can we please, please call this argument settled?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
melon said:
Sounds good to me, as long as all is consentual. And truly consentual.

Why I don't imagine that there would be too many instances of incestuous marriages (although, really, they already happen, since it is legal to marry one's first cousin in some states and, hypocritically, these marriages are recognized even in states that don't allow it) is that most all siblings genuinely don't want each other mutually. Most instances we hear about involves either sexual abuse (father molesting daughter) or an obsessed sibling with the other completely repulsed by it. In short: no mutuality.

The same goes with polygamy. The ones in Utah are generally abusive, with the man taking on minors as "wives."

But hey...whatever. There's abusive heterosexual marriages too, and we don't see the government intervening to stop them from even being performed, now do we?

Melon

Thank. You. I don't need to say any more, for you've got it all covered :up:.

Angela
 
I've only skimmed the last half of this thread, so ignore this as rambling if you've all already gone over it. But what has family building got to do with the gay marriage argument? Gay couples wont produce families in the way heteros will. By either denying or allowing these marriages does not make one scrap of difference to this religious and moral family building rhetoric that is spewed hatefully as a reason for banning it. Same sex couples who wish to start a family need to go about acquiring their family through other means. Any gay person who wants kids, wont turn to heterosexual marriage to acquire that. It thus, wont damage any existing notion of marriage and family values because homosexuality is not going to disappear by removing rights.

On another point too, it makes me ill to see people state that those opposed to it are entitled to their opinion. Why should they be entitled to such opinion? Not much can be done to change people's view, but allowing it and murming that it's a right to feel like that, is passive acceptance of hate mongering.
I'm again inclined to start my campaign "Back of the bus for you, homo!"
:angry:
 
Angela Harlem said:
I've only skimmed the last half of this thread, so ignore this as rambling if you've all already gone over it. But what has family building got to do with the gay marriage argument? Gay couples wont produce families in the way heteros will. By either denying or allowing these marriages does not make one scrap of difference to this religious and moral family building rhetoric that is spewed hatefully as a reason for banning it. Same sex couples who wish to start a family need to go about acquiring their family through other means. Any gay person who wants kids, wont turn to heterosexual marriage to acquire that. It thus, wont damage any existing notion of marriage and family values because homosexuality is not going to disappear by removing rights.

Exactly. Besides that, can somebody please tell me what business it is of anyone else's how somebody makes a family or whether they even want a family or whatever? Isn't that something each person must decide on their own, and not society as a whole?

Originally posted by Angela Harlem
On another point too, it makes me ill to see people state that those opposed to it are entitled to their opinion. Why should they be entitled to such opinion? Not much can be done to change people's view, but allowing it and murming that it's a right to feel like that, is passive acceptance of hate mongering.

I don't agree at all with the opinions of those who are opposed to homosexuality/gay marriage/gay adoption, etc.-I've made that quite clear throughout my time here. But free speech is still something that every person is entitled to have, no matter how offensive their thoughts may be to others, so long as nobody's trying to impose their views on everybody around them. Besides that, by censoring the views of homophobes/racists/sexist people/etc., we're essentially sweeping the issue under the rug and acting like those thoughts don't exist. That doesn't solve the problem-all it does is make those who hold those views angrier, and makes them move to more extreme measures to have their opinion heard, no matter how violent those measures may be. The only way we can deal with prejudice and ignorance in this world is by confronting it head on, and that means hearing out those who hold those kinds of views.

Angela
 
Angela Harlem said:
I've only skimmed the last half of this thread, so ignore this as rambling if you've all already gone over it. But what has family building got to do with the gay marriage argument? Gay couples wont produce families in the way heteros will. By either denying or allowing these marriages does not make one scrap of difference to this religious and moral family building rhetoric that is spewed hatefully as a reason for banning it. Same sex couples who wish to start a family need to go about acquiring their family through other means. Any gay person who wants kids, wont turn to heterosexual marriage to acquire that. It thus, wont damage any existing notion of marriage and family values because homosexuality is not going to disappear by removing rights.

