother and a father generally fair better than those which are lacking one of two (Lower suicide rates, higher test scores, females are less apt to become pregnant younger, etc.)-- As far as child development goes, there is no substitution for a mother or a father.

Also, I am perfectly aware that some marriages don't result in child-bearing, whether that be due to infertility or through the use of contraception. Infertility in marriages has been around for centuries. Some cultures solved the problem of infertility by having the male impregnate another woman (Not his wife), and then taking that child for him and his wife to raise while others had a form of our present day adoption. Of course in our modern day culture, many infertile couples choose to adopt a child, which leads me back to my first point about a child needing both a father and mother in a family situation.

(You know... I think I talked myself out of support gay adoption. Go figure...)

Contraception, in my opinion, is a bit trickier of a subject. I'm not going to go as far as some people in claiming that contraception ruins marriages (I don't really see how contraception leads to higher divorce rates), but I will say that it undermines one of the central premises of marriage; To rear children in a stable environment (That's not to say that all marriages are stable environments, but they tend to lead to better results than situations in which either the mother or father is absent). Before someone asks, the reason why I don't make too much fuss about contraception undermining marriage is because it does more good than harm (Whether that's a good or bad thing could be debated, but that's neither here nor there).

Edit: All right. I forgot to address something. While it's true that some marriages don't result in children, the majority of them do. Since when has the minority been indicative of the majority? Everything has an exception to it. That exception doesn't define the original purpose or object, though.

Not to turn focus away from the topic at hand, but I don't find it surprising that the countries with the highest divorce rates are generally the countries debating the issue of gay marriage and I don't find it surprising that most countries are strictly opposed to gay marriage. I suppose one could say that in our pursuit of "Social progress" an "Equality", we slowly destroy our own society.

Just because something can be changed, doesn't mean it should be. Once again, that's just my opinion. Did that answer your question?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilda

She is my wife. Please refer to her in that manner.

Not to be rude, but I prefer the term partner.

Quote:

Your opinion is misinformed. If we did not value the love, commitment, and spiritual aspects of marriage, we would not be married.

We also value the several dozen legal rights that come with civil marriage. We also value the social aspects of a state-recognized marriage. It isn't a matter of picking one, all of them matter. Everything on lurkette's list is something that is valueable to us as a married couple.

I can't speak for everyone who's been married or thinking about being married, but generally love is the driving force for marriage as opposed to the legal benefits of marriage, but that's just what I think.

Quote:

And there it is, the inevitable comparison to bestiality. You know, in addition to my marriage being homosexual, it's also interracial. Would you compare that to marrying an animal?

No, I wouldn't, because I'm not trying to compare homosexuality to beastiality. I even stated in one of my posts prior that they are completely different.

Frosstbyte · 06-29-2006, 03:38 PM

I just don't understand, I guess. I think the existance of homosexuals and divorce rate indicate that male/female life-long partnership is not the universal norm for human beings and, at one point in our species's social development, simple survival required that we force it on ourselves in order to guarantee that there were children and that they were provided for. We no longer have that problem, and I don't see any evidence that either homosexual relationships or divorce are destroying our society.

I see a trend towards not holding people accountable for their actions which has led to people getting married irresponsably and having children irresponsably. You're attributing a wide range of social ills to the eixstance of divorce and adovaction for gay rights, when I don't think that either of those things can conclusively said to have the slightest bit to do with those social ills, except that they happen to be happening concurrently.

I suppose we destroyed society when we let women vote, did away with slavery, did away with segregation and legalized abortion, huh? Well, we've come this far, might as well knock out another one.

Infinite_Loser · 06-29-2006, 04:14 PM

I wasn't trying to attribute all of societies social ills to one cause particular cause. I simply believe that society has gotten to the point where we try to facilitate everyone's views and appease every group who has a dissenting opinion, thus causing a great deal of social ills. It's just my opinion, but I don't see the reason for gay marriage to be legalized as I can't perceive any benefit to society by doing so.

Anyway, I'm not opposed to all social changes, as some are for the better. But just because we can make social changes, doesn't mean that it's always good to do so.

Gilda · 06-29-2006, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

What do I find wrong with gay marriage? Plain and simply put, in my opinion, it undermines the core values of marriage (Not to say that marriage in most "Western" countries hasn't been undermined already, but gay marriage would further that process along).

Really? What core value related to marriage can my wife and I not exhibit as a consequence of our being the same sex? I can't think of any.

Quote:

Whether one wants to acknowledge it or not, the issue of children is still a driving force for marriage. I'm not sure of other countries, but I'm perfectly aware that nearly 1/3 of births which occur in the United States each year occur outside of wedlock and I'm also aware of the fact that there are adoptions for single parents. However, it is well documented that children in families which have both a mother and a father generally fair better than those which are lacking one of two (Lower suicide rates, higher test scores, females are less apt to become pregnant younger, etc.)-- As far as child development goes, there is no substitution for a mother or a father.

Slick. You start with a comparison of two parent families to single parent families and contort that into an argument against homosexual marriage. A comparison between children being raised by two opposite sex parents to those raised by a single parent of either sex says nothing about the fitness of homosexual couples to raise children and the outcome of such situations.

You would have to study homosexual couples raising children to determine what kinds of outcomes could be expected, and such study has in fact been done. All of the evidence indicates that children of homosexuals turn out about the same as heterosexuals, and that being raised by a homosexual couple does not harm children in any way. Outcomes are about the same for both groups on average. The major medical associations dealing with the care of children have policy statments favoring homosexuals being given equal treatment in parenting.

Here a summary of the research, based primarily on the study of children raised by lesbian couples.

Quote:

Of course in our modern day culture, many infertile couples choose to adopt a child, which leads me back to my first point about a child needing both a father and mother in a family situation.

You didn't prove that a child needs a mother and a father. The actual evidence says that a homosexual couple is the equal of a heterosexual couple in rearing children.

Quote:

Contraception, in my opinion, is a bit trickier of a subject. I'm not going to go as far as some people in claiming that contraception ruins marriages (I don't really see how contraception leads to higher divorce rates), but I will say that it undermines one of the central premises of marriage; To rear children in a stable environment.

Don't the children of homosexuals deserve that same protection? Suppose my wife were to have a child through artificial insemination. Wouldn't that child benefit from the stability that marriage and a legal relationship with me as a parent would provide? We can do the latter--I can adopt as a co-parent, but if the stability of marriage and family is a benefit to children, aren't you harming children being raised by homosexual couples by denying them that stability?

