Gay Marriage Debate...

[karenmeal 0]

On the subject of people saying that they feel their religion condemns gay marriage..

Fine. Don't vote if this issue comes up.

"Life is a temporary victory over the causes which induce death." - Sylvester Graham

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Belief #1 - A child requires a father and a mother to develop fully.
Belief #2 - A child can develop fully with two fathers, or two mothers.

I believe #1. If you want to know why, ask me. The purpose of the analogy I'm going to make is not to prove #1. It's to show that if you want to prove #2, you have to explain why, you can't just point out that some "mother-father" couples fail. It's irrelevant.

This is an easy one.

I, and countless others, was raised by a single parent. In my case, a mother. Turned out just fine, have a degree from Cal, blah blah blah.

Had I had two mothers instead of one, I'm sure I would have been even better off. I certainly wouldn't be worse off. So if you're arguing that #2 is false, you're also arguing that single parenthood is wrong and/or ineffective, and there's no shortage of counterproofs. The best you can do is say that many children in single families have problems. The same thing you decry as invalid when people point out all the problems in "traditional" families.

[Vallerina 2]

Quote

Belief #1 - A child requires a father and a mother to develop fully.

So, why aren't you fighting to outlaw divorce?

There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning

[The111 1]

Quote

You are correct in assuming that same sex couples raising children will have different tools available to them. Of course, you’re biased stance assumes different=bad. But what your analogy fails to define is what "fully repaired" means.

I am fully aware of my bias but as I said the point of my post was not to explain why I believe one toolset is bettter, but to prove that you can't say "x toolset" *could* work because "y toolset" *has failed* in the past! It's not a valid argument.

I also agree that it's not nearly as easy to evaluate the quality of a human life as a car engine. Like I said, the previous post did not explain my opinion, just said you can't attempt to prove your own idea of a family by showing where my has been messed up by incompetency. But now I will attempt to explain why I believe what I do.

If you look at humanity as a whole, there are many differentiators. Gender, age, race, etc... I think the undeniably most recognizable and life-affecting variable is gender. Men and women are different in biological, emotional, and mental ways. They both offer different perspectives to growing children who need and benefit from each perspective. To me that is obvious.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[The111 1]

Quote

I, and countless others, was raised by a single parent. In my case, a mother. Turned out just fine, have a degree from Cal, blah blah blah.

Had I had two mothers instead of one, I'm sure I would have been even better off. I certainly wouldn't be worse off. So if you're arguing that #2 is false, you're also arguing that single parenthood is wrong and/or ineffective

I don't deny that single parenthood can work. I don't deny that homosexual parenthood can work.

I simply claim that heterosexual parenthood is best, and what we were designed for.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[The111 1]

Quote

Quote

Belief #1 - A child requires a father and a mother to develop fully.

So, why aren't you fighting to outlaw divorce?

How do you know I'm not?

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[Vallerina 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Belief #1 - A child requires a father and a mother to develop fully.

So, why aren't you fighting to outlaw divorce?

How do you know I'm not?

I don't usually make assumptions based on people I know nothing about, but you must've had a pretty decent childhood, or you've had a poor childhood in a one-parent home. For those that had pretty crappy childhoods because of two parents being together would strongly disagree with your sentiment. I have quite a few friends that were happy when their mothers kicked their child-beating fathers to the curb. I would sincerely hope that that never changes.

There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I don't deny that single parenthood can work. I don't deny that homosexual parenthood can work.

I simply claim that heterosexual parenthood is best, and what we were designed for.

Let's assume for a second that you are correct. What does this have to do with marriage or constitutional amendments? Is there going to be some biological change that suddenly same sex couples are able to conceive children if they're permitted to marry? Will an amendment magically block this dubious, instantaneous biological change from occuring?

Edit to add follow up question:

Ok, we've successfully amended the constitution and thankfully, men don't start growing a uterus after signing a marriage certificate with their gay lover. That was close. But....hey, gay couple can still adopt (they can now...in fact it's one of the reasons many gays want to get married is because they already ARE parents). So now what do we do?

