Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Best argument against gay marriage I've seen yet.

LGBT Same sex Marriage

  • Please log in to reply
144 replies to this topic

#41 GenesisII

GenesisII

    .

  • Islander
  • 600 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 07:04 PM

Gaiate, on Mar 1 2004, 04:53 PM, said:

But my point is, how do you know that a same sex marriage is worse than an opposite sex one?  Your experience was good growing up.  That's great, so was mine, but it has no bearing on the validity of homosexual marriage.

--Te
Perhaps my opinion comes from the fact that I was born in a time when divorces weren't so well known. I do however think that opposite parents have alot to give which you won't find in same sex parenting.

#42 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 07:14 PM

Uncle Sid, on Mar 1 2004, 06:01 PM, said:

I don't want to used an absurdly extreme example like that without making the point that it's true in the sense that you can't try certain things without immediately taking the damage associated with them.
And that test/experiment has already been done in two ways, on the subject of family structure. One way is history, in the fact that cultures throughout history and in various places filter out the good from the bad, both by choice and by inadvertent natural selection, and the total of that experience is that it's a fact, not just an ethical edict or a gut feeling, that children do better with both kinds of role model at home than without. The other way is that some people even in this culture in this age have been doing things other than the conventional way, and scientific studies of these cases have repeatedly shown that it just doesn't do as well, statistically speaking.

#43 Gaiate

Gaiate

    Spirit Blade

  • Islander
  • 1,003 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 07:16 PM

Uncle Sid, on Mar 1 2004, 07:01 PM, said:

So we have to try absolutely *everything* before we're qualified to comment on it?  That makes no sense.  You might as well say that since I've never been nuked, that perhaps it's not as bad as it's made out to be.

And I don't want to used an absurdly extreme example like that without making the point that it's true in the sense that you can't try certain things without immediately taking the damage associated with them.  You can't try crack cocaine without a reasonable chance you end up an instant addict.  You can't let certain philosophies out of the bag, like Fascism, because they are self-propagating and difficult to stop.  We know this, and yet people still say, "but we know nothing about it!". 

Let's face it, sometimes you have to go with your gut or your ethics and the little that you do know.  You can't trust everything to pure empirical data because obtaining the data is not always safe.

Every example you gave we have something to go on.  We know it's bad to get nuked cause we know what a nuclear bomb does.  We know cocaine is bad, because we see what it does to people.  We know what happens with facism cause we got WWII.

All of what you just said ignores the fact that there has never been anything like homosexual marriage before, and all the related material (such as children growing up with gay parents) suggests that it would be just as normal as any other upbringing.

--Te
"This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is it vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished, as the once vital voice of the verisimilitude now venerates what they once vilified. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose vis--vis an introduction, and so it is my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V." -- V, making an first impression

"Dude . . . that was cool." -- My first impression of V

#44 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 07:20 PM

You're missing the point.  It's not like any of these things hatched upon the world without someone having some concern about them *before* they were implimented.

People knew about Fascism before the war as well.  People also knew that bad stuff would happen before the atom bomb was set off as well.  They knew because they saw the warning signs.  They could read Mein Kampf and see what was there to see.   They could do E=mc2 and see just how many Joules you'd get out of a nuke and what effect that would have, even if their knowledge wasn't exacting.

I'm using these examples of things that we know are bad now from experience to illustrate that they *are* bad.  I can't very well use something that hasn't been done yet to make my point now could I?
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#45 HubcapDave

HubcapDave

    Bald is Beautiful!

  • Islander
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 07:29 PM

Gaiate, on Mar 1 2004, 05:14 PM, said:

All of what you just said ignores the fact that there has never been anything like homosexual marriage before, and all the related material (such as children growing up with gay parents) suggests that it would be just as normal as any other upbringing.

--Te
But how does that jibe with what someone earlier referred to that said that it's been shown that children need fathers as well as mothers (not the anecdote, someone referred to a study, if'n I remember correctly)?

