First  Prev  116  117  118  119  120  121  122  123  124  125  126  127  128  Next  Last
Post Reply Gay Marriage
3367 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 12/30/13 , edited 12/30/13

Sakurako_Kimino wrote:

Against.

The purpose of life is to perpetuate the species; two girls (or boys) cannot reproduce; two girls (or boys) would not make good parents; sociologists agree children reared in gay households are more likely to be homosexual.

All these points prove homosexual marriage is immoral and wrong. It's just science.


First of all, so? So what if gay people can't naturally reproduce? Having kids is not something that is inherent to marriage. I know several married couples that don't have and don't plan on having kids.
Besides, they CAN reproduce via a sperm-donor or a surrogate-mother. So it's not impossible at all.
Not to mention that there is adoption. There are plenty of orphans out there. A married gay couple, even if they couldn't reproduce, could still make a loving home for an orphan.

As for what you say on gay parents, you are wrong.
http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gay-parents-as-good-as-straight-ones/
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting-full.pdf
http://www.livescience.com/17913-advantages-gay-parents.html
http://people.howstuffworks.com/5-gay-parenting-myths.htm#page=0
And even if the kids had a bigger chance of turning out gay (which is stupid), so what? As if there is anything wrong with being gay?

The only thing the points you put forward proves is how ignorant and bigoted you are you are.
178 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / san diego, ca
Offline
Posted 12/30/13
i dont care. who am i to judge someone based on who they love? if they're happy then so be it. beats being in a straight relationship where you're miserable. its their choice so big deal. just my thoughts though.
1466 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / New york
Offline
Posted 12/30/13
This IS What I Would Have Said.
10157 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 12/30/13 , edited 12/30/13

Sakurako_Kimino wrote:

Against.

The purpose of life is to perpetuate the species; two girls (or boys) cannot reproduce; two girls (or boys) would not make good parents; sociologists agree children reared in gay households are more likely to be homosexual.

All these points prove homosexual marriage is immoral and wrong. It's just science.


You realize that even if homosexual couples can't marry, they can still adopt a child if they have the proper credentials, right? Preventing the act of marriage isn't going to stop children from being raised in a homosexual household.

Then again, I don't completely disagree with what you said. Primarily the part about homosexuals being poor parents. When you're growing up, it can be hard enough at times fitting in society at your own pace. When I try to picture my own childhood except with two parents of the same sex, the theoretical situations don't seem to bode well. That and I think that you need both a father figure and a mother figure in the developmental stages, which this arrangement would not provide. You'd either have two "father" figures (lesbians) or two "mother" figures, (gay men), which I don't think would do the child justice.

In terms of biology, you're right, humans obviously did not evolve to be in same sex situations, but I don't think you can really look at science for morality. There are a lot of things that are scientifically efficient but at the same time morally abhorrent.


Syndicaidramon wrote:



First of all, so? So what if gay people can't naturally reproduce? Having kids is not something that is inherent to marriage. I know several married couples that don't have and don't plan on having kids.
Besides, they CAN reproduce via a sperm-donor or a surrogate-mother. So it's not impossible at all.
Not to mention that there is adoption. There are plenty of orphans out there. A married gay couple, even if they couldn't reproduce, could still make a loving home for an orphan.

As for what you say on gay parents, you are wrong.
http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gay-parents-as-good-as-straight-ones/
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting-full.pdf
http://www.livescience.com/17913-advantages-gay-parents.html
http://people.howstuffworks.com/5-gay-parenting-myths.htm#page=0
And even if the kids had a bigger chance of turning out gay (which is stupid), so what? As if there is anything wrong with being gay?

The only thing the points you put forward proves is how ignorant and bigoted you are you are.


I don't disregard the studies that you present, but tell me something, would you really want to be raised in a homosexual household? Or if the phrasing of that appears too conditional, if you were raised in one, do you think you would be happy about your arrangement?
59 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F
Offline
Posted 12/30/13

Gamefreak565 wrote:
You realize that even if homosexual couples can't marry, they can still adopt a child if they have the proper credentials, right? Preventing the act of marriage isn't going to stop children from being raised in a homosexual household.

Then again, I don't completely disagree with what you said. Primarily the part about homosexuals being poor parents. When you're growing up, it can be hard enough at times fitting in society at your own pace. When I try to picture my own childhood except with two parents of the same sex, the theoretical situations don't seem to bode well. That and I think that you need both a father figure and a mother figure in the developmental stages, which this arrangement would not provide. You'd either have two "father" figures (lesbians) or two "mother" figures, (gay men), which I don't think would do the child justice.

In terms of biology, you're right, humans obviously did not evolve to be in same sex situations, but I don't think you can really look at science for morality. There are a lot of things that are scientifically efficient but at the same time morally abhorrent.
Love, I was obviously being facetious in my original post.

