Gay Marriage Ban?

[Ferno]

disappears for a while

did you miss this part Woody?

[Pandora]

It is possible for children to obtain role models outside the home, from the community. It is also widely understood that this is a weaker option than having both male and female role models (healthy examples, that is) inside the home.

hmm... as far as I remember from my psych degree, it is the other way round. No matter if there is both a father and a mother, from a certain age onward (basically school age) children prefer role models from the outside (i.e. peers) --- but I would need to look that up.

All you have to do to understand this is to look at the statistics of children whose fathers are absent. More of these children go astray: crime, suicide, academic failure, emotional turbulence, low self-esteem, and more.

This comparison is irrelevant --- too many confounds. Families without a father are fundamentally different from a homosexual couple. For instance, number of possible attachment figures (like heterosexual couples, 2 for homosexual couples, 1 for fatherless families). Add to this that in fatherless families there usually is much dissatisfaction, sadness (depending on why the father is absent) and other problems (e.g. less income because one person has to split her time between work and caring for the child, less time for the child for the same reasons). All these problems do not apply to homosexual couples, and they could well be the reason for your above statistics. Conclusion: If you want to compare, you need to control for these variables...

Sex is part of the picture. Sex is indispensible to the creation of the children in the first place.

Agreed. But there are many adopted kids in heterosexual couples that are biologically unable to procreate. And because they are also allowed to get married, the ability to procreate cannot be a factor that defines marriage.

Sex keeps the married couple stable: when things are working as intended, neither partner will seek sexual solace outside their marriage. Sex increases the bond between the parents: their level of intimacy, of emotional connection, the depth of their love for one another and their commitment to the family. Sex ties both parents to the children by bonds of biology as well as love.

homosexual couples also have sex, but I guess, this is not the point you want to make. Still, sex (the act) is not a variable that differentiates between homosexual and heterosexual couples.

So it is for homosexuals. I'm sorry, but their family life can never be a whole cat. They CANNOT procreate with their sexual partners. They cannot have both sexual faithfulness AND biological offspring.

This is the same for many heterosexual couples (i.e. those who can't have children for various reasons). Still, they are allowed to get married (thank god).

They cannot have natural sexual intercourse: the parts do not fit.

hmmm ... i never saw my parents having sex. And what is natural and what is not is up for debate (e.g. they are also gay animals). And my gay friends would disagree that the parts do not fit

They cannot supply both male and female role models to children from within their sexual relationship, because they don't involve both genders.

as kufyit said, there's a difference between gender and sex. Even same sex people can supply male and female role models if they have different genders.

These are all lacks. (...) Homosexual relationships, at their best, still come up short of the ideal of marriage.

Given your above arguments, they're not lacks, because none of them holds water. You could still be right, though, but you would have to find some relevant scientific/statistical data (as, for instance, kufyit did).

some edits, to clear up the arguments...

[Tyranny]

For kuf...

sex Pronunciation Key (sks)
n.

1.
1. The property or quality by which organisms are classified as female or male on the basis of their reproductive organs and functions.
2. Either of the two divisions, designated female and male, of this classification.
2. Females or males considered as a group.
3. The condition or character of being female or male; the physiological, functional, and psychological differences that distinguish the female and the male. See Usage Note at gender.
4. The sexual urge or instinct as it manifests itself in behavior.
5. Sexual intercourse.
6. The genitals.

gen·der Pronunciation Key (jndr)
n.

1. Grammar.
1. A grammatical category used in the classification of nouns, pronouns, adjectives, and, in some languages, verbs that may be arbitrary or based on characteristics such as sex or animacy and that determines agreement with or selection of modifiers, referents, or grammatical forms.
2. One category of such a set.
3. The classification of a word or grammatical form in such a category.
4. The distinguishing form or forms used.
2. Sexual identity, especially in relation to society or culture.
3.
1. The condition of being female or male; sex.
2. Females or males considered as a group: expressions used by one gender.

