Gay marriage legalised in the whole US by the supreme court

Status
Not open for further replies.
Same sex marriage is a non issue. Bringing up children is a different argument. Are same sex parents better or worse? No idea. As long as the child is well brought up with good values does it matter? Or do you need male and female influences? Don't know personally. As long as the child is given love and a broad and open upbringing then is there an issue?

Is same sex attraction a natural way of lowering population increase? Again I don't know it is just a part of nature should we force artificial child birth to circumvent it? I personally don't know the answer I can see the arguments for and against.
 
Same sex couples are and should be entitled to the same rights as everyone else. There's plenty of heterosexual relationships rearing dysfunctional families. It's not about sexual orientation when it comes to raising children, it's about good parenting. Thankfully, the moral zeitgeist is shifting from the bigoted towards the liberal.
 
Freefaller said:
Same sex marriage is a non issue. Bringing up children is a different argument. Are same sex parents better or worse?
Click to expand...
Apparently there is no difference reported from studies, although I think children are adaptable to any situation that is reasonably stable.

Much of it depends on what sort of society we want, one that accommodates any variety of relationship as equal or one that holds a biological male/female one as a simple human norm.

I guess seeking tolerance for all combinations is a response to our history of discrimination, and that by going for legal equality they are seeking to end this. I think that ignores the fact that such relationships are a minority and by defining everything as 'normal' we are creating a confusing society.
I'd rather we just end discrimination of sexuality but retain the male/female parental paradigm as optimum.

The assumption that discrimination towards gender dysphoria or homosexuality discrimination can only be solved by subverting the preference for breeding couples, is misguided.
If those groups want to have a stab at being parents then fine, but to then expect everyone to treat this arrangement as just as good as a conventional one is unfair.

Like I should be allowed to plaster my own walls, but the harsh fact is I'm not as good at it as a tradesman would be, and it is unfair for me to insist that everyone looking at my efforts should give it a round of applause and a gold star.

I'm not saying every male/female coupling is superior because clearly so many suck, I'm just pointing out the difference between what is a preferential situation because of human evolution, and what is merely a convenient social accommodation of a minorities needs and abilities.


Sliver said:
Thankfully, the moral zeitgeist is shifting from the bigoted towards the liberal.
Click to expand...

Whoa there...
I would never put "Bigoted" and "Liberal" on opposite sides of a coin :o

There is nothing more bigoted than a liberal defining what is good for all of society based on their own narrow dogmatic viewpoint, and then enforcing that fascist ideology using social censorship and prejudicial language.

At least the Nazis apologised at the end of the war for forcing their ideas down everyone's throats, you'd never see a liberal admit to cynically creating an Orwellian State to suit themselves :(
 
Sliver said:
Same sex couples are and should be entitled to the same rights as everyone else. There's plenty of heterosexual relationships rearing dysfunctional families. It's not about sexual orientation when it comes to raising children, it's about good parenting. Thankfully, the moral zeitgeist is shifting from the bigoted towards the liberal.
Click to expand...

Pretty much.

I see denying gay people the same rights as straight people being equal to denying people rights based on their race. It's outdated intolerance that is quite sensibly being removed from legislation.

Lols at precious forum members too, pretending to be offended. Some serious manginas in this world.
 
At least the Nazis apologised at the end of the war for forcing their ideas down everyone's throats, you'd never see a liberal admit to cynically creating an Orwellian State to suit themselves :(
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what the Nazis most heinous crime was, good of every single Nazi apologising.
 
bitslice said:
Apparently there is no difference reported from studies, although I think children are adaptable to any situation that is reasonably stable.
Click to expand...

So if that's what studies say it is at least prima facie evidence that it's roughly equivalent in terms of outcomes. I'm almost certain there will be other studies that indicate otherwise but it's useful that there is some research being done or that has been done in the area.

bitslice said:
Much of it depends on what sort of society we want, one that accommodates any variety of relationship as equal or one that holds a biological male/female one as a simple human norm.

I guess seeking tolerance for all combinations is a response to our history of discrimination, and that by going for legal equality they are seeking to end this. I think that ignores the fact that such relationships are a minority and by defining everything as 'normal' we are creating a confusing society.
I'd rather we just end discrimination of sexuality but retain the male/female parental paradigm as optimum.
Click to expand...

