Gay Marriage

[deepred98]

Because the gays will then break into our homes and fuck each other in the ass in our living rooms while we try to watch 24 and eat our tv diners... duh

 

[Stunt]

I don't support gay marriage because I don't support straight marriage. As an advocate of minimal government I am critical, but not necessarily opposed, to all government institutions, services and jurisdiction. I'm not exactly sure how marriage certification became state jurisdiction but it was a mistake and should be privatized; people can proclaim their love in any way they want. Public ceremonies, at their place of worship, or just with family members.

Personally I advocate gay relationships for selfish reasons. a) the more people who are gay, the more likely dumbass hicks will realize they are normal people (maybe even family) and will stop the biggotry. b) Lets face it...gay guys are typically more attractive than lesbian women. I am more than willing to have two less guys as competition when looking for a girl than the opportunity to date a ***. c) Population control, we are overpopulated as is. More sword fighting and clam diving means less children...lol

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: bobcpg
The best rational to NOT let them marry in the eyes of the Gov't is because the Gov't have a duty to make sure we grow and prosper. Like it or not, 2 men or 2 women can not have a baby together. Yeah, women can get artificially pregnant but science proves, as an overall effect, it is best for human kids to grow up with parents of both genders, not to mention its not natural.

link please.

that claim is patently false. The only studies to look at such a thing have shown that by-and-large, children raised by same-sex couples tend to fair significantly better that those raised by an equal sample of hetero couples.

Using science with "prove" simply shows your inability to scrutinize such studies, let alone the interests groups that feed you such misreported data.

I'd like to see some of these studies. I don't doubt your claim, it's purely for my own edification, and a point I was considering the last time gay marriage was debated here (last week, maybe? It's been so long...). And the point is this:

There's no test for becoming a parent through sexual intercourse. You don't have to put your personal or professional life up for scrutiny to impregnate someone, nor to be impregnated, nor to carry a fetus to term, nor to give birth (well, barring potential harm to the mother or fetus, or in the case of people with developmental disabilities who are impregnated though legally unable to consent to sex). Anyone can have a baby in our society through sex; it's part of living in a free society, and why would we want to stop that?

But gays don't have children through sex (in most cases). Lesbians can use invetro fertilization to conceive, a process which carries strict background checks. Lesbians and gay men alike can also adopt, the route through which most gay couples end up with children. The standards for adoption vary from agency to agency, but every agency has some form of testing to determine whether a potential adoptive family represents a nurturing environment for a child. Often, these tests are extremely thorough, involving looking at a potential family's employment, personal life, educational background, history (criminal records, for example), and every minute detail you can think of. Because many agencies are very selective, the smallest "problem" can effectively ruin a couple's chance to adopt.

What's my point? Well, my point is that because adoptive parents are put through a rigorous screening process that does not exist for birth parents, one would expect that adoptive families would show a higher level of success when raising children. You would also expect a slightly higher level of success because you can't accidentally adopt someone, while we all know about the prevalence of accidental pregnancies; all adoptive parents want to be parents.

Now, the crux of the issue. Since gays and lesbians are largely limited to adoption to get children, we would expect that gay and lesbian families would show slightly higher levels of success than straight couples who conceived the natural way. Obviously success as a family is hard to define, and it really depends on what metric you use, but given that adoptive parents are more likely to be good parents and gays and lesbians are adoptive parents more often than not... well, you make the logical jump.

Is it true? I have no idea. Which is why I'd like to see these studies. What a blow to the notion of "one man, one woman," for a successful family if it is.

PS - :beer: to Harvey for handing me my very first ban on the AT forums (justifiably so), then lifting it so quickly upon further review. The great moderation is just one more reason I like these forums. Keep up the good work! And just so we're clear, no, this is not meant as sarcasm.

Not to rain on your parade of thoughts.....
But the concept that as you put it-- the notion of "one man, one woman," for a successful family if it is.<-----has been shot down a long time ago...

