Gay Marraige

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
I feel that since gays apparently want to raise kids, the burden should be on them to prove that doing so doesn't stand to harm the kids at all.

I'm not sure how you could justify that - legally, or morally - considering that even convicted pedophiles, drug pushers and murderers are not prevented from having and raising children. And yet you want to prevent gay people from doing the same? That is a pretty absurd bias you have against gay people.

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
I'm not being hysterical here, but it's never been (close to) proven that homosexuality cannot be caused by nurture, and it is obviously preferable to have kids grow up sexually normal, all else being equal.

1. Most gay people had heterosexual parents. Perhaps therefore we should question whether heterosexual parenting is desirable - on the gorunds that it creates gay children. The assumption that sexual orientation is influenced by the sexual preference of the parents is pretty dodgy.

2. I also don't think it is "obviously preferable" that a child grow up heterosexual, rather than homosexual. If you think about it, a huge amount of our cultural heritage was created by homosexual males. Fewer gay people in society would be a disaster. You would see an invariable cultural stagnation and decay.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
I feel that since gays apparently want to raise kids, the burden should be on them to prove that doing so doesn't stand to harm the kids at all.

I'm not sure how you could justify that - legally, or morally - considering that even convicted pedophiles, drug pushers and murderers are not prevented from having and raising children. And yet you want to prevent gay people from doing the same? That is a pretty absurd bias you have against gay people.

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
I'm not being hysterical here, but it's never been (close to) proven that homosexuality cannot be caused by nurture, and it is obviously preferable to have kids grow up sexually normal, all else being equal.

1. Most gay people had heterosexual parents. Perhaps therefore we should question whether heterosexual parenting is desirable - on the gorunds that it creates gay children. The assumption that sexual orientation is influenced by the sexual preference of the parents is pretty dodgy.

2. I also don't think it is "obviously preferable" that a child grow up heterosexual, rather than homosexual. If you think about it, a huge amount of our cultural heritage was created by homosexual males. Fewer gay people in society would be a disaster. You would see an invariable cultural stagnation and decay.

As well as a drop in the spread of AIDS cases.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
I feel that since gays apparently want to raise kids, the burden should be on them to prove that doing so doesn't stand to harm the kids at all.

I'm not sure how you could justify that - legally, or morally - considering that even convicted pedophiles, drug pushers and murderers are not prevented from having and raising children. And yet you want to prevent gay people from doing the same? That is a pretty absurd bias you have against gay people.

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
I'm not being hysterical here, but it's never been (close to) proven that homosexuality cannot be caused by nurture, and it is obviously preferable to have kids grow up sexually normal, all else being equal.

1. Most gay people had heterosexual parents. Perhaps therefore we should question whether heterosexual parenting is desirable - on the gorunds that it creates gay children. The assumption that sexual orientation is influenced by the sexual preference of the parents is pretty dodgy.

2. I also don't think it is "obviously preferable" that a child grow up heterosexual, rather than homosexual. If you think about it, a huge amount of our cultural heritage was created by homosexual males. Fewer gay people in society would be a disaster. You would see an invariable cultural stagnation and decay.

As well as a drop in the spread of AIDS cases.

How do you get that?

edit: Most people with HIV/ AIDS are in Africa. Over 40 million of them. Almost all of them contracted HIV/ AIDs via heterosexual sex.

 

[skyking]

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate
OK - Here's my point of view on gay marriage.

Straights don't want gays to have the right to marry, as homosexual marriage would violate the sanctity (whatever that is, in light of soaring divorce rates) of marriage. Gays insist on being allowed to marry, as anything less (i.e. civil unions, etc.) would mean that they are less equal than similarly situated straight folks.

The solution? Easy. Make state laws concerning "marriage" unconstitutional.

Before all of you socially challenged, marginally literate morons get your panties in a bunch, hear me out.

Marriage is a concept which finds its basis in the Bible, Torah, Quran, etc. As such, it can be fairly argued that, by the government endorsing the concept of marriage, it is endorsing a religious ritual, possibly in violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. So, challenge it.

