Gay People Against Gay Marriage
- Thread starter Edrof
- Start date
- Status
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
For someone who purports to be rational you're not very internally consistent with your views. Both quotes are from this thread, in the first you say you're against marriage and then give a wonderful little "what have the Romans ever done for us" type monologue where you conclude that you're not against marriage if you take away many of the elements that constitute marriage for most people (n.b. you've not suggested that people shouldn't express a commitment to each other but a major part of that is legal via succession rights etc). Then in the second quote you say you're against gay marriage because it's working against the idea of "traditional marriage" - something you've already expressly said you don't care for.
Kids are surprisingly adaptable and as I've said I think a stable and loving environment is more important developmentally than having a traditional family unit even if it's dysfunctional. Kids can also be cruel whether unwittingly or not so while you think it might be a consideration that the family isn't "normal" there's an underlying point that kids will be teased for pretty much anything under the sun, it's a way of expressing and exerting powers over others. I'm not sure how you wish to judge fulfilling - if you've got some evidence to counter that put forward by Hurfdurf earlier in the thread regarding same sex families being perfectly capable in raising children then by all means present it.
I was going to ask what you meant by originally intended but I see that towards the end you confirm you're a Christian so I'll assume that is where you get the idea of a directed intention unless you confirm otherwise.
If you can do it and it's of benefit to others then why not do it? I'm not suggesting that everything that is possible should be done just because it is possible but if we take your premise that children would be missing out if people stuck to "traditional" gender roles and someone has the ability to remedy that lack then why shouldn't they do it?
What if the parents in a "traditional" family unit switch roles? At best you're advocating not doing anything apart from where an ideal situation exists and there is a "specialist" in that type of guidance/support for a child - I don't have kids but know lots of people who do and generally they just muddle through, sometimes mummy isn't there when the child wants them and vice versa for daddy.
In a "traditional" family if the female wishes to pursue a career or the male wishes to be the primary carer of the child then would you accept that as valid?
Ok, I'm glad we can agree that at least in some instances gay couples are a suitable option for adoption.
So mother/wife performing "traditional" (I say stereotypical) motherly roles, with father/husband performing "traditional" fatherly roles, is always better for a child?
And a single parent performing one or both of those roles is still considered better than 2 parents of the same sex performing one or both of those roles?
And having a mum and dad, even if the family unit is dysfunctional, is still better than a single parent or same-sex parent scenario?
Ninja please!
And a single parent performing one or both of those roles is still considered better than 2 parents of the same sex performing one or both of those roles?
And having a mum and dad, even if the family unit is dysfunctional, is still better than a single parent or same-sex parent scenario?
Ninja please!
Good role models and unconditional love are what are important, the gender of the people giving such are unimportant. Good parents are good parents, their orientation is immaterial.
However, it should be said that unconventional family units do put increased pressure on a child in the wider community, due to societies prejudices and what is considered normal. This should not be so, but it is something we should consider nonetheless.
However, it should be said that unconventional family units do put increased pressure on a child in the wider community, due to societies prejudices and what is considered normal. This should not be so, but it is something we should consider nonetheless.
I don't honestly have time to read those reports right now, but you can taint research to show whatever you want (you ever seen a bbc documentary right?) But ill read up when i have time.
You say 'produce' almost as if you are serious, gay people cannot produce children, nor can they successfully raise them in the way properly intended by God.
You can label me homophobe if you like, but its not the people I dislike, just the acts that they do. I have had gay friends in the past and I talk to them just as I would any other person. You have to seperate the person from the act. You can't label someone by something they've done or chosen to be - we've all made mistakes haven't we - I certainly wouldn't want to be hated for being a smelly ass just because I used to poo in nappies.
Because ultimately you confuse that child, especially more so the younger they are - for example we talk about different things to different genders right. You talk about your man bits to men, and your girly bits to mum.
If your a girl You wouldn't talk to your dad about periods now would you unless you absolutely had to. Or if a boy had some sort of issue with his genitals then you would probably speak to your dad rather than your mum.
Having a gay couple for your parents forces you in a position where you have to go to certain genders you wouldn't necessarily otherwise, at a young age, I believe this will massively affect later choices down the line and could even possibly affect the child's sexual preferences when they get older (purely from my opinion btw not research)
Plus not to mention all the other little nicks and nacks you would have to get used to have same gender parents.
Completely disagree with stay at home dads unless there is an exceptional circumstance (for example disability etc) The mother is a far better full time carer naturally (unless again exceptional cicumstances - I can't make these comments as a sweeping generalisation - there are sometimes exceptions to the rule)
As above, never unless massive reason otherwise
Indeed Good sir.
Please bear in mind I state all this having a sister-in-law who is a lesbian with a partner and they are thinking of adopting / or IVF right now.
What exactly does that mean? Are you suggesting that someone's orientation determines their ability to follow the New Commandment?
Completely. In the very beginning God created Adam to have a partner yes?
He created Man and Woman to work in harmony with each other as we compliment each others skills
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,768
- Location
- Auckland
Source please.
What nonsense, are you seriously saying that because a person is a homosexual they are incapable of following Christ's admonition to love one another as he loved us?
And on the subject of Adam and Eve and their Parenting skills, well, that didn't work out so well if I recall.
THat is a different question to what you asked originally
No it wasn't....I specifically mentioned the New Commandment.
Yes but you have taken one verse completely out of context and quoted it as "the entire New testament"
There is slightly more to "The New Testament"
[FnG]magnolia;24462338 said:
Genesis 2:22-24
Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman, ' for she was taken out of man." For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
Not at all, besides the fact that the New Commandment is the central theme seen throughout the New Testament, the context is clearly defined as applying to all mankind, it shows no prejudice. The two primary Commandments that God espoused are not limited in who they apply to....you are suggesting that someone's sexual orientation means that they cannot raise a child in a loving and successful home....based on what?
You state that you know what God intends, and that a Homosexual is anathema to a successful family unit, you give Adam and Eve as the example of a successful unit as per what God intended, yet one brother murdered the other through jealousy. Is that really the example you wish to use?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,768
- Location
- Auckland
I can't tell if you're joking or not. You make a Bible-based statement and then back it up by citing ... the Bible again?
Be gentle with him Castiel
If you read there bible in all its context and actually begin to understand gods character - then you know its wrong and there are enough verses to confirm that man should be with woman, not a member of the same sex.
Yes god tells us to Love one another - but doesn't go as far as to say, parent a family with 2 mern or 2 women together. The problem is Castiel, God says For what I'm arguing for, But he does not speak For what you are arguing against.
Could you pick a sigle verse out of the bible where God definitely states it is OK for People to have same sex relationships?
It does not mean God agreed with it though, Adam and Eve were punished accordingly
[FnG]magnolia;24462480 said:I can't tell if you're joking or not. You make a Bible-based statement and then back it up by citing ... the Bible again?
Be gentle with him Castiel
Don't be patrionising, You asked for source and there is no more credible source than the bible itself
Last edited:
Ironic typo.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,768
- Location
- Auckland
Using you initial source as further citation is generally frowned upon because it is moronic and useless.
Also, your statement is hilarious but paints a very clear picture.
- Status