Only the religious bigots continue to attempt to use this as a litmus test....

 

[OCGuy]

I dont care if gays adopt, but you cant tell me there arent mental/social issues for children without one strong member of each sex in their life. (This could obviously be an aunt or uncle as well).

I remember in Highschool, the girls with the daddy issues were the easiest pickings. I knew a few guys with absent mothers as well, and they were a little off.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Not to rain on your parade of thoughts.....
But the concept that as you put it-- the notion of "one man, one woman," for a successful family if it is.<-----has been shot down a long time ago...

Only the religious bigots continue to attempt to use this as a litmus test....

Well that's true. And given that the religious zealots are willing to believe in young Earth creationism over the scientifically tested theory of evolution, I suppose no amount of scientific study will convince them that homosexuality is anything but evil. But these are the same morons who pick and choose which parts of the Bible they want to follow and which they can ignore, so fuck 'em.

Still, it would be nice to have that scientific proof to throw back in someone's face when they said the "natural way" of raising children was superior.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Still, it would be nice to have that scientific proof to throw back in someone's face when they said the "natural way" of raising children was superior.

The natural way may or may not be "superior" to the vetting process homosexual couples must undergo in order to have children, but it is as you said what nature intended.

I am not an active opponent to homosexual marriage but I don't see why it is such a big issue for them that they must push for the term marriage since they know it gets the goat of those who are religious...if they were just looking for the same protections and freedoms that married people have without the "name brand" I would be alot more indifferent, but the fact that they make such a stink about the term marriage being a "right" is what turns me off to their "cause" as it seems less about getting said rights and more about rubbing it in the nose of others.

Then again if polls are right they are a tiny section of the population overall so who cares anyway.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: bozack

I am not an active opponent to homosexual marriage but I don't see why it is such a big issue for them that they must push for the term marriage...

It's about the Constitutional guarantee of equal rights.

"Separate but equal" is NOT equal.

~ Plessy v. Ferguson

 

[whylaff]

Full Faith and Credit Clause...

 

[irishScott]

Because people are stupid.

Personally I don't care. At worst being gay is a result of a genetic/environmental accident. I don't mean any disrespect by that, just a cold hard fact. If the whole world was gay the human race wouldn't be able to reproduce through natural means. It is therefore the definition of unnatural.

I'M USING A DIFFERENT CONNOTATION OF THE WORD "NATURAL"!!! OMG DANGER WILL ROBINSON!!!

In any case, I say let them marry if they like. I'm Deist, so I don't have any beliefs about what God does and does not want beyond vague generalities. I've yet to see a truly secular/practical argument against gay marriage.

Now when it comes to gay couples raising heterosexual kids, I start having problems.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Still, it would be nice to have that scientific proof to throw back in someone's face when they said the "natural way" of raising children was superior.

The natural way may or may not be "superior" to the vetting process homosexual couples must undergo in order to have children, but it is as you said what nature intended.

I love this one. "What nature intended"... An argument embraced by the religious right when gay marriage or abortion is the topic of discussion, but conveniently ignored when talking about evolution or how God made us to be the greatest of all his creation. If conservatives are so desperate to protect the natural order of things, how come you find so few of the religious right actively involved in the conservation movement? Or is conservation just unnatural? They deny evolution, so you can't even claim that they're in favor of destroying habitat so animals can evolve quicker... Maybe they're just trying to hasten God's will.

And what did nature intend anyway? I was lucky enough to travel to the Galapagos Islands in 8th Grade. The archipelago is a haven for seabirds, a place where many species go to breed and raise their chicks as it is free from land-based predators. We happened to go during the season when the boobies and albatross were rearing their chicks (there is little in the world uglier than a moulting albatross). Our guide, Rolondo, had grown up in Ecuador and had been a tour guide in the Galapagos since his teens. The depth of knowledge he had about the particulars of the species endemic to the islands was fascinating, as was his ability to recall stories about virtually any species of bird making off with a tourist's hat.

