equality blooms with spring, pt. II

[financeguy]

But, of course, if heterosexual couples use IVF to demand kids "of their own," that's perfectly fine?

No, I disagree with that also.

 

[AEON]

Seriously, AEON, do you realize the implications of what you're proposing here?

That a child possibly might be better off in a home with a mother and father? Is that so radical?

 

[melon]

I can see that you want to treat same-sex couples as inherently inferior to heterosexual couples, you have explicitly stated this belief is religious, and have been trying to justify it by clutching at any argument you can find.

I think you've pretty much summed up the entire thread here.

 

[BVS]

No, I disagree with that also.

You disagree with IVF? Why?

 

[melon]

I am definitely not arguing for getting rid of divorce entirely, I'd be in favour of making it more difficult however.

How is keeping two people forced into a loveless marriage beneficial? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure that when divorce was banned in Ireland, it didn't keep families together; it just made for a lot of separated spouses having extramarital relationships.

 

[Irvine511]

That a child possibly might be better off in a home with a mother and father? Is that so radical?

is it too difficult to judge each situation on the merits of the individual parties involved?

or do we need sweeping authoritative rules to follow?

 

[phillyfan26]

That a child possibly might be better off in a home with a mother and father? Is that so radical?

So, you think single parent homes need to be eliminated as well?

 

[A_Wanderer]

That a child possibly might be better off in a home with a mother and father? Is that so radical?

No more radical than a child might possibly be better off in a home with two mothers.

This argument doesn't work because same-sex parents don't fare any worse than straight couples. It also fails for childless couples, of any orientation.

Crying that somebody should think of the children is a lame tactic designed to take equal rights out of the discussion.

 

[financeguy]

I'm of the opinion that children raised by responsible, loving parents (not the lack of orientation qualifier) who take an active role in their child's development tend to grow up just fine. So if there's a homosexual couple willing to adopt, and all signs indicate that they are responsible adults who will take a loving and active role in their child's development, then no, I do not believe they should be moved to the back of the line until all heterosexual couples are sorted through first. That strikes me as a bit barbaric, frankly.

Yes, but I would raise issues of moral hazard here.

In other words, if it's ok for a bank to take massive risks on the markets because they have been given the nod that if their bets go wrong, the taxpayer will ultimately bail them out, then it seems to me that, in a somewhat similar fashion, the system is saying that it's ok for a sexually promiscous heterosexual type to conceive a bunch of kids they don't have the financial resources to care for - because, hey, even if I can't take care of my kids, some nice heterosexual OR homosexual couple that can't conceive on their own can just adopt them.

In both cases, there's a risk that prudence goes out the window.

 

[Diemen]

That a child possibly might be better off in a home with a mother and father? Is that so radical?

What I find radical is that you seem to be perfectly willing to have a responsible and loving couple - one that is eager to adopt and give a child in need a loving, warm and secure life - wait indefinitely while everyone else is sorted through, simply because they're gay.

Given two responsible, secure and loving couples, one heterosexual and one homosexual, do you think it possible that the homosexual couple could be better parents than the heterosexuals?

 

[phillyfan26]

Yes, but I would raise issues of moral hazard here.

In other words, if it's ok for a bank to take massive risks on the markets because they have been given the nod that if their bets go wrong, the taxpayer will ultimately bail them out, then it seems to me that, in a somewhat similar fashion, the system is saying that it's ok for a sexually promiscous heterosexual type to conceive a bunch of kids they don't have the financial resources to care for - because, hey, even if I can't take care of my kids, some nice heterosexual OR homosexual couple that can't conceive on their own can just adopt them.

In both cases, there's a risk that prudence goes out the window.

Yes, because women would casually go through a nine month pregnancy without really thinking twice about it.

 

[Se7en]

Yes, but I would raise issues of moral hazard here.

In other words, if it's ok for a bank to take massive risks on the markets because they have been given the nod that if their bets go wrong, the taxpayer will ultimately bail them out, then it seems to me that, in a somewhat similar fashion, the system is saying that it's ok for a sexually promiscous heterosexual type to conceive a bunch of kids they don't have the financial resources to care for - because, hey, even if I can't take care of my kids, some nice heterosexual OR homosexual couple that can't conceive on their own can just adopt them.

In both cases, there's a risk that prudence goes out the window.

 

[martha]

But, more importantly, as far as the law is concerned, you don't have to have children to get married. I understand that a lot of marriages do result in couples deciding they want children, but legally, there's no requirement. So, there really doesn't need to be any discussion of this here.

I don't know Peef, if we can't talk about the The Children, then we have to go back to the real reason homos can't get married:







They make people uncomfortable.

 

[Diemen]

Yes, but I would raise issues of moral hazard here.

In other words, if it's ok for a bank to take massive risks on the markets because they have been given the nod that if their bets go wrong, the taxpayer will ultimately bail them out, then it seems to me that, in a somewhat similar fashion, the system is saying that it's ok for a sexually promiscous heterosexual type to conceive a bunch of kids they don't have the financial resources to care for - because, hey, even if I can't take care of my kids, some nice heterosexual OR homosexual couple that can't conceive on their own can just adopt them.