If you do bring kids into a gay marriage, then the question becomes: can a state make laws conferring a special status on a family with one mother and one father? Seems to me that if it is constitutional for the state to distinguish between a two-parent household and a one-parent household, it is also constitutional for the state to distinguish between a mom-and-dad household and a household with two moms.
 
speedracer said:
If you do bring kids into a gay marriage, then the question becomes: can a state make laws conferring a special status on a family with one mother and one father? Seems to me that if it is constitutional for the state to distinguish between a two-parent household and a one-parent household, it is also constitutional for the state to distinguish between a mom-and-dad household and a household with two moms.

"L'état, c'est moi." Or, at least, I wish I could say that.

Melon
 
speedracer said:
Childless couples keep their benefits because it's generally expected that they'll eventually have kids.

I got married to a man, and I never ever ever intended to have children. I can't now, due to organ removal. Do I lose my benefits retroactively?

In your world, do I have to sign documents stating my intention to either have children and get married or not have children and only have a civil union?
 
Looking over old arguments, essays, blogs, and books, I'm so pleased to connect with how tolerant and progressive U2 have been on the issue of gay lib.
It's a sad day when the word "activist" has come to have such pejorative connotations, especially when the right-wing pundits creating this bogus paradigm are themselves brilliant activists.
long live the art of doublespeak,
Anu
 
speedracer said:
Homosexual couples aren't capable of having their own children.
Heterosexual couples are capable of having their own children, and it's more trouble than it's worth to weed out the couples who aren't able to have kids/don't plan to have kids/shouldn't have kids because their reproductive cells are horribly mutated/etc.


sorry, this holds no water.

lesbians can have their "own" children -- a woman can be artificiall inseminated, give birth to her "own" child, and the partner can then adopt that child making him/her "theirs." some gay men are now finding surrogate mothers. there is no biological difference between these relationships, where a child has two parents but is only biologically related to one, and a heterosexual 2nd marriage.
 
A dissenting perspective from the Boston Globe....

Marriage newspeak

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | March 13, 2005

BACK IN 2003, a few days after the highest court in Massachusetts unveiled a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, I ventured a prediction.

''Sooner than you think, it will become improper to speak of unique sex roles in family life," I wrote. ''The meanings and status associated with words like 'husband' and 'wife' will be erased from the law; most likely, the words themselves will be replaced in statutes with the unisex 'spouse,' just as 'father' and 'mother' will give way to 'parent.' "

The changes soon began. Massachusetts rolled out a new marriage license shorn of any reference to bride and groom. Couples getting married were now to be officially identified as ''Party A" and ''Party B." The department of public health has proposed a similar rewrite of the state's birth certificate, replacing ''mother" and ''father" with ''Parent A" and ''Parent B."

Meanwhile, others have gone far beyond Massachusetts in embracing the brave new world of unisex marriage. Last month, lawmakers in Ontario enacted Bill 171, stripping the statute books of all references to gender in connection with marriage. No longer do Ontario's laws use words and phrases like ''husband," ''wife," ''widow," ''widower," or ''persons of the opposite sex." And it is not just family and marriage laws that have been de-sexed. Bill 171 eliminates the traditional language of matrimony from more than 70 provincial statutes, including the Gasoline Tax Act and the Public Libraries Act.

What is underway here is not simply a tweaking of legal terminology. The crusade for same-sex marriage has never been aimed merely at adjusting the familiar boundaries of married life to make it more inclusive. The real target is the significance of marriage itself -- the idea, fundamental to human happiness and all successful societies, that the purpose of marriage is to bring men and women together for their mutual welfare and for the protection and well-being of any children they create or adopt. It is that deeply ingrained belief that the marriage radicals are determined to do away with. One purpose of the official marriage newspeak is to make such thoughts increasingly unthinkable.

Already it is becoming hazardous to speak of marriage as an opposite-sex institution or to suggest that one of its core functions is to provide children with fathers and mothers. Just ask actress Jada Pinkett Smith or Governor Romney.

When Pinkett Smith received an award at Harvard two weeks ago, she used her acceptance remarks to splash cold water on the idea that family obligations can make it difficult for married women to reach the top of the career ladder -- a hypothesis recently voiced by the university's president, Lawrence Summers.