In this context Sirian is using 'sex' correctly. Just an FYI

Also, Ferny, homesexuality has never dissapeared at any point in time and history. The homosexuals don't just simply 'go away'. However, they have 'hidden' when it has been beneficial for them to do so because the consequences of their behavior was MUCH harsher then it is today. So, they practiced their sexuality in secret and some, as illustrated by people over the last century, decided it best to engage in heterosexual behaviors, even starting whole families, while secretly being homosexual.

A lot of times homosexuality in history hasn't been labeled properly. Earliest cases of homosexuality, such as with the greeks, were in fact bi-sexual behavior. Atleast in males, with females it was forbidden but still secretly practiced of course. Males pleasured themselves but they also recognized that it was between a man and woman that families were formed and in doing so had the frame of mind that while amongst males homosexuality was accepted, it did not exceed the importance of heterosexuality.

Today the scenario is a little different as what we classify as homosexuals totally prefer their same sex and mostly have no interest in the other. There are of course those that are bi-sexual and prefer to engage in sexual activites amongst their same sex but still...

Homosexuality or bi-sexuality has been a constant in human history. However it has never bi-passed the importance of heterosexuality in human history as well. Not because it wasn't given a chance to, but because it simply isn't the means in which the vast majority form families and raise the future. In which case I feel they will never be on equal footing as heterosexual married couples and/or families, but they can come close if they play their cards right.

Lets not relapse into a civil rights arguement to counter what I've said either. I get tired of hearing it.

[Will Robinson]

...The importance you're placing on sex and sexuality in the home is an exaggeration. It simply doesn't have any relationship to the social development of a child.

Maybe in theory, on paper, or even in a perfect social vacuum....like a controlled labratory enviroment *BUT* try and tell that to an eight year old who brings the more masculine of his two-gay-mommies to the cubscouts father-son camping trip! Wow, what a great time he'll have the rest of his school days!

You guys really are trying hard to not acknowledge that being a man and having a male father...you know, the whole testosterone-alpha male-role-model-thing is an intergral part of the development of half of the population of the planet!!!
But hey! If we can all just come together and just totally ignore something like that maybe we can fast track this whole thing because you can't wait around for the natural process to unfold.

[Sirian]

All these problems do not apply to homosexual couples, and they could well be the reason for your above statistics. Conclusion: If you want to compare, you need to control for these variables...

The burden of proof lies with those who want to upset the established order.

Agreed. But there are many adopted kids in heterosexual couples that are biologically unable to procreate. And because they are also allowed to get married, the ability to procreate cannot be a factor that defines marriage.

This thinking involves the same logical fallacy that kufyit insists on forwarding. You cite exceptions to the ideal as proof against the ideal. But you are missing the essential ingredient. It is called the KISS principle. Keep It Simple and Straightforward.

The definition of marriage is simple.

MARRIAGE, n: 1.a. The state of being husband and wife; wedlock. b. The legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife.

HUSBAND, n: A man joined to a woman in marriage; a woman's spouse.

WIFE, n: A woman married to a man.

Source: The American Heritage Dictionary


The definitions are better kept simple for a host of reasons too painfully obvious to elaborate here. You should not mistake the simplicity of definition for the simplicity of function.

Marriage has earned its exalted place in our society for the totality of reasons that I have named. Homosexual unions cannot rise to meet that totality, so they do not deserve to be identified as marriage. They may warrant validation of another sort, but that is another issue.


- Sirian

[kufyit]

Tyranny, no he isn't.

The distinction between sex and gender involves the realm of society. The social consequences of homosexual families, both on a personal and general level, are what Sirian and I are discussing. Therefore, gender is the appropriate term to use.

[Tyranny]

Either one works. It's a matter of semantics and this just goes to show you're overlooking the bigger picture of his arguement. Instead you look like you're just hellbent on nitpicking the smaller points to avoid answering his questions.

[kufyit]

I have answered his questions. And it was he who brought up the issue by saying that sex was an important aspect of child rearing, and I said that sex is NOT an important aspect of child rearing, that it is indeed gender that we're debating, and that the belief that both genders are required to produce a healthy child is, to say the least, debatable.

