The111

Wendy, I understand that some men take on roles for their children that are traditionally taken on by the mother, and vice versa. I understand that some husband/wife matches offer horrible care to their children. I understand that homosexual couples can give children a better upbringing than many children raised in "traditional" families today are receiving. But my position stands that a well matched husband and wife can provide a perspective and upbringing that no homosexual couple can. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Please see my recent replies to bytch and kev. I think same sex couples *can* raise children, but I don't think they can provide the same broad perspective to those children that a well matched husband and wife can. You mean, the fact that I disagree with you. Tolerance goes both ways... we are both expressing opinions which we beleive to be right, but I'm not calling you wrong or saying you "don't get it". www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Everybody feels that way. It's not a problem. We just see different ways as "fit". www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Emphasis added... Gender had plenty to do with it. Otherwise you wouldn't have even mentioned "mother" and "father". They're two of the most basic words in our language, probably the first two you learned. Genitalia probably had very little to do with it. But in case you haven't noticed, genitalia aren't the only difference between men and women. Believe it or not, men are different than women on many levels. That does not mean all men are identical or all women are identical. But they're two entire different animals, designed to complement each other. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I did. More than once. But I'll do it again. Since several people are claiming to have missed it. Maybe it's so simple you didn't realize it was my point. Men and women are different. I realize that this is a sweeping generalization, but it's true. Obviously, all men are not identical. Likewise, all women are not identical. But in general men and women have different physical, mental, and emotional qualities. I think that a properly matched man and woman can provide the widest range of "parent qualities", and thus the best upbringing, to a child who needs a broad perspective. In case you missed it, that's it! www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I did reply to your followups but I'm guessing you just didn't see them yet. I agree that in this situation (C) is the best. But I still don't think gay parents are always the best option available to a child without a home, i.e. I'm not convinced the options you presented me with are representative of the real world. And I still think this is irrelevant to the core of the argument. And for someone who accuses me of ignoring a question, you have, just like many others done two things. 1) Pointed out several things that are wrong with society and made gay parenthood look like the answer. 2) Ignored my question, the core of my arguments. Can a homosexual couple (with one set of gender toolsets) provide the same quality upbringing to a child that a heterosexual couple (with both sets of gender toolsets) can? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

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

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

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... 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

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

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

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

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

So, why aren't you fighting to outlaw divorce? How do you know I'm not? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

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

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

No, I did not say those who have the tools to raise a child should be forced to. Just that those who don't have the tools should not be encourage to. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

There are plenty of heterosexual two parent families that are very dysfunctional. I'll explain once more why pointing towards dysfunctional heterosexual families is not a valid argument for homosexual families. I'm going to make an analogy. First let me define two things. 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. Soooo many people say "oh, but look at the alcoholic fathers! oh but look at the divorce rates!" It's irrelevant. Failing heterosexual families does not imply homosexual ones would work (they also don't imply that homosexual ones wouldn't). It's ridiculous logic. Here's the analogy. Your car is broken and needs repaired. There are two repairmen. Repairman #1 has every tool necessary to do the job. Repairman #2 has half of the tools of #1 (but two of each tool), but if he tries hard enough he can still get most of the job done. For the purposes of this analogy, assume that a toolset is integral to a repairman. I.e., a repairman cannot change toolsets. (In case you haven't guessed it, these tools are representing the emotional, mental, and physical qualities of men and women, which are biologically different, despite some people's attempts to deny this obvious fact). Now assuming both repairmen operate to their full potential, the outcome is as follows. #1 - Your car is fully repaired and has a long life. #2 - Your car is mostly repaired, but some components have been damaged by using incorrect tools, some tasks weren't finished completely, and it probably won't last you as long. Obviously, in the real world, both repairmen might not operate to their full potential. It is possible you could go to a "Repairman #1" who has all of the tools but is still incompetent and a dumbass. If he fucks your car up, that is not a valid argument that you should have gone to a "Repairman #2", someone with half the tools! You should have found a "Repairman #1" who knows how to do his job! In a "worst case example", someone with half the tools could probably do the job better than someone with all the tools! But that does not mean we should be encouraging Repairmen to do the best job possible with half the tools. It means we need to educate (or eradicate... sarcasm here) the dumbasses who have a full toolset but still fuck up the job. Whether or not you believe that two men (or women) have a "full toolset" for raising a child, you can't deny that their toolset is different than that of a man and a woman. Heterosexual parents and homosexual parents have different tools available to them. The fact that heterosexual parents fail often is a testament to the shitty state of the world we live in and that they are not using their tools properly, but it does not imply that homosexual parents with different tools are right for the job, even if they can do a better case than an alcoholic child abuser (a "worst case example"). If you want to purport that two men can give a child the upbringing he deserves, then explain why in rational terms. Simply pointing to the failure of heterosexual alcoholics and divorcees is not an argument for your case!!! www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Say who? Marriage does not require procreation. Your point is taken, but one of the major concerns with gay marriages (as opposed to co-habiting gay couples) is that the issue of child raising... www.WingsuitPhotos.com