''Women," Pinkett Smith told the audience, ''you can have it all -- a loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career. They say you gotta choose. Nah, nah, nah. We are a new generation of women. We got to set a new standard of rules around here. You can do whatever it is you want."

That was all it took to arouse the wrath of Harvard's Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Supporters Alliance. It denounced Will Smith's wife for her ''extremely heteronormative" comments, which ''made BGLTSA members feel uncomfortable." The group demanded -- and received -- an apology. And those who brought Pinkett Smith to campus will now undergo reeducation: The Harvard Crimson reports that the Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations is working with the BGLTSA ''to increase sensitivity toward issues of sexuality." Translation: There will be no more talk of loving men or devoted husbands at Harvard. At least not from married women.

Romney's offense against the new marital correctness was more serious. In a couple of speeches to Republican groups out of state, he condemned same-sex marriage on the grounds that ''every child has the right to have a mother and a father."

The words were hardly out of his mouth before protesters were at his State House office, blasting him as ''mean-spirited." Editorial writers launched an attack on his ''ignorance" and ''mean-spirited politics." In the Berkshire Eagle, one columnist slammed his statement of the obvious -- that every child deserves a mom and a dad -- as ''really disturbing" and the brainless ''fuzzy stuff of 1940s movies." He was accused elsewhere of succumbing to the kind of thinking that once barred blacks from white lunch counters.

This is just the start. The assault is not going to let up until the heteronormative deviants among us have been silenced. You think the marriage radicals have gone too far? You ain't seen nothin' yet.
 
nathan1977 said:
A dissenting perspective from the Boston Globe....

Marriage newspeak

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | March 13, 2005

BACK IN 2003, a few days after the highest court in Massachusetts unveiled a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, I ventured a prediction.

''Sooner than you think, it will become improper to speak of unique sex roles in family life," I wrote. ''The meanings and status associated with words like 'husband' and 'wife' will be erased from the law; most likely, the words themselves will be replaced in statutes with the unisex 'spouse,' just as 'father' and 'mother' will give way to 'parent.' "

[...]

What is underway here is not simply a tweaking of legal terminology. The crusade for same-sex marriage has never been aimed merely at adjusting the familiar boundaries of married life to make it more inclusive. The real target is the significance of marriage itself -- the idea, fundamental to human happiness and all successful societies, that the purpose of marriage is to bring men and women together for their mutual welfare and for the protection and well-being of any children they create or adopt. It is that deeply ingrained belief that the marriage radicals are determined to do away with. One purpose of the official marriage newspeak is to make such thoughts increasingly unthinkable.

[...]

The words were hardly out of his mouth before protesters were at his State House office, blasting him as ''mean-spirited." Editorial writers launched an attack on his ''ignorance" and ''mean-spirited politics." In the Berkshire Eagle, one columnist slammed his statement of the obvious -- that every child deserves a mom and a dad -- as ''really disturbing" and the brainless ''fuzzy stuff of 1940s movies." He was accused elsewhere of succumbing to the kind of thinking that once barred blacks from white lunch counters.




fucking. bullshit.

first, can you tell me what, in this day and age, are the exclusive, male-only husbandly duties in a marriage? and are the exclusive, female-only wifely duties in a marriage? other than the actual birthing of a child, and breast-feeding (something which many married women choose not to do), what, pray tell, is there in the institution of marriage that requires opposite genders? what are these unique sex roles other than merely misogynistic disguises that have been used for years to tell women what they can and cannot do, and men what they can and cannot do.

he also doesn't seem to think that gay people can adopt, or have biologically related children, and that child-rearing is the exclusive province of the heterosexual. THIS DRIVES ME ABSOLUTELY CRAZY. i will show you 10 homosexuals who will make better parents than 99% of the heterosexuals out there. should we deny children the right to great parents simply because they are gay? are a bad mother and father better than two good gay dads? does this so-called "right" to opposite-gendered parents trump the far more basic "right" for a child to have *good* parents?

please, please, please -- marriage is much, much, much more than about raising children. is a healthy marriage the ideal place to raise children? probably. is it the only place to raise children? of course not. do all healthy marriages produce children? no. Jeff Jacoby -- who used to write for the Hartford Current, and i thought he was an idiot even then -- has an a priori definition of marriage that he simply assumes to be the correct one, and posits it as if it were uncontestable truth.

ugh. he's probably not even worth my time, or my rant, but i've written it out so i'll post it anyway.
 
