DescentBB

Posted: **Mon Nov 15, 2004 12:59 pm**

kufyit wrote: Homosexual relationships (the issue we're discussing) deserve validation because they are:

Consensual

Between two human beings

Between two adults

Healthy and functional

I don't think anyone is suggesting homosexual relationships aren't valid, more like they don't just automatically fit in with the traditional marriage and should have their own form of 'validation' since the institution of marriage was invented to validate one man and one woman and is founded in religion which teaches such a distinction.

By the way, the American Psychological Association isn't exactly a great source in my mind.

They published a study that concluded that children usually do not suffer "intense psychological harm" from childhood sexual abuse. The study recommended re-defining sexual abuse: An encounter between a "willing" child and an adult should be called "adult-child sex", not "child sexual abuse". Their study found that an 8-year-old child could consent to sex! Don't you think an association of professional psychologists that promote such a thought might be a little out of touch with reality?!?

Posted: **Mon Nov 15, 2004 1:03 pm**

A link would be nice. Where did you see this?

Posted: **Mon Nov 15, 2004 2:07 pm**

I've changed now, and I no longer care about my mother. But at the time, I would have given my entire life for just one night of just sitting on her lap wrapped in a blanket and just fall asleep with her like a normal kid. I did those things with my dad, but I wanted a mother too. I wanted a normal family. How do you talk to your dad or two dads about feminine stuff......Geez it was hard.

If I was all-powerful, I would allow lesbians and gays to live together and be protected by law, but I would never allow them to adopt children. never, never, never. What do you think it's like being a kid and ridiculed in school because you have two mothers or two fathers.. You never outgrow the embarrassment and it's not fair to them like it wasn't fair to me.

I understand about breakups where you have only one parent, but at least it's not embarrassing.

Bettina

Posted: **Mon Nov 15, 2004 2:22 pm**

Will Robinson wrote:By the way, the American Psychological Association isn't exactly a great source in my mind.

They published a study that concluded that children usually do not suffer "intense psychological harm" from childhood sexual abuse. The study recommended re-defining sexual abuse: An encounter between a "willing" child and an adult should be called "adult-child sex", not "child sexual abuse". Their study found that an 8-year-old child could consent to sex! Don't you think an association of professional psychologists that promote such a thought might be a little out of touch with reality?!?

uhm, Will, the APA is THE accepted organ of psychological research. Check this out:
http://www.apa.org/about/

If they publish such a study it just shows that they don't have any bias, the way good science should be carried out (not the way Bush proposes). And if they published this study, you would also need to look into how many OTHER studies they published that argued with the claims of this one study. As kufyit said, a link would be nice.

Posted: **Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:50 pm**

kufyit wrote:What does this phrase "worth as much to society" mean? Is the primary function of a relationship supposed to be calculated in terms of the larger benefit to society?

We're talking about society PROMOTING relationships and behavior by enshrining certain types of relationships as socially validated institutions unto themselves.

What is society's interest? The children. We need children to be born. We need them to be raised in the most stable environment possible. Preferably, this means raised by both biological parents in a traditional nuclear family. If you can, please point me to the study showing that, statistically, some other situation besides two biological parents in a stable marriage does a better job of raising children to healthy adulthood.

Unmarried couples are more likely to split. If they have children, this means a lower likelihood of a stable nuclear family situation. Promoting that is NOT in a society's interest.

Homosexual couples cannot reproduce naturally. They may adopt, or one partner may have sex with a third party and produce a child. In either case, the child will have at most one biological parent in the home. Promoting that is NOT in a society's interest, except in the case of some adoptions, where the child will clearly be better off with responsible and loving adoptive parents of ANY kind who want to parent that child, than the child would be without a loving guardian.

Single women who have children out of wedlock have a much harder time supporting them than do married couples. This leads to women on the dole, taking handouts from the government. Not always, but more so than with marriage. Poverty, instability... On a statistical level, it is simply NOT in a society's interest to promote promiscuous premarital sex.

The advent of reliable birth control and safe abortion has changed the balance of this equation somewhat, and most importantly, liberated women from having to choose between sex and everything else. These improvements have upset thousands of years of societal balance, however, and not all of the results are positive and beneficial. We have a lot of careful thinking to do. We need to find a new balance, and we MUST make sure that the end product does not unravel what may turn out to be essential ingredients for the survival of our civilization.

Marriage is a difficult thing to make work. It takes compromise from both sides and it requires a lot of maturity. Birdseye said that the debate boils down to whether we believe that a homosexual relationship is worth a heterosexual one. The answer to that is clear. On a personal level, it's nobody's business, but from the viewpoint of society, whose interests lie with promoting the best possible environments for raising children, the heterosexual marriage stands above all other family relationships.

Committed, faithful, monogamous homosexual domestic partnerships may indeed be healthy, but they are not AS healthy for children as a nuclear family.

