Thoughts on homosexual marriage [Archive] - HP Deals, Computer Coupons And Bargains

HmpDeeHmp

03-24-2004, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by CamaroBabe
And does the fact that this is an election year surprise me? I think not

Well said! :cheers:

Another thing I'd like to add is that the whole gay-rights movement is gaining a lot of momentum. Please keep in mind that people tend to be afraid of change and the unknown, especially if it doesn't pertain to their environment. I work in SF for a large company that tolerates and accepts lesbian/gay/transgender employees, and I think it's really cool how everyone is able to put their differences aside and work together in a positive co-existing environment to achieve common goals. Heck, my boss is gay, and there's a couple of transgenders in my department, yet nobody really seems to let that get in the way which is good! :)

chrissy

03-24-2004, 11:03 PM

Even though homosexuality has been a hot topic for 20 years, it hasn't been popular to be a homosexual. People hid their sexuality more 20 years ago than they do now. And even though some still hide, there are a lot more voices out there bringing up the subject.

Politically, yeah, it's an election year. And you are going to hear a bunch about it. But I bet Lincoln heard a lot about human rights and slavery too. It's the "right" topic of the campaign.

cheapchinese

03-25-2004, 04:41 AM

Originally posted by HmpDeeHmp

Another thing I'd like to add is that the whole gay-rights movement is gaining a lot of momentum. Please keep in mind that people tend to be afraid of change and the unknown, especially if it doesn't pertain to their environment. I work in SF for a large company that tolerates and accepts lesbian/gay/transgender employees, and I think it's really cool how everyone is able to put their differences aside and work together in a positive co-existing environment to achieve common goals. Heck, my boss is gay, and there's a couple of transgenders in my department, yet nobody really seems to let that get in the way which is good! :)

i kinda know what you mean... i worked for GAP as a seasonal one year during the xmas break... I guess it was because it was my first time encountering gay upfront.. i was a phobic of the situation, but after 2 or so days.. it was basically business as usual.. no biggy :angel:

dunno, I wouldn't care if they want to marry or not;its not going to affect me. Well, sorta will, because my pastors been preaching us how wrong the whole thing is, but i hold a different view. I would only care.. if people start marrying their cousins.... to me.. thats just wrong

whitak24

03-25-2004, 05:34 AM

i think that as Chrissy mentioned, the major factor is that "gay rights" and even openness about homosexuality has been a slowly developing issue. i guess it started in the 60s or so and has been developing.

as for gay marriage specifically, there has been discussion of the issue for the past several years -- it seems like back in 97 or 98 i was hearing about mass "weddings" in San Fran and NYC. so it's been a developing issue, and i think finally enough people began to accept the idea to create a critical mass to start pressuring the issue in some liberal areas.

of course, with this pressure came the reaction from bush, et al. i don't necessarily think that it's because of the election that it's come up -- i think the issue would have come up regardless of the election. however, i think we've seen a more vigorous response because of the election-year politics.

cheapie

03-25-2004, 06:01 AM

several things and i'm not going to get into my feelings on the subject because we have been through this several times lately.

the reasons it's a big deal recently include the following:

frisco tried to legalize gay marriages in spite the rest of the state voting against it recently

a gay bishop was ordained which put more light on the issue

most conservatives aren't opposed to gay unions; however, legally recognizing those unions to be the same isn't acceptable

the mass supreme court ordered the legislature to create a way for it to be legal in the state

ski

03-25-2004, 06:16 AM

I don't like to stereotype, but many gay men are extremely wishy-washy. I have several homosexual friends at my school here, and they sleep around like crazy. They have had over 100 partners :wow: That's not to say a heterosexual man couldn't have that many, but I don't know any, and it just stands out in my mind that practically every gay guy I know can't keep a boyfriend.