Irvine511 said:

first, can you tell me what, in this day and age, are the exclusive, male-only husbandly duties in a marriage? and are the exclusive, female-only wifely duties in a marriage? other than the actual birthing of a child, and breast-feeding (something which many married women choose not to do), what, pray tell, is there in the institution of marriage that requires opposite genders? what are these unique sex roles other than merely misogynistic disguises that have been used for years to tell women what they can and cannot do, and men what they can and cannot do.

"Mysogynistic disguises"... doesn't sound that far from those who refer to marriage simply as legalized rape. In a way this seems to prove Jacoby's point that part of this whole conversation is about refusing to recognize the very differences that define us as men and women in the first place.

It's interesting to me that gay activists seem to use the "I'm made this way/I can't change it" argument when defending homosexuality, but seem to argue the reverse when it comes to the conversation of sexuality and marriage. If you want to argue that you're genetically a certain way, that's fine -- but isn't part of the point of this argument that you can't change, that you are a certain way and can't help it, which automatically moves you into a predetermined process? So why wouldn't it be any different when the conversation turns to the differences between male and female? (Arguably an even more important distinction than sexual orientation/preference.)

The way you are means certain things, and it seems to me that rebelling against the genetic programming (or intelligent design, depending on your choice of martini) that defines men and women as such, and which further defines fathers and mothers, is pointless. Men and women ARE different creatures -- biologically, emotionally, etc. They are, they have been since the dawn of time, and to rail against it seems to be pissing into the wind.

I'll share my take on the uniquely husbandly duties in a marriage, but it would be from a faith-based perspective that has previously been disregarded elsewhere on this message board. (Too much heteronormativity.) However, as the Judeo-Christian perspective is one that has defined Western civilization, I'll post it anyway...

"Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her...feed(ing) and car(ing) for her, just as Christ does the church"

Bang. A specific call for husbands. Gender-specific, not one mirrored in the words for wives, but central to the marriage relationship. If the marriage relationship was designed by God to illustrate His relationship with us, then you can't separate out gender identifications, because God is the very One throughout the Bible -- New and Old Testament (the book of Hosea comes to mind) Who draws those lines in the first place.

When I was getting married, my mentor told me, "The best way to be a good father is to be a good husband." My children will watch me and my habits and learn and replicate them...for better or worse. Hopefully, they will learn how women should be treated, they will learn how love and affection are shown, they will learn what love is. Moreover, many of us on this board can probably pinpoint the strengths and failures of our fathers, and how they've impacted us. There is something unique and specific that children learn about the world from they interact with their fathers....again, for better or worse. There's a reason scripture talks about how the sins of the father are passed down to the third and fourth generations.... I know that it's true that much of my father's brokenness is my own. Why else do the sons of deadbeat dads often turn into deadbeat dads themselves? (A unique but growing reality, particularly in the inner city.)

Additionally, women who adopt lament that they do not have the same connection with their children that birth mothers do with theirs. There is something unique that happens between a woman and her child in pregnancy and birth -- a connection forged -- that cannot be denied. It is true of my wife and our baby. Does it mean that my friends who have adopted (from places as far and wide as the Philippines, Russia, and Korea) are somehow second-class parents? Of course not -- the love for their children is amazing, particularly since they had to sacrifice economically up front for their children. But there is something special and unique in the biological process of birthing a child that happens... something that cannot be denied.


he also doesn't seem to think that gay people can adopt, or have biologically related children, and that child-rearing is the exclusive province of the heterosexual. THIS DRIVES ME ABSOLUTELY CRAZY. i will show you 10 homosexuals who will make better parents than 99% of the heterosexuals out there. should we deny children the right to great parents simply because they are gay? are a bad mother and father better than two good gay dads? does this so-called "right" to opposite-gendered parents trump the far more basic "right" for a child to have *good* parents? please, please, please -- marriage is much, much, much more than about raising children. is a healthy marriage the ideal place to raise children? probably.

I'll take your "10 vs. 99%" comment as hyperbole and leave it there, though I have yet to see studies indicating that two gay dads are the optimal, or even preferable, solution when placed in comparison with a home where there is a mother and father who love each other. Additionally, by far the majority of all homes with children -- 83% -- have a mother and a father, according to recent reports. This seems to quash your numbers -- it makes me think that the majority of parents love their kids and are working hard to take care of them.

I think it is critical that children be given the best place possible to live, develop and grow. You yourself admit that a healthy marriage is "probably" the ideal place to raise children. What happened to promoting the ideal, instead of settling for something less than that?

I don't think Jacoby is saying that gay parents *can't* parent. It comes down to a question of what is *best.* I think we would do better as a society to focus on promoting the ideal. There are hundreds of thousands of husbands and wives out there desperate to be parents who either A) can't afford the thousands and thousands of dollars it takes to adopt or B) get lost in the process somewhere. The government doesn't seem to be helping them -- instead they being forced to respond to a small but vocal minority that is demanding equal access, one which refuses to acknowledge that the very children they profess to care about would be better off in homes with loving husbands and wives. And instead of being able to affirm that condition, the government are being lobbied to adjust their language to eliminate the acknowledgement of this very fact -- to acknowledge men and women, mothers and fathers, husbands and wives. And to what end?

I'm not trying to piss you off, Irvine...I just don't think this argument can be considered closed.
 
nathan1977 said:
I think we would do better as a society to focus on promoting the ideal.

Two loving parents. Period. And so what are you going to do for those who don't get the ideal? Shall we set up a concentration camp for single mothers, divorcées, step-parents, day care center owners, nannies / au-pairs, and gay parents, because they don't "fit the ideal"?

Bible-schmible. While people can have their heads in the clouds, let's wake up to reality. And the reality is that heteros don't automatically make good parents. And there are great single mothers, divorce happens, step-parents are often better than the biological parents, day care centers fill a need, same with nannies / au-pairs, and gay parents are equally capable of being great parents.

"Ozzie and Harriet" was a goddamn fictional TV show.

Melon
 
nathan1977 said:
I'll take your "10 vs. 99%" comment as hyperbole and leave it there, though I have yet to see studies indicating that two gay dads are the optimal, or even preferable, solution when placed in comparison with a home where there is a mother and father who love each other. Additionally, by far the majority of all homes with children -- 83% -- have a mother and a father, according to recent reports. This seems to quash your numbers -- it makes me think that the majority of parents love their kids and are working hard to take care of them.

Every independent study I've read disagrees with you. Of course, if you're reading studies sponsored by conservative Christian organizations, they're clearly interested in furthering their anti-gay agenda.

Melon
 
nathan1977 said:
The government doesn't seem to be helping them -- instead they being forced to respond to a small but vocal minority that is demanding equal access, one which refuses to acknowledge that the very children they profess to care about would be better off in homes with loving husbands and wives. And instead of being able to affirm that condition, the government are being lobbied to adjust their language to eliminate the acknowledgement of this very fact -- to acknowledge men and women, mothers and fathers, husbands and wives. And to what end?

And I love your dehumanization of the LBGT community. Calling them "homosexuals" and a "vocal minority." They're people, first and foremost. Of course, I've been working very hard to dehumanize heteros. I call them "breeders" and the "tyrannical majority." Then I point my friends to Jerry Springer and Maury Povich, and show that as evidence that heterosexuals make awful parents. Hell, they don't even know who their "baby daddy" is half the time! For shame. We should pass laws to stop those heterosexuals from destroying America with their "superiority agenda."

BTW, in all the hoopla over gay marriage, gays have been able to either adopt or be foster parents for decades in most states. The fact remains that stupid heteros breed like bunnies and don't really want much to do with the babies you all discard to the curb like yesterday's trash. So, as usual, it is up to the LBGT community to take care of what you wasteful heteros take for granted and throw away on a regular basis.

And newsflash: the long term studies are out and these children grow up equally normal as any children raised by heteros. And, no, they don't "turn gay."