Also, how would allowing legal gay marriage prevent heterosexuals from raising their children together, or lessen any of the benefits of that? I don't see any connection between one and the other.

Quote:

Not to be rude, but I prefer the term partner.

If you don't mean to be rude, please use the correct term, wife. I'll accept spouse also, as it means the same thing in a gender neutral way. Would you tell the men here who are married that you prefer to call their wives "partners"?

Quote:

I can't speak for everyone who's been married or thinking about being married, but generally love is the driving force for marriage as opposed to the legal benefits of marriage, but that's just what I think.

I can speak for myself and for my reasons for being married, and for my wife's reasons for being married, and I did:

"If we did not value the love, commitment, and spiritual aspects of marriage, we would not be married.

We also value the several dozen legal rights that come with civil marriage. We also value the social aspects of a state-recognized marriage. It isn't a matter of picking one, all of them matter. Everything on lurkette's list is something that is valuable to us as a married couple."

Charlatan · 06-29-2006, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

I can't speak for everyone who's been married or thinking about being married, but generally love is the driving force for marriage as opposed to the legal benefits of marriage, but that's just what I think.

Did it ever occur to you that the reason heterosexual couples talk about love and rarely (if ever) about the legal benefits of marriage is because they take those legal rights for granted?

Because of the peculiar nature of my own wedding (no papers, no preist) I did have to look into the legal ramifications of thumbing my nose at the establishment. If you are going to suggest that just because I examined the legality of my union that I have any less committment or love for my wife, I'd suggest you are a fool.

Same-sex couples have not enjoyed the rights that have been available to heterosexual couples. They do not take anything for granted. I suggest that you ask this same question in 10 to 15 years from now, in Canada... I promise you, they will be taking these rights for granted just like heteros and it will be all about the love.

pig · 06-29-2006, 05:34 PM

infinite, first i'd like to thank you for your responses. i think that this type of response is potentially more useful for discussion, that a discussion of rights versus privelages or the definition of bigotry at this point; partially because i think that's been pretty well covered.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

I never said that they were two different statements. I tried to reword it and further elaborate on what I meant, as to not be offensive.

*Points to post #137*

I guess what I didn't understand is that on one hand, you stated that you didn't see them as the same, but then you seemed to repeat the phrase again with slight rewording as if that would clear anything up. Regardless, if you don't want to try to make an analogy between homosexuality and beastiality, then I'm not going to pursue that discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinite

What do I find wrong with gay marriage? Plain and simply put, in my opinion, it undermines the core values of marriage...
Whether one wants to acknowledge it or not, the issue of children is still a driving force for marriage.

ok, first I'd like to point out that I agree that children, childrearing, and the education and provision of the next generation(s) is/are a huge issue for our society, and societies in general. As frostbyte points out, there was a time when heterosexuality was a survivial issue. People died at much younger ages, and manual labor was a huge issue. Point blank, you needed to make lots of babies so a few of them would make it out of childhood, some would work the farm, hunt, gather, etc - and some of them would ensure that the species continued.

That's just not the case in Western societies anymore. We don't need more babies...if anything, we have an overpopulation problem. Homosexuals would presumably have a higher probability of adopting children unwanted by other parents, in addition to not having their own children. That part of the issue, by itself, would seem to be a positive aspect for a society such as ours, as far as I can understand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinite

However, it is well documented that children in families which have both a mother and a father generally fair better than those which are lacking one of two (Lower suicide rates, higher test scores, females are less apt to become pregnant younger, etc.)-- As far as child development goes, there is no substitution for a mother or a father.

as gilda pointed out, are you sure about that? i give you that children are more likely to benefit from a stable homelife, but does that automatically mean a man and a woman? what about My Two Dads? Would children raised by a man and his father / brother be more apt, in your opinion, to be psychologically damaged? What if you compare them to the children of homosexuals parents with a physically / emotionally abusive household? Is it better for daddy to beat the kids and mom to cover up, or is it better for daddy and daddy, or mommy and mommy, to love the kids in a nurturing environment?

I think you're comparing the best possible scenario of heterosexual marriage, versus the worst possible scenario of homosexual marriage. I do not think that's a valid comparision.

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinite

(You know... I think I talked myself out of support gay adoption. Go figure...)

as mentioned earlier, i hope this extends to any situation where groups of one gender act as the primary care provider / nuclear family. Forget the marriage aspect, but if two people of the same sex shouldn't raise children together, then that's an entirely different piece of legislation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinite

I'm not going to go as far as some people in claiming that contraception ruins marriages (I don't really see how contraception leads to higher divorce rates), but I will say that it undermines one of the central premises of marriage; To rear children in a stable environment (That's not to say that all marriages are stable environments, but they tend to lead to better results than situations in which either the mother or father is absent). Before someone asks, the reason why I don't make too much fuss about contraception undermining marriage is because it does more good than harm (Whether that's a good or bad thing could be debated, but that's neither here nor there).

how do you separate contraception from infertility? Not making babies would seem to be not making babies, to me. also, as alluded to earlier, i fail to see how making the baby is the same thing as raising the child. i think i understand where you're going, but i disagree with some of the though processes by which you arrive at your conclusions.

Quote:

I suppose one could say that in our pursuit of "Social progress" an "Equality", we slowly destroy our own society.

huh? i kind of think our society is loads better than it was in say, 1100 A.D. britain. serfdom, anyone? i mean, being Count Pigglet would have rocked pretty hard....but being that dirty guy who works all the time would sort of suck. how exactly is letting gays marry going to destroy society?

s
llll
iiiiii
pppp
ppppp
eeeeeee
rrrrrrrrrrrr
yyyyyyyyyyyy

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinite

Just because something can be changed, doesn't mean it should be.

agreed. for instance, i like murder being illegal. there are some pretty good reasons behind that. i don't think anyone is advocating just some random old, willy nilly, changes. this particular one happens to make pretty good sense to bunch of people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinite

Once again, that's just my opinion. Did that answer your question?

yep, thanks for your reply.

Quote:

Not to be rude, but I prefer the term partner.

i agree wholeheartedly. of course, when refering to my "black" friends, i prefer "coolie" or "darky" or "sambo" too. you may feel that's a little extreme, but its not really up to you to decide what terminology gilda and her wife use with each other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinite

but generally love is the driving force for marriage as opposed to the legal benefits of marriage, but that's just what I think.

pssst....don't tell the people i know in india. they still arrange marriages between people who have never met each other. you might want to keep quiet around a lot of heterosexual married folk i know right here in the good old united states, who got married because they were scared of being alone, or wanted someone to provide for them. for instance, see my (heterosexual) great grandfather, who couldn't have had an erection the last ten years of his life if he tried. 100 year old men don't pop wood.

guess i still don't understand exactly the logic behind your position, but you're certainly welcome to it. however, one of the things about the united states is that while majority rules, the majority also can't deprive a minority of a right, simply because it wants to. it just doesn't work that way. homosexual marriage will be legal in this country one day.

