Gay People Against Gay Marriage

[semi-pro waster]

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.

A lot of what you're suggesting there is simply a case of stereotypical gender roles being used to define suitability. There's no real reason why a male can't talk with a reasonable level of knowledge about periods, they haven't experienced one but first hand experience isn't always necessary to give useful input.

There's a subsequent question about whether we (as a society) want to encourage people to stick only to narrow and strictly defined gender roles. It may be that over time we'll be able to have better conversations with anyone regardless of their gender and parents will find it easier to swap roles - I don't think that would necessarily be a bad thing to get away from a particular reliance on gender roles.

I don't know of any research suggesting that children raised by homosexual couples are more likely to have sexual preferences that are different in a statistically significantly sense to those raised by male/female couples but if there is such information available I'd be interested to read it. I would note though that even were it to be proven that those children raised by homosexual couples were more likely to have a sexual preference other than for the opposite sex that isn't necessarily an undesirable outcome - it may be that if there is a higher incidence of homosexuality in children raised by homosexual couples that this is actually closer to the mean level i.e. those children perhaps feel less bound to suppress natural inclinations than others may do.

Let's be very clear though, most of the above is supposition. About the only thing I do know with any real degree of certainty is that being great parents and being terrible parents has little to do with sexual orientation, in fact it seems to have little to do with race, religion, economic circumstances or a myriad of other irrelevant factors.

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

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that, I don't see anything wrong with stay at home dads if that is a situation that works out best for the family. I'd be extremely wary of a general stance against it, sometimes it won't be right but provided the relevant parties are happy with the situation it can work out very well.

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.

Best of luck to your sister-in-law, I hope it works out well for them.

 

[FoxEye]

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?

All that proves is that no matter how good your upbringing, no matter how 'normal' / stable / caring your developmental years were, you can choose to commit evil acts.

And the reverse also being true. No matter how terrible your parents and upbringing, you can (through conscious effort) choose a different course, and be a decent human being yourself.

Many people will agree, I'm sure, that the best possible start in life is to have a mother and a father present during your formative years, and for those two people to love each other.

That said, there are millions being raised by single parents, either male or female. I'm sure there are many being raised by two men or two women, be it brothers or sisters or whatever, where the mother/father has died or left.

In those cases it's fairly easy to explain to the child where the missing parent is. In the case of two gay guys who chose to have a surrogate birth, it's a complicated mess. As opposed to adoption, which I have less of a problem with, two gays guys choosing to create a new life, remove the infant from its mother, and raise that child as theirs? It's wrong on so many levels.

And naturally, I expect the child would want to track down its mother at some point also. Even if both 'Dads' want the child to be exclusively theirs, the child on becoming an adult will understand that he/she has a mother. And why wouldn't you want to track her down? That person may desire to establish a normal mother/child relationship with its biological Mum. So then does it have three parents?

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

<snip>

It's wrong on so many levels.

Tell me about the levels.

e: wait, does your answer involve genocide again because that would be brilliant! Everyone loves some trampling down of people who aren't them, right?

 

[FoxEye]

 

[hurfdurf]

I am kinda busy but all the science shows you are wrong.

http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles...les Position Statement - October 2006 (1).pdf

http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/10/27/amicus29.pdf

So, despite being at a disadvantage, gay parents produce children just as well as straight parents, and better than single parents.

If you are against gay people raising kids, especially when there are so many kids looking for foster parents, you are just a disgusting homophobe who can't do basic research or refuses to.

I'm just going to quote myself. You say it's wrong on so many levels and that the kids won't understand, yet the vast amount of peer reviewed research into the topic shows that you are taking rubbish. The evidence shows time and time again that gay parents are just as good as straight.

It also shows quite definitively that the kids are no more likely to be gay either.

 

[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.

I spend my days reading the Bible and the context within.....besides we are talking about raising children and the ability of people to love a child and form a successful family unit that nurtures and raises a child successfully....the Bible is quite clear that Love is the primary condition: Corinthians 13:1-13....and that Love comes from God, that those that can Love are born of God and know God: 1 John 4:7. The Scripture gives lots of references to Husbands and Wives, however it doesn't state that a family unit is anathema if it doesn't have this specific dynamic. That is how you interpret it, it doesn't mean that your prefered dynamic is greater than the primary two Commandments and how they relate to how we, today, treat and accept the ability of non conventional family units.

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.

People say what you are arguing for, God simply commands that we follow the New Commandment.

No matter what the dynamic of a family unit is, be it two men, two women, single parent, extended family, raising your brothers children and so on, The Bible says one thing quite clearly:

But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

As you say, the Bible is not simply about reading the verses, it is about context and understanding Gods Character....do you honestly believe that Gods Character would allow such prejudices to deprive a child of a loving, productive and safe home simply because of how he created a persons orientation?

Could you pick a sigle verse out of the bible where God definitely states it is OK for People to have same sex relationships?

We are talking about family units and raising children, not specifically what people do in the bedroom.

It does not mean God agreed with it though, Adam and Eve were punished accordingly

How were Adam and Eve punished....were they not blessed with another son, Seth?