On the first day, we visited Genovesa, where we were delighted to find a colony of Blue Footed Boobies. Rolondo was busy telling us about the mating habits of the birds, and happened to pick out a couple nearby engaged in a courtship dance. While we stood fascinated by the bizarre display, Rolondo began to laugh. As he mustered the words to address our confusion, he began with, "Well, I don't want to offend anybody, we occasionally get some Americans who aren't comfortable with this... these birds are both male."

I, being raised by lesbians and accompanied by a lesbian, was not shocked. But some of our party were, at this point, incredibly confused. "Wait," asked an elderly British man. "Are we to understand that these birds are... homosexual?" "Of course," replied Rolondo, "It's actually surprisingly frequent in the mating pairs that we see in the boobie populations." Obviously his use of the term "mating" was a bit suspect, but the point was clear; boobies have caught "the gay."

So it's clear that homosexuality exists in nature outside of humans. But we're not just talking about homosexuality now, are we? We're talking about gays raising offspring. That's a whole different bag of worms. And for that, I'm going to take us 100 miles south, to the island of Española.

We visited Española on our last day in the islands, to visit the colonies of albatross raising their chicks. Rolondo told us how albatross are one of the few species on Earth that mate for life. Despite spending months apart at sea, albatross can return to the same breeding grounds and remember their mate through an intricate dance the two duplicate. And, like the boobies, some albatross are totally gay.

As we walked along the path, large albatross nests and ugly, ugly albatross goslings (or whatever the hell they're called) on either side of us. Rolondo stopped us in front of an empty nest, dismayed that the pair that shared it were not around. Apparently, one of the breeding pairs of albatrosses had met with an unfortunate fate; it is unknown if one or both parents had died, or simply flown off, but for whatever reason, a young albatross was abandoned before it could fend for itself. Normally this equals a dead albatross chick. But apparently, one of the gay couples, unable to lay fertile eggs, had taken it upon themselves to raise the chick. The gay albatross adopted a baby to keep it from dying.

Gay adoption exists in nature.

So, getting back to that question of what "nature intends"... What, pray tell, does nature intend? To reproduce and pass on genes? Gays aren't going to do that anyway, and they exist in species besides humans, so it's not purely a question of free will. If nature intends that genes are passed on, then a gay couple raising a straight baby to reproductive age is more in line with what nature intends than if that baby were to die, wouldn't you agree?

But that argument is academic anyway, since, when it comes down to it, nature doesn't intend anything. We like to attach intention to the workings of the world because we ultimately all would like a satisfactory answer to the question, "Why are we here?" that doesn't contain, "random chance." But nature doesn't intend anything for us. It doesn't intend anything for the boobies. It doesn't intend anything because nature is just a word that we use to describe the overwhelming complexity of a diverse biosphere that we simply cannot grasp. Life doesn't have a purpose. It doesn't need one. The purpose is ours.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: bozack

I am not an active opponent to homosexual marriage but I don't see why it is such a big issue for them that they must push for the term marriage...

It's about the Constitutional guarantee of equal rights.

"Separate but equal" is NOT equal.

~ Plessy v. Ferguson

Pst, Harvey... you wanted this one. Plessy established separate but equal, Brown v. Board of Education overturned it.

But Harvey's point is accurate; the 14th Amendment does state that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The equal protection clause has been cited to overturn separate but equal, it was cited repeatedly during the civil rights movement to overturn miscegenation laws, and now it can be the rallying cry of the queer movement.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: bozack

I am not an active opponent to homosexual marriage but I don't see why it is such a big issue for them that they must push for the term marriage...

It's about the Constitutional guarantee of equal rights.

"Separate but equal" is NOT equal.

~ Plessy v. Ferguson

Pst, Harvey... you wanted this one. Plessy established separate but equal, Brown v. Board of Education overturned it.