These arguments about marriage as an aspect of religion are red herrings. The institution of marriage predates all major religions, and so do the reasons why marriage deserves to be exalted above all other family relationships.

This isn't about civil rights. This is about survival of our civilization over the long haul. Please note that I am not against legal protections for gay couples. I am against calling their relationships "marriage".

kufyit wrote:There is no reason that accommodating homosexual relationships necessarily means accommodating polygamy, polyandry, or anything else."]

I agree. However, you have not made your case for why validating homosexual relationships as equal to marriage is in society's interests. Frankly, you can't prove that, because it isn't true. You CAN prove that it is healthy in some instances, and that in some instances it may be the best option available for a specific child, but you cannot prove that on the whole these relationships are as good for children as are heterosexual marriages on the whole.

I repeat, the reason that marriage is exalted above all other relationships, by societies, is that they best serve the interests of our children. That is something we ought to protect and promote, even though the generality does not hold true in every instance. Overall, it does, and we must acknowledge this.

kufyit wrote:I personally believe that a relationship with three or four or however many partners has the potential of being just as healthy as any traditional one
Absurd.

Firstly, in a one to one relationship, both partners enjoy important forms of equality. Once you throw in multiple persons, somebody becomes odd man out. Even if they are happy in that inferior position, it is not healthy for them.

Secondly, multiple men on one woman leads to uncertainty about the biological father of the children. Today we have paternity tests that can, with nearly 100% accuracy, determine who is the real father, but this does not alleviate the problems involved. There are base instincts involving jealousy, broken commitments, and violence, when it comes to procreation, and ignoring these currents is dangerous. Statistically, men are far more likely to take responsibility for their biological offspring than those of somebody else.

Thirdly, multiple women on one man leads to infighting over heirs to property and power. History is replete with examples of polygamy among rulers, and equally replete with examples of scheming women committing everything all the way up to murder to further the interests of their biological offspring over the children of their rivals. To even begin to claim that polygamy is as healthy for children as monogamous marriage is beyond the pale.

Finally, and NOT insignificantly, it is important to society to maintain as close a balance between men and women as possible. Multiple partnerships will automatically gravitate toward polygamy, which will leave numerous men without hope of obtaining a mate. This causes a host of problems.

kufyit wrote:I personally believe that a relationship with three or four or however many partners has the potential of being just as healthy as any traditional one
Not for the children. No way in Hell.

kufyit wrote:What does the sexuality of adults have to do with the love and nurturing a child receives?
Biology. The biological parents are, on the whole, the best guardians of the children. There are exceptions, but society has two sets of responsibility here. One is to enshrine into its culture a support system that promotes the BEST POSSIBLE environments for its children. The other is to put into place secondary support systems to pick up the pieces and salvage as much as possible for the children who fall through the cracks of the primary support system.

Frankly, gay marriage advocates are acting in a whining, selfish manner. They don't have society's interests at heart. They don't have childrens' interests at heart. They are only looking out for themselves. That's their prerogative, but their interests do not come before those of our children.

Should homosexuals be free of discrimination? Yes. Should they be free of intimidation? Yes. Should they have the right to behave as they please in their own homes? Yes. Should they enjoy certain legal rights, such as hospital visitation and probate? Yes. Should they automatically be given pensions and the like, to have society pay benefits to the spouse as is done with marriage? Maybe in some cases. If the homosexual partnership is a family unit involving legal custody of children or having raised children to adulthood, then this service to society should be rewarded, but otherwise, perhaps not.

Do homosexual relationships ever warrant being equated to marriage? No.

kufyit wrote:Laughable. What does this mean? There are millions of relationships like that. We all have them.
I'm pointing out the slippery slope when it comes to the finances. A large part of this gay marriage push is a money grab. Homosexuals want to secure the same financial benefits that acrue to marriages. Yet why do they deserve these benefits? Society must draw a line somewhere. Does the mere fact that homosexuals have sex with each other entitle them to financial benefits attached to marriage? If not, then WHY do they deserve marriage benefits that are not acruing to any other non-marriage relationship?

Two men sharing an apartment may be a family, but they won't get marriage benefits. If they should start to have sex with each other and claim to be gay partners, all of a sudden they start to collect the bling bling? I don't think so.

kufyit wrote:Why should relationships necessarily be quantified in terms of "value" to the society at large?
On a personal level, they should not. Individuals are individuals, and they can defy the statistics. We are not talking about individuals, though. We are talking about societal institutions. The value of relationships to society is the only valid measurement for whether or not to promote that kind of relationship and the manner in which to do so.

Marriage deserves an exalted place above all other forms of family.

kufyit wrote:You know, back in the day, when we were debating whether or not interracial marriages were "good for society," some of the more crude "scholars" suggesting that allowing interracial marriage was similar to, or would lead to, the requirement of allowing bestiality.
Those claiming that sex with another race is similar to bestiality were denying the equality and humanity of individuals of another race. They were wrong. Science has proven that all human races are one species, and that biologically, we are the same. I have not denied the equality and humanity of homosexuals. Nor have I said anything about "allowing" homosexuals to form any relationship they please. The question on the table is whether or not to call their relationships "marriage".

kufyit wrote:There is NO connection between the gay rights issue and any of these insulting absurdities you so verbosely illustrate.
You are mistaken. There is one connection.