Ok... so lets say marriage is given the old heave ho by the Supremes... What then? Easy. Each state would have to pass civil union statutes. The states (under the imaginary Supreme Court ruling that it would take to pull this off) would allow all adults to marry another consenting adult. What do you do to prevent the government from infringing upon the exercise of religion? Easy. Folks who would like to get married - before a church - would be able to claim civil union status automatically. If parties would like to forego a ceremonial marraige and elect civil union status, that is cool, too.

Whoever wants to be married, can be married, provided they can find a church to marry them - including homosexuals. Everyone, of proper age and consent, could get a civil union.

Married before God. Unitied civilly by the state. Everyone gets what they want. Everyone is equal.

Flame on.

:thumbsup:
Exactly!
The state does not belong in the marriage business.

 

[Buck Armstrong]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I also don't think it is "obviously preferable" that a child grow up heterosexual, rather than homosexual. If you think about it, a huge amount of our cultural heritage was created by homosexual males. Fewer gay people in society would be a disaster. You would see an invariable cultural stagnation and decay.

I'm not arguing against gay marriage or even homosexuality for that matter (I could care less what consenting adults do together; I find the thought of having sex with a man disgusting, but I am NOT judge and jury over anyone's personal life), but how would fewer gays be a disaster to society? How would it possibly cause cultural stagnation and decay? Isn't that waaay over the top? Or are you just being stereotypically extravagant?

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
I feel that since gays apparently want to raise kids, the burden should be on them to prove that doing so doesn't stand to harm the kids at all.

I'm not sure how you could justify that - legally, or morally - considering that even convicted pedophiles, drug pushers and murderers are not prevented from having and raising children. And yet you want to prevent gay people from doing the same? That is a pretty absurd bias you have against gay people.

It's not absurd; you're confusing the issue by drawing a parallel here. I never said that I thought drug pushers, etc. should be allowed to have children; in fact I don't (I will give you my wife's email address for confirmation if you like, since we've talked about it before). I don't have an absurd bias, and in fact said already that I'd be all for gay marriage if it's proven that gay unions involving children don't hurt the children. For all I know, it will be proven handily that this is the case, and then I will be ALL FOR gay marriage being recognized in all the same ways as normal marriages.

I see your fallacy as this: you suggest that it is invalid to prevent one type of harm if another type is already occurring.

Originally posted by: aidanjm
1. Most gay people had heterosexual parents. Perhaps therefore we should question whether heterosexual parenting is desirable - on the gorunds that it creates gay children. The assumption that sexual orientation is influenced by the sexual preference of the parents is pretty dodgy.

Like it or not, heterosexual unions with children are the standard against which we should judge gay unions. Your statement here is very slippery, and I don't want to waste a paragraph explaining how you're introducing assumptions. I just want to reiterate that all I said was that 1) all else being equal, it is preferable to raise sexually normal children, and 2) that since there's obviously a question of whether gay parenting will have an adverse effect in this area, we should test to make sure.

Originally posted by: aidanjm
2. I also don't think it is "obviously preferable" that a child grow up heterosexual, rather than homosexual. If you think about it, a huge amount of our cultural heritage was created by homosexual males. Fewer gay people in society would be a disaster. You would see an invariable cultural stagnation and decay.

I am glad you addressed this, since I wasn't trying to slip it in unnoticed. I think that normalcy is to be preferred to abnormality, where the abnormality confers no benefit; that's all. I don't look down my nose at gay people, and I will love my son if he turns out to be gay (despite hoping that he's straight so he can live a more normal life).

In addition, homosexuality does have drawbacks, just one of which is that one cannot have genetic offspring with one's significant other.

I think you've introduced an untestable hypothesis, here: that the societal contributions of gays are greater than if they'd been straight. Would Turing (or even Genet) have been as brilliant if they were straight? I don't think it's a straightforward assumption that they would not.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I also don't think it is "obviously preferable" that a child grow up heterosexual, rather than homosexual. If you think about it, a huge amount of our cultural heritage was created by homosexual males. Fewer gay people in society would be a disaster. You would see an invariable cultural stagnation and decay.