#46 Gaiate

Gaiate

    Spirit Blade

  • Islander
  • 1,003 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 07:44 PM

Uncle Sid, on Mar 1 2004, 07:18 PM, said:

You're missing the point.  It's not like any of these things hatched upon the world without someone having some concern about them *before* they were implimented.

People knew about Fascism before the war as well.  People also knew that bad stuff would happen before the atom bomb was set off as well.  They knew because they saw the warning signs.  They could read Mein Kampf and see what was there to see.   They could do E=mc2 and see just how many Joules you'd get out of a nuke and what effect that would have, even if their knowledge wasn't exacting.

I'm using these examples of things that we know are bad now from experience to illustrate that they *are* bad.  I can't very well use something that hasn't been done yet to make my point now could I?

And what I'm saying is that there are *no* warning signs about gay marriage, other than people having knee-jerk reactions.  Prove me wrong.  What warning signs are you seeing, Sid?

--Te
"This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is it vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished, as the once vital voice of the verisimilitude now venerates what they once vilified. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose vis--vis an introduction, and so it is my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V." -- V, making an first impression

"Dude . . . that was cool." -- My first impression of V

#47 Gaiate

Gaiate

    Spirit Blade

  • Islander
  • 1,003 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 07:47 PM

HubcapDave, on Mar 1 2004, 07:27 PM, said:

Gaiate, on Mar 1 2004, 05:14 PM, said:

All of what you just said ignores the fact that there has never been anything like homosexual marriage before, and all the related material (such as children growing up with gay parents) suggests that it would be just as normal as any other upbringing.

--Te
But how does that jibe with what someone earlier referred to that said that it's been shown that children need fathers as well as mothers (not the anecdote, someone referred to a study, if'n I remember correctly)?

I don't know what you're referring to.  Yes, there have been studies that show having both a mother and a father is a good thing.  No one's disputing that.  What *I'm* saying is there have also been studies saying that children raised by a gay couple are equally well-adjusted.

--Te
"This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is it vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished, as the once vital voice of the verisimilitude now venerates what they once vilified. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose vis--vis an introduction, and so it is my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V." -- V, making an first impression

"Dude . . . that was cool." -- My first impression of V

#48 HubcapDave

HubcapDave

    Bald is Beautiful!

  • Islander
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 07:57 PM

^ Found what I was talking about. handmaiden brought it up.

Quote

Long accepted principle that kids need their mothers. New research shows, that kids need their FATHERS too. It's referenced in the article, and I've read stuff about this as well. But I don't have links, nor time to find them. If this discussion is still going on when I can look it up, I will.


#49 GenesisII

GenesisII

    .

  • Islander
  • 600 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 08:10 PM

Science sets up controlled test before coming out with facts. I think one of the things there is an objection to is that this is happening wham now without knowledge of the results.

#50 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 08:10 PM

Actually, there is evidence of long-term homosexual pairbonding, right now other cultures, for example, in New Guinea a tribal group considers vaginal intercourse to be polluting so it is only done sparingly and thier primary pairing is male-male, usully a younger male with an older one. Other examples of this in extant human cultures have been presented in other threads and in other contexts.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#51 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,300 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 08:16 PM

thank you, tennyson.  Notwithstanding - that configuration is the predominant minority across the world - and doesn't describe the relationship of these pairs to children.  Even more relevant though - that configuration is grounded in a society that is entirely structured around it.  And as you said - it views the heterosexual relationship as a problem.  That's fitting, because it supports Card's idea that this is an attack on the standard definition of marriage.  But that's a side issue.  The more important issue is that American culture is not structured around such an idea, and injecting it forceably because of an ideology - is likely damaging.  As has been discussed in other threads - the needs of gay couples can readily be addressed without redefining marriage to include gay couplehood as part of the definition.

HM07

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#52 Gaiate

Gaiate

    Spirit Blade

  • Islander
  • 1,003 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 08:23 PM

But no one has yet shown how allowing gay marriage effects anyone else.  It seems to me more like it is ideology keeping it out than "forcing" it in.