I know that Sirian values precision and encourages clear communication.

If he indeed meant sex, then he makes no sense. How can the sex of a parent affect the development of a child? It is clearly the gender roles that come along with sex that have a more debatable role to play.

I thought he was talking about gender, and I provided a link that showed that homosexual families raise children to be as healthy as heterosexual ones. What else should I do?

[Pandora]

The burden of proof lies with those who want to upset the established order.

heh. In this case this rule applies to you but not me. You equated fatherless families to homosexual couples adopting a child. Somehow I do not believe that this equation is part of an established order. I rather think that it is established not to compare 'apples and oranges'. So, actually, you would have to prove that yours is a valid comparison and adress my counter-arguments.

But you want proof that homosexual couples are as good in parenting as heterosexual couples? Have you read the study kufyit cited (down in the Conclusions section):
"Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth."
Note that this is published by the APA, not some tabloid. Given what I know of psychological science that gets APA approval, I bet the studies they refer to have used adequate control groups (i.e. matched for age, income, emotional stability and so on).

This thinking involves the same logical fallacy that kufyit insists on forwarding. You cite exceptions to the ideal as proof against the ideal. But you are missing the essential ingredient. It is called the KISS principle. Keep It Simple and Straightforward.

I really don't see the fallacy. First of all, I do not see that the instances i brought up are exceptions. Has anybody ever argued that heterosexual couples without the ability to procreate should be probited from marrying? Not that I know of. If it was an exception, there should be some itchy feeling to the thought of those couples getting married. At least I don't feel it.
Second, even when I follow your logic, it does not follow that homosexual couples should be excluded from marrying. According to you, couples that want to get married although (1) they don't want to have children and (2) couples that want to get married although they are not able to have children are exceptions to the ideal. Yet, somehow, you don't want to make an exception for homosexual couples. Why not?
This suggests that the ability to procreate has nothing to do with the ideal of marriage. This also show's in your KISS definition. I can't find a mention of the ability to procreate in it --- so what am I missing?

The definition of marriage is simple.
MARRIAGE, n: 1.a. The state of being husband and wife; wedlock. b. The legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife.
HUSBAND, n: A man joined to a woman in marriage; a woman's spouse.
WIFE, n: A woman married to a man.

Even bringing up this definition is tautological. What we're basically arguing is whether one should relax the above definition. By citing it, you're saying that we should keep it because of the definition. A little circular, isn't it??
Also I think the above definition could be even closer to your KISS principle if it would be relaxed. For instance, you could then replace "The legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife" with "The legal union of two persons." Simpler, isn't it? At least it needs less words to be explained.

You should not mistake the simplicity of definition for the simplicity of function.

Marriage has earned its exalted place in our society for the totality of reasons that I have named. Homosexual unions cannot rise to meet that totality, so they do not deserve to be identified as marriage. They may warrant validation of another sort, but that is another issue.

Simplicity of function?
The totality of reasons?
In your posts up till now there are two functions that you associate with marriage that homosexual couples cannot fulfill, both of which do not seem to be very strong.
(1) the ability to procreate --- As said above there are exceptions to this rule already. You would at least have to explain why you discrimate against homosexuals by not allowing a similar exception to be made for them.
(2) parenting --- the scientific data does not support your idea that homosexual couples would bring up 'worse' children than heterosexual couples.

[Tyranny]

How can the sex of a parent affect the development of a child? It is clearly the gender roles that come along with sex that have a more debatable role to play.

Again, you're arguing semantics. When someone talks about a persons sex and you're arguing that the gender is more important and therefor is abviously what he meant to say, that to me is nitpicking. You knew what he meant the whole time. The difference between someones gender and someones sex isn't so vast that one needs to correct someone else when either term is being used.

You're technically arguing apples and apples. To me that makes no sense.

[TheCops]

i prefer no carrot.

For yourself, personally? Or for society?