I'm not arguing against gay marriage or even homosexuality for that matter (I could care less what consenting adults do together; I find the thought of having sex with a man disgusting, but I am NOT anyone's judge and jury), but how would fewer gays be a disaster to society? How would it possibly cause cultural stagnation and decay? Isn't that waaay over the top?

I think aidanjm probably has a less intelligent motive behind his statement, but I do think that homosexuals have been able to contribute greatly to society throughout history. This probably has less to do with them being homosexual specifically, but with them being part of a stigmatised minority. This often happens with such peoples (blacks, homosexuals, and Jews are three good examples) because their life experience often leads them to a more profound state of mind. Just to throw out some homosexuals: Leonardo da Vinci, Oscar Wilde, Tchaikovsky.

 

[Brutuskend]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
I really don't know how to answer that. It's not from a religious stand point since I'm NOT religious. All I can say I guess is that to ME, it just doesn't "feel" right. But then my father was a minister when I was growing up so even though I have rejected organized religion maybe some of my early background is still buried back there deep where I can't touch it. Maybe it's generational thing or maybe I just fear it's one more steep into what I consider the over all degeneration of the U.S. as I knew it.

I really don't know. I just know that for me it seems wrong for whatever reason....

Ah.... OK.

FWIW, sorry for 'attacking' you earlier. There's just something about being told that it'd be a good idea for me to leave the country that gets me pissed off.

Are you still here? I thought we told you to leave the country!

I was never saying he SHOULD leave the country. I was just offering a alternative that would solve the problem. And I STILL think it would be GREAT.
And by that I don't mean for us but for THEM.

When you look at it, other than religions, how many other groups of people are there with so many "Member' with a like agenda that could band together and pull something like this off.

Well I guess there are computer geeks.

Maybe WE could all band together and start OUR own country. GEEKATOPIA, where torrents rule the air waves, computer games are FREE FOR ALL and computer CODE IS the national language!

FLAT SCREEN LCD'S FOR ALL!!!!


( I would still like a apology for the crack about my dog. :brokenheart: )

 

[eits]

gay marriage has nothing to do with me.... so, i'm for it.

gay marriage has about as much to do with religion as does a non-christian marriage.... practically nothing.

there's a huge difference between marriage in the eyes of God and marriage in the eyes of the state.

 

[mattpegher]

As a point of interest, has anyone heard any offical explanation by the Bush administration as to why they are against gay marriage, more than "the sanctity" argument.

 

[GeekDrew]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
I was never saying he SHOULD leave the country. I was just offering a alternative that would solve the problem. And I STILL think it would be GREAT.
And by that I don't mean for us but for THEM.

When you look at it, other than religions, how many other groups of people are there with so many "Member' with a like agenda that could band together and pull something like this off.

Well I guess there are computer geeks.

Maybe WE could all band together and start OUR own country. GEEKATOPIA, where torrents rule the air waves, computer games are FREE FOR ALL and computer CODE IS the national language!

FLAT SCREEN LCD'S FOR ALL!!!!


( I would still like a apology for the crack about my dog. :brokenheart: )

I just don't see your proposal as being remotely appropriate. Religion, et al, usually has a fairly extensive agenda to push for, and banding together in a unique geographical area would be somewhat logical in that case. But really, I only know of three milestones on the gay agenda:

1) Acceptance by the general public
2) Equality in marriage
3) A decent lunch

... and that's about it. That's not that much, and I think that we'll have all of that in the coming few decades. Just look at how much more open and accepting the nation already is about it...

Oh, and you'd be surprised just how many members of the gay community are also members of the computer geeks community.

Oh, and the crack about your dog was meant to bother you; it wasn't directed toward your dog. I already apologized, but... sorry for... whatever else.

 

[Sonikku]

Gays should have the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us.