But Harvey's point is accurate; the 14th Amendment does state that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The equal protection clause has been cited to overturn separate but equal, it was cited repeatedly during the civil rights movement to overturn miscegenation laws, and now it can be the rallying cry of the queer movement.

I suggest you check out the minority opinion on Plessy

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: bozack

I am not an active opponent to homosexual marriage but I don't see why it is such a big issue for them that they must push for the term marriage...

It's about the Constitutional guarantee of equal rights.

"Separate but equal" is NOT equal.

~ Plessy v. Ferguson

Pst, Harvey... you wanted this one. Plessy established separate but equal, Brown v. Board of Education overturned it.

But Harvey's point is accurate; the 14th Amendment does state that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The equal protection clause has been cited to overturn separate but equal, it was cited repeatedly during the civil rights movement to overturn miscegenation laws, and now it can be the rallying cry of the queer movement.

I suggest you check out the minority opinion on Plessy

There is no reason for harvey to check anything out....it was just a monority opinion and Seperate but equal does not apply when people try to use it in this manner...just like it did not apply to the black community...

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: bobcpg

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: bobcpg
The best rational to NOT let them marry in the eyes of the Gov't is because the Gov't have a duty to make sure we grow and prosper. Like it or not, 2 men or 2 women can not have a baby together. Yeah, women can get artificially pregnant but science proves, as an overall effect, it is best for human kids to grow up with parents of both genders, not to mention its not natural.

Going with this logic, the Gov't has basis to encourage marriage between 1 woman and 1 man.

Remember, when arguing issues like this one, logic has no emotion. While I believe everyone should have broad and equal freedoms in the US logic wins out this time.

Total BS...

We don't have any problem with under population in the US so that's out the window.
Where is your proof kids are better in a man+woman relationship?
It's not natural in your opinion. There's a lesbian woman where I work who got invetro (sp?) would disagree with those bigoted views.

We don't have any problem with under population in the US so that's out the window.

Exactly my point, why do you think we do not have a population problem? Do not think we are immune to it.


It's not natural in your opinion. There's a lesbian woman where I work who got invetro (sp?) would disagree with those bigoted views.

IV is a medical procedure, its not natural, simple as that. I'm sure she is a nice lady and all that but there you go with emotions getting in the way.

I highly doubt that letting gays get married would cause a decline in the population.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
I don't understand any of the logic behind the opposition to gay marriage.

Government has no business legislating morality. Sure, it can make recommendations (eg eat these foods, exercise, etc etc) and encourage certain behaviors, but it should not outlaw behaviors that harm exactly no one.

So what are the arguments against gay marraige? Marriage is the union between a man and a woman? That's a religious argument and if the local church does not want to sanctify the marriage, that's their prerogative. Gays pay taxes and deserve as much benefit from the government as do heteros that pay taxes.

Gay marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage? So does divorce and adultery, why aren't these things illegal. You have to take the argument to it's logical conclusion, elsewise, it's just pure discrimination.

So what exactly is the argument that gays should not marry? How is logically sound?

Homophobia is another form of bigotry.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: irishScott
Because people are stupid.

Personally I don't care. At worst being gay is a result of a genetic/environmental accident. I don't mean any disrespect by that, just a cold hard fact. If the whole world was gay the human race wouldn't be able to reproduce through natural means. It is therefore the definition of unnatural.

In any case, I say let them marry if they like. I'm Deist, so I don't have any beliefs about what God does and does not want beyond vague generalities. I've yet to see a truly secular/practical argument against gay marriage.

Now when it comes to gay couples raising heterosexual kids, I start having problems.

Your logic is poor on both points.

1. Is it natural for someone to be born unable to reproduce? Is it natural for someone to be born deaf or blind?

Of course it is. You are using a far too narrow definition of 'natural'. There's a reason countless animal species have homosexual activity.

Yes, if all people were hmosexual, it's be more challenging to perpetuate the species (not impossible as you say). But that's part of the situation - most are heterosexual.