Why is this important? Legalizing gay marriage might spell bad news for marriage in general. Divorce rate would possibly skyrocket (not necessarily, but I would bet on it), and pretty soon, "getting married" would either be a fad, spur-of-the-moment thing, or it would be such a joke that people wouldn't even bother getting legally married. :hmm:

topane

03-25-2004, 06:17 AM

Originally posted by Fas-ligand
Does anyone have any ideas why this is an issue now? Sure. There always needs to be a boogeyman - a group of people who can be blamed for society's ills. Anytime a minority or historically "unequal" group wants to gain equal rights with the rest of the population a small (but very loud) segment complains that this group is the cause of all society's problems and as if their mere presence wasn't bad enough, giving them equal rights would destroy our civilization. People thought that making blacks normal citizens would surely spell the end of American society. Ditto with women voting. It's only a matter of time before it becomes legal (maybe not now, but in the future), and we'll just have to look for another scapegoat.

topane

03-25-2004, 06:23 AM

Originally posted by skiAtomic
Why is this important? Legalizing gay marriage might spell bad news for marriage in general. Divorce rate would possibly skyrocket (not necessarily, but I would bet on it), and pretty soon, "getting married" would either be a fad, spur-of-the-moment thing, or it would be such a joke that people wouldn't even bother getting legally married. :hmm: If your marriage is threatened by two women getting married, then you have a serious problem with your marriage. And of course the "sanctity of marriage" that we've all heard about is being defended by TV shows like the Bachelor and Joe Millionaire. It's a good thing we can look to those examples for how marriage should be ;).

ArkiStan

03-25-2004, 06:23 AM

Originally posted by Bires
Politics. Bush has the opprotunity to score a major political victory if he gets some movement of the moderates in the sentate to more conservative view points. It's a gamble, but if GWB wins next fall, those same politicians that back him now on this issue will get reelected in two years in a slam dunk.

Even if a political candidate has opposing views than mine, I would find more hope in politicians if they stick with their stupid views than if they switched views like birds of passage to whatever is the popular trend and win "major political victories."

cheapie

03-25-2004, 06:53 AM

Originally posted by topane
Sure. There always needs to be a boogeyman - a group of people who can be blamed for society's ills. Anytime a minority or historically "unequal" group wants to gain equal rights with the rest of the population a small (but very loud) segment complains that this group is the cause of all society's problems and as if their mere presence wasn't bad enough, giving them equal rights would destroy our civilization. People thought that making blacks normal citizens would surely spell the end of American society. Ditto with women voting. It's only a matter of time before it becomes legal (maybe not now, but in the future), and we'll just have to look for another scapegoat.

in the event gays only wanted "equal" rights, legalizing unions would have been ok. however, the current argument isn't about rights, it's about changing the definition of a time-honored tradition. and dragging teh civil rights struggle and women's rights movement into the debate sullies the accomplishments of the aforementioned groups.

i have no idea where you came up with the scapegoat stuff. this isn't a case of opponents perceiving something to be a problem, and then trying to find a reason for it. it's a case of a minority of individuals attempting to force both a legal and idealogical change on a population that is overwhelmingly against it.

johnnymk

03-25-2004, 07:06 AM

Political correctness reached it's peak shortly after 911. People didn't want to generalize about a billion people's faith, so they claimed that only the "extreme" end of those believers were violent. Even Bush jumped on the bandwagon claiming that the majority of Muslims are peace loving people.

So if we can forgive a whole bunch of people who attack us, then we may as well forgive everyone else. Besides, nobody wants to be labelled as intolerant or bigoted against any kind of group whatsoever, especially a minority group in America.

So the logic of homosexuals could be:"We're not bad people, we're a minority and if you pick on us, you're a bigot and discriminatory; Besides, your heterosexual marriages are fragile and generally end in divorce" . The logic appears to be working.

In addition, more and more gays are in the media, able and willing to espouse their views to a country who believes that there are no absolutes. As long as it doesn't hurt me and if it feels good, it's OK. And as long as there is no higher authority to answer to, then everything is up for grabs.