Both the American Psychological Association (APA) and the American Pediatric Association have shown that there is no evidence supporting the claim that homosexual parents are worse than hetrosexual parents [1]. In fact, several multicriteria analyses have shown that children reared in gay households have higher literacy rates, higher graduation rates, higher standardized test scores, and lower crime rates [2]. The notion that homosexual parents are worse than hetrosexual parents is asinine fatuity.

Additionally, the mutual exclusion of science and morality you close with is also absurd. Morality is clearly derived from conscious experience which we can measure. And since some systems of morality do not minimize human suffering, science is clearly capable of passing moral judgements. Insofar as homosexual couples adopting children is concerned, if a child reared in a gay household is more likely to graduate from college and less likely to be a violent felon, then it can be seen that this is better for the child than say, being raised by ineffective parents or being aborted.

It is, truly, contemptible that you cast aspersions on homosexual parents when, in point of fact, they are not any worse than hetrosexual parents. Put your personal bigotry aside and, most importantly, don't make the lives of an oppressed minority even more miserable by perpetuating lies; it's intellectually dishonest and, because you seem very interested in morality, morally wrong as well.

If you're against homosexual marriage you are on the wrong side of history.

-

[1] - http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx
[2] - http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting-full.pdf
10157 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 12/30/13 , edited 12/30/13

Sakurako_Kimino wrote:
Love, I was obviously being facetious in my original post.

Both the American Psychological Association (APA) and the American Pediatric Association have shown that there is no evidence supporting the claim that homosexual parents are worse than hetrosexual parents [1]. In fact, several multicriteria analyses have shown that children reared in gay households have higher literacy rates, higher graduation rates, higher standardized test scores, and lower crime rates [2]. The notion that homosexual parents are worse than hetrosexual parents is asinine fatuity.

Additionally, the mutual exclusion of science and morality you close with is also absurd. Morality is clearly derived from conscious experience which we can measure. And since some systems of morality do not minimize human suffering, science is clearly capable of passing moral judgements. Insofar as homosexual couples adopting children is concerned, if a child reared in a gay household is more likely to graduate from college and less likely to be a violent felon, then it can be seen that this is better for the child than say, being raised by ineffective parents or being aborted.

It is, truly, contemptible that you cast aspersions on homosexual parents when, in point of fact, they are not any worse than hetrosexual parents. Put your personal bigotry aside and, most importantly, don't make the lives of an oppressed minority even more miserable by perpetuating lies; it's intellectually dishonest and, because you seem very interested in morality, morally wrong as well.

If you're against homosexual marriage you are on the wrong side of history.

-

[1] - http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx
[2] - http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting-full.pdf


Unfortunately plain text has a way of not showing facetious ways, go figure.

I'm going to try and summarize this without a wall of text, but it might be hard.

1) I never said that homosexual parents were worse than heterosexual parents. In fact, the majority of what constitutes being a good parent has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation. The promotion of education, morals and other important traits all have absolutely nothing to do with it.

2) I suppose that I should have been more careful about how I chose my words in terms of "science". I was referring to purely life sciences and the physical sciences, not the social variant. For example, it was determined to be "efficient" to drop the atomic bomb on Japan in order to end WWII, but it would be an understatement to say that it was morally flawed. In fact, science and morality should not remain mutually exclusive so that things like this do not occur in the first place. My point was that to draw morality from the physical or life sciences is backwards.

3) I am not against homosexual marriage, if you did not get that from what you quoted, try looking a few pages back where I accused someone else of being guilty of prejudice for the same/similar reason.

4) As a continuation of the first point I made, I think that homosexual parents would be "poor" purely based on the way that society views them and the lack of tolerance that is present, not because of the way I view them. Personally, I would not want to be raised in a homosexual household. It would make for a very confusing childhood, especially if the child happens to be straight. I am not a bigot, I don't care if someone is homosexual and I don't care if homosexuals marry. As far as a child is concerned, however, I do see several problems arising. This doesn't mean I think that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to have kids, and I would certainly rather see a child be placed in a homosexual household then an "inefficient" one, as you call it. I just know that if I was to grow up in a household like this, I don't think that I would be happy. This personal opinion does not make me a bigot, or at least I wouldn't think that it does.

Before you call someone a bigot, it might be a good idea to make sure they're actually a bigot first. I find the fact that you jump all over me and call me such a deplorable thing without even knowing me well enough to make a proper evaluation contemptible.

3367 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 12/30/13

Gamefreak565
I don't disregard the studies that you present, but tell me something, would you really want to be raised in a homosexual household? Or if the phrasing of that appears too conditional, if you were raised in one, do you think you would be happy about your arrangement?


If I loved my parents, then yes. Why shouldn't I?
The only "downside" to having gay parents v. straight parents is that people are stupid, and others may bully you for it.
But that's the fault of society, and idiot parents who don't raise their kids properly. It is not the fault of the gay parents.

The thing about "father" and mother figure is easy. Even in gay relationships (male gay at least), there is often one who assume the "primary" mother role, and one that assume the "primary" father role. Of course, this divide will be less obvious than in conventional heterosexual couples, but it's still there a lot of the time.
And even so, there are plenty of kids in the world who grow up with only one parent. Meaning that they don't have a father figure or a mother figure. And they still generally turn out fine. So even IF there wasn't a typical father/mother figure in a gay family (where the child still has two parents rather than one), why should that not also turn out fine?

And then of course I must ask -- exactly what do you put in into the term "father figure" and "mother figure"?
See, I'm wondering, because as society grows more and more equal in terms of gender, these classic stereotypes are breaking down more and more. Often times, it is the mother who is the breadwinner and the father who is staying at home with the kids. Often times, it is the mother who is the one helping the kids with homework.
So what exactly is it that define these figures?
10157 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 12/30/13 , edited 12/30/13

Syndicaidramon wrote:


Gamefreak565
I don't disregard the studies that you present, but tell me something, would you really want to be raised in a homosexual household? Or if the phrasing of that appears too conditional, if you were raised in one, do you think you would be happy about your arrangement?


If I loved my parents, then yes. Why shouldn't I?
The only "downside" to having gay parents v. straight parents is that people are stupid, and others may bully you for it.
But that's the fault of society, and idiot parents who don't raise their kids properly. It is not the fault of the gay parents.


The thing about "father" and mother figure is easy. Even in gay relationships (male gay at least), there is often one who assume the "primary" mother role, and one that assume the "primary" father role. Of course, this divide will be less obvious than in conventional heterosexual couples, but it's still there a lot of the time.
And even so, there are plenty of kids in the world who grow up with only one parent. Meaning that they don't have a father figure or a mother figure. And they still generally turn out fine. So even IF there wasn't a typical father/mother figure in a gay family (where the child still has two parents rather than one), why should that not also turn out fine?

And then of course I must ask -- exactly what do you put in into the term "father figure" and "mother figure"?
See, I'm wondering, because as society grows more and more equal in terms of gender, these classic stereotypes are breaking down more and more. Often times, it is the mother who is the breadwinner and the father who is staying at home with the kids. Often times, it is the mother who is the one helping the kids with homework.
So what exactly is it that define these figures?


In terms of a figure I wasn't referring to the classic stereotypes such as being a breadwinner or being a stay at home mom. I was more or less referring to the fact that women and men differentiate emotionally, and having two people of the same sex raising a child could give rise to a situation where the absence of these emotions causes issues. For example, two people with "male" personalities trying to consult a female child with an issue that only a female would understand.

To the bold point, this is more or less what I am trying to say. Intolerance against gays is the reason as to why I would say that parenting could cause complications, not because being gay inherently causes anything wrong with parenting.

Then again, maybe I'm completely wrong here, I don't claim to be an expert on this ...
346 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / United States
Offline
Posted 12/30/13
My stance is that it's a political ceremony, at least in my country. When you are married, you are able to to file taxes together, share healthcare, become next-of-kin, etc. It should not be barred because it has its benefits. To claim that you must be only able to get married if you are different genders has always perplexed me - one man, one woman? Why? - because the definition of "traditional marriage" has changed. There are plenty of married couples who do not have children. Plenty who cannot. Plenty who do not want to. Homemaking can be done by either party; the working woman is a very common thing in the United States, just as the working man.

The fact that it's legitimately illegal in most states, and other countries, has always made me want to ask why, but no one can give me a definitive answer that makes sense in this day and age. I find that it is also no one else's business whether or not someone is pan, bi, hetero, or homosexual; if you are friends with someone, you may inquire about their relationships because you care about them, but a stranger? That isn't for you to dictate. If we were to make most thing we found immoral illegal, we would have a very unbalanced country; the interesting thing to note is that most people that you meet simply don't care whether or not someone is in a same-sex or different-sex relationship. It's illegal for same-sex couples to get married in plenty of states here in the U.S., but it's rare to find someone outside of a niche who is heavily against it ((I live in the South, mind you, so this was surprising to me.))

I've always felt that the argument against it was full of straw grasping and illogical standpoints, but I was also not raised to think that way. My parents never had any opinions about people of other sexualities, and as such never talked to me about them. And it never confused me, because I think love is beautiful; to my memory, there was never any awkward explanation, no talk, nothing. I've always wondered how awkward it could possibly be to "explain to the children," why explain at all? If they ask, you could give them something simple; most children are willing to accept basic explanations - if you don't perpetuate there's something more there. A child might not even understand why it's "immoral" or "wrong" at the time, if they are seeing a happy couple.

Claiming that same-sexed parents would inhibit a child's life has also always confused me; who is to say that different-sexed parents are any better? Anyone has the potential to be inhibiting. Anyone can be abusive. Anyone can be immoral. There are plenty of good heterosexual people, there are plenty of bad ones; same goes for homosexuals, bisexuals, etc. It is only awkward when you make it out to be, or place walls there yourself. I know someone who was raised by two women - he's a great person, never felt awkward, and is heterosexual; being raised by two homosexual women didn't influence him to become gay or confused, and he loves his parents. But this is just how I feel.
10157 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 12/30/13 , edited 12/30/13

ohsostarryskyed wrote:

My stance is that it's a political ceremony, at least in my country. When you are married, you are able to to file taxes together, share healthcare, become next-of-kin, etc. It should not be barred because it has its benefits. To claim that you must be only able to get married if you are different genders has always perplexed me - one man, one woman? Why? - because the definition of "traditional marriage" has changed. There are plenty of married couples who do not have children. Plenty who cannot. Plenty who do not want to. Homemaking can be done by either party; the working woman is a very common thing in the United States, just as the working man.

The fact that it's legitimately illegal in most states, and other countries, has always made me want to ask why, but no one can give me a definitive answer that makes sense in this day and age. I find that it is also no one else's business whether or not someone is pan, bi, hetero, or homosexual; if you are friends with someone, you may inquire about their relationships because you care about them, but a stranger? That isn't for you to dictate. If we were to make most thing we found immoral illegal, we would have a very unbalanced country; the interesting thing to note is that most people that you meet simply don't care whether or not someone is in a same-sex or different-sex relationship. It's illegal for same-sex couples to get married in plenty of states here in the U.S., but it's rare to find someone outside of a niche who is heavily against it ((I live in the South, mind you, so this was surprising to me.))

I've always felt that the argument against it was full of straw grasping and illogical standpoints, but I was also not raised to think that way. My parents never had any opinions about people of other sexualities, and as such never talked to me about them. And it never confused me, because I think love is beautiful; to my memory, there was never any awkward explanation, no talk, nothing. I've always wondered how awkward it could possibly be to "explain to the children," why explain at all? If they ask, you could give them something simple; most children are willing to accept basic explanations - if you don't perpetuate there's something more there. A child might not even understand why it's "immoral" or "wrong" at the time, if they are seeing a happy couple.

Claiming that same-sexed parents would inhibit a child's life has also always confused me; who is to say that different-sexed parents are any better? Anyone has the potential to be inhibiting. Anyone can be abusive. Anyone can be immoral. There are plenty of good heterosexual people, there are plenty of bad ones; same goes for homosexuals, bisexuals, etc. It is only awkward when you make it out to be, or place walls there yourself. I know someone who was raised by two women - he's a great person, never felt awkward, and is heterosexual; being raised by two homosexual women didn't influence him to become gay or confused, and he loves his parents. But this is just how I feel.


The only reason someone could give you for not allowing gay marriage is that it violates some sort of religious doctrine or the classic "a man and a women are just meant to be".

Both of which are equally ridiculous...

Who knows? Maybe it's just me when it comes to the whole parenting thing, I just know that I don't think I would want to be in that situation if I had to choose, or at all for that matter. Back when I was in high-school, there was a person who had gay parents, and a group of people decided that they would "beat the gay" out of him, even though he was actually straight. It's things like this that concern me.
2080 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / United States of...
Offline
Posted 12/30/13
My opinion is that it's immoral and gross. but i'm not gonna go around telling people who to love.
10157 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 12/30/13

moorem wrote:

My opinion is that it's immoral and gross. but i'm not gonna go around telling people who to love.


The troll is strong with this one...
Posted 12/30/13

Sakurako_Kimino wrote:

Against.

The purpose of life is to perpetuate the species; two girls (or boys) cannot reproduce; two girls (or boys) would not make good parents; sociologists agree children reared in gay households are more likely to be homosexual.

All these points prove homosexual marriage is immoral and wrong. It's just science.


- Correct.
- Incorrect.
- That's just your opinion, man.

Bad parenting is defined as the absence of parenting, which homosexuality has nothing to do with. Sociologists do not agree that having been raised in a homosexual household would make a child more likely to be homosexual. In fact, this understanding, wherever you may have taken it from, is in no way connected to psychosociology. Furthermore, I would abstain from claiming the existence of empirical evidence without reference, especially while attempting to advocate the existence of a collective subconscious.
917 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / New Orleans
Offline
Posted 12/30/13
I'm against being against things.
First  Prev  116  117  118  119  120  121  122  123  124  125  126  127  128  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.