--Te
"This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is it vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished, as the once vital voice of the verisimilitude now venerates what they once vilified. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose vis--vis an introduction, and so it is my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V." -- V, making an first impression

"Dude . . . that was cool." -- My first impression of V

#53 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,300 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 08:33 PM

The article does a good job of raising the spectrum of what's to come. It's a bit polemic, but the point is made.

The issue of calling it marriage means it has to be taught as such.  That's a radical adjustment to the culture right there.
The implication that just any configuration of adults to children is fine - is one that has to be taught.  And as is pointed out in the article - there are already quite a lot of biological pressures on HETEROSEXUALS to rebel against the confining limits of marriage - and that rebellion is well underway.  This is just one more pressure to the system... added in without real public discussion of the issue.  Including the fact that we are having this discussion here, and you don't seem to see the radical change that is being made or its possible implications, both good and bad.  OR are we to accept that just because we sympathize with the concerns of the homosexual community, that there are no bad implications that could possibly result?  That's ideology - blinding us to the other side of the coin.

HM07

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#54 Nikcara

Nikcara

    confused little imp

  • Islander
  • 3,500 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 08:49 PM

Handmaiden07, on Mar 2 2004, 01:14 AM, said:

The more important issue is that American culture is not structured around such an idea, and injecting it forceably because of an ideology - is likely damaging.  As has been discussed in other threads - the needs of gay couples can readily be addressed without redefining marriage to include gay couplehood as part of the definition.

HM07
I know you didn't mean what I read, but this statement irks me.  Afterall, I had Iraq, Indian, and Asian friends who all have cultural ideas far different from standard "american" ones.  Was it damaging to them to have their parents raise them in America with a decided non-American culture?  Wouldn't their presence with their ideas and beliefs be forcibly injecting new ideas?  Or should they just remain quiet about who they are because they're not American culture?  

Back to the point of the thread however.  I still fail to see why homosexual parents would be particularly damaging.  Yes, studies have shown that kids are healthier when they have a father and mother figure.  However, this assumes that in a gay married couple the child would never seen one of their parents, which isn't always the case.  For homosexual couples who adopt, I'm sure it's a LOT healthier to grow up with 2 dads/moms than it is to grow up in group homes or to get shuffled from foster home to foster home.  Beside all that, I also haven't seen any good evidence that kids from same-sex couples are inherentally worse off.  It probably adds more stress to the process of growing up, but that's a process that's always going to be stressful.  Also, much of the things I've read on the topic of kids being worse off without a father/mother figure it's generally either because one is missing (causing abadonment issues) or is a negative role model (causing it's own issues).  If a child still has two parents that love and care for them, I don't see that either of these would be much of an issue.
We have fourty million reasons for failure, but not a single excuse  -- Rudyard Kipling

Develop compassion for your enemies, that is genuine compassion.  Limited compassion cannot produce this altruism.  -- H. H. the Dalai Lama

#55 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 09:17 PM

Handmaiden07, on Mar 1 2004, 10:57 PM, said:

The article is speaking about a sexually-dimorphic species (us) long evolved to contribute differently to the world.  Men are men, and women are women.  Even when men are gay, they are still men, and women who are gay are still women.  The article advances the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman, because that combination is what's most appropos for human children.  Before anyone says anything about foster parents and gay parents - I'm not talking about alternative arrangements.  Yes - there are alternative arrangements.  Yes they can work.  I'm a new divorcee - creating an arrangement with my ex, for the wellbeing of our child.  It's an alternative arrangement.  It is, nonetheless, not ideal.

The article is talking about the problem of CALLING something marriage that doesn't meet the criteria of marriage and fulfill all that marriage does IN SOCIETY.  Again - this isn't talking about people's feelings for each other.  This is talking about the most efficient, most successful model for society.  And it's rejecting the notion that calling alternative arrangements by the same name as the arrangements that have been agreed upon by human society for the whole of our existence is not harmful.  It is pointing out that the very fact that an inferior arrangement (and yes, I'm calling it that, because it is.  That doesn't mean it can't work, or even work well.  It doesn't mean that people who are in the prescribed configuration are going to be successful, because they might not.  It's just stating the fact that a man and a woman each contribute something different to a relationship that is necessary for the wellbeing of a child) by the same name as the superior arrangement - harms the superior arrangement BECAUSE it fails to make the necessary distinction.
"most appropos for human children"? Says who?