- Sirian

hey!
i just thought we were looking out for ourselves now. am i confused? i thought we were pulling our bootstraps up?

if that is the direction... i don't want to pay for your children.

[Bold Deceiver]

Do you believe that to deprive a child of a mother or a father is inconsequential to the child?

ame gender parents don't necessarily deprive a child of anything.

Oooooooo, so close. The answer is, Same Gender Parents Necessarily Deprive a Child of Either 1) A Mother or 2) A Father.

That makes your answer evasive and incorrect (a pattern is developing here), because under such circumstances, depriving a child a mother or a father is not inconsequential.

Your response, however, appears to be just that.

BD

[Bold Deceiver]

First of all, the SEX of a human being is very different than the GENDER of a human being.

Is it just me, or are we really reaching here, for anything, anything at all, to deny the fact that children are, as a general proposition, better off being raised by a Mom and a Dad.


BD

[kufyit]

You're a skimmer. If you had read, you would know why I made the distinction. Yay for you.

[Bold Deceiver]

You're a skimmer. If you had read, you would know why I made the distinction. Yay for you.

Actually, I've read it twice. I apparently don't have the same appreciation for nuance that you're embracing here.

Yay for obscurity.

BD

[Pandora]

Oooooooo, so close. The answer is, Same Gender Parents Necessarily Deprive a Child of Either 1) A Mother or 2) A Father.

The diffentiation between sex and gender is totally relevant here. Sex refers to the biological organs a person has. Gender refers to the role they take and how they behave. This is quite clearly stated that in the usage note of gender that Tyranny omitted in his citation.

(...) in recent years the word (gender) has become well established in its use to refer to sex-based categories, as in phrases such as gender gap and the politics of gender. This usage is supported by the practice of many anthropologists, who reserve sex for reference to biological categories, while using gender to refer to social or cultural categories. According to this rule, one would say The effectiveness of the medication appears to depend on the sex (not gender) of the patient, but In peasant societies, gender (not sex) roles are likely to be more clearly defined. This distinction is useful in principle, but it is by no means widely observed, and considerable variation in usage occurs at all levels.

Because we're arguing father and mother ROLES here, gender is the relevanta term. Because, if somebody is a woman (sex) but behaves like a man (gender) she can still be father figure for the child.

[sheepdog]

Because we're arguing father and mother ROLES here, gender is the relevanta term. Because, if somebody is a woman (sex) but behaves like a man (gender) she can still be father figure for the child.

I agree Pandora, many men today behave in ways that my father's generation would have identified as womanly or motherly and yet they are wonderful fathers. It's a question of what parents do, not the reproductive apparatus that they are equipped with while they are doing it.

[Tyranny]

heh, talk about confusion over something so simple. Sex and Gender both go hand in hand, both are used in defining the other but both also in the short term can be defined as the same thing. My point was that it doesn't help the debate any by getting tied up in an issue of semantics when you know exactly what a person is meaning when they use either term. As soon as Sirian used 'sex' in the context he did you should know exactly what he is talking about.

Anyways, that classification is all fine and good, but it still is, as it said, only in principle. It takes a little bit more then just 'acting' like a man to be a man. Even a man who acts 'womanly' wouldn't be considered a healthy 'mother' figure. So why you would believe it swings the other direction is beyond me.

It's still a matter of arguing apples and apples when you're talking about the majority of the population. A woman who acts like a man still isnt't a true father figure no matter how much you'd like to believe that were the case.

[Zuruck]

Just because you have a "father" figure, that doens't mean it's good. Think about it, an abusive alcoholic father is still a father, but is he a good one? So you have a same sex marriage, and that person is a loving, caring person that wouldn't hurt a fly, who is better? The man that beats the piss out of everyone and is still a man or the better family person? I'm probably shooting into the dark here, i've been out of htis conversation for awhile and not sure where it's at right now.

But I do know one thing, BD said he was a lawyer, I don't believe him.

[Testiculese]

Why does Sirian assume marriage automatically means children?

[Will Robinson]

Just because you have a "father" figure, that doens't mean it's good. Think about it, an abusive alcoholic father is still a father, but is he a good one?...