Derwood · 06-29-2006, 06:12 PM

I still have yet to hear a solid explanation of exactly how gay marriage would erode or undermine the value or sanctity of marriage. I keep hearing that it will, not how it will.

I mean seriously, does a little bit of your straight marriage die everytime a gay person marries another? Do you wake up each morning loving your wife a little less? What the fuck?

filtherton · 06-29-2006, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

I still have yet to hear a solid explanation of exactly how gay marriage would erode or undermine the value or sanctity of marriage. I keep hearing that it will, not how it will.

I mean seriously, does a little bit of your straight marriage die everytime a gay person marries another? Do you wake up each morning loving your wife a little less? What the fuck?

It's kind of like how segregation damaged the sanctity of whites-only water fountains. To hear the antigay marriage folk talk about it, the main reason marriage is considered sacred is because homosexuals can't get married.

Infinite_Loser · 06-29-2006, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilda

Slick. You start with a comparison of two parent families to single parent families and contort that into an argument against homosexual marriage. A comparison between children being raised by two opposite sex parents to those raised by a single parent of either sex says nothing about the fitness of homosexual couples to raise children and the outcome of such situations.

You would have to study homosexual couples raising children to determine what kinds of outcomes could be expected, and such study has in fact been done. All of the evidence indicates that children of homosexuals turn out about the same as heterosexuals, and that being raised by a homosexual couple does not harm children in any way. Outcomes are about the same for both groups on average. The major medical associations dealing with the care of children have policy statments favoring homosexuals being given equal treatment in parenting.

Here a summary of the research, based primarily on the study of children raised by lesbian couples.

http://www.slate.com/id/2097048/#Return

I'm quite sure that you'll find that article interesting to read. You have both advocates and opponents of gay marriages alike questioning the validity of the studies done in the 70's, 80's and 90's. It's not a good sign when one of the major proponents of gay marriage rejects the studies which would help to strengthen her own cause.

Quote:

You didn't prove that a child needs a mother and a father. The actual evidence says that a homosexual couple is the equal of a heterosexual couple in rearing children.

The "Actual evidence" upon which you rely, is largely in question by both sides alike. There is concrete evidence proving that a child does better in a situation which involves bother a mother and a father. There is no evidence (Which isn't under question), that refutes that claim.

Quote:

Don't the children of homosexuals deserve that same protection? Suppose my wife were to have a child through artificial insemination. Wouldn't that child benefit from the stability that marriage and a legal relationship with me as a parent would provide? We can do the latter--I can adopt as a co-parent, but if the stability of marriage and family is a benefit to children, aren't you harming children being raised by homosexual couples by denying them that stability?

Yes, that child would deserve stability. But-- And I hate to be a broken record-- The majority of the claims which you assert as true aren't, because they are under heavy fire from both sides. If you can show me a study that proves your claims which aren't disputed by your own side, then I'll concede the point.

Quote:

Also, how would allowing legal gay marriage prevent heterosexuals from raising their children together, or lessen any of the benefits of that? I don't see any connection between one and the other.

I never said it would prevent heterosexuals from raising their children. I'm not exactly sure as to what your point is...

Quote:

If you don't mean to be rude, please use the correct term, wife. I'll accept spouse also, as it means the same thing in a gender neutral way. Would you tell the men here who are married that you prefer to call their wives "partners"?

All right. Even though I don't agree with the term being used in this case, I will refer to her as your wife.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Did it ever occur to you that the reason heterosexual couples talk about love and rarely (if ever) about the legal benefits of marriage is because they take those legal rights for granted?

All right. That's a fair point.

Quote:

Because of the peculiar nature of my own wedding (no papers, no preist) I did have to look into the legal ramifications of thumbing my nose at the establishment. If you are going to suggest that just because I examined the legality of my union that I have any less committment or love for my wife, I'd suggest you are a fool.

I don't know where you get that assumption from, but I never made any such suggestion.

Derwood · 06-29-2006, 07:10 PM

Quote:

If you can show me a study that proves your claims which aren't disputed by your own side, then I'll concede the point.

So, guilty until proven innocent, eh?

Any couple's ability to be good (adoptive) parents should be judged on a case by case basis regardless of race, color, creed or sexial orientation. Studies that show that a mother-father parenting situation is good shouldn't give neglectful, abusive straight couples a free pass, nor should it disqualify any and all couples who are not mother-father

Gilda · 06-29-2006, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

http://www.slate.com/id/2097048/#Return

I'm quite sure that you'll find that article interesting to read. You have both advocates and opponents of gay marriages alike questioning the validity of the studies done in the 70's, 80's and 90's. It's not a good sign when one of the major proponents of gay marriage rejects the studies which would help to strengthen her own cause. The "Actual evidence" upon which you rely, is largely in question by both sides alike.

Yes that was an interesting op ed piece, which cites a single critic of the research from "my side" and makes vague reference to "people behind the scenes". I tend to put little credence in what unsourced "people behind the scenes" say. I agree that more study needs to be done, which is really the point of that article.

However, an op ed piece and one cited critic are hardly "largely in question". In fact, the majority opinion of the major medical and psychological community on that research is that it does provide evidence that children of homosexuals fare about as well as those of heterosexuals.

Let's look at what the actual medical and mental health experts have to say on the matter, based on the currently available research:

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry:

Quote:

The basis on which all decisions relating to custody and parental rights should rest on the best interest of the child. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals historically have faced more rigorous scrutiny than heterosexuals regarding their rights to be or become parents.

There is no evidence to suggest or support that parents with a gay, lesbian, or bisexual orientation are per se different from or deficient in parenting skills, child-centered concerns and parent-child attachments, when compared to parents with a heterosexual orientation. It has long been established that a homosexual orientation is not related to psychopathology, and there is no basis on which to assume that a parental homosexual orientation will increase likelihood of or induce a homosexual orientation in the child.

Outcome studies of children raised by parents with a homosexual or bisexual orientation, when compared to heterosexual parents, show no greater degree of instability in the parental relationship or developmental dysfunction in children.