The fact of homosexuality as a natural condition in a small percent of people does not threaten the speciies. It is entirely natural - and it's always existed.

You need to correct your 'unnatural' claims.

2. You have a problem with gay couples raising heterosexual kids because of bigotry and ignorance.

You have to ignore the countless studies showing gay parents do just as well, you have to ignore the rights of the gay parents, happily treating them as second class citizens and robbing them of the right to have one of the biggest things people do so that you can 'feel ok' about it, and you have to ignore the well being of the countless kids in need of adoption, willing to leave them in foster care and worse. You are not using the facts for your position, but irrational emotion.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: irishScott
Because people are stupid.

Personally I don't care. At worst being gay is a result of a genetic/environmental accident. I don't mean any disrespect by that, just a cold hard fact. If the whole world was gay the human race wouldn't be able to reproduce through natural means. It is therefore the definition of unnatural.

Now when it comes to gay couples raising heterosexual kids, I start having problems.

homosexual animals are created by nature. They may not be able to reproduce, just as any other sterile-born animal, so how is that unnatural? It is a part of nature. It always has been.


When you consider the hopps and hurdles that a homosexual couple must go through to adopt a child, it has become rather common knowledge (well...factual, despite how many interest groups choose to ignore the reality of the situation and base their "fact" on assumptions), that homosexual couples not only raise well-balanced heterosexual kids, but tend to do so on a more successful basis than the ave. heterosexual couple.

The single most important thing for a couple to pass on to their kids when it comes to relationship and sexuality, is LOVE.

You're more than welcome to see that how you want, but you'd be going against the cold hard facts if you believe that homosexual couples are any threat to raising children.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: loki8481
the root of the argument against gay marriage is that some/many breeders find the idea of gay sex to be icky.

I do find gay sex icky, just as you find hetero sex icky. I also find the term "breeder" to be ridiculously moronic.

Of course, I have no problem with gay marriage, or gays in general. I have gay friends, gay relatives, whatever. Doesn't mean I have any desire to stick my wang up their butts. It's absolutely disgusting to me.

Pretty much all straight people find the notion icky (again, no different than your notion of hetero sex), ...and so your comment is idiotic.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: loki8481
the root of the argument against gay marriage is that some/many breeders find the idea of gay sex to be icky.

I do find gay sex icky, just as you find hetero sex icky. I also find the term "breeder" to be ridiculously moronic.

Of course, I have no problem with gay marriage, or gays in general. I have gay friends, gay relatives, whatever. Doesn't mean I have any desire to stick my wang up their butts. It's absolutely disgusting to me.

Pretty much all straight people find the notion icky (again, no different than your notion of hetero sex), ...and so your comment is idiotic.

No, it's not. His comment is right. From talking to so many on this, most I talk to who oppose gay marriage, IMO, are motivated in part by their 'ick' reaction to gay sex.

So he's right on. Your ability to have the 'cik' reaction, which I agree is the norm for heterosexuals, from your position on their right to marry is good, but not universal.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: bobcpg
The best rational to NOT let them marry in the eyes of the Gov't is because the Gov't have a duty to make sure we grow and prosper. Like it or not, 2 men or 2 women can not have a baby together. Yeah, women can get artificially pregnant but science proves, as an overall effect, it is best for human kids to grow up with parents of both genders, not to mention its not natural.

link please.

that claim is patently false. The only studies to look at such a thing have shown that by-and-large, children raised by same-sex couples tend to fair significantly better that those raised by an equal sample of hetero couples.

Using science with "prove" simply shows your inability to scrutinize such studies, let alone the interests groups that feed you such misreported data.

I'd like to see some of these studies. I don't doubt your claim, it's purely for my own edification, and a point I was considering the last time gay marriage was debated here (last week, maybe? It's been so long...). And the point is this:

There's no test for becoming a parent through sexual intercourse. You don't have to put your personal or professional life up for scrutiny to impregnate someone, nor to be impregnated, nor to carry a fetus to term, nor to give birth (well, barring potential harm to the mother or fetus, or in the case of people with developmental disabilities who are impregnated though legally unable to consent to sex). Anyone can have a baby in our society through sex; it's part of living in a free society, and why would we want to stop that?

