interesting new angle on the gay marriage debate - Page 7 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-12-2006, 03:36 PM   #91
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:31 AM
[Q]Some here argue that what kids need most are loving parents, regardless of whether or not it’s a mother or father. What a child needs most are a loving father and mother. A wealth of secular research over the past 30 years has shown us this. Yet, same-sex marriage and parenting intentionally deprive children of a mother or father. The most loving mother in the world cannot teach a little boy how to be a man. [/Q]

Umm...Most men are NOT doing their job, married or not. It is a poor argument. The institution of marriage does not make someone a better father.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 03:39 PM   #92
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 12:31 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


non-reproduction = extinction
So, we can go back to banning marriages for celibate and couples who don't want kids. Yippee.


Quote:
Originally posted by AEON

No human society, not a single one, has ever declared “marriage” between members of the same sex as a norm for family life. It was not until very recently have we believed that we can improve upon this ancient and universal institution.
It was also defined between men and women of similar religions, same origin, same skin color, and class. Should we go back to those days?
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON

This public meaning of marriage is not something that each new generation is free to redefine. Marriage is defined by God and nature—and a wise society will protect marriage as it has always been understood. Marriage is the way our culture promotes stability by insuring that every child has a mother and father.
By God and nature? First of all when did nature ever define marriage, was that back when you could only marry within your race and economic class? Secondly, WE DON'T LIVE IN A THEOCRACY!
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON

The fact that some heterosexual couples cannot have children is the exception and not the rule. Many of these childless couples adopt, and their adoptive children receive the benefits of both father and mother this way. It is impossible for a homosexual couple to bestow that benefit—the presence of a father and a mother— on any child, even if that couple adopts or uses artificial insemination.
Impossible huh? You know very little about same sex adoption, don't you?

I guess you're going to ban single mothers too.

I guess you've never heard of grandparents, aunts and uncles, etc that play big parts in raising children.

You use to hide behind your religion, but the last day or so and your true colors have come out.

Pure homophobia.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 03:40 PM   #93
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 01:31 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON

Some here argue that what kids need most are loving parents, regardless of whether or not it’s a mother or father. What a child needs most are a loving father and mother. A wealth of secular research over the past 30 years has shown us this. Yet, same-sex marriage and parenting intentionally deprive children of a mother or father. The most loving mother in the world cannot teach a little boy how to be a man. Likewise, the most loving man cannot teach a little girl how to be a woman. A gay man cannot teach his son how to love and care for a woman. A lesbian cannot teach her daughter how to love a man or know what to look for in a good husband. Is love enough to help two gay dads guide their daughter through her first menstrual cycle? Like a mom, they cannot comfort her by sharing their first experience. Little boys and girls need the loving daily influence of both male and female parents to become who they are meant to be.



wow, the kids of single parents are going to be very upset with this post.

first, the stereotypes you pull out about lesbians and men are simply not substantiated by facts, and most gay parents have opposite-sex role models available to their children, and you're ignoring children of single parents. the single woman next door to me just adopted a baby boy from Guatemala. is that child never going to know how to be a man?

and simply because i am incapable of a sexual attraction to a woman doesn't mean that i would be incapable of modeling love and respect for all people regardless of their gender.

what about heterosexual couples who choose not to have children, or post-menopausal women? you're essentially arguing that the only condition for marriage has to be parenthood, that marriage licenses shouldn't be issued until the baby pops out of the uterus or the adoption papers are signed.

and here's what the science suggests:

[q]So let's look at the science. From small, pioneering studies in the 1970s, to today's larger scale investigations, researchers consistently find that it is the quality of children's relationships to their parents that matter most in raising children. Good parents can be gay or straight, as can bad parents, but in the end, these studies all demonstrate that children's psychological, social, emotional and academic development cannot be tied to a parent's sexual orientation or gender. These studies have been conducted by academics at institutions such as the University of Pennsylvania, Tufts University and the University of Virginia, and have been published in peer-reviewed journals.

Many medical, psychological and child welfare organizations have extensively reviewed this research, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists, and the American Psychological Association. Experts at these organizations have meticulously examined 30 years of scholarship, and have reached a degree of consensus rare in science. These professionals are uniquely qualified to assess the research findings and methodology in their field. As a result, each of these organizations adopted official policies acknowledging that children of same-sex parents are as healthy, happy and well-adjusted as their peers.

Opponents cannot point to a single legitimate study (i.e., studies not sponsored by ideological think-tanks) that supports their view that being raised by same-sex parents harms children. Instead, they either assert that all children must have a mother and a father to become well-adjusted adults, or they cite flawed and biased research, such as studies that look at differences between heterosexual two-parent families and single-parent families, usually following divorce. These studies don't address parental gender or sexual orientation, but look at the lesser economic and educational resources that a single parent may offer a child, and the psychological fallout of divorce.

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/...headlines-oped

[/q]




Denying gay marriage only seems cruel because of the times in which we live. Our society prizes what seems fair, more than what is true. Children truly need both a mom and a dad. The cruelty is in intentionally denying them this. The research supporting this is both substantial and unequivocal. (mostly cut and pasted from an argument made by Glenn T. Stanton)
[/QUOTE]


no, our laws should support what is fair. we are all entitled to equal treatment under the law, and notions of "truth" or what is "right" are subjective in the extreme and are not rational grounds for discrimination. is it the "truth" that the races should not intermarry? is it the "truth" that women should be subservient to men? you are free to believe in any of these truths and to say what you believe as loudly as you wish, however these do not form the basis of a just and equal society where all persons are guaranteed the same rights under the law.

Glen T. Stanton:

[q]Glenn has published articles in Christianity Today, The American Enterprise, The World & I, Boundless.org, Family Policy, Current Thoughts and Trends, National Forum and Dr. Laura’s Perspective. He has had cover stories in both Citizen and Focus on the Family magazine. He is a winner of the 2001 Amy Foundation Writing Award. Glenn is featured in the PBS documentary, "Affluenza" and has been a guest on numerous Focus on the Family radio broadcasts. He was recently selected by Christianity Today to be one of the few leading voices in evangelicalism to serve as a contributing writer to their Christian Vision Project.

http://www.family.org/welcome/bios/a0032215.cfm

[/q]
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 03:41 PM   #94
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:31 AM
[Q] Is love enough to help two gay dads guide their daughter through her first menstrual cycle?[/Q]

Umm...yes...single Dads do it all the time.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 03:51 PM   #95
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 01:31 AM
With all due respect AEON, I think you have an unrealistically idealized view of family relationships. I realize that my experience does not represent any or all either, but..

Not something I ever thought I'd share here, but my mother never told me anything about menstruation-until my first period came and she fumbled to give me some info. So there was no comforting or sharing there. I honestly think two gay men and/or gay women could have done a better job.

"The most loving mother in the world cannot teach a little boy how to be a man" Depends on what your definition of a man is. My definition encompasses so much more than what a father has to offer a son. I don't believe in traditionally defined gender roles in parenting and in raising boys and girls.


"Likewise, the most loving man cannot teach a little girl how to be a woman."-Why not, can you explain how that is the case? I do know that my father made me feel so badly in so many ways about being a woman. Any loving gay father certainly could have helped me be a woman and more importantly, helped me trust and love men and not fear them, and have a positive image of them. What defines being a woman? A gay father could have done all that for me , as long as he was the right kind of man. Orientation is irrelevant.

"A gay man cannot teach his son how to love and care for a woman. A lesbian cannot teach her daughter how to love a man or know what to look for in a good husband."

Why not? Gay men intrinsically know nothing about women or hate them in some way? I don't believe that at all. Same for lesbian women I would imagine, I think they still know what a good man is. It's the same as what a good person is only the gender is male.

Your ideals are yours and you have a right to them but I respectfully think they are rooted in stereotypes and don't give people nearly enough credit.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 03:56 PM   #96
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:31 PM
^
^
I am of course supporting "the best case scenario" which in essence should be the model IMHO.

Yes, some women find themselves at a disadvantage of being a single parent. Can she make it work? Of course. They do it all the time. I am such a product (ok - no jokes please). But was it the "best case scenario?" - no.

To me, an outsider I guess, the argument for gay marriage simply doesn't make rational sense at any level on how it could possible benefit society.

This doesn't make me a bigot or a homophobe. I have neither hatred nor fear of homosexuals. Calling someone a bigot or homophobe because they don't agree with gay marriage is like calling someone a bigot or Christianphobe because they don't accept the Resurrection.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 03:58 PM   #97
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
With all due respect AEON, I think you have an unrealistically idealized view of family relationships. I realize that my experience does not represent any or all either, but..

Not something I ever thought I'd share here, but my mother never told me anything about menstruation-until my first period came and she fumbled to give me some info. So there was no comforting or sharing there. I honestly think two gay men and/or gay women could have done a better job.

"The most loving mother in the world cannot teach a little boy how to be a man" Depends on what your definition of a man is. My definition encompasses so much more than what a father has to offer a son. I don't believe in traditionally defined gender roles in parenting and in raising boys and girls.


"Likewise, the most loving man cannot teach a little girl how to be a woman."-Why not, can you explain how that is the case? I do know that my father made me feel so badly in so many ways about being a woman. Any loving gay father certainly could have helped me be a woman and more importantly, helped me trust and love men and not fear them, and have a positive image of them. What defines being a woman? A gay father could have done all that for me , as long as he was the right kind of man. Orientation is irrelevant.

"A gay man cannot teach his son how to love and care for a woman. A lesbian cannot teach her daughter how to love a man or know what to look for in a good husband."

Why not? Gay men intrinsically know nothing about women or hate them in some way? I don't believe that at all. Same for lesbian women I would imagine, I think they still know what a good man is. It's the same as what a good person is only the gender is male.

Your ideals are yours and you have a right to them but I respectfully think they are rooted in stereotypes and don't give people nearly enough credit.
You do raise some good points. I was indeed generalizing in order to make the larger point. It looks like I may have slipped into stereotyping a bit.

I still think the overall logic stands, however.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 03:58 PM   #98
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 01:31 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
Why not? Gay men intrinsically know nothing about women or hate them in some way?


i go shopping with women all the time ... perhaps we know more about women than straight men do.



gay dads going shopping with their daughters, lesbian moms building tree houses with their songs ... actually, these stereotypes sound great to me.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 04:00 PM   #99
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 01:31 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
[BTo me, an outsider I guess, the argument for gay marriage simply doesn't make rational sense at any level on how it could possible benefit society.
[/B]


how about this: adults in stable, monogamous relationships provides a benefit to society.

further, when gays and lesbians have children, it is in their children's best interest to have married parents.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 04:08 PM   #100
Refugee
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: LA, California, USA
Posts: 1,349
Local Time: 06:31 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON



Are you saying that NO ONE in your lineage is a lefty? Grandma? Great great grandpa? Obviously, left handed people can still pass on their genes through procreation.

However, it seems that the "homosexual gene" would be far more difficult to pass down, being that there is only one miraculous birth that I am currently aware of.

In terms of evolution- how would a homosexual gene benefit the survival of the species? How could it possibly be passed down if it did "randomly occur" in nature? And if it does "randomly occur" - isn't that considered a "mutation" of the genetic blueprint? (not my words - Darwin's)

Most of the compelling arguments against a homosexual gene come from evolutionary biologists - not from Christian preachers.

We get our genes from our parents. Some genes have a direct effect on our physical and chemical makeup. I believe, for instance, there is a gene that determines your eye color; your sex; etc. However, most of our physical and chemical characteristics are formed by interacting genes - if that makes sense. In other words, most of our characteristics are not based on one single gene. Rather, a combination of genes in a specific sequence determine characteristics. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that there is one single gene that "makes" someone gay. Instead, a sequence of many genes together may be responsible.
There is another recent interesting hypothesis. In the womb, the type and level of hormones may affect the sexual orientation of the soon-to-be baby.

In any case, Darwinism certainly does not make homosexuality an impossibility. If (for the sake of argument) there is one gene that is responsible, it is rather easy to see how recessive traits become dominant traits in the offspring. If this gene is a mutation (which isn't by nature a bad thing, mutations are the reason why we're not all green goop - is that how you spell the word?) and let's even say that this mutation does not increase the fitness level of an organism, it is still easy to understand how such a gene can be passed along. Many organisms have traits that are not beneficial, sometimes detrimental, to their fitness. We, for example, have a tail bone; some moles have eyes even though they are never used; some water-dwelling creatures have the capacity to breath oxygen. These are called vestigial structures. As mentioned, sometimes they are quiet harmful to the organisms chances of survival. Yet, if the organism is able to survive, then it will continue to pass along its genetic code. We certainly have been able to do that.
__________________
blueyedpoet is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 04:12 PM   #101
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 01:31 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON

I still think the overall logic stands, however.
No offense to you but isn't the overall logic inherently flawed because it can't be applied to every relationship? Because it's an ideal that is intrinsically flawed because it doesn't exist for everyone?

I would love to find a gay man who is just a good man in the ways that I define a good man to be my late-in-life surrogate father and help me undo what happened as a result of the kind of father my father was. And to be the kind of father I always dreamed of having. I think it would be a lot cheaper than therapy and would be beneficial for me. And I'm serious about that, not just joking around.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 04:16 PM   #102
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by blueyedpoet




In any case, Darwinism certainly does not make homosexuality an impossibility. If (for the sake of argument) there is one gene that is responsible, it is rather easy to see how recessive traits become dominant traits in the offspring. If this gene is a mutation (which isn't by nature a bad thing, mutations are the reason why we're not all green goop - is that how you spell the word?) and let's even say that this mutation does not increase the fitness level of an organism, it is still easy to understand how such a gene can be passed along. Many organisms have traits that are not beneficial, sometimes detrimental, to their fitness. We, for example, have a tail bone; some moles have eyes even though they are never used; some water-dwelling creatures have the capacity to breath oxygen. These are called vestigial structures. As mentioned, sometimes they are quiet harmful to the organisms chances of survival. Yet, if the organism is able to survive, then it will continue to pass along its genetic code. We certainly have been able to do that.
I think a Darwinist would argue that animals that have traits that are no longer beneficial – those traits were at one time beneficial to their ancestors and the genes were passed down through procreation.

Genetic homosexuality cannot be passed down as a trait because of the very simply fact that homosexual couples cannot procreate. There is nothing to pass down because “the buck stop here.” – so to speak…
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 04:20 PM   #103
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen


No offense to you but isn't the overall logic inherently flawed because it can't be applied to every relationship? Because it's an ideal that is intrinsically flawed because it doesn't exist for everyone?

I would love to find a gay man who is just a good man in the ways that I define a good man to be my late-in-life surrogate father and help me undo what happened as a result of the kind of father my father was. And to be the kind of father I always dreamed of having. I think it would be a lot cheaper than therapy and would be beneficial for me. And I'm serious about that, not just joking around.
Agreed - it is tough to argue this point.

Would you agree, that the best case scenario would have been to have the kind of father you really needed and wanted?
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 04:21 PM   #104
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




i go shopping with women all the time ... perhaps we know more about women than straight men do.


How can I refute this?
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 04:21 PM   #105
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 01:31 AM
Have you read this study AEON?

http://www.statenews.com/article.phtml?pk=36837

And where is the study that proves that heterosexuals do not produce gay children genetically? I don't think one exists.
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com