The practitioners of all of these forms of sexuality seek to be allowed to practice their sex as they see fit, and to be tolerated and even validated for it by society.

There are three aspects to sex:
* Procreation
* Physical pleasure
* Emotional intimacy

Society's main interest lies with procreation. This is so essential, our survival as a species depends on how successfully we manage it. Until the current century, our danger was more in underpopulation than in overpopulation. At one point in our genetic history, there were as few as one thousand of our kind left on the planet. Those few survivors somehow managed to hold on and increase their numbers, but it was a long hard slog, and the institutions and beliefs they adopted that made this possible are not to be rewired lightly or for transient reasons.

kufyit wrote:How does this example have anything to do with the issue at hand? Are we talking about beastiality? This is a pointless and, to be frank, degrading example. There is no connection between the issue of functional homosexuality in society and what is so obviously severe mental illness.
"So obviously" mental illness?

Why is bestiality mental illness? How is it different than having sex with a vibrator or a blow-up doll? Or are these also forms of mental illness, in your view?

Be careful, Scott. You are tetering on the edge of unraveling your entire position.

kufyit wrote:It's a clever and slimy tactic of the skeptical to dehumanize this issue.
Is that what you think that I have done?

kufyit wrote:Homosexual relationships (the issue we're discussing) deserve validation because they are:

Consensual

Between two human beings

Between two adults

Healthy and functional

I agree. However, these relationships do NOT deserve the same level of validation as marriage, because on the whole and all other things being equal, they are indisputably NOT as healthy for children as is a marriage.

- Sirian

Posted: **Mon Nov 15, 2004 4:13 pm**

Will Robinson wrote:My daughters see a husband who loves there mother in a way that re-enforces the traditional foundations of family that they learn about and see other families enjoy.

Oh c'mon will. You and I both know that your daughters learn everything from TV.

Sirian wrote:I agree. However, these relationships do NOT deserve the same level of validation as marriage, because on the whole and all other things being equal, they are indisputably NOT as healthy for children as is a marriage.

All other things aren't equal. Consider this: a gay couple does not have the societal push to hastily get married like so many young couples do nowadays. Which means that it's more likely that a gay couple is more likely to be highly dedicated to their partner on average than younger traditional couples, which means that they're more stable, and that IS healthier for the children.

Posted: **Mon Nov 15, 2004 4:52 pm**

Tetrad wrote:Oh c'mon will. You and I both know that your daughters learn everything from TV.

You'd be surprised at how much I try to combat the influence of Nickelodeon etc....but yea, they do get a lot of input from the outside and that sort of underscores why the pro-gay-marriage-at-any-cost crowd needs to deal with that 'cost' before just jumping through whatever politically correct hoop happens to be hoisted by the self-satsifying-culture-rebels-without-a-clue.

The politically correct have a tendancy to throw out traditional values on a whim and then replace them with nothing!
A vacuum isn't possible, something fills it everytime.

Posted: **Mon Nov 15, 2004 7:30 pm**

If we allow gay marriage.Then what? Father and daughter they love each other. Mother and son they love one another. Brother and sister, there is a moral code at question here,not religious.

Posted: **Mon Nov 15, 2004 7:50 pm**

Bold Deceiver wrote:
Birdseye wrote:I think the previous poster illustrates the problem with arguing with a dogmatic belief.
I think your post in response illustrates the problem of projecting Forrest's uneducated view on those who, for dissimilar reasons, come to similar conclusions.

BD

Posted: **Mon Nov 15, 2004 7:57 pm**

Bold Deceiver wrote:
sheepdog wrote:
The children of my lesbian friends have a mother and a father. The father doesn't live in the home with them, but is a positive part of their lives . . . .
Answer the question. All things being equal, and in the event of your untimely demise, would you prefer your infant child to be raised by heterosexual or homosexual parents? Yes or no.

BD

The silence is deafening, Sheepdog.

BD

Posted: **Mon Nov 15, 2004 7:59 pm**

forrest wrote:
Bold Deceiver wrote:
Birdseye wrote:I think the previous poster illustrates the problem with arguing with a dogmatic belief.
I think your post in response illustrates the problem of projecting Forrest's uneducated view on those who, for dissimilar reasons, come to similar conclusions.

BD

Sorry forrest. I'm not actually "evil", per your emoticon. I think you'd find we agree more than we disagree.

BD

Posted: **Mon Nov 15, 2004 8:00 pm**

I sorry you need to attack my education, or lack of it.What makes you feel you are in a position to be the expert? I base my opinions on nothing more than my opinions.I am the father of three children all of which are adopted.I tryed to raise them to be open minded adults, With morals and values much like my own.They are now grown and on there own.We dont always see eye to eye . They have been a good form of education.