Another point: The cost for health care is way out of control. If gays marry, then they may have additional health care benefits. But I am not sure about this.

I didn't think of the election factor, but the timing couldn't be better, especially with a president who speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

topane

03-25-2004, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by cheapie
in the event gays only wanted "equal" rights, legalizing unions would have been ok. however, the current argument isn't about rights, it's about changing the definition of a time-honored tradition. and dragging teh civil rights struggle and women's rights movement into the debate sullies the accomplishments of the aforementioned groups. No, it's about rights. The right to say "I'm committed to this person" or even "This is the person who can make medical decisions for me".

Appeal to Tradition (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html) is a logical fallacy. If you're so keen on time-honored traditions, maybe we should all be able to have multiple wives :P.

i have no idea where you came up with the scapegoat stuff. Easy. Take a look at Falwell and Robertson's comments after 9/11. Check out Nazi Germany's persecution of Jews. I'm sure you can find a bunch more if you take a look around.

this isn't a case of opponents perceiving something to be a problem, and then trying to find a reason for it. it's a case of a minority of individuals attempting to force both a legal and idealogical change on a population that is overwhelmingly against it. The population IIRC was close to 50/50 split until the vocal opposition started shouting. Most people probably don't give a damn.

I know how you feel, and I'm probably not going to change your mind. But I'm going to ask you this question anyway: How to two women or men being married/unioned/whatever harm you, your family, or your freedoms as an American citizen?

cheapie

03-25-2004, 07:27 AM

Originally posted by topane
No, it's about rights. The right to say "I'm committed to this person" or even "This is the person who can make medical decisions for me".

Appeal to Tradition (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html) is a logical fallacy. If you're so keen on time-honored traditions, maybe we should all be able to have multiple wives :P.

Easy. Take a look at Falwell and Robertson's comments after 9/11. Check out Nazi Germany's persecution of Jews. I'm sure you can find a bunch more if you take a look around.

The population IIRC was close to 50/50 split until the vocal opposition started shouting. Most people probably don't give a damn.

I know how you feel, and I'm probably not going to change your mind. But I'm going to ask you this question anyway: How to two women or men being married/unioned/whatever harm you, your family, or your freedoms as an American citizen?

let me congratulate you on posting the first "nazi" reference. very nice. normally a thread-ender but i'll take into consideration your long history of funny turducken comments and ignore it.

in the event they only wanted to demonstrate their commitment, or have legal rights as partners, they would have settled for gay "unions." but it's not about only that, they want the unions to be recognized as being not only legally the same, but morally and conceptually as well.

topane

03-25-2004, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by cheapie
let me congratulate you on posting the first "nazi" reference. very nice. normally a thread-ender but i'll take into consideration your long history of funny turducken comments and ignore it. I was using a historical reference. There are other examples, but since I posted that as a legitimate one in a historical context, I hereby declare your use of Godwin's law invalid. So there :P.

in the event they only wanted to demonstrate their commitment, or have legal rights as partners, they would have settled for gay "unions." but it's not about only that, they want the unions to be recognized as being not only legally the same, but morally and conceptually as well.So you're OK with "unions", but not "marriage", even though they receive the same benefits?

cheapie

03-25-2004, 07:53 AM

Originally posted by topane
I was using a historical reference. There are other examples, but since I posted that as a legitimate one in a historical context, I hereby declare your use of Godwin's law invalid. So there :P.

So you're OK with "unions", but not "marriage", even though they receive the same benefits?

as a christian, i believe homosexuality to be wrong. however, everyone has a right to live how they want to. what i object to is the recent effort to redefine an institution that is sacred to many of us.