Do we, amend the constitution to ban gay couples from adopting? If so...
...when do we stop amending the constitution for every law that we want passed.
...what happens to the unwanted children that are being given to gay couples (and singles) becuase there's no where else for them? Should we bring back the days of orphanages? Or maybe encouraging more abortions would be the answer?

[The111 1]

Quote

Let's assume for a second that you are correct. What does this have to do with marriage or constitutional amendments? Is there going to be some biological change that suddenly same sex couples are able to conceive children if they're permitted to marry? Will an amendment magically block this dubious, instantaneous biological change from occuring?

No, but if they're permiited to marry it will become more acceptable and easy for them to raise children. It will also send the message that it is condoned (gay parenthood).

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[PhillyKev 0]

see my follow up question above.

[The111 1]

Quote

For those that had pretty crappy childhoods because of two parents being together would strongly disagree with your sentiment. I have quite a few friends that were happy when their mothers kicked their child-beating fathers to the curb. I would sincerely hope that that never changes.

This is really another issue altogether. As I've pointed out, the failure of heterosexual families is not a promotion for homosexual ones.

The failure of heterosexual families does sadden me. How to stop it? Outlaw divorce? Maybe, but probably not. I'm really not sure on this issue. But it has nothing to do with whether or not a homosexual couple can marry and raise a child.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[SkydiverRick 0]

I have quite a few friends that were happy when their mothers kicked their child-beating fathers to the curb. I would sincerely hope that that never changes.

[Keith 0]

So? Your analogy doesn't prove that one tool set is superior to the other. It just proves they're different. Different doesn't equate to inferior. You've still got swiss cheese. You're comparing apples to oranges. How does the absense of tools equate to lack of knowledge?

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[Vallerina 2]

Quote

As I've pointed out, the failure of heterosexual families is not a promotion for homosexual ones.

Then don't try to use the benefits of heterosexual families as a way to keep same sex couples from having a family.

There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning

[The111 1]

Quote

So? Your analogy doesn't prove that one tool set is superior to the other. It just proves they're different. Different doesn't equate to inferior. You've still got swiss cheese.

By swiss cheese, I'm assuming you're saying my logic has holes in it.

That entire post was to show that *your* logic was flawed. Rather than reply to my points comparing one toolset to the other, you simply pointed out that people with one toolset have failed. People with either toolset can fail! If you want to explain your logic, explain why people with "your" toolset can succeed. Don't point out where people with mine have failed.

I'm still waiting. I've explained why I believe in my toolset. Explain why you believe in yours.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[The111 1]

Quote

Quote

As I've pointed out, the failure of heterosexual families is not a promotion for homosexual ones.

Then don't try to use the benefits of heterosexual families as a way to keep same sex couples from having a family.

I'm not. I believe that any child rasied by a homosexual couple does not have everything he needs.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[Keith 0]

My point is that you don't get that you don't get it. I can explain till I turn straight and you still won't get it. Is that clear enough?

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[Vallerina 2]

Quote

I'm not. I believe that any child rasied by a homosexual couple does not have everything he needs.

Then, we better start making birth control mandatory for teenage girls since that is and causes much bigger problems. Kids need food and water. We may as well start making sure that they don't get in families who can't provide those.

There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning

[The111 1]

Quote

But....hey, gay couple can still adopt (they can now...in fact it's one of the reasons many gays want to get married is because they already ARE parents). So now what do we do?

I'm going to admit ignorance here. I was somewhat aware that gay couples already could adopt (which obviously I don't entirely agree with), but I honestly don't know how common or widespread it is. You tell me... how much would actually change in the world of gay parenthood if gay marriage was allowed everywhere? I'm serious, I don't really know...

Quote

Do we, amend the constitution to ban gay couples from adopting? If so...
...when do we stop amending the constitution for every law that we want passed.
...what happens to the unwanted children that are being given to gay couples (and singles) becuase there's no where else for them? Should we bring back the days of orphanages? Or maybe encouraging more abortions would be the answer?

Your point is taken. I am not for frivolous amendments to the constitution.

As far as abortions, that's another issue altogether, which I don't think is the answer, FWIW.