But gays don't have children through sex (in most cases). Lesbians can use invetro fertilization to conceive, a process which carries strict background checks. Lesbians and gay men alike can also adopt, the route through which most gay couples end up with children. The standards for adoption vary from agency to agency, but every agency has some form of testing to determine whether a potential adoptive family represents a nurturing environment for a child. Often, these tests are extremely thorough, involving looking at a potential family's employment, personal life, educational background, history (criminal records, for example), and every minute detail you can think of. Because many agencies are very selective, the smallest "problem" can effectively ruin a couple's chance to adopt.

What's my point? Well, my point is that because adoptive parents are put through a rigorous screening process that does not exist for birth parents, one would expect that adoptive families would show a higher level of success when raising children. You would also expect a slightly higher level of success because you can't accidentally adopt someone, while we all know about the prevalence of accidental pregnancies; all adoptive parents want to be parents.

Now, the crux of the issue. Since gays and lesbians are largely limited to adoption to get children, we would expect that gay and lesbian families would show slightly higher levels of success than straight couples who conceived the natural way. Obviously success as a family is hard to define, and it really depends on what metric you use, but given that adoptive parents are more likely to be good parents and gays and lesbians are adoptive parents more often than not... well, you make the logical jump.

Is it true? I have no idea. Which is why I'd like to see these studies. What a blow to the notion of "one man, one woman," for a successful family if it is.

PS - :beer: to Harvey for handing me my very first ban on the AT forums (justifiably so), then lifting it so quickly upon further review. The great moderation is just one more reason I like these forums. Keep up the good work! And just so we're clear, no, this is not meant as sarcasm.

Yeah, that, I think, tends to be one of the prevailing causes for the high degree of success.

Don't forget, though, that gays can have children through in vitro, and often do, so the screening is not always so rigorous.

Honestly, I think the biggest lesson to get out of these studies (sorry, no link yet--but this stuff has been out for quite some time), is that it really isn't the sexuality of the parents that matters, but the example of a solid relationship that they project. Sure, there are disasters with gay relationships just as there are those with straight couples, but a committed gay couple, by and large, tends to have a stronger bond, and quite a bit more backbone than the ave straight couple.

Their world isn't an easy one. getting to that point later in life, now raising kids together, they've seen a lot. They've dealt with prejudices that the majority haven't ever experienced. Being that they are out, and with kids, shows a rather serious level of commitment.

Again, Love is really all that matters as a parental example. Most kids, especially these days, are exposed to things that the previous generations have never seen. They aren't as sensitive to what the previous generations consider problems. Kids aren't as dumb and impressionable, past a certain age, as many would want us to think. They tend to be pretty good at drawing out the proper lessons from the examples they are given.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
I dont care if gays adopt, but you cant tell me there arent mental/social issues for children without one strong member of each sex in their life. (This could obviously be an aunt or uncle as well).

I remember in Highschool, the girls with the daddy issues were the easiest pickings. I knew a few guys with absent mothers as well, and they were a little off.

eh...so these are kids raised by straight parents, single or not. ....really doesn't apply the way you think it does.

The issue here is a dysfunctional parent/absent parent. You're trying to argue that this is somehow akin to having a two-parent household, with gay parents, and being just as sketchy as this dysfunctional straight household.

Does. Not. ....Compute.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Not to rain on your parade of thoughts.....
But the concept that as you put it-- the notion of "one man, one woman," for a successful family if it is.<-----has been shot down a long time ago...

Only the religious bigots continue to attempt to use this as a litmus test....

Well that's true. And given that the religious zealots are willing to believe in young Earth creationism over the scientifically tested theory of evolution, I suppose no amount of scientific study will convince them that homosexuality is anything but evil. But these are the same morons who pick and choose which parts of the Bible they want to follow and which they can ignore, so fuck 'em.

Still, it would be nice to have that scientific proof to throw back in someone's face when they said the "natural way" of raising children was superior.

Allright, so I guess the American Psychological Association would be considered a legitimate source.

Quick conclusion

Tons of resources and it collects all of the major studies.

Of course...someone here is bound to label the APA a "liberal machine founded for the sole purpose of destroying God and America."

 

[zerocool84]

I just think it's funny that the same black people who are for equality with civil rights and all are the same people who voted down the gay marriage prop. At least that's how it was here in Cali.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: irishScott
Because people are stupid.

Personally I don't care. At worst being gay is a result of a genetic/environmental accident. I don't mean any disrespect by that, just a cold hard fact. If the whole world was gay the human race wouldn't be able to reproduce through natural means. It is therefore the definition of unnatural.

In any case, I say let them marry if they like. I'm Deist, so I don't have any beliefs about what God does and does not want beyond vague generalities. I've yet to see a truly secular/practical argument against gay marriage.

Now when it comes to gay couples raising heterosexual kids, I start having problems.

Your logic is poor on both points.

1. Is it natural for someone to be born unable to reproduce? Is it natural for someone to be born deaf or blind?

Of course it is. You are using a far too narrow definition of 'natural'. There's a reason countless animal species have homosexual activity.

Yes, if all people were hmosexual, it's be more challenging to perpetuate the species (not impossible as you say). But that's part of the situation - most are heterosexual.

The fact of homosexuality as a natural condition in a small percent of people does not threaten the speciies. It is entirely natural - and it's always existed.

You need to correct your 'unnatural' claims.

2. You have a problem with gay couples raising heterosexual kids because of bigotry and ignorance.

You have to ignore the countless studies showing gay parents do just as well, you have to ignore the rights of the gay parents, happily treating them as second class citizens and robbing them of the right to have one of the biggest things people do so that you can 'feel ok' about it, and you have to ignore the well being of the countless kids in need of adoption, willing to leave them in foster care and worse. You are not using the facts for your position, but irrational emotion.

Fine, I used a different connotation of the word "natural" for the purposes of that post. Sheesh. Calm the fuck down. :roll:

I never said anything about threatening the species.

Oh yes, I'm an ignorant bigot now am I; and thanks for the amateur psychological analysis. You really opened my mind. :roll:

And actually my reasons are very rational, but I sure as hell don't see the need to explain them to you. That said, as you're so big on specifics, I'd like to see some "countless links" to these studies you mention.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: loki8481
the root of the argument against gay marriage is that some/many breeders find the idea of gay sex to be icky.

I do find gay sex icky, just as you find hetero sex icky. I also find the term "breeder" to be ridiculously moronic.

Of course, I have no problem with gay marriage, or gays in general. I have gay friends, gay relatives, whatever. Doesn't mean I have any desire to stick my wang up their butts. It's absolutely disgusting to me.

Pretty much all straight people find the notion icky (again, no different than your notion of hetero sex), ...and so your comment is idiotic.

No, it's not. His comment is right. From talking to so many on this, most I talk to who oppose gay marriage, IMO, are motivated in part by their 'ick' reaction to gay sex.

So he's right on. Your ability to have the 'cik' reaction, which I agree is the norm for heterosexuals, from your position on their right to marry is good, but not universal.

But that's just it....Most do have the ick factor. But that alone certainly is not what causes the prejudice.

To me, I can only imagine that it comes from some in-born hate. And as another poster mentioned, the antiquated and very real notion that homosexuality=child molestation.
Hell, once it was no longer "cool" to use the Bible as an excuse to hate on Blacks, the fundies had to latch on to some other boogie man to keep their hate-fueled life forces flowing.

I think we all have this "ick," on either side. therefore, the greatest opposition must come from elsewhere.