But most fathers *aren't* abusive alcoholics. If even a majority of them were you might have a small point but since most fathers *aren't* abusive you can't compare the two scenarios 1) the slight chance that a father won't be a positive influence with 2) the absolute certainty of a child who wont have a father figure influence.

Of course if someone believes that one of two-gay-mommies can fill the shoes of a daddy, in the real world, then I guess one can believe whatever they want...

It's truly laughable that people can't bring themselves to admit that in todays culture the father figure is not replaceable by a lesbian.

The transition to accept a gay union as a traditional marriage will be a long, long journey. I understand that it starts with people speaking out, trying to change the hearts and minds as they are doing now but it is counterproductive to try and force feed it to the world.

[Sirian]

In another thread, Testi had this to say:

Oops, I see the brain-dead found the thread.

In this thread:

Why does Sirian assume marriage automatically means children?

The solution in both cases is the same: more carefully read the thread.


- Sirian

[Testiculese]

Read'em. You seem to want to deny gay marriage based soley on children. You're posts have moved closer and closer to this throughout the thread. What does gay marriage have to do with children? For those who can't propegate naturally, it makes these two seperate issues. (How many would want to adopt anyway, is there any poll?)

It could always be ruled that gay couples couldn't adopt kids. I know I would not want to be raised in a gay household, and it would be unfair to subject a child to that environment without consent.

btw, I did not attempt or succeed in the derailing of the thread through ineptness, but ok, thanks for the comparison anyway.

[Sirian]

I did not attempt... derailing of the thread through ineptness

This remark is inept. If one attempts to derail a thread, that would be sabotage. If one derails a thread through ineptness, then there is no attempt.

You seem to want to deny gay marriage based soley on children.

Let's come at this from another angle.

If we could fix homosexuality, would we? I don't mean in mature adults, or even teens. I mean in the embryo or the fetus, or the one year old child, or maybe even the seven year old child. If we could isolate the cause of homosexual attraction before puberty makes sex an issue, and we could reverse the process so a homosexual person instead experiences normal sexual attraction to the opposite sex, would we do it? Should we do it? If so, why? If not, why not?

If homosexuals could change, would they? If so, then it's not a choice, but a defect, and an undesired one at that. If not, then it IS a choice and they should stop hiding behind the excuse that it isn't, because given the choice, they would choose to remain the way they are.

If it is a defect, then we should treat it as a defect, as a mental illness, as a physical handicap.

If it is their choice, then they should stand up and take responsibility for the choice they have made, including acceptance that they have chosen an abnormal role for themselves, one that will not bring the same social contracts and recognitions.


Choices matter, even for those who, for reasons beyond their control, never really had a choice in the first place.


- Sirian

[Pandora]

If homosexuals could change, would they? If so, then it's not a choice, but a defect, and an undesired one at that. If not, then it IS a choice and they should stop hiding behind the excuse that it isn't, because given the choice, they would choose to remain the way they are.

This dichotomoy is wrong on various levels:
1. If they would change homosexuality is a defect? Why? Imagine a person who doesn't like her/his face who decides to get plastic surgery. Does this mean that his/her ugly face is a defect? Imagine a guy who'd rather be a woman --- is his masculinity a defect? I'd just say it is how nature made him/her.
2. If they would not change if they could it is a choice? How so? Just because I would accept death when it comes, death is not a choice.

[Zuruck]

You're right Will, the number of abusive fathers is very low, but so is the number of lesbian "fathers". There isn't this overwhelming number of them, and you know what, there are probably more abusive fathers that don't get turned in because they feel strict punishment is necessary. I got enough of it when I was a kid, I'm sure we all did, but do you, would you do it to your kid? I don't know...

Anyways, sorry for the slight hijack, I'll stay quiet.

[Pandora]

Of course if someone believes that one of two-gay-mommies can fill the shoes of a daddy, in the real world, then I guess one can believe whatever they want...