 

[LukeMan]

Originally posted by: mattpegher
I am married and straight but I have a few gay coworkers and I have yet to hear one good argument against allowing them to marry. With the government so up in a huff about this issue, I just can't see their justification.

why can't a human marry a horse?

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: huberm
homosexuality is wrong. Likewise, homosexuals are looking for marriage as a way to make them feel like what they are doing is ok.

As you can tell, I strongly oppose gay marriage.

Solid argument, flawless reasoning.

lol

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Tom
who will wear the pants ?

Just like a traditional marriage, the one who "plays" the woman will!

 

[zacharace]

Originally posted by: Stunt
There isn't a good reason for gays not to marry.

There also isn't a good reason why our state needs to recognize who our partners are. Marriage should not be part of our government in any shape or form. Bush wants an ammendment to the constitution banning gay marriage...*newsflash* the constitution doesn't even mention marriage...period. Libertarians and Democrats should unite and get marriage out of our states, end the merging of church and state and end the gay marriage debate for good.

Took the words right outta my mouth.

 

[MBrown]

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2

Originally posted by: Savij

Originally posted by: paulney
As long as they don't try to bring up kids in their 'family', I'm fine with that

I know, I feel the same way about christians.

LOL, FTW!

NO, FTL!!

Marraige was an institution created by God for man and woman to become one. God did not create homosexuals so the thought of homosexuals getting married shoudn't even exist.

 

[Cabages]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I also don't think it is "obviously preferable" that a child grow up heterosexual, rather than homosexual. If you think about it, a huge amount of our cultural heritage was created by homosexual males. Fewer gay people in society would be a disaster. You would see an invariable cultural stagnation and decay.

Holy ******, I have to admit I laughed when I saw that.

You think the world is going to fall apart without gays?

What huge amount of our cultural heritage are you talking about?

I dont see how it would be such a disaster. I know I would be happier without gays. I dont know how you thought this up, it just made me see how diluted some people can be.

 

[Buck Armstrong]

Originally posted by: Cabages

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I also don't think it is "obviously preferable" that a child grow up heterosexual, rather than homosexual. If you think about it, a huge amount of our cultural heritage was created by homosexual males. Fewer gay people in society would be a disaster. You would see an invariable cultural stagnation and decay.

Holy ******, I have to admit I laughed when I saw that.

You think the world is going to fall apart without gays?

What huge amount of our cultural heritage are you talking about?

I dont see how it would be such a disaster. I know I would be happier without gays. I dont know how you thought this up, it just made me see how diluted some people can be.

I don't think I'd be any "happier without gays", because I just don't give a sh*t what other consenting adults do in private. But I agree that statement was a bit extreme. So there'd be a few less artists, actors, designers, and wedding planners, no Six Feet Under, the L Word, Queer Eye, musicals, or Liza Minelli fans, and San Francisco would be a ghost town. But it certainly wouldn't be a "disaster to society" IMO. I'm pretty sure we'd live. Our culture wouldn't stagnate, it'd just be a little less fabulous.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: LukeMan

Originally posted by: mattpegher
I am married and straight but I have a few gay coworkers and I have yet to hear one good argument against allowing them to marry. With the government so up in a huff about this issue, I just can't see their justification.

why can't a human marry a horse?

Mr.Hands... *shiver*

 

[LukeMan]

only plus side I see to homosexuality is that it increases the straight female : straight male ratio
(statistics show % of gay men > % of lesbian women). Not much of a clue how the whole bi-sexual population works into the equation though.

 

[thepd7]

I am against gay marraige because then they would stop sleeping around and spreading aids.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: thepd7
I am against gay marraige because then they would stop sleeping around and spreading aids.

Gay people aren't the largest spreader of AIDS.

 

[LukeMan]

Originally posted by: thepd7
I am against gay marraige because then they would stop sleeping around and spreading aids.

:laugh:

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: LukeMan

Originally posted by: thepd7
I am against gay marraige because then they would stop sleeping around and spreading aids.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

WTF is wrong with you two? You WANT AIDS to be spread?