Godwin's Law prov. [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.

i do believe your statement falls into the definition.

blueindian

03-25-2004, 08:06 AM

i keep telling folks, the way forward is to make marriage a thing of the church and civil unions a thing of the courts. so, when andrea and i got married, we would have gone to the courthouse to get a "civil union" which would entitle us to all the benefits of what is now called marriage. then, should we chose to publically commit to each other, we have the option of getting married by a church or other religious organziation that performs marriages.

that solves the problem, creates a level playing field for everyone.

plus, the idead of marriage as a religious covenent has not place in the courts to begin with.

topane

03-25-2004, 08:09 AM

As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.Nope. I wasn't making a comparison to Nazis (like "Bush is a Nazi") or calling anyone a Nazi. Godwin's law does not apply here. So there (again) :P.

BTW, you still haven't answered my question ;).

Fas-ligand

03-25-2004, 08:39 AM

hmm..interesting comments so far. Besides critical mass and election years, it seems that people generally can't think of any other reasons for the gay marriage movement that is going on. I agree that sheer numbers of gay people wanting to get married is probably one reason, but I think if we looked at some actual numbers, the amount of gay versus straight people is still quite small. Anyone in Mass. or San Fran. know of any loopholes possibly created for this movement to start? I also question whether or not the loophole was opened by the health insurance community where someone found that it is ok for their partner to get health benefits through a gay union.

I dunno, I'm just curious...

oh, and as for it being an election year. I don't think this situation was created by Bush to get votes, but I wouldn't be surprised if things were aided by him to further his views in the hopes of getting re-elected.

ufcrusher

03-25-2004, 08:40 AM

I think there are several reasons why its become such an issue recently.

1. Health care costs have sky rocketed. In a normal situation, if you are married your spouses health care covers you. Many insurers dont provide coverage for "domestic" partners and thus, the homosexuals dont have the same rights even though they might be in a monogomous committed relationship.

2. Homosexuals have started adopting with more frequency and as such there are no a myriad of legal issues that develop related to what happens when the homosexuals separate or one partner dies.

3. More and more people are less offended by the notion of homosexuals marrying. Now I am not saying that there are not a lot of people who are against homosexuality, but the number of accepting people is higher than it used to be.

As a result of these foregoing issues, the "iron" is hot to strike right now.

Personally, I have no problem with homosexuals, but I am not sure if I support gay "marriages". They should be allowed to have civil unions, whereby they get all the same rights that married individuals do, but the distinction should be made. But this does raise the issue of a secondary class...which is dangerous.

cheapie

03-25-2004, 09:00 AM

who said gays marrying harms me, my family, or my freedoms? cock-fighting doesn't harm me. people having sex with monkeys doesn't harm me. people beating their wives doesn't harm me. polygamy doesn't harm me. and neither does people marrying their siblings.

topane

03-25-2004, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by cheapie
who said gays marrying harms me, my family, or my freedoms? It must harm someone, right? Does it harm anyone? Which brings us to:

cock-fighting doesn't harm me. people having sex with monkeys doesn't harm me. people beating their wives doesn't harm me. Your analogies are flawed. Marriage is consensual - two people agreeing to marry. Cock-fighting is cruel, not to mention the birds didn't agree to it. A monkey can't say "no, don't **** me". You can't have consensual sex with a monkey. A man beating his wife obviously causes harm to her without her consent. Those things are wrong because they are not consensual and harm another.

polygamy doesn't harm me. and neither does people marrying their siblings. If people really want to marry multiple times and all parties are in agreement, there shouldn't be any issues.

cheapie

03-25-2004, 11:09 AM

you missed my point. my point was that i am concerned about these things and they don't affect me personally. also, i'm not sure it has to affect me personally for me to have a conviction about it.

and as far as it not hurting anyone, do you think it's okay for the state to offically sanction depriving a child of a mother or a father? taken in part from here (http://family.org/cforum/fnif/commentary/a0020004.cfm)

The problem with this picture is children need a whole lot more than two loving, generic adults. Kids need a mom and a dad. Mom and dad bring different and necessary contributions to parenting a child that the other doesn't. Kids need both. And we would need a bit more time than a weekend provides to see how kids are wounded when they grow up without a mom and dad. We need to look at the full life of a child.

In fact, we can look at Rosie, the poster-child for gay marriages, own life and see how children suffer when they are deprived of a mom and dad. Her mother was buried on Rosie's 11th birthday and her dad became emotionally (and quite often physically) absent from that point on.

In a 1997 Ladies Home Journal article, Rosie recounted the anguish of having to experience a teen-age girl's girl-to-woman rituals without the guiding love of a mother. "It was traumatic," Rosie recalled somberly. "When a girl gets her period and her mom is not there to comfort her, it's incredibly painful." To fill the void, Rosie said she relied on and identified with television shows featuring stable families like "Eight is Enough" and "The Brady Bunch." Reflecting on her own father's emotional absence, she lamented she had difficulty connecting with men. "I have a lot of issues to work out about men." She continued, "I think that (adoption of her son, Parker) helps me to connect in a way that I wasn't able to before. I am so in love with this child, who is a male and his own person."

All this leaves some tough questions for Rosie and those who think homosexual adoption is no problem. Who is going to help a little boy raised by two women learn how to be a man and all the things that go along with that: shaving, working on cars, building things, caring for and protecting women, defending themselves against bullies, etc. Healthy masculinity can't be taught by male friends dropping by on weekends. Dad needs to be in the house.

And who is going to help a little girl being raised by two men buy her first bra, understand her first period or prepare for her first dance. Rosie said events as simple as Mother's Day or school officials asking her mother's name would fill her with dread. Even now, she rarely talks about her life without mentioning the pain of growing up without her mom.

Just as it takes a male and female to conceive a child, it takes a mom and dad to properly bring that child to full, healthy maturity. Ask any child who grew up without one or the other parent about their childhood, and they will talk tenderly about how the absence of their mother or their father impacted them in extraordinarily deep ways. Just ask Rosie.

johnnymk

03-25-2004, 11:29 AM

Bah, cheapie, that's too idealistic.

Throw the children to the wolves. That way they'll learn the law of the jungle, and will grow up to be totally self centered dysfunctional morons without any kind of moral compass whatsoever.

topane

03-25-2004, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by cheapie
and as far as it not hurting anyone, do you think it's okay for the state to offically sanction depriving a child of a mother or a father? My sister is a single parent. Should the state step in and take her child away from her? After all, he is being deprived of a father.

Who is going to help a little boy raised by two women learn how to be a man and all the things that go along with that: shaving, working on cars, building things, caring for and protecting women, defending themselves against bullies, etc. Healthy masculinity can't be taught by male friends dropping by on weekends. Dad needs to be in the house.Since there is no man in my sister's house, I guess my nephew will grow up not only unable to change his oil, but he'll never learn to shave either!

caribiner23

03-25-2004, 11:56 AM

This issue centers around the rights of partners. If two homosexuals wish to become formally committed and call it "marriage" I am perfectly fine with it.

I know several homosexual couples who have healthier relationships than certain heterosexual married couples I know, and I've coached soccer with 'happily married' dads with whom I wouldn't leave my kids for 5 minutes. The point here is we could toss "real life" examples around all day and not get anywhere.

The "Rosie" article is completely manipulative. I know people who have grown up in non-traditional households (*sniff* no 'mom' to help her pick out her first bra *sniff sniff*) and are productive, healthy members of society. The correlation that the author makes is specious.

As a divorced parent, I have an issue with anyone who espouses the theory that the only way a child can grow up healthy is with two parents (one must be male, one must be female) filling the traditional roles. (I also have an issue with Dr James Dobson, which I'll get into in a second.) These are typically the people who promote "staying together for the children's sake" which, I'm sorry, is a steaming load of crap.

If a child's parents are loving, affectionate, communicative, open, honest, and of decent character, it doesn't matter to me whether they're the same sex or not.

(mini-rant)

James Dobson, the guy behind "Focus on the Family" (and family.org) is vehemently against anything "non-traditional," including divorce. (While I was in the midst of my divorce one of my wife's friends sent me a "Focus on the Family" article about how a husband and wife should stay together for the children regardless of the situation, for all the reasons given in the "Rosie" article.)

What amazes me about this guy is that in the late 1970s-early 1980s he had a daily radio spot (~ 5 minutes) where he put out these ultra-conservative views on the conditions of the day. I recall a broadcast in the summer of 1981 where he specifically said that women do not belong in the workplace, since they should be at home taking care of their families and not enticing and distracting the males in the workplace. I wish I'd taped this one, but there were broadcasts like this every day-- we'd listen to him in the office the way people listen to Howard Stern.

I suppose he realized he'd sell more books and papers if he softened his views.. but I don't want to get bitchy here.

(mini rant off)

I'm wondering if the views expressed in this thread follow any sort of demographic lines. Have any of the other over-40s-divorced-parents posted in this thread yet?

cheapie

03-25-2004, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by topane
My sister is a single parent. Should the state step in and take her child away from her? After all, he is being deprived of a father.
Since there is no man in my sister's house, I guess my nephew will grow up not only unable to change his oil, but he'll never learn to shave either!

:rolleyes:

you said
It must harm someone, right? Does it harm anyone? and i answered your questions with just one what i think are effects of gay unions. never did i say the gvt. should disallow gay unions, nor did i say kids will not be able to function without a parent of both sexes. nice job going ape**** with your response. you can tell you have made a good point when the best someone can do is come up with a rhetorical response like yours

cheapie

03-25-2004, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by caribiner23
This issue centers around the rights of partners. If two homosexuals wish to become formally committed and call it "marriage" I am perfectly fine with it.

I know several homosexual couples who have healthier relationships than certain heterosexual married couples I know, and I've coached soccer with 'happily married' dads with whom I wouldn't leave my kids for 5 minutes. The point here is we could toss "real life" examples around all day and not get anywhere.

The "Rosie" article is completely manipulative. I know people who have grown up in non-traditional households (*sniff* no 'mom' to help her pick out her first bra *sniff sniff*) and are productive, healthy members of society. The correlation that the author makes is specious.

As a divorced parent, I have an issue with anyone who espouses the theory that the only way a child can grow up healthy is with two parents filling the traditional roles. (I also have an issue with Dr James Dobson, which I'll get into in a second.) These are typically the people who promote "staying together for the children's sake" which, I'm sorry, is a steaming load of crap.

If a child's parents are loving, affectionate, communicative, open, honest, and of decent character, it doesn't matter to me whether they're the same sex or not.

(mini-rant)

James Dobson, the guy behind "Focus on the Family" (and family.org) is vehemently against anything "non-traditional," including divorce. (While I was in the midst of my divorce one of my wife's friends sent me a "Focus on the Family" article about how a husband and wife should stay together for the children regardless of the situation.)

What amazes me about this guy is that in the late 1970s-early 1980s he had a daily radio spot (~ 5 minutes) where he put out these ultra-conservative views on the conditions of the day. I recall a broadcast in the summer of 1981 where he specifically said that women do not belong in the workplace, since they should be at home taking care of their families and not enticing and distracting the males in the workplace. I wish I'd taped this one, but there were broadcasts like this every day-- we'd listen to him in the office the way people listen to Howard Stern.

I suppose he realized he'd sell more books and papers if he softened his views.. but I don't want to get bitchy here.

(mini rant off)

I'm wondering if the views expressed in this thread follow any sort of demographic lines. Have any of the other over-40s-divorced-parents posted in this thread yet?

ah yes, the ol' "i know perfectly healthy gays couples that are better than some hetero couples i know and besides i'm raising a good kid by myself and i don't like your source!" retort.

nobody is saying that you can't raise a child on your own, or that dobson is God, or that gay couple can't have a good relationship.

we are examining whether or not it can harm anyone. are you saying that a child growing up without a father or a mother is not more likely to have issues relating to the aforementioned item?