Melon
 
nathan1977 said:




Additionally, women who adopt lament that they do not have the same connection with their children that birth mothers do with theirs. There is something unique that happens between a woman and her child in pregnancy and birth -- a connection forged -- that cannot be denied. It is true of my wife and our baby. Does it mean that my friends who have adopted (from places as far and wide as the Philippines, Russia, and Korea) are somehow second-class parents? Of course not -- the love for their children is amazing, particularly since they had to sacrifice economically up front for their children. But there is something special and unique in the biological process of birthing a child that happens... something that cannot be denied.




Something that can not be denied?

Every baby that was put in a dumpster by their mother knows you are speaking from a bigoted place and not a Christian place.
 
deep said:



Something that can not be denied?

Every baby that was put in a dumpster by their mother knows you are speaking from a bigoted place and not a Christian place.

You'd be hard pressed to say that those children are the majority of all children born....
 
nathan1977 said:
You'd be hard pressed to say that those children are the majority of all children born....

And so what? Because they're the minority that they aren't worth acknowledging? That's where I agree it is bigoted.

The tyranny of the majority. This is where I treasure my Second Amendment.

Melon
 
But

I am not hard pressed to figure out where you are speaking from.

There are adopted children in my family

no one laments.

Shame on you.
 
melon said:


Every independent study I've read disagrees with you. Of course, if you're reading studies sponsored by conservative Christian organizations, they're clearly interested in furthering their anti-gay agenda.

Melon

Independent researchers do have it pegged at 70% (at least in 2000, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which I'm pretty sure isn't a conservative Christian organization), which is below the other percentage I cited... however, it would seem that the point is still made. A majority of kids in America live in two-parent homes, the overwhelming majority of which are hetero.

I'll leave the Ozzie and Harriet comment -- I don't think anyone really thinks I'm promoting the ideology of a 50 year old TV show. That's just another rhetorical straw man.
 
Last edited:
nathan1977 said:
Independent researchers do have it pegged at 70% (at least in 2000, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which I'm pretty sure isn't a conservative Christian organization), which is below the other percentage I cited... however, it would seem that the point is still made. A majority of kids in America live in two-parent homes, the overwhelming majority of which are hetero.

I'll leave the Ozzie and Harriet comment -- I don't think anyone really thinks I'm promoting the ideology of a 50 year old TV show.

Alright. Assuming those figures are correct and they are the vast majority, who cares? Does might make right? The fact remains that there is a sizeable minority--30%. That's close to 1/3 of children in America and that's definitely in the tens of millions. So now it is time to spit on them and say "too bad"?

There are alternative lifestyles. There have been and always will. While there may be some unrealistic "Ozzie and Harriet" ideal (you don't mean it consciously, but you do subconsciously), the fact remains that, in the past, there were still many unadopted children who would live out their lives in orphanages until they were 18. Where was that "70%" to save the day?

I don't even fathom how even allowing the LBGT community equal rights would even affect that 70% anyway. But we need diversity to help take care of that minority that the majority even refuses to acknowledge. Even one child left behind is one child too much--especially if you are that child.

Melon
 
nathan1977 said:


"Mysogynistic disguises"... doesn't sound that far from those who refer to marriage simply as legalized rape. In a way this seems to prove Jacoby's point that part of this whole conversation is about refusing to recognize the very differences that define us as men and women in the first place.

It's interesting to me that gay activists seem to use the "I'm made this way/I can't change it" argument when defending homosexuality, but seem to argue the reverse when it comes to the conversation of sexuality and marriage. If you want to argue that you're genetically a certain way, that's fine -- but isn't part of the point of this argument that you can't change, that you are a certain way and can't help it, which automatically moves you into a predetermined process? So why wouldn't it be any different when the conversation turns to the differences between male and female? (Arguably an even more important distinction than sexual orientation/preference.)


when i'm talking about misogynistic disguises, i'm talking about the idea that boys are one way, girls are another, and that's all there is to say about that. you're putting words in my mouth and drawing paralles to lines of thinking that aren't even remotely a part of my argument. what i'm getting at is that within marriage, what are the essential sex roles? what is there that women bring to marriage that is uniquely, irreplacably female? is there such a thing as an essential female? this does apply to homsexuality. is there somethign that is essentially homosexual?