As far as orphanages, the only thing I know about them is my great grandmother ran one, along with her husband - they were the "parents" of all the kids in their orphanage. When my dad was growing up he spent a lot of time there and became good friends with all the kids. He has stayed in touch with many of them throughout the past 40 years. I don't know what orphanages are normally like, you seemed to imply something negative about them...

As far as giving a child to a gay couple because there is "nowhere else for them"? Well if that was truly the case, even I agree that it'sa better place than "nowhere". But as I've pointed out before, the failure of heterosexual marriages (ostensibly the cause of the"unwanted children") does not automatically mean that gay marriages are the answer.

Notice all the points we are discussing were under the condition "let's assume for a second that you are correct". Well, let's address that assumption! (the assumption that we humans are designed for heterosexual parenthood) In my opinion, everything that keeps getting discussed is secondary to this one thing, and no one has attempted to explain why they disagree, though the have made it very obvious.

If you think that two men (or women) can provide the same thing to a growing child that a man and a woman can, then explain why! This is the primary issue at heart and keeps getting sidestepped over and over again.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

I have quite a few friends that were happy when their mothers kicked their child-beating fathers to the curb. I would sincerely hope that that never changes.

I agree. I have friends that were happy when their fathers kicked their slutty wives to the curb.

[The111 1]

Quote

I can explain till I turn straight and you still won't get it. Is that clear enough?

No, it's not clear! You haven't once attempted to explain why two men (with masculine biological toolsets) or two women (with feminine biologicial toolsets), can provide the upbringing that a child needs.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[PhillyKev 0]

Ok...you ignored my follow up question, so here's another. Scenario, followed by solustions..

A teenage, homeless, prostitute gets pregnant. What is the best option:

A) Let her raise the kid on the street
B) Have her dump the kid on her single mother living in the projects who raised such an upstanding citizen.
C) Let a professional, well off, emotionally stable, gay couple adopt the child
D) Put the kid in a crowded orphanage
E) Put the kid in a crowded foster home
F) Encourage the girl to have an abortion.
G) Other? But make it a realistic, existing, option.

[Jayruss 0]

Quote

I am fully aware of my bias but as I said the point of my post was not to explain why I believe one toolset is bettter, but to prove that you can't say "x toolset" *could* work because "y toolset" *has failed* in the past! It's not a valid argument.

I realized that

Quote

If you look at humanity as a whole, there are many differentiators. Gender, age, race, etc... I think the undeniably most recognizable and life-affecting variable is gender. Men and women are different in biological, emotional, and mental ways. They both offer different perspectives to growing children who need and benefit from each perspective. To me that is obvious.

Any sociologists would agree with the idea that men and women are different. It's relatively easy to see the benefit for a child to have influences from both sexes.

In your theory because the best household for a child is a man, woman residence all other variations should be prohibited. Now you have said several times here that other households can do a decent job at raising a child.

But in the end you return to the fact that society should prevent legal recognition of one lifestyle because it's not the "best" way to raise a child.

__________________________________________________
"Beware how you take away hope from another human being."
-Oliver Wendell Holmes

[The111 1]

Quote

Quote

I'm not. I believe that any child rasied by a homosexual couple does not have everything he needs.

Then, we better start making birth control mandatory for teenage girls since that is and causes much bigger problems. Kids need food and water. We may as well start making sure that they don't get in families who can't provide those.

Congratulations, you have pointed out yet another problem that happens in our society, yet you did not even reply to the core of what I said. This has happened so many times in this thread it's ridiculous.

"But some fathers are alcoholics!"
"But some couples get divorced!"
and now...
"But teenage girls have starving kids!"

Those are all tragedies, and sure it would be nice to stop them. But they are not central to the question of whether or not homosexual couples can provide what heterosexual couples can.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[skybytch 273]

Quote

If you think that two men (or women) can provide the same thing to a growing child that a man and a woman can, then explain why!

If you explained what you feel that a couple made up of a (presumably) straight male and a (presumably) straight female have or can offer to a child that a gay couple couldn't, I missed it.