Posted: **Mon Nov 15, 2004 8:13 pm**

forrest wrote:I sorry you need to attack my education, or lack of it.What makes you feel you are in a position to be the expert? I base my opinions on nothing more than my opinions.I am the father of three children all of which are adopted.I tryed to raise them to be open minded adults, With morals and values much like my own.They are now grown and on there own.We dont always see eye to eye . They have been a good form of education.

You are correct. I apologize for my remarks.

BD

Posted: **Tue Nov 16, 2004 7:40 am**

Good post Sirian. I do take exception with this though:

"Thirdly, multiple women on one man leads to infighting over heirs to property and power. History is replete with examples of polygamy among rulers, and equally replete with examples of scheming women committing everything all the way up to murder to further the interests of their biological offspring over the children of their rivals. To even begin to claim that polygamy is as healthy for children as monogamous marriage is beyond the pale." Sirian

If your surmise is correct then the muslum faith should be in shambles. Since Islam has endured for thousands of years I would suggest you re-think.

Posted: **Tue Nov 16, 2004 9:27 am**

woodchip wrote:If your surmise is correct then the muslum faith should be in shambles. Since Islam has endured for thousands of years I would suggest you re-think.

That would be hundreds of years, not thousands.

Posted: **Tue Nov 16, 2004 10:49 am**

I would call not progressing into the 21st century along with some of the other religions constituting as 'in shambles'. Not to mention they've been absent from the progression club for the last 800 years

Posted: **Tue Nov 16, 2004 11:00 am**

That someone would suggest that an entire faith is "in shambles" because of the perversions of an extreme minorty saddens me. Solutions will not be borne from such patterns of thought. I think it's fairly obvious that some of us on this board don't know any Muslims.

Posted: **Tue Nov 16, 2004 11:14 am**

If you are refering to my reply, I suggest you reread it very carefully before I biatch slap the both of you for incompetance

Posted: **Tue Nov 16, 2004 11:15 am**

Hey, I haven't seen the majority doing much to distance itself from the 'extreme minority' here. As far as the extremists are concerned, they're all in the same boat. Which is why it makes it so much harder to address the problem.

If you pried yourself from your high moral seat kuf, you might read the sarcasms in my post a little more clearly

Posted: **Tue Nov 16, 2004 11:17 am**

Sirian wrote:I agree. However, these relationships do NOT deserve the same level of validation as marriage, because on the whole and all other things being equal, they are indisputably NOT as healthy for children as is a marriage.

There are some interesting and compelling arguments throughout your post Sirian, and I will reply to them individually later if necessary. However, I believe that this statement is the crux of our disagreement.

There is simply no evidence supporting this claim. Go ahead and look for yourself. The functionalty of a family is not in any way dependant on the sexual orientation and/or the gender of the parents. It isn't even dependent on the number of people involved in the process of rearing. Broken homes happen everywhere, all the time, for reasons much more profound, much more structural, and in many ways much more subtle than your argument would lead one to believe. I know that you realize this, and I understand where you're coming from. However, the argument that somehow, a functional homosexual relationship is not as "healthy" for the child as would be a heterosexual one is not an argument grounded in facts. Any relationship can be either healthy of disfunctional.

My points are as follows:

Your argument regarding the population is doom and gloom fantasy. There is no way that allowing homosexuals the CIVIL RIGHT of marriage will undermine the propogation of our species.
Idealism is not a healthy perspective to approach this problem from. If we want to fix broken homes, we should encourage loving, healthy, honest relationships en mass, as rapidly as possible. There are plenty of children that need to be adopted by loving parents. If allowing homosexuals the right to adopt means that MORE children will become part of a loving environment, then I am all for it.
Parents are NOT NECESSARILY the best gaurdians for their children, and I think that is obvious. There isn't necessarily anything that, by default, makes the biological parent the best one. Of course, we would all want every child to be loved by BOTH their mother and their father for their entire lives. But that isn't always the case, is it?
No one is saying the the "mere fact that homosexuals have sex together" should entitle them to benefits. Does that happen in tradional relationships? No. Is there something about homosexuality that generate an inability to remain committed and faithful? No. Therefore, if two homosexuals want to make the commitment of life to each other, as I will do someday with my girlfriend, then they should be allowed the same economic benefits that Clara and I will enjoy.

Why exactly should homosexual relationships never be equal to marriage?

Posted: **Tue Nov 16, 2004 11:21 am**

woodchip wrote:If you are refering to my reply, I suggest you reread it very carefully before I biatch slap the both of you for incompetance

I wasn't. Your reply made sense for once.

Posted: **Tue Nov 16, 2004 11:29 am**

Tyranny wrote:Hey, I haven't seen the majority doing much to distance itself from the 'extreme minority' here. As far as the extremists are concerned, they're all in the same boat. Which is why it makes it so much harder to address the problem.

If you pried yourself from your high moral seat kuf, you might read the sarcasms in my post a little more clearly

You haven't seen the majority distance themselves because, like me and every other American, you are a victim of the propaganda war. And before you cry foul and say there is no way America is engaged in propaganda techniques against it's population, I would suggest you take a look at every major war in the history of Western civilization (not really, but you get my point). Propaganda is a necessary element of war, because in reality, normal people like you and me and...erm, Woodchip, would NEVER consent to the atrocities of mass warfare if we actually saw, on a daily basis, what that meant.

Have you ever wondered why major cable networks haven't started offering al Jazeera here? It would surely be a hot sell. But it would undermine the war, because the American government would lose control of the content of the news. No longer would we see what "they" wanted us to see. An important one of those things that "they" don't want us to see is the misery wrought on the normal, moderate civilians of Iraq.

Posted: **Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:29 pm**

Ooops, Sorry Bold Deciever. I truly wouldn't have a preference on the basis of sexual orientation. If my lesbian friends could raise my kids in the event that I couldn't, I'd be thrilled.

Unlike a lot of you guys, I have had the opportunity to live in a couple of cities with relatively large, public gay communities. I have had the good fortune to have many gay and lesbian acquaintances and about four or five good friends of the gay/lesbian persuasion. So, I know first hand that as a group gays and lesbians are absolutely no different than heterosexuals with the single minor exception that they like to have sex with same gender partners. I'll spare you the some good some bad some sluts some saints lecture...

edit: just on the basis of pure socializing: conversation, cleverness, taste etc. I'd have to say that I have never had more crazy fun than in the company of gay men. I'm an inveterate fruit fly...

edit edit: The fruit fly thing is probably in some part coming from the same place that my attraction to this board comes from. I'm not partiuclarly good looking and I'm not easy for most men to get along with on a day to day basis, but I really like men all the same. Stuck in this suburban ghetto with women and with the few men I see being dumbass jocks, the DBB is a great way to be with interesting men without being "with" men in some inapppropriate way ya know?

Posted: **Tue Nov 16, 2004 3:46 pm**

kuf, you sir, are a nut. Plain and simple.

kufyit wrote:Propaganda is a necessary element of war, because in reality, normal people like you and me and...erm, Woodchip, would NEVER consent to the atrocities of mass warfare if we actually saw, on a daily basis, what that meant.

Thats why there is the internet. The information found on the internet is not regulated by the United States, as much as they would like anyways. Therefor you can get BOTH sides and make up your own damn mind. Frankly I thought you had a little bit more sense, but you're starting to sound like a loon lately IMO.

As far as things I would consent to regarding mass warfare, you assume WAY too much. I've got a little more gumption when it comes to these things. I don't choke and turn white at the sight of people getting beheaded or some idiot blowing himself up and taking a bunch of children with him.

I've seen much more then you give me credit for and apparently have a better stomach for it then you do. If you're talking strictly of killing being an attrocity then you've lost me because it's WAR, People are going to die.

Now YOU are the pot calling the kettle black though, IMO these attrocities you speak of are the extreme minority. They don't happen on a daily basis, certainly not by us, but then again thats the American propoganda machine filling me with lies right?

This is all off topic anyways. Somehow I had a feeling Sirian's post would sidetrack people who can't seem to visualize the bigger picture.

Posted: **Tue Nov 16, 2004 7:40 pm**

kufyit wrote:Any relationship can be either healthy of disfunctional.

Irrelevant.

Come on, Scott. We're almost there. Shift your focus from the anecdoatal level to the statistics.

What percentage of children raised in stable nuclear families completes high school? What percentage completes college? What percentage stays out of jail? What is the mean income of these children after they grow to adulthood? What percentage of them go on to found stable nuclear families of their own? Gather these numbers, then compare to all other family types. Divorced homes, never-married single parents, adopted children, biological children of a homosexual adult, children raised in orphages or shuffled from one foster family to the next their whole childhood.

SHOW ME THE NUMBERS. If you can show me that any category of family performs better than that of the traditional marriage, you might be able to persuade me to think differently.

Which family structure gets it right the most often? Which has the highest ratio of successful child rearing? I believe the answer is clear.

You challenge me to prove it, but I'm not advocating for change. I'm advocating for sticking with the traditions that have held throughout human history. You are the one arguing for change, therefore the burden of proof falls to you to establish the wisdom of your proposal.

kufyit wrote:Your argument regarding the population is doom and gloom fantasy. There is no way that allowing homosexuals the CIVIL RIGHT of marriage will undermine the propogation of our species.

Do not confuse tolerating homosexuals and their sex lives and family situations with that of enshrining their relationships as social institutions.

Homosexuals DO have a civil right to marry: to marry a person of the opposite sex. That's the same right everybody else enjoys. If they do not wish to exercise that right, they do not have to.

Homosexuals can have their partnerships without calling them marriage. They have special words for their sexual orientation: "gay" and "lesbian". They can have special words for their relationships, too.

kufyit wrote:Idealism is not a healthy perspective to approach this problem from.

Then stop doing so.

If we want to fix broken homes, we should encourage loving, healthy, honest relationships en mass, as rapidly as possible. There are plenty of children that need to be adopted by loving parents. If allowing homosexuals the right to adopt means that MORE children will become part of a loving environment, then I am all for it.

As a secondary support system, yes, I agree. However, more urgent is to fix the primary support system, so that fewer children end up disadvantaged in the first place.

To this end, the "gay marriage" push is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT wrong. Homosexuals are focused on themselves. They want "marriage" to become about them, rather than about the children. In our society, we already have too much focus on what the adults want, and too little on what is best for the children. This matter only further pushes things in the wrong direction.

I realize you don't see that, but are you even looking for it?

kufyit wrote:Parents are NOT NECESSARILY the best gaurdians for their children, and I think that is obvious.

It is also irrelevant. More often than not, the biological parents ARE the best guardians of their offspring, and I think that, too, is obvious.

kufyit wrote:Of course, we would all want every child to be loved by BOTH their mother and their father for their entire lives.

Yes, we would. And to that end, we should push the parents toward embracing that responsibility and reward those who do so. How do we reward them? We exalt their stable marriages above all other forms of relationship. We enshrine marriage as an institution unto itself, so that we inspire our youth to seek out and prefer this arrangement over all others. Oh wait, we already did that, some time back before we even figured out how to codify our languages into written symbols. This one is such a no-brainer, we figured it out before we knew how to make a wheel.

- Sirian

Posted: **Tue Nov 16, 2004 8:03 pm**

Bold Deceiver wrote: All things being equal, and in the event of your untimely demise, would you prefer your infant child to be raised by heterosexual or homosexual parents? Yes or no.

Sheepdog wrote:I truly wouldn't have a preference on the basis of sexual orientation.

Sexual orientation was not the question, but your answer is telling.

Your answer is that you believe that to deprive a child of a mother or a father is inconsequential. My response to your answer is that to so hold, is intellectually dishonest.

Your allegiance to your gay friends is irrelevant to the question whether we as a society should legally ensure that children are deprived from birth of either a mother or a father (to paraphrase someone more articulate that I).

It's not about social niceties, and friends, and fun people to be around. Apart from the many other arguments being made here, it's about children, and the families they grow up in.

BD

Posted: **Tue Nov 16, 2004 8:16 pm**

Sirian wrote:Yes, we would. And to that end, we should push the parents toward embracing that responsibility and reward those who do so. How do we reward them? We exalt their stable marriages above all other forms of relationship. We enshrine marriage as an institution unto itself, so that we inspire our youth to seek out and prefer this arrangement over all others. Oh wait, we already did that, some time back before we even figured out how to codify our languages into written symbols. This one is such a no-brainer, we figured it out before we knew how to make a wheel.

- Sirian

you are a good writer.

i understand the rational... it's just that part about "rewarded" that i don't like. i prefer no carrot.

Posted: **Tue Nov 16, 2004 8:59 pm**

No,Bold Deciever, my experience and friendships are ultra-relevant. What's not relevant is your sophistry. See you guys can spin your hypotheticals until Gdubya ruins the economy but the bottom line is that in American democratic law, justice and utility hold sway. Time and time again, the right and the good have smacked down the kind of foolishness you be talkin' boy. I have no doubt that in good time gays will marry in the United States or the United States won't exist in the form that I have come to know it.

There is no reason to assume that private lives cannot be legislated in a democracy. Laws are created and upheld according to a fairly complex procedure, but simply put most laws are considered in terms of justice and utility. Anyone who has real experience with gays as a group knows that there is nothing about them that would deny them the full rights of American law. My direct experience and my education supports my belief that gay couples fulfill or fail to fulfill the duties of married American citizens in the same ratio as do heterosexual couples. Including them in the group of American Citizens who marry in the eyes of the law will be both just and to the practical good of American society.

If you have any real evidence to the contrary lets hear it, because if it isn't already obvious, the Syrian syllogism isn't cuttin it: If a (he has a penis*) then b(he wants to marry someone else with a penis) therefore c (they're both PREVERTS Bubba!)ain't cuttin it. Neither is the revealed truth "for the bible/Jesus/God told me so, Bubba!."

*Jeezus who put p3nis on the profanity filter list? Hmmmm... vagina, breasts? LOL!

Posted: **Tue Nov 16, 2004 9:19 pm**

TheCops wrote:i prefer no carrot.

For yourself, personally? Or for society?

kufyit wrote:Idealism is not a healthy perspective to approach this problem from.

Also, thanks for the kind words about my writing.