You use the word legally in your reply to my post referencing strict biology. It is very clear how we biologically reproduce. Biologically we are animals. Only our minds separate us. Animals would not use petri dishes or legal documents. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I never *made* that argument. While I believe a child requires a father and a mother, that does not imply that all fathers and mothers are good. But the fact that some fathers and mothers fail does not open the door to an inferior system. Again, I never said that. But just because people are failing at something that was designed by nature to be complete, does not mean something else less logical is ok. The argument that gay marriages should be accepted because so many adults today fail at heterosexual marriages is like saying, "we shouldn't limit students to low wing loadings because even then they still have accidents". The accidents are irrelevant. It's a system that should work and be safe. Just because people are screwing it up does not mean we should make it more allowing. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Actually, you've made it an issue of neither biology or legality, but technology. Biologically, the only way for a child to be produced is the same way the animals do it. It follows that the creators of the child are responsible for its welfare until it can take that responsibility upon itself. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Would you care to point out some many of them? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Again, who said this? Are the lesbians being put in jail? You made a huge jump here. If all "sins" were "equal", then either the lesbians and 4 year old should both go to jail or not. In our legal system however, crimes are certainly ranked and certain ones carry heavier punishments. I think this is logical. Back to the guy who stole my wallet or shot me in the chest. I would expect him to receive a much stronger punishment for the shooting, and with our legal system, he would. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Consenting adult siblings who want to sleep together, can. Consenting adult homosexuals who want to sleep together, can. Marriage, however, is a union for the purpose of building functional families. In functional families, non-consenting, non-adult people (children) are brought into the picture. Non-consenting non-adults do not have a say in who their parents are. This is why the law must enter the picture. It is up to adults who have the ability to think analytically to determine who can and can't raise a child, thus creating a family. Truthfully, the answer is so obvious it's painful. Regardless of how much anyone hates the "procreation" argument, our biology makes it very clear who is fit to raise a family. A fertile man an woman. There are all sorts of exceptions to the rule: infertile couples, adoption, artificial insemination. I don't think those are relevant to the core of the argument. Biological ability to produce a family is not the only reason for my belief. It is my belief based on my experience in life, that a child needs a mother and a father to develop, grow up, and mature. Children build their core values based on their parents. To provide a child with two mothers or two fathers would be giving them an incomplete set, and in my opinion would be teaching them that something wrong is acceptable (though society does a fairly good job of that today). To provide a child with sibling parents (even if they adopted the child and he was not deformed) would be again teaching the child that something wrong is acceptable (I'm thinking everyone agrees with me on this one). This is why sibling and gay marriages should not be valid. Which means, in short, that in my opinion, neither sibling couples nor gay couples should be allowed legally to raise a non-consenting non-adult (which they couldn't produce on their own anyway) and call themselves a family. Though can can fuck or co-habit all they want. www.WingsuitPhotos.com