"fulfill all that marriage does IN SOCIETY"? Wait a minute - I thought you were talking about what was most appropos for children - which is it now?

"This is talking about the most efficient, most successful model for society. " The one with the 50% divorce rate? That most successful model for society?

"It is pointing out that the very fact that an inferior arrangement (and yes, I'm calling it that, because it is." So people should be in an unhappy relationship (i.e. with someone with whom they are not sexaully compatible) is a superior relationship?

#56 Nikcara

Nikcara

    confused little imp

  • Islander
  • 3,500 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 09:19 PM

Alright, time for me to reply to the actual article.  I admit that I haven't read the entire thing through, but after a few paragraphs of gross generalizations I think I just don't have the time for that.

Quote

Only when the father became powerless or absent in the lives of huge numbers of children did we start to realize some of the things people need a father for: laying the groundwork for a sense of moral judgment; praise that is believed so that it can instill genuine self-confidence.

WHAT????? Only fathers can give moral groundwork now???  That is just such an offense load of bunk that it doesn't deserve further response.

Quote

The damage caused to children by divorce and illegitimate birth is obvious and devastating. While apologists for the current system are quick to blame poverty resulting from "deadbeat dads" as the cause, the children themselves know this is ludicrous.

Wait....I do?  Man, I'm HAPPY my parents aren't married anymore.  And it's not like either of them are bad people - they just don't belong together anymore.  They were married for something like 13 years when they had me.  They grew apart.  People do that.  My parents were always very careful to never argue around me or my brother, but the ineviable discomfort that would have come from them staying together would have scewed with my head plenty, even if they were always mature and civil to each other.  You really can't keep these things from your kids.  They live with you, they watch you, they know more about what's going on then most parents care to think about.  Learning to stay with someone you don't love is not something to teach your kids.

Quote

So not only are two sexes required in order to conceive children, children also learn their sex-role expectations from the parents in their own family. This is precisely what large segments of the Left would like to see break down. And if it is found to have unpleasant results, they will, as always, insist that the cure is to break down the family even further.

YES!  BLAME THE EEEVIL LEFT!!  THE LEFT IS EVIL AND WANTS TO TAKE DOWN ALL OF CIVILIZTION!!!  wait...I'm leftist.  Damn...better stop trying to make people's life better by volunteering services and whatnot.  Have to remember I'm evil and trying to destroy families.

To address what has been said before: saying that homosexuals have the same right to marry as heterosexuals is bull.  Heterosexuals get to marry who they want to marry, while homosexuals are forced to marry someone they don't want to spend the rest of their life with.  It would be like saying only homosexuals cane marry but that not descriminating against striaght people, because they can marry someone of their own gender and have straight lovers on the side.  Don't hear too many people calling for that now do you?  The simple fact is that by saying you can't marry the person you love and want to spend your life with you are descriminating.  

Now really, if some of these people (and a few people who post here as well) can stop blaming the left for everything that goes wrong and demonizing us for having different viewpoints, we could have much better communication.  I'm sick of being told what I believe because I'm liberal by people who really have no idea.  I can make just as many gross generalizations about conservates, but that helps no one.

Anyway, I think I'm done with my rant for today
We have fourty million reasons for failure, but not a single excuse  -- Rudyard Kipling

Develop compassion for your enemies, that is genuine compassion.  Limited compassion cannot produce this altruism.  -- H. H. the Dalai Lama

#57 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 09:22 PM

Delvo, on Mar 1 2004, 11:34 PM, said:

IF IT WERE just a personal relationship between two people, there'd never have been any reason for the government to involve itself at all, just like it's never involved itself in the relationships between friends, or between siblings, or between idols and their idolizers. The fact that marriage is NOT an interpersonal relationship is the entire REASON why it's ever been a governmental issue at all.
I wasn't talking about relationships - I was talking about interaction. Everything else is rights and paperwork - check out my earlier post - it's all quite clear. Like I said before - it's not like I can put my friend on my insurance policy at work. Heck, I couldn't even put my father on my insurance policy, even though there was a day when he put me on his insurance policy - what kind of whacked-out government policy do we have here?