The AACAP opposes any discrimination based on sexual orientation against individuals in regard to their rights as custodial or adoptive parents as adopted by Council."

American Academy of Pediatrics

Quote:

"Children deserve to know that their relationships with both of their parents are stable and legally recognized. This applies to all children, whether their parents are of the same or opposite sex. The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual.1-9 When 2 adults participate in parenting a child, they and the child deserve the serenity that comes with legal recognition.

"Children born or adopted into families headed by partners who are of the same sex usually have only 1 biologic or adoptive legal parent. The other partner in a parental role is called the "coparent" or "second parent." Because these families and children need the permanence and security that are provided by having 2 fully sanctioned and legally defined parents, the Academy supports the legal adoption of children by coparents or second parents. Denying legal parent status through adoption to coparents or second parents prevents these children from enjoying the psychologic and legal security that comes from having 2 willing, capable, and loving parents.

"Several states have considered or enacted legislation sanctioning second-parent adoption by partners of the same sex. In addition, legislative initiatives assuring legal status equivalent to marriage for gay and lesbian partners, such as the law approving civil unions in Vermont, can also attend to providing security and permanence for the children of those partnerships.

"Many states have not yet considered legislative actions to ensure the security of children whose parents are gay or lesbian. Rather, adoption has been decided by probate or family courts on a case-by-case basis. Case precedent is limited. It is important that a broad ethical mandate exist nationally that will guide the courts in providing necessary protection for children through coparent adoption.

"Coparent or second-parent adoption protects the child's right to maintain continuing relationships with both parents. The legal sanction provided by coparent adoption accomplishes the following:

"1. Guarantees that the second parent's custody rights and responsibilities will be protected if the first parent were to die or become incapacitated. Moreover, second-parent adoption protects the child's legal right of relationships with both parents. In the absence of coparent adoption, members of the family of the legal parent, should he or she become incapacitated, might successfully challenge the surviving coparent's rights to continue to parent the child, thus causing the child to lose both parents.

"2. Protects the second parent's rights to custody and visitation if the couple separates. Likewise, the child's right to maintain relationships with both parents after separation, viewed as important to a positive outcome in separation or divorce of heterosexual parents, would be protected for families with gay or lesbian parents.

"3. Establishes the requirement for child support from both parents in the event of the parents' separation.

"4. Ensures the child's eligibility for health benefits from both parents.

"5. Provides legal grounds for either parent to provide consent for medical care and to make education, health care, and other important decisions on behalf of the child.

"6. Creates the basis for financial security for children in the event of the death of either parent by ensuring eligibility to all appropriate entitlements, such as Social Security survivors benefits.

"On the basis of the acknowledged desirability that children have and maintain a continuing relationship with 2 loving and supportive parents, the Academy recommends that pediatricians do the following:

* Be familiar with professional literature regarding gay and lesbian parents and their children.
* Support the right of every child and family to the financial, psychologic, and legal security that results from having legally recognized parents who are committed to each other and to the welfare of their children.
* Advocate for initiatives that establish permanency through coparent or second-parent adoption for children of same-sex partners through the judicial system, legislation, and community education."

American Medical Association

Quote:

“Whereas, Having two fully sanctioned and legally defined parents promotes a safe and nurturing environment for children, including psychological and legal security; and

"Whereas, Children born or adopted into families headed by partners who are of the same sex usually have only one biologic or adoptive legal parent; and

"Whereas, The legislative protection afforded to children of parents in homosexual relationships varies from state to state, with some states enacting or considering legislation sanctioning co-parent or second parent adoption by partners of the same sex, several states declining to consider legislation, and at least one state altogether banning adoption by the second parent; and

"Whereas, Co-parent or second parent adoption guarantees that the second parent’s custody rights and responsibilities are protected if the first parent dies or becomes incapacitated; and

"Whereas, Co-parent or second parent adoption ensures the child’s eligibility for health benefits from both parents and establishes the requirement for child support from both parents in the event of the parents’ separation; and

"Whereas, Co-parent or second parent adoption establishes legal grounds to provide consent for medical care and to make health care decisions on behalf of the child and guarantees visitation rights if the child becomes hospitalized; and

"Whereas, The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychiatric Association have each issued statements supporting initiatives which allow same-sex couples to adopt and co-parent children; therefore be it

"RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association support legislative and other efforts to allow the adoption of a child by the same-sex partner, or opposite sex non-married partner, who functions as a second parent or co-parent to that child. (New HOD Policy)”

American Psychoanalytic Association

Quote:

"The American Psychoanalytic Association supports the position that the salient consideration in decisions about parenting, including conception, child rearing, adoption, visitation and custody is the best interest of the child. Accumulated evidence suggests the best interest of the child requires attachment to committed, nurturing and competent parents. Evaluation of an individual or couple for these parental qualities should be determined without prejudice regarding sexual orientation. Gay and lesbian individuals and couples are capable of meeting the best interest of the child and should be afforded the same rights and should accept the same responsibilities as heterosexual parents. With the adoption of this position statement, we support research studies that further our understanding of the impact of both traditional and gay/lesbian parenting on a child's development.

American Psychological Association

Quote:

“WHEREAS APA supports policy and legislation that promote safe, secure and nurturing environments for all children (DeLeon, 1993, 1995; Fox, 1991; Levant, 2000);

“WHEREAS APA has a long-established policy to deplore ‘all public and private discrimination against gay men and lesbians’ and urges ‘the repeal of all discriminatory legislation against lesbians and gay men’ (Conger, 1975);

“WHEREAS the APA adopted the Resolution on Child Custody and Placement in 1976 (Conger, 1977, p. 432);

“WHEREAS Discrimination against lesbian and gay parents deprives their children of benefits, rights and privileges enjoyed by children of heterosexual married couples;

“WHEREAS Some jurisdictions prohibit gay and lesbian individuals and same-sex couples from adopting children, notwithstanding the great need for adoptive parents (Lofton v. Secretary, 2004);

“WHEREAS There is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children (Patterson, 2000, 2004; Perrin, 2002; Tasker, 1999);

“WHEREAS Research has shown that the adjustment, development and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish (Patterson, 2004; Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001);

“THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED That the APA opposes any discrimination based on sexual orientation in matters of adoption, child custody and visitation, foster care and reproductive health services;”

“THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That the APA believes that children reared by a same-sex couple benefit from legal ties to each parent;

“THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That the APA supports the protection of parent-child relationships through the legalization of joint adoptions and second parent adoptions of children being reared by same-sex couples;

“THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That APA shall take a leadership role in opposing all discrimination based on sexual orientation in matters of adoption, child custody and visitation, foster care and reproductive health services;

“THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That APA encourages psychologists to act to eliminate all discrimination based on sexual orientation in matters of adoption, child custody and visitation, foster care, and reproductive health services in their practice, research, education and training (Ethical Principles, 2002, p. 1063);

“THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That the APA shall provide scientific and educational resources that inform public discussion and public policy development regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation in matters of adoption, child custody and visitation, foster care and reproductive health services and that assist its members, divisions and affiliated state, provincial, and territorial psychological associations.”