- Sirian

Posted: **Tue Nov 16, 2004 9:30 pm**

sheepdog wrote:[Y]ou guys can spin your hypotheticals until Gdublya ruins the economy but the bottom line is that in American democratic law, justice and utility hold sway. Time and time again, the right and the good have smacked down the kind of foolishness you be talkin' boy.

No one is spinning hypotheticals. We're talking about setting policy. Do you believe that to deprive a child of a mother or a father is inconsequential to the child?

You don't want to address that question, because if you did so honestly, you would find yourself confronted with an uncomfortable complication to the position you hold so dear.

I liked the "you be talkin'" part though. Reminds me of home.

BD

Posted: **Tue Nov 16, 2004 9:49 pm**

And where would home be?

Posted: **Tue Nov 16, 2004 10:05 pm**

...And constructive argument doesn't necessarily work that way, (despite a lot of evidence to the contrary in this thread). Just because you and Will and whoever decide to define same gender parents as a form of deprivation, I am by no means obligated to agree.

So for the record, same gender parents don't necessarily deprive a child of anything. Concurrently, opposite gender parents do not ensure that a child will grow up healthy, wealthy and wise.

Posted: **Tue Nov 16, 2004 11:16 pm**

sheepdog wrote:...So for the record, same gender parents don't necessarily deprive a child of anything....

Well yes, actually that scenario by it's very definition *does* deprive them of something!

Do you not recognize that since mankind crawled out of the primordial soup, or the garden of Eden, that the combination of a man and woman has provided the very ying-and-yang of the family unit?!?

And so in true knee-jerk fashion you refuse to even *consider* the impact of singling out some children to be deprived of that very foundation that family is made of, that which has defined family for hundreds of centuries ?!?
And instead you would sacrifice their shot at a regular family life on the alter of political correctness. You use them to chip away at the foundation of what is the essence of family for so many people.
Hell, these Gays must be very special, very privileged people to deserve such a sacrifice from so many!
And so good of you to take it upon yourself to bring us heathens kicking and screaming to the offering plate you pass around.

Posted: **Wed Nov 17, 2004 1:42 am**

Okay serious question time to you people arguing that kids with gay caretakers would be deprived of a mother and a father.

Personally, it just seems hypocritical to suggest that it should be illegal for gays to marry and presumably adopt kids or go through surrogate parents or whatever, while not suggesting it be similarly illegal to have kids out of wedlock or allow divorce to existing parents. Your response?

Posted: **Wed Nov 17, 2004 1:46 am**

Will, I'm sorry but you're not talking about anything concrete here. I know it's hard to think that two men or two women can produce a child as healthy and as functional as a man and a woman can, but it's true.

What we're talking about here is gender, not sex. Sex obviously has NO implications in the "nuclear" family, as sex by itself is a socially neutral concept. What the argument that you, Sirian, and others are making is that children require BOTH genders in order to be as healthy as can be, and that simply isn't true.

Posted: **Wed Nov 17, 2004 3:37 am**

Tetrad wrote:Personally, it just seems hypocritical to suggest that it should be illegal for gays to marry and presumably adopt kids or go through surrogate parents or whatever, while not suggesting it be similarly illegal to have kids out of wedlock or allow divorce to existing parents. Your response?

From me, at least, there is no hypocrisy. You're making this more complex than it is.

Divorced heterosexuals do not get treated as married people.

Unmarried parents do not get treated as married people.

Homosexuals in gay/lesbian relationships do not get treated as married people, nor should we start to do so. By definition, their relationships are not marriage, just as by definition, divorce is not marriage, single life is not marriage.

Can you point to where I have proposed denying homosexuals the opportunity to adopt? No. Can you point to where I have suggested it should be illegal for homosexuals to engage in their practices and form their relationships? No.

In many places, it IS still technically illegal to engage in homosexual sex, but that's another story, and I would favor disposing of these obsolete laws. We do not enforce them, and when they do get enforced, the enforcement is inconsistent, unequal, unjust, and often merely a vehicle for personal malice from one individual in a position of power against another in a position of weakness. Some things, like the drinking of alcohol, are simply too ingrained in our culture or our nature to be forbidden, and minority subcultures of homosexuality is one of these items.

Heterosexual and homosexual relationships are different. Pregnancy is a primary result of the one, impossible to the other. As much as some folks want to ignore this difference, it exists. The impact of this issue on society is paramount. There is nothing more urgent to a society than how it chooses to handle its children.

Marriage exists as an institution for the purpose of enshrining the ideal family. This includes the total package: healthy sexual relations, limited to monogomy, which prevents the spread of dangerous even deadly venereal diseases; healthy matchmaking for successful procreation; defined roles for all persons involved, offering every individual (in theory) an avenue by which to further their standing and esteem within society; simple definitions that are easy to understand, easy to embrace, and universally accepted in society; social obligations in terms of working to provide necessities for the family, especially for the children; loving support for both adults and children; healthiest possible environment for raising children to adulthood, especially and importantly to guarantee both male and female role models; leadership by example, because children learn from what adults do, not from what they say.

Homosexual relationships at their very best simply cannot match marriage at its best. That's a fact.

Homosexuals exist, however. That is also a fact. They have just as much right as anyone else to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, so long as they do not harm others in these pursuits. They have control over their own bodies. If they choose to engage in procreation, nobody has the right to stop or forbid them. Once the children are born, they must be given every advantage possible. If a stable nuclear family and a traditional marriage is simply not an option for a given child, then it's not an option, and we should find the best available option.

Now hear me carefully. Unless homosexual parents want to face the possibility of the state stripping away their children, to place those children into the homes of heterosexual foster parents or heterosexual couples willing to adopt, then the homosexuals had darn well better get on board with the notion that the biological parents are indisputably the best caretakers of children SO LONG AS they are willing and able to meet their obligations and responsibility.

Gays and lesbians, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you go with the idea that it is preferable for children to be with their biological parents, so long as those parents are loving and caring, then you will enjoy this protection when it comes to your own biological offspring -- BUT you must also logically admit that your homosexual relationships, which by definition cannot include both biological parents, are inferior to traditional marriages, from the children's point of view. ... OR you can go with this "gay marriage" push, and further the idea that the bonds between child and biological parent are unimportant. That will be catastrophic to your interests. The vast majority of society will fight you tooth and nail, because you are directly attacking a core belief of our society: that a competent biological parent is the best caretaker for any child. Challenge that belief at your own peril, for even if you win, you will lose. If our society DOES shift to a belief that biological parents do not matter, you will lose the only protection you have for maintaining custody of your own offspring.

Is a desperate gamble to have your monogamous sexual partnerships viewed as "marriage" by society really worth taking that kind of risk? Look at the level of backlash to the Massachusetts 4-3 decision and the rogue mayor of San Francisco, and think it through, please. This is a civil rights issue only up to a point, and if you cross that line, you may find yourselves entering in to a war that you cannot win.

- Sirian

Posted: **Wed Nov 17, 2004 3:52 am**

It could be argued that being gay is a self-culling part of humanity. It pops up, runs it's course, and then disappears for a while. Mainly because gays can't reproduce on their own.

So when it's gone.. would it really have mattered?

Posted: **Wed Nov 17, 2004 4:12 am**

kufyit wrote:Sex obviously has NO implications in the "nuclear" family

That's ridiculous.

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. 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.

You keep trying to cite exceptions, or act as if some instances where things work out should negate what the wider statistics have to say. Sorry, that's a losing argument.

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

See, you are trying to isolate facts. Let's ignore the children. But no, we can't do that. So let's ignore the sex. Sorry, can't do that either. Nor can you ignore the procreation, nor can you ignore the significance of biological parents.

YES, some of these elements can be missing and there still be a healthy situation. But this is where Drakona's cat analogy comes into play. A cat who loses its tail can still survive. A cat who loses an ear or an eye can still survive. If you are that cat, you do not want to be put to death just because your body is not perfect. You want to live! You want to do the best you can, to have the best that you can.

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. They cannot have natural sexual intercourse: 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. These are all lacks. Does that mean they should not enjoy life and do the best they can and pursue what will make them happiest? No. Does it mean they cannot be good parents or domestic partners? No. Does it mean they should be denied visitation in hospital, or probate upon death of a partner? No. But it does mean that their homosexuality, by definition, shuts them out of what heterosexual marriage at its best can provide.

Homosexual relationships, at their best, still come up short of the ideal of marriage.

- Sirian

Posted: **Wed Nov 17, 2004 11:09 am**

Ferno wrote:It could be argued that being gay is a self-culling part of humanity. It pops up, runs it's course, and then disappears for a while. Mainly because gays can't reproduce on their own.

So when it's gone.. would it really have mattered?

If that were true Ferny, then gays would have died out eons ago.

Posted: **Wed Nov 17, 2004 11:14 am**

Sirian wrote: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. They cannot have natural sexual intercourse: 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. These are all lacks. Does that mean they should not enjoy life and do the best they can and pursue what will make them happiest? No. Does it mean they cannot be good parents or domestic partners? No. Does it mean they should be denied visitation in hospital, or probate upon death of a partner? No. But it does mean that their homosexuality, by definition, shuts them out of what heterosexual marriage at its best can provide.

Homosexual relationships, at their best, still come up short of the ideal of marriage.

Sirian, your emphasis on sex is passionate and, to be honest, ill informed. First of all, the SEX of a human being is very different than the GENDER of a human being. I suggest you look up what the two words mean, as they are NOT the same thing. It is the GENDER roles that provide children with the balance they need to develop "normally" (a point that I am willing to debate), not the sex of the parents. 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.

DescentBB

Gay Marriage Ban?

I am sorry you think im uneducated.

Re: I am sorry you think im uneducated.