Quote

Then quit closing your eyes, plugging your ears, and singing every time somebody does it.

Um - that's the point - so far nobody has given a real reason why a marriage has to be between a man and a woman. All I ever hear is rhetoric.

Quote

The problem is that as soon as anybody uses the phrase "gay rights activists", (s)he's playing right into that group's silly pretense that it's about civil rights at all, which is already ceding half the argument to them before we even begin, and doing it invalidly.

I hate to break it to you, but the argument is about civil rights.

#58 GiGi

GiGi

    Lipstick wearing PIG kisser!

  • Islander
  • 8,774 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 09:32 PM

Well said Nikcara.

If we want to look at the best model for raising children, it is not the model of a nuclear family.  The phrase "it takes a Village to raise a child" is a correct one.  I had to look outside of my family for other parental support from my friend's parents because my family was so insular it was extremely unhealthy.

Large extended families with a lot of aunties and uncles can be a lot healthier than only two parents with the kids.  (this of course assumes there are not child molesters in said family).

So, going by this, if the same sex parents have a lot of family ties there can be access to both male and female role models in any situation.  If this isn't the case, then it could be more confining socially to be in a same sex family, but then again the kids can find role models in sports figures, teachers etc.  

The thing is, we don't know.  Same sex couples getting married isn't going to change the fact that same sex couples raise kids together, so I don't even know why this is an issue.

And Delvo, FYI I am not a Gay activist, supporter or whatever semantical handcuff you feel the need to put on people who think it is not an awful thing gays are getting married.  I am not particularly a supporter of a gay lifestyle really.  But some my my best friends are gay and came out gay long after I knew them as people.  They are still the same people who I was friends with when they were in heterosexual marriages.  But for them it was a lie.  And I still love them as people.  If one of my best friends was in a commented partnership and wanted a legal arraignment for that partnership, you bet I would fight for their right to have it, as I am doing now.

Because bottomline this is about real people not social concepts based on a societal order that I personally feel perpetuates a dysfunctional family system.  And what kids need the most in any family is love. Better to be in a same sex loving family than a family where the husband is beating the wife up every night.
"Life is as dear to a mute creature as it is to man. Just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do all creatures." -- HH The Dalai Lama

#59 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 09:44 PM

Brava GiGi!!!!!!!!!!!!  :D
Posted Image

#60 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 09:45 PM

tennyson, on Mar 1 2004, 07:08 PM, said:

Actually, there is evidence of long-term homosexual pairbonding, right now other cultures, for example, in New Guinea a tribal group considers vaginal intercourse to be polluting so it is only done sparingly and thier primary pairing is male-male, usully a younger male with an older one. Other examples of this in extant human cultures have been presented in other threads and in other contexts.
Nobody's disputing that homosexuality exists. It's just that it's not a basis for marriage.

All of these "Well in the Ngowolthu tribe of Mempa'a'a Valley, women and men wear sedated monkeys on their heads and only have sex if the monkeys don't fight" claims that pop up endlessly in these conversations are either massively exaggerated or severely twisted and misrepresented, when they aren't just plain made-up works of fiction that are supposed to intimidate the audience into feeling unsophisticated and humbly accepting them for their obscurity... and yet, still, as manipulated for appearances as they are, they STILL have something in common: they don't even adress the real subject. How adults come together to raise children isn't mentioned, only sexual stuff is. Why? Because the idea behind telling these stories is to confuse the issues. We're supposed to think that if people are allowed to have sexual relationships of any other kind, then it must mean that men and women together isn't still the way kids are raised and isn't still treated differently and specially from all other relationships. And we're also supposed to assume that, not only in those cases but even in the few rare cases where that rule doesn't apply, there are never any negative social consequences to these people, because of course no culture but ours could ever make a self-harming mistake. :sarcasm:



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: LGBT, Same sex Marriage

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users