In both cases, there's a risk that prudence goes out the window.

People should stop adopting because it only encourages promiscuous people to have more babies?

I'm having trouble understanding how that has any bearing on our discussion.

 

[financeguy]

Yes, because women would casually go through a nine month pregnancy without really thinking twice about it.

So teen pregnancies aren't a problem? How come so much efforts are invested in discouraging them?

 

[anitram]

I don't know Peef, if we can't talk about the The Children, then we have to go back to the real reason homos can't get married.


They make people uncomfortable.

Once when I was still in school, a male friend told me that it's not that he really cared about gay marriage one way or another but that he thought that two men kissing was "really gross."

And while I found that to be sort of childish and eyeroll worthy, I actually respected him for his honesty rather than parroting some church sermon, or the slippery legal slope towards the union of man and giraffe, or save the children! At least his view was his own.

 

[martha]

I thought we were discussing the reasons gays shouldn't be allowed to get married?

So far poor AEON hasn't come up with a good reason. At all.

 

[phillyfan26]

So teen pregnancies aren't a problem? How come so much efforts are invested in discouraging them?

I'm not saying teen pregnancies aren't a problem, dude. That's an entirely different issue. What I'm saying is that at no point before they get pregnant do they think, "Hey, you know what? I don't really mind if I get pregnant because I can just put it up for adoption." Which is the only thing you can be implying for your post to make any sense and have relevance in this conversation.

And if this is the argument you're making, how does homosexual couples being allowed to adopt change anything? It's not like adoption doesn't exist now.

 

[Diemen]

I thought we were discussing the reasons gays shouldn't be allowed to get married?

So far poor AEON hasn't come up with a good reason. At all.

It's because the state shouldn't be involved in marriages at all.







Not that that in any way addresses why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married, mind you...

 

[financeguy]

People should stop adopting because it only encourages promiscuous people to have more babies?

Yes, of course, and banks should not grant loans to anyone at all ever because some of the loans might go bad.

 

[martha]

Once when I was still in school, a male friend told me that it's not that he really cared about gay marriage one way or another but that he thought that two men kissing was "really gross."

And while I found that to be sort of childish and eyeroll worthy, I actually respected him for his honesty rather than parroting some church sermon, or the slippery legal slope towards the union of man and giraffe, or save the children! At least his view was his own.

This is what I'm waiting for AEON to break down and admit, rather than all this polite, horrifying sermonizing about the State, the Children, and the Bible.

 

[melon]

And if this is the argument you're making, how does homosexual couples being allowed to adopt change anything? It's not like adoption doesn't exist now.

Because once the gays want to partake in something, it's now time to ban it for everyone?

 

[AEON]

AEON's entire line of thinking is based on things like "ideal" or "optimal" upbringings. There's no such thing, and the sooner we get past that, the better.

Is that true for anything - or just adoption?

 

[financeguy]

Once when I was still in school, a male friend told me that it's not that he really cared about gay marriage one way or another but that he thought that two men kissing was "really gross."

And while I found that to be sort of childish and eyeroll worthy, I actually respected him for his honesty rather than parroting some church sermon, or the slippery legal slope towards the union of man and giraffe, or save the children! At least his view was his own.

Didn't you used to be a scientist?

 

[martha]

It's because the state shouldn't be involved in marriages at all.







Not that that in any way addresses why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married, mind you...

I guess that's it, but he still won't tell me if he's going to get a civil divorce to illustrate his point, or if he's still going to reap the benefits of civil marriage, meanwhile pointing out how no one else should be allowed to have what he has. And claims he doesn't need.

 

[phillyfan26]

Is that true for anything - or just adoption?

I'm saying there's no perfect way, and I'm saying that the most important factors in raising kids have NOTHING to do with biological vs. adopted or straight vs. gay. They have to do with the character of the prospective parents. They have to do with the kind of home the parents can provide financially. Things like that. Important things. You're talking about things that really don't matter at all.

 

[martha]

Because once the gays want to partake in something, it's now time to ban it for everyone?

Yes. So, as a favor, would you guys start wearing sweats in public with words across the ass? I'd really like these banned, please.

 

[martha]

I'm saying there's no perfect way, and I'm saying that the most important factors in raising kids have NOTHING to do with biological vs. adopted or straight vs. gay. They have to do with the character of the prospective parents. They have to do with the kind of home the parents can provide financially. Things like that. Important things. You're talking about things that really don't matter at all.

Adoption has NOTHING to do with the gay marriage question, but as long as he keeps us talking about it, then we forget what the real topic is.

 

[AEON]

Crying that somebody should think of the children is a lame tactic designed to take equal rights out of the discussion.

This tangent was created by addressing the adoption issue asked by philly:

Homosexuals should be allowed to marry and raise families via either adoption or artificial insemination and given the same rights as heterosexuals for both the marriage and the family raising. Someone tell me why this isn't a good idea

 

[martha]

This tangent was created by addressing the adoption issue asked by philly:

Oh please. You'll do anything to avoid the real issue.