 

[Schlong&Stable]

I am kinda busy but all the science shows you are wrong.

http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles...les Position Statement - October 2006 (1).pdf

http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/10/27/amicus29.pdf

Most of this 'evidence' in these reports is deeply flawed. Ignore the site hosting this paper, as the author has no link to them, they are just sharing the evidence. But the following paper shows the criticism -

http://christian.org.uk/pdfpublications/childrenastrophies.pdf

There are also good arguments against marriage, including evidence showing the negative impact it's had. I'll try dig it up sometime.

 

[Castiel]

All that proves is that no matter how good your upbringing, no matter how 'normal' / stable / caring your developmental years were, you can choose to commit evil acts.

However Gtiracer held it up as the ideal....it is not, Genesis is not even about family units as such, it is an allegory of creation and mankinds relationship with the universe and God. It isn't a template to decide what is the perfect family or not. The literal story itself would kind of negate that, which was the point I was making. Not making a commentary on nature v nurture.

 

[Gtiracer]

I spend my days reading the Bible and the context within.....besides we are talking about raising children and the ability of people to love a child and form a successful family unit that nurtures and raises a child successfully....the Bible is quite clear that Love is the primary condition: Corinthians 13:1-13....and that Love comes from God, that those that can Love are born of God and know God: 1 John 4:7. The Scripture gives lots of references to Husbands and Wives, however it doesn't state that a family unit is anathema if it doesn't have this specific dynamic. That is how you interpret it, it doesn't mean that your prefered dynamic is greater than the primary two Commandments and how they relate to how we, today, treat and accept the ability of non conventional family units.


People say what you are arguing for, God simply commands that we follow the New Commandment.

No matter what the dynamic of a family unit is, be it two men, two women, single parent, extended family, raising your brothers children and so on, The Bible says one thing quite clearly:

As you say, the Bible is not simply about reading the verses, it is about context and understanding Gods Character....do you honestly believe that Gods Character would allow such prejudices to deprive a child of a loving, productive and safe home simply because of how he created a persons orientation?

If it goes against the fundamental purpose for creation and method of reproduction then yes - why would god want to create a race that cannot itself reproduce.

You state that God created the person like that, as if they have no choice which is completely false.

We are talking about family units and raising children, not specifically what people do in the bedroom.

But it sends the wrong message out completely, not to mention, it is surely related anyhow as that's how children are supposed to be produced - ironically not possible with a same sex couple, the younger the child is the worse impact it will have.

How were Adam and Eve punished....were they not blessed with another son, Seth?

I was referring to Being punished by being cast out of the heavenly realms.

If they made mistakes with bringing up children, then you'll need to point a verse to me as I do not know that part off my head. But what I know is God is gracious and knows we are not perfect, so he probably gave them another chance to redeem themselves and bless them

 

[Gtiracer]

However Gtiracer held it up as the ideal....it is not, Genesis is not even about family units as such, it is an allegory of creation and mankinds relationship with the universe and God. It isn't a template to decide what is the perfect family or not. The literal story itself would kind of negate that, which was the point I was making. Not making a commentary on nature v nurture.

Genesis 8:17 NIV
Bring out every kind of living creature that is with you--the birds, the animals, and all the creatures that move along the ground--so they can multiply on the earth and be fruitful and increase in number upon it."

How can you say this is not to do with making family units. You really think god is saying reproduce for the sake of things inhabiting the planet? - that would be ludicrous

 

[Madamoiselle]

I am not a religious person at all and have no intentions to be - however the debate that's going on here is fascinating.

 

[Gtiracer]

A lot of what you're suggesting there is simply a case of stereotypical gender roles being used to define suitability. There's no real reason why a male can't talk with a reasonable level of knowledge about periods, they haven't experienced one but first hand experience isn't always necessary to give useful input.

Exactly, it isn't necessary - so a man could do it if placed in that position, but a woman is far more capable and better at it and empathetic having experience and knowledge in that department.

I don't know of any research suggesting that children raised by homosexual couples are more likely to have sexual preferences that are different in a statistically significantly sense to those raised by male/female couples but if there is such information available I'd be interested to read it. I would note though that even were it to be proven that those children raised by homosexual couples were more likely to have a sexual preference other than for the opposite sex that isn't necessarily an undesirable outcome - it may be that if there is a higher incidence of homosexuality in children raised by homosexual couples that this is actually closer to the mean level i.e. those children perhaps feel less bound to suppress natural inclinations than others may do.

I disagree I think it would be a very undesirable thing to happen. Unless there was no other choice for that child.

Let's be very clear though, most of the above is supposition. About the only thing I do know with any real degree of certainty is that being great parents and being terrible parents has little to do with sexual orientation, in fact it seems to have little to do with race, religion, economic circumstances or a myriad of other irrelevant factors.

Agreed, I don't believe only Christians can create good families, some of my really good friends who i admire have awesome parenting skills and are nothing to do with Church. But I do believe having Christian Morals helps massively IMO

Best of luck to your sister-in-law, I hope it works out well for them.