Originally posted by caribiner23

I'm wondering if the views expressed in this thread follow any sort of demographic lines. Have any of the other over-40s-divorced-parents posted in this thread yet?

i'm prolly closer to you demographically than most of the people that post on this subject. i'm older than most here (almost 30) married with kids. most everyone is young, not married, and in college.

obby is prolly the only other 40yo divorced parent here.

caribiner23

03-25-2004, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by cheapie
ah yes, the ol' "i know perfectly healthy gays couples that are better than some hetero couples i know and besides i'm raising a good kid by myself and i don't like your source!" retort.

I beat you to it-- I already said we could post "real life examples" and not get anywhere. And I think I'm perfectly within reason here to question the pedigree of the supporting material.

are you saying that a child growing up without a father or a mother is not more likely to have issues relating to the aforementioned item?
No, but that's not what the article says. The article is implying that a child must have a male and female parent filling traditional roles to produce a healthy child. That's what I disagree with.

cheapie

03-25-2004, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by caribiner23

I beat you to it-- I already said we could post "real life examples" and not get anywhere.

No, but that's not what the article says. The article is implying that a child must have a male and female parent filling traditional roles to produce a healthy child. That's what I disagree with.

how long have you been divorced? do you think your child has suffered because he/she doesn't have a father? feel free to tell me to **** off if you don't want to spill personal details.

caribiner23

03-25-2004, 12:32 PM

I've been separated from my daughters' mother (ahem) for over four years. I never said I was a single parent-- her mother and I work together to create the best possible environment for them.

(I would mention that they are growing up as intelligent, well-adjusted, beautiful young women, but I'd put myself at risk for another "ah, yes, the ol'..." jab. :D)

I know that I am a far better father now than I was four years ago-- the situation has forced me to view a lot of things very differently, and (to bring it back to the thread) to view what marriage and committed relationships are really all about. This is why my belief is that people who want to marry-- regardless of their sexual orientation-- should be able to do so.

cheapie

03-25-2004, 12:37 PM

sorry about gender mixup. pardon me if i'm incorrect, but you're proving my point. you and your ex realize that it's important for the child to have both parents.

my only point here is that, yes, there is a negative impact as a result of the government legally recognized gay marriages. kids will be screwed out of a mother or a father. there's no way around that.

topane

03-25-2004, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by cheapie
you said and i answered your questions with just one what i think are effects of gay unions. never did i say the gvt. should disallow gay unions, nor did i say kids will not be able to function without a parent of both sexes. What you said was:

and as far as it not hurting anyone, do you think it's okay for the state to offically sanction depriving a child of a mother or a father?What I got from your above comment was: "Gay marriage deprives a child of a mother or father. Therefore, if the state sanctions gay marriage, it means that the state thinks it's OK for a child to not have a mother or a father." If I am wrong, please correct me.

nice job going ape**** with your response. you can tell you have made a good point when the best someone can do is come up with a rhetorical response like yours Actually, it was sarcasm. You can tell when you've made a good counter-argument when someone calls your response "rhetoric". (And yes, that was sarcasm as well)

cheapie

03-25-2004, 12:44 PM

there is a difference between letting someone, like your sister, have a child by themselves and officially sanctioned it by recognizing the fact that the child will be without a mother or father and telling social services, "it's ok. go ahead and place children into this environment. it's no different than if there was a mother and father for this child." understand?

caribiner23

03-25-2004, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by cheapie
sorry about gender mixup. pardon me if i'm incorrect, but you're proving my point. you and your ex realize that it's important for the child to have both parents.
It doesn't prove your point. Read your source article again. It specifically talks about two parents filling traditional gender roles while they are present full-time. Neither of my childrens' parents are present full-time, filling traditional gender roles in the same household. And of my ex and myself, I am more in-touch emotionally and have handled things with my girls than their mother couldn't, filling more of a 'mother' role-- and I possess that dreaded Y chromosone.