Quote:

There is concrete evidence proving that a child does better in a situation which involves bother a mother and a father. There is no evidence (Which isn't under question), that refutes that claim.

"Prove" is a tricky word, especially in psychology. What you have when conducting psychological studies is evidence leading to or supporting a conclusion.

You have an incomplete comparison there: "a child does better". You've left off the other end because the studies you are referring to don't compare heterosexual families to those headed by same sex couples, and thus are not valid evidence in this debate (and contain their own flaws, but that's a separate debate). Those studies that do make such comparisons conclude that no harm has come to the children of homosexual parents.

Quote:

Yes, that child would deserve stability.

You ignore the crux of my argument there. If one of the core purposes of marriage is to provide a stable environment for the rearing of children--and I agree that that is one purpose, though hardly the only one--then don't those children being raised by homosexual couples deserve the same familial stability and legally protected relationship with both of their parents as those being raised by heterosexual couples?

Quote:

But-- And I hate to be a broken record-- The majority of the claims which you assert as true aren't, because they are under heavy fire from both sides. If you can show me a study that proves your claims which aren't disputed by your own side, then I'll concede the point.

First, I've never claimed anything was "true" or that the studies "prove" anything. I've consistently said that the evidence shows that children of homosexuals turn out fine, which it does.

Second, you exaggerate. The studies cited are not "under heavy fire" from both sides. Supporters of gay marriage and gay adoption are not generally challenging the conclusions of those studies, and the concensus of the mainstream medical and psychological community is that such studies provide evidence to support the conclusion that homosexual parents do not harm their children by being homosexual. This conclusion has changed over time to match the evidence as it comes in, by the way, which gives it more weight. Has it been proven conclusively? Of course not. Nothing in psychology ever is. However, that's where the best evidence available points at the moment. I agree completely that more study is needed.

My therapist was telling me during my last meeting that there's some new anectodal evidence that gay male couples are actually better parents than lesbians or heterosexual couples, though the sample sizes are a bit too small, and it may be due to factors not primarily related to their sexuality. In essense, because gay male couples have the most difficulty becoming parents of any of the studied structures, they have to be much more committed to the idea of being parents than lesbians or heterosexual couples, and thus begin with the advantage that unwanted parenthood has been selected out. That's a tangent, though I did find it interesting and passed it off to one of the gay male couples at church who have two boys of their own. Adorable kids, too.

Third, that a claim has been challenged does not mean it isn't supported by the evidence.

Fourth, disproving one claim does not mean that the opposite is true. All of the studies on point that I've seen support the conclusion that children of homosexuals are about as healthy as those of heterosexuals. More study is needed, definitely.

Quote:

I never said it would prevent heterosexuals from raising their children. I'm not exactly sure as to what your point is...

You object to gay marriage on the basis that one of the core purposes of marriage was providing a stable environment for the rearing of children. I fail to see how allowing gay marriage would in any way interfere with that purpose for marriage, and think it would actually support it. Heterosexual couples would still have the stability provided by marriage, and homosexual couples and their children would have it also. More stability for families, not less.

Quote:

All right. Even though I don't agree with the term being used in this case, I will refer to her as your wife.

Thank you for the concession. What exactly is your objection?

For the record, I'm a Christian, and Grace and I were married, twice actually, once by a Unitarian minister (for us) and once by a Shinto priest (for her family), and our marriage is recognized and accepted by the UU church of which we are members.

Quote:

I don't know where you get that assumption from, but I never made any such suggestion.

You did so with me and with my marriage, suggesting that, though I'm already married in a spiritual and religious sense, because I'm interested in the legal ramifications of a civil marriage, that means that my marriage isn't motivated by love. I believe Charlatan was equating his marriage to mine, in that both are marriages that are not legal civil marriages, which means that your objections to my marriage would apply equally to his.

Charlatan, if that was not your meaning, I apologize in advance for speaking for you and for misinterpreting you.

Gilda

Charlatan · 06-30-2006, 03:42 AM

That was bang on Gilda. Thanks.

sapiens · 06-30-2006, 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilda

My therapist was telling me during my last meeting that there's some new anectodal evidence that gay male couples are actually better parents than lesbians or heterosexual couples... In essense, because gay male couples have the most difficulty becoming parents of any of the studied structures, they have to be much more committed to the idea of being parents than lesbians or heterosexual couples, and thus begin with the advantage that unwanted parenthood has been selected out.

That's interesting. I know that there is more than anecdotal evidence that adoptive parents tend to be better parents than biological parents (which might seem counterintuitive). The explanation is similar to the one you give above- it's difficult to become adoptive parents, only the really committed do it.

Infinite_Loser · 06-30-2006, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilda

Yes that was an interesting op ed piece, which cites a single critic of the research from "my side" and makes vague reference to "people behind the scenes". I tend to put little credence in what unsourced "people behind the scenes" say. I agree that more study needs to be done, which is really the point of that article.

However, an op ed piece and one cited critic are hardly "largely in question". In fact, the majority opinion of the major medical and psychological community on that research is that it does provide evidence that children of homosexuals fare about as well as those of heterosexuals.

An "Op ed piece and one cited critic"? I'm thinking you simply skimmed over the article.

http://marriagewatch.org/publications/nobasis.pdf

A short abstract taken from a 149 page study done on the matter.

Quote:

Marriage Law Project Publications
No Basis: What the Studies Don’t Tell Us
About Same-Sex Parenting
— Robert Lerner, Ph.D., and Althea K. Nagai, Ph.D.
Full Text (PDF - 479 KB)
Executive Summary
It is routinely asserted in courts, journals and the media that it makes "no difference" whether a child has a mother and a father, two fathers, or two mothers. Reference is often made to social-scientific studies that are claimed to have "demonstrated" this. An objective analysis, however, demonstrates that there is no basis for this assertion.
The studies on which such claims are based are all gravely deficient.
Robert Lerner, Ph.D., and Althea Nagai, Ph.D., professionals in the field of quantitative analysis, evaluated 49 empirical studies on same-sex (or homosexual) parenting.
The evaluation looks at how each study carries out six key research tasks: (1) formulating a hypothesis and research design; (2) controlling for unrelated effects; (3) measuring concepts (bias, reliability and validity); (4) sampling; (5) statistical testing; and (6) addressing the problem of false negatives (statistical power).
Each chapter of the evaluation describes and evaluates how the studies utilized one of these research steps. Along the way, Lerner and Nagai also offer pointers for how future studies can be more competently done.
Some major problems uncovered in the studies include the following:
Unclear hypotheses and research designs
Missing or inadequate comparison groups
Self-constructed, unreliable and invalid measurements
Non-random samples, including participants who recruit other participants
Samples too small to yield meaningful results
Missing or inadequate statistical analysis
Lerner and Nagai found at least one fatal research flaw in all forty-nine studies. As a result, they conclude that no generalizations can reliably be made based on any of these studies. For these reasons the studies are no basis for good science or good public policy.
Four Appendices follow. Appendix 1 is a bibliography of the studies and related publications. Appendix 2 is a table that summarizes the evaluation of each of the studies with regard to each research step. Appendix 3 (by William C. Duncan) is an overview of how these studies have been used in the law. Appendix 4 (by Kristina Mirus) describes how the media has covered these studies.
Marriage Law Project, Washington, D.C.
January 2001

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=276907
The abstract of the article co-authored by Judith Stacy, a staunch advocate of gay marriage.

Quote:

Whereas opponents of lesbian and gay parent rights claim that children with lesbigay parents are at higher risk for a variety of negative outcomes, most research in psychology concludes, somewhat defensively, that there are no differences at all in developmental outcomes between children raised by lesbigay and heterosexual parents. This paper challenges this defensive conceptual framework and analyzes the ways in which heterosexism has hampered intellectual progress in the field. We discuss limitations in the definitions, samples, and analyses of the studies to date. Next we explore findings from 21 studies and demonstrate that researchers frequently downplay findings of difference regarding, in particular, children's gender and sexual preferences and behavior that could instead stimulate important theoretical questions. We propose a less defensive, more sociologically-informed analytic framework for investigating these issues that focuses on;
1) The role of parental gender vis a vis sexual orientation in influencing children's gender development;
2) The role of selection effects produced by homophobia that may intervene in the relationships between parental sexual orientations and child outcomes; and
3) The relationship between parental sexual orientations and children's sexual preferences and behaviors.

Quote:

You have an incomplete comparison there: "a child does better". You've left off the other end because the studies you are referring to don't compare heterosexual families to those headed by same sex couples, and thus are not valid evidence in this debate (and contain their own flaws, but that's a separate debate). Those studies that do make such comparisons conclude that no harm has come to the children of homosexual parents.

A child does better in families in which a mother and father is present-- That we already know. Now, concerning your second point, I have to ask what studies are those? Opponents and proponents alike agree that the current studies comparing heterosexual couples to homosexual couples are drastically flawed, yet you embrace them anyway, continuing to use them as the basis of your argument. That makes very little sense.

Quote:

You ignore the crux of my argument there. If one of the core purposes of marriage is to provide a stable environment for the rearing of children--and I agree that that is one purpose, though hardly the only one--then don't those children being raised by homosexual couples deserve the same familial stability and legally protected relationship with both of their parents as those being raised by heterosexual couples?

And now you're ignoring the crux of my argument. The core purpose of marriage is to provide a man and woman a stable environment in which to rear children.

Quote:

First, I've never claimed anything was "true" or that the studies "prove" anything. I've consistently said that the evidence shows that children of homosexuals turn out fine, which it does.

If you don't claim them as "True", then for what purposes do you continue to cite them?

Quote:

My therapist was telling me during my last meeting that there's some new anectodal evidence that gay male couples are actually better parents than lesbians or heterosexual couples, though the sample sizes are a bit too small, and it may be due to factors not primarily related to their sexuality. In essense, because gay male couples have the most difficulty becoming parents of any of the studied structures, they have to be much more committed to the idea of being parents than lesbians or heterosexual couples, and thus begin with the advantage that unwanted parenthood has been selected out. That's a tangent, though I did find it interesting and passed it off to one of the gay male couples at church who have two boys of their own. Adorable kids, too.

Single parents can raise better kids than heterosexuals, too. That means very little in the way of social implications. Basing any type of conlusion off of such a small sample size is going to give you skewed-- Or even intended-- Results.

Quote:

Fourth, disproving one claim does not mean that the opposite is true. All of the studies on point that I've seen support the conclusion that children of homosexuals are about as healthy as those of heterosexuals. More study is needed, definitely.

I might have misread, but it seems to me as you were posting links in hopes to disprove the notion that gay parents raise socially different children than heterosexuals, but I could be wrong.

Quote:

You object to gay marriage on the basis that one of the core purposes of marriage was providing a stable environment for the rearing of children. I fail to see how allowing gay marriage would in any way interfere with that purpose for marriage, and think it would actually support it. Heterosexual couples would still have the stability provided by marriage, and homosexual couples and their children would have it also. More stability for families, not less.

Correction: I oppose gay marriage under the basis that the purpose of marriage is to provide a man and a woman a stable environment for rearing a child. Of course, if I didn't believe marriage was between a man and a woman I would have no opposition to your original statement.

Quote:

For the record, I'm a Christian, and Grace and I were married, twice actually, once by a Unitarian minister (for us) and once by a Shinto priest (for her family), and our marriage is recognized and accepted by the UU church of which we are members.

I'm not going to get into religion, but you must realize that the UU is considered-- For a lack of a better word-- As radical among the Christian community. Good luck having your marriage recognized by the majority of them.

Frosstbyte · 06-30-2006, 01:00 PM

The purpose of marriage was to transfer property. It has nothing to do with "stable family relationships."

People figured out how to mate long before they figured out what property was. Once people had land and goods that they wanted kept in their families, they decided to come up with a method that would ensure that their property went to their progeny. Mating and generational property transfers worked well together, for obvious reasons, but the concept of marriage has much less to do with creating a stable place for kids to grow up (in some developmental and emotional sense) and much more to do with the economics of keeping people and families alive over multiple generations.

You say repeatedly, "the purpose of marriage is to provide a man and a woman a stable environment for rearing a child." It really was a tool to allow two men to make a financial transaction that they hoped would strengthen both families by trading a son or a daughter to the other for access to resources. Children from the union were a convenient, if necessary, byproduct of that transaction.

What we think of as the purpose of marriage now would be very alien to the people who came up with it, and indeed, to most people in all but the most recent generations. It worked to keep people/families alive. It no longer serves that purpose, and our definition of what marriage is, consequently, has changed. The new purpose of marriage has little reason, if any, to exclude gays, since the current purpose of marriage has everything to do with uniting two people who are in love.

Gilda · 06-30-2006, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

An "Op ed piece and one cited critic"? I'm thinking you simply skimmed over the article.

Uh, no. It's interesting where you end the quote there. What I actually said was

Yes that was an interesting op ed piece, which cites a single critic of the research from "my side"

Notice the "from my side" part. Leaving that out changes the meaning drastically.

Your claim was that the research I cite is "largely in question" and "they are under heavy fire from both sides". This isn't so. One critic was cited from "my side", which does not equate to the studies being "largely in question" or "under heavy fire" from "my side".

My side consists of pretty much every mainstream medical and psychological organization in the United States, and you can see their positions cited above. Some cite the studies, some have null positions that basically say "no harm has been shown".

Quote:

http://marriagewatch.org/publications/nobasis.pdf

A short abstract taken from a 149 page study done on the matter.

That's not a study, it's a position paper co-authored by members of Marriagewatch, an organization whose purpose is attacking same sex marriage, written for the purpose of attacking generally accepted research because it is hurting their cause, and published by that organization.

It says nothing to indicate that homosexual parents harm their children.

Quote:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=276907
The abstract of the article co-authored by Judith Stacy, a staunch advocate of gay marriage.

And there's the one critic that is nominally on "my side" who questions the validity of the studies. This is hardly a justification for your hyperbole in claiming that they're "largely in question" or "under heavy fire".

Note, however, she makes no claim that homosexuals in any way harm their children, and cites no studies in favor of that conclusion. This is likely because every study published in a mainstream peer reviewed journal concludes that there is no harm.

Quote:

A child does better in families in which a mother and father is present-- That we already know.

It's still an incomplete comparison. Better than what? Better than which children?

Quote:

Now, concerning your second point, I have to ask what studies are those? Opponents and proponents alike agree that the current studies comparing heterosexual couples to homosexual couples are drastically flawed, yet you embrace them anyway, continuing to use them as the basis of your argument. That makes very little sense.

Of course opponents attack them. That's what makes them opponents. That's not an argument, that's a definition.

But the proponents? The concensus of the mainstream medical and psychological community is that there is no evidence to support the idea that children of homosexuals are harmed by being raised by homosexuals.

You've found one pro-gay marriage critic of the research, and she concludes that the studies are flawed, not that homosexuals are harmed.

Quote:

And now you're ignoring the crux of my argument. The core purpose of marriage is to provide a man and woman a stable environment in which to rear children.

You have two rhetorical fallacies here, two premises and circular reasoning or begging the question.

First, that's really two separate premises--A. Marriage is between a man and a womand and B. marriage is for the purpose of providing a stable environment in which to rear children.

Second you conclude that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. You've used your conclusion as a premise in your argument, which renders it invalid.

However, let's look at those two premises for a second. Let's start with B. If marriage does in fact provide a stable environment for the rearing of children, wouldn't this be true also of the children of homosexual couples? Now let's look at premise A. Extending marriage rights to homosexual couples would not in anyway change this. Marriage would still be between a man and a woman. It would also be between a man and a man and a woman and woman.

Even if we accept this argument at face value, it does not preclude extending marriage rights to homosexual couples, because that purpose--providing a man and a woman with a stable environment in which to rear children--would still exist unchanged. A man and a woman could still get married, have and rear children.

Your claim there is both fallacious and doesn't even support your conclusion.

Quote:

If you don't claim them as "True", then for what purposes do you continue to cite them?

I cite them as evidence that children of homosexuals are not harmed by being raised by homosexuals. There's little evidence regarding transsexuals, but what little there is doesn't point to any harm there, either, but since most transsexuals are straight, that's really a tangent.

Quote:

Single parents can raise better kids than heterosexuals, too. That means very little in the way of social implications. Basing any type of conlusion off of such a small sample size is going to give you skewed-- Or even intended-- Results.

Yeah, that's why I said anecdotal, sample size too small, possible other explanations, etc. I wasn't proposing anything with that, just sharing some interesting new information.

Quote:

I might have misread, but it seems to me as you were posting links in hopes to disprove the notion that gay parents raise socially different children than heterosexuals, but I could be wrong.

Yeah, that was poorly worded, let me rephrase.

I was posting links that give evidence in support of the position that homosexuals do no harm. My point was that even if do manage to disprove those studies, which has not been done, you're not showing harm of any kind. Until you can show harm caused by homosexual parents, your argument is not a valid one for denying homosexuals the right to marry.

Nor is it even one then.

Quote:

Correction: I oppose gay marriage under the basis that the purpose of marriage is to provide a man and a woman a stable environment for rearing a child. Of course, if I didn't believe marriage was between a man and a woman I would have no opposition to your original statement.

I apologize for my mistatement. You do realize that this argument is a tautology, and thus invalid, do you not?

Quote:

I'm not going to get into religion, but you must realize that the UU is considered-- For a lack of a better word-- As radical among the Christian community. Good luck having your marriage recognized by the majority of them.

Yeah, I realize that's the position. I'm not seeking to get any church other than the one of which I am a member to recognize my marriage, which is between me, my wife, and God.

Gilda

flstf · 07-01-2006, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilda

If you don't mean to be rude, please use the correct term, wife. I'll accept spouse also, as it means the same thing in a gender neutral way. Would you tell the men here who are married that you prefer to call their wives "partners"?

I am not familiar with the terminology used in same sex marriages. The only same sex couples I know are not married and generally refer to each other as partners. A gay friend/aquaintance I trade music files with from Norway once referred to his partner as his wife but mostly uses the term partner.

What is the accepted norm among gay marrieds? Do the women refer to each other as wives and the men refer to each other as husbands most times? I am not trying to be difficult but am genuinely interested in using correct terms that do not offend anyone.

06-28-2006, 08:09 PM	#123 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	I'm late to the party here and most of my views (supporting gay marriage) have already been stated here, so I'll simply say this: It's awfully easy to dismiss someone else's desire to have something when you already have it. __________________ "You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

06-28-2006, 10:14 PM	#125 (permalink)
Zeraph Banned Location: The Cosmos	It's been said, but c'mon...no homosexuality in nature? That's almost as bad as "There's no war in nature." I've personally seen gay birds, dogs, primates, and dolphins, and heard about more species such as the penguins above. And I'm sure there's some gay animals in nearly every species. And as far as our culture goes there have been plenty of times and places were homosexuality was not only accepted, but expected of you. Spartans anyone? They actually cherished the relationship between two men more than a heterosexual one. Hijras (usually castrated males) from India also practice prostitution/homosexuality sometimes even marrying a man and being treated like a wife would. Hijras have been around since about 1000 BC...i think, either way for a very long time though (and spartans in that similar time as well, Im going off memory though). Last edited by Zeraph; 06-28-2006 at 10:27 PM..

06-29-2006, 05:46 AM	#127 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	Arguing this topic makes me sad and tired. I never thought we'd see a government that proactively tried to take rights away from the citizens of this country. __________________ "You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

06-29-2006, 07:37 AM	#129 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	How about the fact that Gays are absolutely the same as heterosexual people in every way besides who they chose to partner with,thus denying them a right/privelage of said heterosexual person is a gross display of bigotry? __________________ "You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

06-29-2006, 07:49 AM	#130 (permalink)
lurkette My future is coming on Moderator Emeritus Location: east of the sun and west of the moon	I think part of the problem is how we're defining "marriage." Why does it NEED to be defined as "one man, one woman" just because that's the way it has generally been? Arguing from tradition, history, even evolution, is irrelevant when those things have been discarded in countless instances to re-imagine social order. Look at monarchy, the class system, slavery, laws against miscegenation, etc. All of those institutions used the same arguments used by opponents of gay marriage to defend themselves from rational challenge. There's no reason inherent to marriage as practiced today why it should be defined as "one man one woman." Look at the reasons for marriage, and you'll see: - social institution for stability: Marriage keeps society stable because it defines relationships, places limits on behavior, and provides a structure for people to relate to each other. By this definition, including gays in "marriage" would add to social stability rather than detract from it. - providing an environment for raising children: not all heterosexual married couples can or choose to procreate. All credible studies find gays and lesbians to be as competent as heterosexual couples at parenting. - public recognition of a private physical, spiritual and emotional commitment. Again, no reason why two people of the same sex can't be just as physically, spiritually and emotionally committed as two people of the opposite sex. - religious institution mirroring god's relationship with the church. Some religions DO recognize gay marriage, and a particular religious definition of marriage should not be privileged over another through state-sponsored legislation. Given that homosexuality is widely accepted as a biological condition and NOT a "choice" I can't see any valid ethical reason for denying people public and legal recognition of a relationship that would be perfectly acceptable if one of them had a slightly different chromosome. __________________ "If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France Last edited by lurkette; 06-29-2006 at 07:51 AM..

06-29-2006, 08:52 AM	#135 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Frosstbyte... I believe you have nicely summarized all the issues most of us are having with infinite_loser. Thank you. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

06-29-2006, 10:20 AM	#139 (permalink)
Frosstbyte Winter is Coming Location: The North	I won't speak for anyone else, but your logic baffles me. I suppose I see what you're saying-that your definition of marriage requires it to be only between a man and a woman-but I don't understand why that definition isn't adaptable to new definitions. There is nothing forcing that definition on marriage besides you. If you don't have any problems with gays, why do you have a problem expanding your defintion of marriage to include them? Last edited by Frosstbyte; 06-29-2006 at 10:55 AM..

06-29-2006, 03:38 PM	#145 (permalink)
Frosstbyte Winter is Coming Location: The North	I just don't understand, I guess. I think the existance of homosexuals and divorce rate indicate that male/female life-long partnership is not the universal norm for human beings and, at one point in our species's social development, simple survival required that we force it on ourselves in order to guarantee that there were children and that they were provided for. We no longer have that problem, and I don't see any evidence that either homosexual relationships or divorce are destroying our society. I see a trend towards not holding people accountable for their actions which has led to people getting married irresponsably and having children irresponsably. You're attributing a wide range of social ills to the eixstance of divorce and adovaction for gay rights, when I don't think that either of those things can conclusively said to have the slightest bit to do with those social ills, except that they happen to be happening concurrently. I suppose we destroyed society when we let women vote, did away with slavery, did away with segregation and legalized abortion, huh? Well, we've come this far, might as well knock out another one.

06-29-2006, 04:14 PM	#146 (permalink)
Infinite_Loser Junkie Location: Lake Mary, FL	I wasn't trying to attribute all of societies social ills to one cause particular cause. I simply believe that society has gotten to the point where we try to facilitate everyone's views and appease every group who has a dissenting opinion, thus causing a great deal of social ills. It's just my opinion, but I don't see the reason for gay marriage to be legalized as I can't perceive any benefit to society by doing so. Anyway, I'm not opposed to all social changes, as some are for the better. But just because we can make social changes, doesn't mean that it's always good to do so.

06-29-2006, 06:12 PM	#150 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	I still have yet to hear a solid explanation of exactly how gay marriage would erode or undermine the value or sanctity of marriage. I keep hearing that it will, not how it will. I mean seriously, does a little bit of your straight marriage die everytime a gay person marries another? Do you wake up each morning loving your wife a little less? What the fuck? __________________ "You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

06-30-2006, 03:42 AM	#155 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	That was bang on Gilda. Thanks. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

06-30-2006, 01:00 PM	#158 (permalink)
Frosstbyte Winter is Coming Location: The North	The purpose of marriage was to transfer property. It has nothing to do with "stable family relationships." People figured out how to mate long before they figured out what property was. Once people had land and goods that they wanted kept in their families, they decided to come up with a method that would ensure that their property went to their progeny. Mating and generational property transfers worked well together, for obvious reasons, but the concept of marriage has much less to do with creating a stable place for kids to grow up (in some developmental and emotional sense) and much more to do with the economics of keeping people and families alive over multiple generations. You say repeatedly, "the purpose of marriage is to provide a man and a woman a stable environment for rearing a child." It really was a tool to allow two men to make a financial transaction that they hoped would strengthen both families by trading a son or a daughter to the other for access to resources. Children from the union were a convenient, if necessary, byproduct of that transaction. What we think of as the purpose of marriage now would be very alien to the people who came up with it, and indeed, to most people in all but the most recent generations. It worked to keep people/families alive. It no longer serves that purpose, and our definition of what marriage is, consequently, has changed. The new purpose of marriage has little reason, if any, to exclude gays, since the current purpose of marriage has everything to do with uniting two people who are in love.