Ta very much, they know how we feel about the situation, but we are supportive where we can be

 

[Castiel]

People say what you are arguing for, God simply commands that we follow the New Commandment.

No matter what the dynamic of a family unit is, be it two men, two women, single parent, extended family, raising your brothers children and so on, The Bible says one thing quite clearly:

As you say, the Bible is not simply about reading the verses, it is about context and understanding Gods Character....do you honestly believe that Gods Character would allow such prejudices to deprive a child of a loving, productive and safe home simply because of how he created a persons orientation?

If it goes against the fundamental purpose for creation and method of reproduction then yes - why would god want to create a race that cannot itself reproduce.[/quote]

So, the primary message that Christ bought to Mankind is effectively bunkum, as it only applies to those who comply to a narrow definition of how people should feel.

You state that God created the person like that, as if they have no choice which is completely false.

I think you will find that someone's sexual orientation is, in most cases, something that is part of their nature...not something they choose to feel. And are we, as a race, not made in Gods Image..are we not a reflection of his nature? if this is the case then should we reject those who may be a reflection of that nature simply because that reflection is not the same as our own? Is Gods Nature so simplistic that it is so easily defined?

How does that square with the central theme of Christ's Commandment?

But it sends the wrong message out completely, not to mention, it is surely related anyhow as that's how children are supposed to be produced - ironically not possible with a same sex couple, the younger the child is the worse impact it will have.

I was referring to Being punished by being cast out of the heavenly realms.

They were punished for other things than their parenting...In a world of isolation and if we assume the literal interpretation of Genesis as you appear to be doing, then should we not look toward the family unit as being the defining factor in the morality of the children as there were no other intervening or influencing factors? this is of course what you are saying is the problem with non conventional families after all....If Adam and Eve were good parents and Cain's aberration was due to his own morality (given by God perhaps) then surely we cannot judge any Family Unit, however it is comprised based on morality alone, as surely that would mean that your reason for believing that Adam and Eve is Gods template for a moral and just family unit is flawed.

If they made mistakes with bringing up children, then you'll need to point a verse to me as I do not know that part off my head. But what I know is God is gracious and knows we are not perfect, so he probably gave them another chance to redeem themselves and bless them

You are stating that a Parents morality is a primary value in bringing up children, the younger the child the more impact it will have...You pointed to Adam and Eve as being examples of what God intended a family to be...I pointed out that the morality of your example is flawed as is the example itself.

How can you say this is not to do with making family units. You really think god is saying reproduce for the sake of things inhabiting the planet? - that would be ludicrous

So, if we go by that, the primary goal of any family unit is to procreate....as simple as that....so to best accomplish that we should be in multiple partner relationships, having as many children as possible and follow any family system which best provides for this outcome...polygamy or better yet, as with many species on the Earth, follow only transient, temporary family units that are expressly for the sole purpose of producing as many young across as broad a genetic spectrum as possible, so why have marriage at all...surely we should simply be having sex with as many people as possible.

And you talk about it being ludicrous.

 

[deuse]

I spend my days reading the Bible and the context within.....

Which version of the bible are you reading?

 

[Castiel]

Which version of the bible are you reading?

Pretty much most of them, in a range of languages, including, and primarily the original ones such as Hebrew , Aramaic, Latin and Greek.

 

[anything I don't mind]

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.

I can understand how you think that is a contradiction. I am against marriage as i explained ie the legal side of it and traditions and religious elements. I am not against the rest of marriage though. Just those parts. If i met a girl (i know, just go along with it) and she wanted to get married i would prefer not to do the legal part, but would partake in a ceremony of kinds but not a religious one, unless she was heavily religious, then I would play along but that is unlikely because i don't think i could handle a very religious girl friend anyway. I don't think there is any legal reason to get married, there are reasons but none that i think warrant the legal side. Men have such poor rights in marriage and outside of marriage it makes no difference. If we want to buy a house together we just incorporate etc. She can even change her surname if she wants.

ok to clarify, i advocate the traditional family or natural family, not traditional marriage.

 

[deuse]

Pretty much most of them.

Well they are changed to someone's agenda from the first one 3,500 BC.
Todays one is all about making money and pleasing to many people so they can make more money.

I'll stick to the first one the one with many gods

 

[Castiel]

Well they are changed to someone's agenda from the first one 3,500 BC.
Todays one is all about making money and pleasing to many people so they can make more money.

I'll stick to the first one the one with many gods

I am a linguist, my job includes translating and interpreting biblical manuscripts.

 

[deuse]

I am a linguist, my job includes translating and interpreting biblical manuscripts.

You got the hardest job in the world then as no one has ever translated a bible\scroll before Christ

In one bible Jesus did not die on the cross but watched. As I've said most are just made up to suite an agenda.

Where do you stand on the gospel according to Mary Magdalene?

 

[krooton]

You got the hardest job in the world then as no one has ever translated a bible\scroll before Christ

In one bible Jesus did not die on the cross but watched. As I've said most are just made up to suite an agenda.

Where do you stand on the gospel according to Mary Magdalene?

Oh wow, a "my belief is the true way, everyone else is wrong.", never seen one of those before!