Normal is about as useful a word as natural in these circumstances. Having parents of both sexes in a relationship together may be the most common option, it may even be optimum but if you've just acknowledged above that there's no difference in outcomes then it would seem a bit unsupported to hold that only couples with a male and female as parents is acceptable. Unless the argument is motivated by personal belief rather than evidence - if that's the case then that's fine but it may not be a strong enough reason to discriminate against alternative arrangements.

bitslice said:
The assumption that discrimination towards gender dysphoria or homosexuality discrimination can only be solved by subverting the preference for breeding couples, is misguided.
If those groups want to have a stab at being parents then fine, but to then expect everyone to treat this arrangement as just as good as a conventional one is unfair.

Like I should be allowed to plaster my own walls, but the harsh fact is I'm not as good at it as a tradesman would be, and it is unfair for me to insist that everyone looking at my efforts should give it a round of applause and a gold star.

I'm not saying every male/female coupling is superior because clearly so many suck, I'm just pointing out the difference between what is a preferential situation because of human evolution, and what is merely a convenient social accommodation of a minorities needs and abilities.
Click to expand...

Subverting the preference? I don't think anyone was arguing anything about "breeding couples" - you've introduced that into the equation as far as I can see although there have been arguments about whether homosexual marriage should be called marriage since there is a belief that some hold to that such unions should be for the purposes of creating a stable family unit for procreation. However since you've brought "breeding couples" up the most common situation for parenting will almost certainly remain a male-female relationship irrespective of whether homosexual marriage is allowed.

Also if it's a preferential situation then why do the studies you've mentioned above show no difference? There may, of course, be flaws in the methodology but you might be better to highlight why you think there are and that it's a preferential situation even if the reason is simply personal belief.
 
The nuclear family is a fictional construct, propagated by washing powder commercials, that only serves to create unrealistic expectations of happiness and home ownership in a generation of people who will die before they’ve paid off their student loans. Vote yes on proposition 43 and we will finally solidify into law what this state is already becoming - a place where the abnormal is normal - where an adopted child from the bush of Africa can have two daddies and a mommy and a tranny nanny. Let's get serious about family values. Just think if every dad were gay! It takes a village - of homosexuals, transsexuals, bisexuals, asexuals, mimes, dominatrix, mitochondria, and entertainment lawyers - to raise a child." GTAV :D
 
Tosno said:
The nuclear family is a fictional construct, propagated by washing powder commercials, that only serves to create unrealistic expectations of happiness and home ownership in a generation of people who will die before they’ve paid off their student loans. Vote yes on proposition 43 and we will finally solidify into law what this state is already becoming - a place where the abnormal is normal - where an adopted child from the bush of Africa can have two daddies and a mommy and a tranny nanny. Let's get serious about family values. Just think if every dad were gay! It takes a village - of homosexuals, transsexuals, bisexuals, asexuals, mimes, dominatrix, mitochondria, and entertainment lawyers - to raise a child." GTAV :D
Click to expand...

Lol
 
semi-pro waster said:
Normal is about as useful a word as natural in these circumstances. Having parents of both sexes in a relationship together may be the most common option, it may even be optimum but if you've just acknowledged above that there's no difference in outcomes then it would seem a bit unsupported to hold that only couples with a male and female as parents is acceptable. Unless the argument is motivated by personal belief rather than evidence - if that's the case then that's fine but it may not be a strong enough reason to discriminate against alternative arrangements.
Click to expand...

As a single parent with negligible input from the mother I can see how some could argue that a male/female mix of parents can add more balance to a child's upbringing. That said these circumstances of single sex parenting can be enhanced by input from others where needed. As an example I ask and take advice from female friends on my youngest daughter on issues that I as a male just don't have the correct viewpoints on.
 
Hitman_Leon said:
As a single parent with negligible input from the mother I can see how some could argue that a male/female mix of parents can add more balance to a child's upbringing. That said these circumstances of single sex parenting can be enhanced by input from others where needed. As an example I ask and take advice from female friends on my youngest daughter on issues that I as a male just don't have the correct viewpoints on.
Click to expand...

If you love and care for your daughter that is all that should matter.
 
Frightful Boar said:
If we lived in Narnia. Hitman_Leon and his daughter live in the real world.

Love and care are all very well, but they don't magically combine to produce well adjusted children. It takes hard work and more than a single perspective.
Click to expand...

As a product of a single parent my Mother did fine but I see the point :)
 
I don't have any issues with same sex marriage, but I don't think they should be afforded the same rights as a hetrosexual couple when it comes to child rearing via adoption. All else being equal, a hetrosexual couple should be given preference. It's not the rights of the parents at stake here, but the right of the child to have a mother and father. Argue all you want about it, but when you strip away all human constructs, we have a simple truth that it is 'normal' for a human child to have a mother and father,and they should be afforded the right to experience that, irrespective of whether a single or same sex couple could do the job just as well.
 
The church's view that man and wife are one flesh is not just a metaphor for the children that they may produce. It is a statement that a man and a woman united in this way are greater than the sum of their parts, partly because they are so different from each other and have so much to learn from each other. The differences between the 2 sexes, the fact that each necessarily possesses characteristics the other necessarily lacks, are crucial to this formula. A man living with another man for their whole lives may learn all kinds of things. But he will not learn what a man married to a woman learns.
 
Tosno said:
The church's view that man and wife are one flesh is not just a metaphor for the children that they may produce. It is a statement that a man and a woman united in this way are greater than the sum of their parts, partly because they are so different from each other and have so much to learn from each other. The differences between the 2 sexes, the fact that each necessarily possesses characteristics the other necessarily lacks, are crucial to this formula. A man living with another man for their whole lives may learn all kinds of things. But he will not learn what a man married to a woman learns.
Click to expand...

I can't tell if you are advocating against same-sex marriage or making an observation?

However, none of that is a reason that same-sex marriage should not be legal. "you would learn more from the opposite sex, marry one of those instead."
 
Tosno said:
The church's view that man and wife are one flesh is not just a metaphor for the children that they may produce. It is a statement that a man and a woman united in this way are greater than the sum of their parts, partly because they are so different from each other and have so much to learn from each other. The differences between the 2 sexes, the fact that each necessarily possesses characteristics the other necessarily lacks, are crucial to this formula. A man living with another man for their whole lives may learn all kinds of things. But he will not learn what a man married to a woman learns.
Click to expand...


and a man married to a woman can't learn the things that a man married to a man can learn.... what is your point there?

I was just making a point, it's gibberish nonsense. Most parents are pretty rubbish in general and don't learn an awful lot. Considering the massive divorce rate what most men and women learn from marriage is hate, revenge, vindictiveness and how the court will favour women 99 out of 100 times. On that note it will be very interesting in 10, 25 and 50 years(for those of us still alive) to see what gay and straight divorce rates are like. Maybe we'll see that gay marriages last longer as more similar sexes can put up with each other for longer than opposite sexes.

What else will they learn, what feminine hygiene products are most popular.

Men can't learn anything from a wife they can't learn from a female friend, or from a male friend who has learned this magical female only knowledge from a different woman. That is one of the great things about knowledge, it can be passed on from one person to the next, it's how society got where it was and we didn't have to each individually invent the wheel for ourselves.... though masturbation is something most people figured out on their own pretty successfully.
 
Last edited:
Tosno said:
The church's view that man and wife are one flesh is not just a metaphor for the children that they may produce. It is a statement that a man and a woman united in this way are greater than the sum of their parts, partly because they are so different from each other and have so much to learn from each other. The differences between the 2 sexes, the fact that each necessarily possesses characteristics the other necessarily lacks, are crucial to this formula. A man living with another man for their whole lives may learn all kinds of things. But he will not learn what a man married to a woman learns.
Click to expand...

For a long time it was the church's view that the sun orbited the Earth. The church's view is not necessarily correct.

The view that the sun orbits the Earth is less silly than the view you have just described because for quite a while it did match the available evidence to a reasonably good degree. The idea that all men are one thing and all women are one thing and those two things are extremely different to each other contradicts the available evidence and so it is wrong and silly.
 
With divorce rate pushing 60% amongst straight couples can't we clearly see that straight marriage produces a "more than. Likely" unhealthy environment where the parents split bring in new lovers etc and shows that straight married people clearly are not an ideal solution to raising children :p
 
Tefal said:
With divorce rate pushing 60% amongst straight couples can't we clearly see that straight marriage produces a "more than. Likely" unhealthy environment where the parents split bring in new lovers etc and shows that straight married people clearly are not an ideal solution to raising children :p
Click to expand...

**** me, I'm doing it all wrong. I better get divorced and leave my kid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom