Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
what is sexist is ascribing social roles to people on the basis of their sperm or eggs and not on the basis of their interests and ability.
SPLIT--> California's Proposition 8 on Same-Sex Marriage
- Thread starter phillyfan26
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
what is sexist is ascribing social roles to people on the basis of their sperm or eggs and not on the basis of their interests and ability.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
"Credible studies"What the hell was I thinking just relying on the obvious and common sense? Moms and dads are different, contrasting yet complementary,
where do I come up with this stuff?
actually, if you really want to look at studies, they're starting to suggest that, in some areas, children do best with two moms.
that and they're far, far less likely to be sexually abused in female/female households because the #1 abusers of children are straight men. fathers, uncles, etc.
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
I've pointed out repeatedly that biology, chemistry, and sociology have maybe more than a little to do with gender. You're the one who seems to be arguing in the face of reality.
When the discourse of the "debate" involves shrill stereotypes that are indefensible rationally and appeals to fabricated fantasies of tradition (i.e., 1950s TV shows), it's not hard to see why the discourse has devolved as it has.
Thankfully, this is a U.S. Appeals Court ruling and not a Supreme Court ruling. I have made it quite clear that I disagree with the entire substance of this ruling, and the reasoning is on par with Plessy v. Ferguson, frankly. That is, "we all have rights," except for "those people," because it "has always been that way." Essentially, I think they tailored their argument like many lower court rulings do: they do a complete end around the substance of law and court precedent to avoid being the party responsible for changing the status quo.
Let no one think otherwise that the march for equality is anything less than two steps forward and one step back.
I presume you meant less likely, according to your line of reasoning.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
But here's what I don't get. How does a change in defintion change your marriage?
So now we're back to the weak-ass argument of 'status-quo'?
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Who exactly on this board has appealed to Ozzie and Harriet except for maycocksean? I think we've enjoyed a remarkably civilized discussion on these matters, citing legal precedent etc.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
of course they have something to do with gender, but the point is flying by you, nathan -- people should not be limited to what they can and cannot do, nor told explicitly what they can and should do, on the basis of their gender.
this is really basic stuff.
and you've yet to point out what it is that *only* a (straight) father can do and that only a (straight) mother can do and then the different aspects of this magical alchemy that confers unto children a good and happy life.
it's absurd on it's face. families come in all shapes and sizes. horrible families have two straight parents who love one another. wonderful families could be a mother and a grandmother raising their kids.
what's wrong is for you to take your model and assume that one size fits all, and not just that, assume that there is only acceptable size ever, and that all else should be kicked out of the human family.
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
So now we're back to the weak-ass argument of 'status-quo'?
By "status quo", do you mean such apparently-trivial matters as historical precedent and human development?
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
precedent, maybe, human development? what does that even mean?
precedent also gave us slavery, polygamy, the statutory rape of children by older men, etc.
is history really to be our guide here? we're not still burning witches, are we?
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Fine. Then I'd like to have babies.
I'm being facetious, but at some point, we all have to do deal with the biological difference and distinctions that make us who and what we are.
You mean the model of a father and mother who love each other and their children, which has emerged over thousands of years as the best environment for family?
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Do you really mean to equate a man and a woman who love one another and their children with slavery and statutory rape?
"Love" didn't enter the equation until the 19th century. Forced or arranged marriages were the norm.
With high mortality rates, either for the father who'd have died in the incessant wars or diseases of the past or the mother who'd have died in childbirth, being brought up either by a single parent, an extended family, or by the church was not uncommon--not to mention that illegitimate children weren't uncommon either. Ask my great-grandmother, who was sent to America, because her mother believed that she would never have been accepted in her home and shunned in Europe.
Yup...."good old days," indeed.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
Did any of you ever answer the question about how the Netherlands was doing several years after legalizing same-sex marriage?
How is their society functioning? Has it fallen apart yet?
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
Can we let go of the children for just one second?
Can we talk about marriage, rather than family? We all know that not every family is a two-parent household, yet the right tends to have these fantasies about the mommy and the daddy raising Junior and Sally, even though many households are headed by a single mother. Of course, this issue was successfully avoided in this thread a swell.
So, how indeed does two men getting married pose a problem?
Other than the horror of subverting nathan's hegemony as a straight man, I mean.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
that would be biology, nathan.
if you'd like to be the nurturing parent, you're more than welcome to do so. gender shouldn't hold you back. we do have male nursery school teachers, and we also have female rugby coaches.
but they shouldn't, in and of themselves, limit what we do and who we can be and what rights are available to us.
nope. lots of these so-called models are abject failures. it's the quality of the individuals involved that determines success, not the structure.
again, nathan, it's content, not form.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
you're the one invoking thousands of years of human history.
"love," as we understand it, is quite a new concept.
namkcuR
ONE love, blood, life
Some of you have asked about why it's necessary to have parents of opposite gender raising a child.
I support gay marriage, and I do not support Prop 8. However, I do think that maybe some of you are dismissing this question a bit too quickly and lightly. It could be a very valid issue to think about, especially in the scenario of a child being raised by a same-sex couple who are the opposite gender of the child.
Imagine the scenario of a girl being raised by a gay male couple. Eventually that girl is going reach pre-adolescent/adolescent years. Her body is going to change. Is it then unreasonable to suggest that perhaps a mother or at least a mother-figure - a woman that the girl trusts implicitly to be able to talk about such things with - would be a more ideal parent for a girl of this age when the girl is getting her first period, or is exploring her private parts for the first time? I mean, let's face it, no guy has ever had a monthly visitor in his life. I think it is absolutely reasonable to suggest that in this scenario, a mother or mother-figure could show considerably more understanding(considering she has had experience and a guy hasn't) and offer advice concerning these issues that a man just couldn't.
After thinking on it for a while, I couldn't think of a situation for the opposite scenario(a boy being raised by a gay female couple) that was as involuntarily and permanently limiting to one gender parent as the situation above was(imo, anyway). But any of us have seen any number of people who grew up without a father being deeply affected by it, saying how much they missed having a father, how when they had children of their own, they wanted to be the father they never had. They might still love their mother completely, and that love may have been enough to raise a good person, but it doesn't change the fact that they missed having a father.
Even if we can't think of too many specifics, there are just intangible aspects to shared-gender child-parent(boy with father, girl with mother) experiences that can have a tremendous effect on a child. I know when I say intangible, it sounds vague and insufficient, but I can't describe it any better than that. There's just certain feelings a son gets with a father and a daughter gets with a mother. The experience of being a certain gender.
I just feel as though some are dismissing this too lightly. Like I said, I support gay marriage 100%, and I voted against the similar prop when it was up in OH in 2004. But I also think that, while two loving parents of any gender will give a child a good, stable home, that there are certain benefits to having parents of both genders that shouldn't be discounted so easily.
Ideally, it would make sense to me that, ok, as a gay couple be married, but - and this is especially if your child is the opposite gender you are - make sure there is someone - an aunt/uncle(depending on the gender of the child), a close friend of one or both parents that is the opposite gender of the child, someone like that - that the child knows and trusts from a young age so that if he/she ever needs advice/help/whatever from an adult of the opposite gender who cares for them, they have one(at least one). To me, that makes the most sense.
I support gay marriage, and I do not support Prop 8. However, I do think that maybe some of you are dismissing this question a bit too quickly and lightly. It could be a very valid issue to think about, especially in the scenario of a child being raised by a same-sex couple who are the opposite gender of the child.
Imagine the scenario of a girl being raised by a gay male couple. Eventually that girl is going reach pre-adolescent/adolescent years. Her body is going to change. Is it then unreasonable to suggest that perhaps a mother or at least a mother-figure - a woman that the girl trusts implicitly to be able to talk about such things with - would be a more ideal parent for a girl of this age when the girl is getting her first period, or is exploring her private parts for the first time? I mean, let's face it, no guy has ever had a monthly visitor in his life. I think it is absolutely reasonable to suggest that in this scenario, a mother or mother-figure could show considerably more understanding(considering she has had experience and a guy hasn't) and offer advice concerning these issues that a man just couldn't.
After thinking on it for a while, I couldn't think of a situation for the opposite scenario(a boy being raised by a gay female couple) that was as involuntarily and permanently limiting to one gender parent as the situation above was(imo, anyway). But any of us have seen any number of people who grew up without a father being deeply affected by it, saying how much they missed having a father, how when they had children of their own, they wanted to be the father they never had. They might still love their mother completely, and that love may have been enough to raise a good person, but it doesn't change the fact that they missed having a father.
Even if we can't think of too many specifics, there are just intangible aspects to shared-gender child-parent(boy with father, girl with mother) experiences that can have a tremendous effect on a child. I know when I say intangible, it sounds vague and insufficient, but I can't describe it any better than that. There's just certain feelings a son gets with a father and a daughter gets with a mother. The experience of being a certain gender.
I just feel as though some are dismissing this too lightly. Like I said, I support gay marriage 100%, and I voted against the similar prop when it was up in OH in 2004. But I also think that, while two loving parents of any gender will give a child a good, stable home, that there are certain benefits to having parents of both genders that shouldn't be discounted so easily.
Ideally, it would make sense to me that, ok, as a gay couple be married, but - and this is especially if your child is the opposite gender you are - make sure there is someone - an aunt/uncle(depending on the gender of the child), a close friend of one or both parents that is the opposite gender of the child, someone like that - that the child knows and trusts from a young age so that if he/she ever needs advice/help/whatever from an adult of the opposite gender who cares for them, they have one(at least one). To me, that makes the most sense.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
this is usually what happens. and what happens with single parents as well.
and some kids don't get along with their same-gender parent (like, say, Bono or Bruce Springsteen) and seek out this male-male or female-female solidarity with other family members, close family friends, etc. i think it's silly that we think that our parents are the start and finish of our family. it precisely does take a village.
i never talked about sex with my parents, but that doesn't mean i didn't have adults with whom i could talk about that kind of stuff with. i never felt any solidarity with my father on the basis of gender -- perhaps that's because neither of us were keen to ogle the Dallas Cowgirls or whatever it is that some men do to bond with their sons -- and i really can't tell you where gender came into play in my upbringing. yes, my mother is who she is because she's a woman, and the same with my father as a man, but in actual parenting, i don't see how their opposite sexes created some sort of alchemy.
i also think that the yearning for the absent mother or father is probably more of a condition of single parenthood, where one parent has left and that's the absence that has felt. if a child has two parents, i'm not so sure that there's the same sort of need. and, again, this is where families and friends tend to come into play.
and from what i've observed, gay parents tend to form very, very strong networks and bonds with other gay families. there's a strong amount of solidarity there, and no absence of same-gender role models instantly available to you.
and, ultimately, no family is perfect. perhaps one has a loving father, but he's working most of the time. should he not get married because he's not there to make his magical alchemy with mom?
the points, here, are twofold:
1. having children is not a prerequisite for getting married
2. there are many different forms of successful families, and many successful families are non-traditional, and many traditional families are abject failures; thus, the success of a family is not contingent upon it's form, but upon it's content
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
Were these 2 married, if not did this lead to the killing w anger/aggravation issuses and so forth?:
Former Mr Gay UK 'slit boyfriend's throat then marinated his diced flesh with fresh herbs' | Mail Online
<>
Former Mr Gay UK 'slit boyfriend's throat then marinated his diced flesh with fresh herbs' | Mail Online
<>
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Marriage used to be and in other cultures still is arranged, so don't think that your model of marriage is the model set forth by historical precedent. Status quo gave us the ban on inter-racial marriage, so yes status quo is a weak weak argument.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
look! this heterosexual was raised by two heterosexual parents who loved each other:
Christopher Porco - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Would you put OJ or Scott Peterson in a thread about straight marriage? So transparent...How did you get invited back? You're much nicer when you are not talking about important issues...
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
You have points, but these points are faced by single parents every single day. Yet nowhere do I see laws passed preventing single parents from raising opposite gendered children.
Or should we?
All this concern "for the children" sounds so noble and uplifting, until it's actually applied to heterosexual single parents, and then none of you answer any of the questions.
namkcuR
ONE love, blood, life
What? Your own sig says 'vote no on prop 8'. Voting against the prop upholds gay marriage, right? So I don't support the prop because I support gay marriage.
namkcuR
ONE love, blood, life
I understand that the same issues are faced by single parents. Of course there shouldn't be laws against that and you don't see me presenting this as a reason for gay marriage to not be allowed. I was just saying that the idea of how a child could conceivably benefit from having two genders parenting them as opposed to one gender was dismissed a little too lightly. I also said that if there are aunts/uncles/close friends who are opposite the gender of the parent in the child's inner circle, then no problem. It's ideal to have opposing gender-based viewpoints in parenting, imo. Yes, there are many single parents, but I doubt there are many single mothers who don't wish their children had a father or vice versa.
So I'm not presenting any of this as any reason not to allow gay marriage, just as an issue that I feel was dismissed too quickly and should be taken into consideration.
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
How did you get invited back? You're much nicer when you are not talking about important issues...
The question was serious, does England not have Gay Civil Unions?
Could this have been a stressor-tipping this man over the edge?
Are Gays not allowed to be recognized as couples adding to the anger of this one man?
I'm completely serious.
<>
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
if you're going to say that institutionalized homophobia and discrimination directly lead to the unhappiness and misery and self-loathing of many gay men,
then you're right.
if you're going to say that it leads to a SOTL scenario, then, no, you're not.
- Status
Similar threads