the answer in both cases is no. there is nothing essential, but there is something authentic and natural. these are important distinctions. there is no one way to be gay, there is no one way to be a woman. there are only individuals acting in authentic ways that may or may not ascribe to whatever gender roles you might label as natural or essential.

gay activists? try the American Psychiatric Association and general common knowledge -- you cannot change your orientation, no matter what the Exodus ministries are trying to tell you.
 
nathan1977 said:


Additionally, women who adopt lament that they do not have the same connection with their children that birth mothers do with theirs. There is something unique that happens between a woman and her child in pregnancy and birth -- a connection forged -- that cannot be denied. It is true of my wife and our baby. Does it mean that my friends who have adopted (from places as far and wide as the Philippines, Russia, and Korea) are somehow second-class parents? Of course not -- the love for their children is amazing, particularly since they had to sacrifice economically up front for their children. But there is something special and unique in the biological process of birthing a child that happens... something that cannot be denied.

I think this has to be one of the most ignorant comments I've seen in here in ages. I was adopted and have a much better relationship with my parents than most of my non-adopted friends. Economic sacrifice has nothing to do with it. I know I was chosen by my parents. "Can't be denied" is just utter bullshit. Your posts reek of arrogant bias, you can't imagine anything or anyone not doing things the way you do, even going to the extent of making these comments about adopted children. I find you and your comments discusting.

Step out of your box sometime and see how other people live.
 
nathan1977 said:


I'll share my take on the uniquely husbandly duties in a marriage, but it would be from a faith-based perspective that has previously been disregarded elsewhere on this message board. (Too much heteronormativity.) However, as the Judeo-Christian perspective is one that has defined Western civilization, I'll post it anyway...

"Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her...feed(ing) and car(ing) for her, just as Christ does the church"

Bang. A specific call for husbands. Gender-specific, not one mirrored in the words for wives, but central to the marriage relationship. If the marriage relationship was designed by God to illustrate His relationship with us, then you can't separate out gender identifications, because God is the very One throughout the Bible -- New and Old Testament (the book of Hosea comes to mind) Who draws those lines in the first place.



lovely.

has nothing to do with civil marriage. perhaps that's how you view marriage, but a religious conviction is not stable grounds from which to legislate/discriminate.

and, to push the point, other than the word "husband," there is nothing gender-specific about this biblical command. there is nothing in that phrase that a woman, or another gay man, couldn't do for his/her husband.
 
nathan1977 said:


When I was getting married, my mentor told me, "The best way to be a good father is to be a good husband." My children will watch me and my habits and learn and replicate them...for better or worse. Hopefully, they will learn how women should be treated, they will learn how love and affection are shown, they will learn what love is. Moreover, many of us on this board can probably pinpoint the strengths and failures of our fathers, and how they've impacted us. There is something unique and specific that children learn about the world from they interact with their fathers....again, for better or worse. There's a reason scripture talks about how the sins of the father are passed down to the third and fourth generations.... I know that it's true that much of my father's brokenness is my own. Why else do the sons of deadbeat dads often turn into deadbeat dads themselves? (A unique but growing reality, particularly in the inner city.)

Additionally, women who adopt lament that they do not have the same connection with their children that birth mothers do with theirs. There is something unique that happens between a woman and her child in pregnancy and birth -- a connection forged -- that cannot be denied. It is true of my wife and our baby. Does it mean that my friends who have adopted (from places as far and wide as the Philippines, Russia, and Korea) are somehow second-class parents? Of course not -- the love for their children is amazing, particularly since they had to sacrifice economically up front for their children. But there is something special and unique in the biological process of birthing a child that happens... something that cannot be denied.


right here is where we're simply not going to agree.

how women should be treated? what does that mean? do we treat women differently than we treat human beings, i.e., men? do you hold doors for women but not for men? do you have to be more emotionally attentive when you're around women than with men? are there special rules that you employ when you speak/interact with women that are different from when you interact with men?