my only point here is that, yes, there is a negative impact as a result of the government legally recognized gay marriages. kids will be screwed out of a mother or a father. there's no way around that.
I still disagree, but now we're back at the beginning of the discussion.:cool:

topane

03-25-2004, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by cheapie
there is a difference between letting someone, like your sister, have a child by themselves and officially sanctioned it by recognizing the fact that the child will be without a mother or father and telling social services, "it's ok. go ahead and place children into this environment. it's no different than if there was a mother and father for this child." understand? I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I would rather see a child be in a loving home, even with two people of the same sex, than sitting in an orphanage or being a ward of the state.

cheapie

03-25-2004, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by caribiner23

I still disagree, but now we're back at the beginning of the discussion.:cool:

which part do you disagree with? that there is a negative impact to kids being without a mother or father? or that gay marriages result in a kid not having one or the other?

Johnnymac

03-25-2004, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by topane
.....

Appeal to Tradition (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html) is a logical fallacy. If you're so keen on time-honored traditions, maybe we should all be able to have multiple wives :P

My god, I can't imagine more than one :D

caribiner23

03-25-2004, 01:00 PM

I disagree with the concept that quality parenting can only be provided by a female and male filling the traditional roles of "mother" and "father." I find it easy to separate the duties performed by a mother and father from the genders involved.

I would prefer to call the situation based on the character, values, and capabilities of the people involved regardless of the contents of their pants.

:angel:

cheapie

03-25-2004, 01:14 PM

oh. ok. cuz "mother" and "father" are merely social constructs. there's nothing biological about a mother. it's merely the role she has chosen to perform. therefore anyone that aspires to take up the mantle of motherhood can do so regardless of gender. and anyone can be a "father".
:rolleyes:

caribiner23

03-25-2004, 01:35 PM

I do not believe the ability to reproduce defines a "mother" or "father" in the sense we're talking about here. We are not talking about biology.

There are plenty of men and women who've reproduced and choose not to play the roles of "mother" and "father."

And to a degree, I do believe that anyone who chooses to do so can take up the mantle of 'mother' or 'father' regardless of gender. Sometimes, they're called "adoptive parents."

I made my point clear in my last post, and several times before that. We are also going to have to agree to disagree.

blueindian

03-25-2004, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by cheapie
oh. ok. cuz "mother" and "father" are merely social constructs. there's nothing biological about a mother. it's merely the role she has chosen to perform. therefore anyone that aspires to take up the mantle of motherhood can do so regardless of gender. and anyone can be a "father".
:rolleyes:

you know, to some degrees i would actually agree with that. consider that the only "biological" way in which people are bonded to their mother is breast feeding, which has largely been replace with formula.

if a man were to do the things that a mother traditionally did then perhaps he could take up the mantle of motherhood. who says that a man can't teach his daughter to put on makeup, explain what a period is, etc? or that a woman can't teach a boy how to change oil or cut the grass? or even that the people who teach those things have to be the parents.

cheapie

03-25-2004, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by blueindian

you know, to some degrees i would actually agree with that. consider that the only "biological" way in which people are bonded to their mother is breast feeding, which has largely been replace with formula.

if a man were to do the things that a mother traditionally did then perhaps he could take up the mantle of motherhood. who says that a man can't teach his daughter to put on makeup, explain what a period is, etc? or that a woman can't teach a boy how to change oil or cut the grass? or even that the people who teach those things have to be the parents.

i'm not saying that a father cannot teach his daughter to apply her makeup. men and women are just created/have evolved (i thought i'd put that there so as not to turn you off :D) differently and it's silly to say that a woman can be just as good of a father as a male and vice versa. i am NOT cracking on women that have been forced to do or men who have done likewise. wait until you have a kid bi, you will understand more of what i mean. your instincts and reactions will be different than your SO's and some of that will be due to you being a guy.