It's truly laughable that people can't bring themselves to admit that in todays culture the father figure is not replaceable by a lesbian.

I agree that a lesbian can never be the same as a father. But I'm not so sure whether it could not be something completely different but just as good with regard to the development of the child? At least the data from the study mentioned above suggest this.

The transition to accept a gay union as a traditional marriage will be a long, long journey. I understand that it starts with people speaking out, trying to change the hearts and minds as they are doing now but it is counterproductive to try and force feed it to the world.

I agree completely.

[Dedman]

How can the sex of a parent affect the development of a child? It is clearly the gender roles that come along with sex that have a more debatable role to play.

Again, you're arguing semantics. When someone talks about a persons sex and you're arguing that the gender is more important and therefor is abviously what he meant to say, that to me is nitpicking. You knew what he meant the whole time. The difference between someones gender and someones sex isn't so vast that one needs to correct someone else when either term is being used.

You're technically arguing apples and apples. To me that makes no sense.

A personâ??s gender and a personâ??s sex aren't necessarily the same. Using the definitions provided by Tyranny, a personâ??s sex defines their biological classification as it relates to reproduction. It defines the "plumbing" if you will. Gender on the other hand defines the personâ??s sexual identity as it relates to how they view themselves in the context of society.

I have always viewed sex to be a mechanical difference and gender to be a psychological one. Most of the time the two agree but they don't have to.

A study of hermaphrodites gives a good view of this. There are many that are born with both male and female reproductive organs. Often the parents choose which sex the child will be and have the "other" parts removed. However, there have been many cases where the physical sex of the person is opposite from the gender that person identifies with.

It is not the 'norm' for sex and gender to disagree but you have to acknowledge they it can happen.

My dos centavos.

[Sirian]

I'd just say it is how nature made him/her.

Nature can't make a defect? That's absurd. You are experiencing Political Correctness run amok.

Defect, n. The lack of something necessary or desirable; deficiency.

If they would not change if they could it is a choice? How so?

If you could give them the choice, even if only in hypothetical form, then it becomes a choice.

Just because I would accept death when it comes, death is not a choice.

If you could be given the choice to live on instead of dying, and you still chose death, then death would be a choice.

Those who are "proud" of being gay are making a choice. Those who are "ashamed" of being gay are making a choice. The choice lies in what they believe, what they think, what they feel, and how they live. Maybe they do not get to choose their urges and attactions, but they can and do choose whether to view their condition as a defect or as an asset.

Either way, their condition is not an asset to society.


- Sirian

[Fusion pimp]

Call 'em what they are...Sodomites. Gay is a politically correct term that only weakens the title to something more palatable, for an aboslutely filthy action.

[TheCops]

hah.
like most married couples don't go up the crack once in a while. it's the "new" virginity for gawds sake.

[Fusion pimp]

I can't speak for most(any?) other married couples and it makes me sick to hear couples talk about their sex life. I think it's disrespectful to the spouse. but,under the circumstances I will proudly boast that I have never gone "up the crack".

[Gooberman]

So you have never done the upsidedown bumble bee?

[Fusion pimp]

Haha!

[MehYam]

Either way, their condition is not an asset to society.

- Sirian

Says who? I happen to get a lot of laughs out of Will & Grace.

[Birdseye]

A lot of gay guys just suck dick.

[Fusion pimp]

LOL!

[TheCops]

all joking aside (i thought the up the crack tangent was perty funny )....

can we define what a sodomite is? not like dictionary definition necessarily... but like in your rule book i live by. because... i always thought oral sex was considered sodomy down south.

hell if i'm giving up oral sex to protect the institution of marriage. welcome to the ***EEEEEEEEYYYYYYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!*** of the game show buzzer.

the whole thing could be settled if no one was “rewarded” for their personal relationships.

[Gooberman]

all joking aside

Wait wait, we are all joking around.....with like sex jokes and stuff... and theCops wants to get us back on track?

[TheCops]

i liked it better before the edit mr gooberman. would you prefer i go to the salon for an ambush makeover? maybe change my style?