as for your second paragraph, a lesbian is completely capable of birthing a child, so i don't know what that has to do with anything. two gay men are not, but they can adopt and love a child as thoroughly as two heterosexuals who adopt. and though you deny it, you're placing a primacy on birth parents over parents who adopt, you are saying that one is better than the other, or that it's unique, and that this is then somehow essential to the idea of marriage or what makes marriage unique and then should therefore be denied to homosexuals because they cannot reproduce with their partners.

many, many children grow up without fathers. and i fail to see how a good mother is worse than a bad mother and father. i dont' see how two good mothers are worse than a bad mother and father.

i want children to have good parents. i dont' think there's something essential to the man-woman relationship that's instrumental to the successful rearing of children. i do think there's something essential to the quality of parenting that's instrumental to rearing children.
 
nathan1977 said:



I'll take your "10 vs. 99%" comment as hyperbole and leave it there, though I have yet to see studies indicating that two gay dads are the optimal, or even preferable, solution when placed in comparison with a home where there is a mother and father who love each other. Additionally, by far the majority of all homes with children -- 83% -- have a mother and a father, according to recent reports. This seems to quash your numbers -- it makes me think that the majority of parents love their kids and are working hard to take care of them.

I think it is critical that children be given the best place possible to live, develop and grow. You yourself admit that a healthy marriage is "probably" the ideal place to raise children. What happened to promoting the ideal, instead of settling for something less than that?

I don't think Jacoby is saying that gay parents *can't* parent. It comes down to a question of what is *best.* I think we would do better as a society to focus on promoting the ideal. There are hundreds of thousands of husbands and wives out there desperate to be parents who either A) can't afford the thousands and thousands of dollars it takes to adopt or B) get lost in the process somewhere. The government doesn't seem to be helping them -- instead they being forced to respond to a small but vocal minority that is demanding equal access, one which refuses to acknowledge that the very children they profess to care about would be better off in homes with loving husbands and wives. And instead of being able to affirm that condition, the government are being lobbied to adjust their language to eliminate the acknowledgement of this very fact -- to acknowledge men and women, mothers and fathers, husbands and wives. And to what end?

I'm not trying to piss you off, Irvine...I just don't think this argument can be considered closed.


nope. not hyperbole. i'll introduce you to these 10 people, and if you are not amazed at what good parents they will be, then i'll go have sex with a woman. ;) you're not understanding the numbers as well -- these 10 people would be better parents than 99% of the whatever number it is of married heterosexuals who have children.

okay, i'm calming down a bit.

actually, if anything, studies have shown that lesbian households have children who are nicer, more fair, and more tolerant in their interactions with other children. there are no developmental differences between kids with hetero parents and kids with homo parents, and these kids are no more likely to be gay than the other.

promoting an ideal is not contingent upon the denial of rights to a group of people. and when i say that a healthy marriage is ideal for children, i am including homosexuals in that comment. two married homosexuals who love each other and their children is as ideal as any heterosexual marriage. like i've said, i don't know what' so essential to the male-female coupling that cannot be replicated by a same gender couple.

i also dont' know what your point about adoption -- which i generally agree with -- has to do with marriage equality. i think adoption is great; i plan to adopt one day, should i be legally married to a man or not. and i honestly challenge you to find someone who would make a better father than i would.

basically, all your arguments against gay marriage is that, because it lacks opposite gendered partners, it is by definition inferior.

to that i say bollocks.

you resort to the child-rearing argument, when many, many straight couples never have children. when many infertile couples or post-menopausal women get married. you're basing everything on antiquated notions of sex-roles that are increasingly inapplicable in modern society, where women do not need men, and men do not need women. women may want men, and men may want women, but they do not *need* each other. heterosexuals have already removed whatever biological necessity there was for opposite-sex coulping being instrumental to the measurement of the success of a marriage.

yes, i do think the debate is over.

you're free to continue to argue that children do better with one great mom and one great dad than two great moms or two great dads, however, because marriage is much more than an institution for rearing children, and benefits conferred upon couples aren't contingent upon their child-rearing plans, and because marriage is seen as the social and legal recognition of a commited relationship and that is denied to a minority on the basis of something which they can do nothing about and that harms NO ONE (and in fact the denial of one's homosexuality is actually harmful to the homosexual), there is no argument for the denial of civil marraige on the basis of involuntary sexual orientation.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom