Gay Marriage

[Duke]

I mean, look at Rosie Odonell. She has a son, her son asked why he didn't have a father, she said, "If you had a father, I wouldn't be your mother" What kind of answer is that? He's denied a father because she chose to be gay and wanted a child? That sounds rather twisted to me. I'm not saying that every child needs a mother and a father to be a cared for properly. But at the same time, when there is no chance of having a mother and/or a father, what kind of system is that child going to believe in?

Consider this possibility:

A woman is raped and becomes pregnant. Or perhaps she is married and her husband is horrible to her so she divorces him. Or perhaps even they love each other deeply but he dies unexpectedly and she is devastated and decides that she will never remarry.

Yet she has a child. Because of her previous trauma, she has decided to not have a man in her life any more. This child will never have the opportunity to have a father.

Is this woman automatically unfit to raise a child?

 

[Swift]

Consider this possibility:

A woman is raped and becomes pregnant. Or perhaps she is married and her husband is horrible to her so she divorces him. Or perhaps even they love each other deeply but he dies unexpectedly and she is devastated and decides that she will never remarry.

Yet she has a child. Because of her previous trauma, she has decided to not have a man in her life any more. This child will never have the opportunity to have a father.

Is this woman automatically unfit to raise a child?

Thanks for bringing this up Duke.

No, she's not unfit. Why? Because she tried to do it the "correct" way at first then her husband was taken, left or whatever. While the child may never have the chance to have a father in that sense, they can grow to understand what it is to be a couple and have a child.

Circumstances are different then choices. The illustration you laid out was rather circumstancial and far too common in America today. But it still remains that the child was from a mother AND a father. Not two moms or two dads. You say in other threads that I shouldn't force my ideals on others. Well, then why should I let someone else force they homosexual ideals on another? Especially a child that doesn't know anything else.

 

[Duke]

Yeah, it's wrong for gay people, that choose to be gay, to subject others to homosexuality without a choice. and before you go saying homophobe, one of my best friends decided to be gay not long before he died. So I know both sides of this thing. Homosexuality is a choice, unnatrual and immoral. So why put a child into a situation like that.

In all sincerity, and with no attack meant at all, I feel it is very wrong to subject children to a strong religious upbringing without a choice. I'm not just saying that to flipflop what you said above.

I think there is a very real problem in indoctrinating (for want of a better word) a child with the dogma of organized religion before they are old enough to choose their own thoughts on the matter. Especially a child that doesn't know anything else.

Yet I suspect you wouldn't hesitate to recommend a religious couple as good candidates for adoption. You are forcing that child into a situation without their consent, every bit as much as a gay couple would be. It's just that it's a situation of which you happen to approve.

And that's totally leaving out the issue of homosexuality being "unnatural and immoral", with which I disagree with every fiber of my conciousness.

[edit]

Let me throw another card on the table here. Ever heard of parthenogenisis? It's perfectly possible with medical technology for two women to have a baby together. You can make the genetic material from two eggs into one embryo.

So there are two women who choose to be biological parents with no man involved. The embryo of any child has no choice in who its parents are. If medical technology can help a barren heterosexual couple, why is it not allowable to help a homosexual couple?

Are these women automatically not fit to be parents?

 

[Swift]

In all sincerity, and with no attack meant at all, I feel it is very wrong to subject children to a strong religious upbringing without a choice. I'm not just saying that to flipflop what you said above.

I think there is a very real problem in indoctrinating (for want of a better word) a child with the dogma of organized religion before they are old enough to choose their own thoughts on the matter. Especially a child that doesn't know anything else.

Yet I suspect you wouldn't hesitate to recommend a religious couple as good candidates for adoption. You are forcing that child into a situation without their consent, every bit as much as a gay couple would be. It's just that it's a situation of which you happen to approve.

And that's totally leaving out the issue of homosexuality being "unnatural and immoral", with which I disagree with every fiber of my conciousness.

[edit]

Let me throw another card on the table here. Ever heard of parthenogenisis? It's perfectly possible with medical technology for two women to have a baby together. You can make the genetic material from two eggs into one embryo.

So there are two women who choose to be biological parents with no man involved. The embryo of any child has no choice in who its parents are. If medical technology can help a barren heterosexual couple, why is it not allowable to help a homosexual couple?

Are these women automatically not fit to be parents?

Nope, they are not as far as I'm concerned. That's just sick in my mind. I can see invetro for couples that are having trouble, but for someone to literally play God. Well, that's just sick to me.

Also, I can see where you're coming from on the religious thing. I dont' think all religious people would be good adoptive parents. But I also believe in choice. My parents are both christrians. My Dad is a Catholic, mom is a baptist and I'm apostolic. I've always been taught about God, but was never forced into anything. Even the children in my church have to choose to serve God for themselves. God will not force his will upon you, it must be accepted.

 

[Duke]

Nope, they are not as far as I'm concerned. That's just sick in my mind. I can see invetro for couples that are having trouble, but for someone to literally play God. Well, that's just sick to me.

If you are enabling a heterosexual couple who cannot get pregnant on their own how are you not playing god?

Also, I can see where you're coming from on the religious thing. I dont' think all religious people would be good adoptive parents. But I also believe in choice. My parents are both christrians. My Dad is a Catholic, mom is a baptist and I'm apostolic. I've always been taught about God, but was never forced into anything. Even the children in my church have to choose to serve God for themselves. God will not force his will upon you, it must be accepted.

You say you were never forced into anything. Why do you assume that a gay couple would force their child into being gay?

 

[Swift]

If you are enabling a heterosexual couple who cannot get pregnant on their own how are you not playing god?

You say you were never forced into anything. Why do you assume that a gay couple would force their child into being gay?

Wow man. You go way past being liberal...I mean way past.

Ok, let's do it this way. Prove to me that people are born gay and I'll go along with gay marriage.

 

[Zrow]

Wow man. You go way past being liberal...I mean way past.

Duke? Liberal?

Do you frequent these forums often?


What does doing it the "correct way", as you put it, have to do wth being a good mother or not?

Whay difference does it make if people are born gay or not to you? They're gay either way, and they're going to stay gay. How does the ability to marry harm you or anyone you know, for that matter?

 

[Duke]

Prove to me that they are not born gay. Frankly, the distinction is irrelevant to me. I don't see why it matters if it's a choice or not, since it only affects them and their potential partners.

That's leaving out the issue that virtually every gay person I've ever known in person or electronically has categorically denied having a choice in the matter. Look through the earlier pages in this thread. My best man, among other friends, is gay. He knew that he was fundamentally different from an extremely young age - 6 or 7, long before he ever had any idea what sex was, let alone homosexuality.

[edit]

Wow man. You go way past being liberal...I mean way past.

Say a man and a woman are trying every 'natural' method under the sun, and they can't concieve a child.

How do you know it's not God's influence that is preventing them from having a child? If it was meant to be, wouldn't it be? This isn't a matter of God allowing free will - they are trying to have a child and so excercising their will. But then the fertility clinic comes along and does what hasn't happened naturally. That seems to me to fit the definition of 'playing God', if such a thing is possible.

 

[Swift]

Prove to me that they are not born gay. Frankly, the distinction is irrelevant to me. I don't see why it matters if it's a choice or not, since it only affects them and their potential partners.

That's leaving out the issue that virtually every gay person I've ever known in person or electronically has categorically denied having a choice in the matter. Look through the earlier pages in this thread. My best man, among other friends, is gay. He knew that he was fundamentally different from an extremely young age - 6 or 7, long before he ever had any idea what sex was, let alone homosexuality.

I had a good friend too. That chose to be gay. He's gone now But he chose it. It was so obvious that he did.

It doesn't only effect their partners. It effects their possible children and what society deems as acceptable.

 

[Duke]

I had a good friend too. That chose to be gay. He's gone now But he chose it. It was so obvious that he did.

As I said above, why does it matter if he chose it or not?!

It doesn't only effect their partners.

YES, it does. Or are you going with Brian's "butterfly effect" now? I married a particular woman. Are you telling me that partnership affects anyone outside us? That it was our responsibility to make sure that our marriage wouldn't somehow "harm" anyone else?

It effects their possible children and what society deems as acceptable.

If I choose to marry a black woman or an Asian woman, doesn't that affect my potential children? Ask Sage.

And if we're discussing "what society deems acceptable", take the gloves off and admit it's really what you deem acceptable. Brian won't do this either.

Let me ask you - I consider myself good enough friends with Gil to impose on him a little. In fact, I've used this illustration before:

Bah, I can't find it. The short form is, that my friend Gil is one half of an interracial couple. He's happily married and has raised a large number of large kids who by all accounts sound like excellent young people. He's been married something on the order of 20 years and lives in Kansas.

YET: his marriage was most assuredly not in the public norm, say, 40 or 60 years ago. A state or two southeast and a decade or two earlier, and he would have been seriously risking a lynch mob to have dared seduce a white woman. Society's 'norm' strongly disapproved of his situation.

Is that a step we shouldn't have taken too?

 

[vladimir]

I had a good friend too. That chose to be gay. He's gone now But he chose it. It was so obvious that he did.

It doesn't only effect their partners. It effects their possible children and what society deems as acceptable.

can you explain what made you thought he chose it? can you imagine yourself to make such a choice and become homosexual? if it was possible to choose that you should be able to do that as well.

i guess there are more homosexuals who choose to live a heterosexual life (due to discrimination etc.) than heterosexuals who choose to live a homosexual life. but these homosexuals who choose to live a heterosexual life struggle a lot and often ernough decide after 10 years of "happy" straight marriage to give up because it does not work out.

someone who is really able to make such a choise should be at least bisexual i would say, otherwise it can hardly work out


as for the children, afaik moste studys have shown that there is little difference between children of gay or straight parents and that it has no influence on the childrens sexuality. whether the child will think that all couples are same sex or not depends on how it is brought up by the parents (and i am sure that an average children of gay parents will be brought up much ore open minded than the average kid of straight parents).

the real difficulties that children of same sex couples face are the narrow minded children of heterosexual couples. and when i look around what kinds of straight people are allowed to raise children i have to say that nobody has any right to deny that to same sex parents...

 

[Pupik]

Is there any actual reason why it should be banned in a 'free' society?

No.

(That was easy.)

 

[ledhed]

http://members.aol.com/gaygene/pages/research.htm
http://members.aol.com/gaygene/pages/traittab.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/genetics/
http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html


For those of us still needing to be brought into the twenty first century.

What the majority of respected scientists now believe is that homosexuality is attributable to a combination of psychological, social, and biological factors.



From the American Psychological Association
"[M]any scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors."{6}


From "Gay Brain" Researcher Simon LeVay
"At this point, the most widely held opinion [on causation of homosexuality] is that multiple factors play a role."{7}


From Dennis McFadden, University of Texas neuroscientist:
"Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality."{8}

From Sociologist Steven Goldberg
"I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors."{9}


As we have seen, there is no evidence that homosexuality is simply "genetic"--and none of the research itself claims there is

 

[PS]

Raise your hand if you chose to be heterosexual.

My point exacly.

Noone chooses; they just are. It's just the way that they feel, and absolutely uncontrollable subconscious attraction to a particular sex and there is no way it's different between gays and straits.

I know I didn't wake up one day thinking "Hmm, I'm going to be heterosexual now."

 

[Swift]

http://members.aol.com/gaygene/pages/research.htm
http://members.aol.com/gaygene/pages/traittab.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/genetics/
http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html


For those of us still needing to be brought into the twenty first century.

What the majority of respected scientists now believe is that homosexuality is attributable to a combination of psychological, social, and biological factors.



From the American Psychological Association
"[M]any scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors."{6}


From "Gay Brain" Researcher Simon LeVay
"At this point, the most widely held opinion [on causation of homosexuality] is that multiple factors play a role."{7}


From Dennis McFadden, University of Texas neuroscientist:
"Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality."{8}

From Sociologist Steven Goldberg
"I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors."{9}


As we have seen, there is no evidence that homosexuality is simply "genetic"--and none of the research itself claims there is

Thanks for proving my point. I appreciate that.

 

[Zrow]

Thanks for proving my point. I appreciate that.

Wait, what is your point? That because you believe homosexuality is a choice, gays shouldn't marry? Is that really your point?

 

[Swift]

Wait, what is your point? That because you believe homosexuality is a choice, gays shouldn't marry? Is that really your point?

Nope, but all those articles ledhead posted proved that it's a choice not a "birth defect" or anything.

That was my point in the first place. Homosexuality, as with all other sin, is simply wrong.

 

[Sage]

Wait, what is your point? That because you believe homosexuality is a choice, gays shouldn't marry? Is that really your point?

Yeah, I don't see why it makes any difference either. Does it matter whether somebody's born to kill or chooses to kill?

Anyway, I had a whole huge post in my head ready to type up, but I'm going to refrain, because it's just too emotionally charged… suffice to say I'm very upset over this. This is a primary example of Christians trying to destroy others' lives for their own sake – the worst kind of selfishness. I won't say anything more than that, otherwise I might as well ban myself; I'm angry beyond comprehension right now.

 

[Swift]

Yeah, I don't see why it makes any difference either. Does it matter whether somebody's born to kill or chooses to kill?

Anyway, I had a whole huge post in my head ready to type up, but I'm going to refrain, because it's just too emotionally charged… suffice to say I'm very upset over this. This is a primary example of Christians trying to destroy others' lives for their own sake – the worst kind of selfishness. I won't say anything more than that, otherwise I might as well ban myself; I'm angry beyond comprehension right now.

Sage, I can tell that you do not understand the reason that I'm so against homosexuality.

Homosexuality is a sin, you can't get into heaven living in sin. Henceforth I'm against homosexuality because it makes it impossible for a person's salvation.

That's the deal with me, plain and simple. I want to see people saved and go to heaven.

 

[Sage]

That's perfectly fine – you have every right to believe that. That doesn't give anybody the right though to make it a law in a free society.

What if I had a religion that said fat girls who wear tight shirts are going to hell, and that if they continued, the rest of us would go to hell too – that doesn't give me any right to regulate the lifestyles of fat girls.

And for the record, I think that ^^^ is infinitely more disgusting than homosexuality, but you don't see me petitioning to get a law to ban small shirts for girls with lovehandles.

Keep it in your house, keep it in your family, but don't force the rest of the nation to conform to your moral values. It's selfish. They are your moral values, not mine or millions of others.

 

[Duke]

That's the deal with me, plain and simple. I want to see people saved and go to heaven.

...whether they want to be 'saved' and go to heaven or not.

So because you believe it, everybody must. I'm afraid that's a position I will never have sympathy with and in fact I can barely understand.

 

[Zrow]

Hey Swift:

Don't you think it's a bit unjust for God to damn people to hell for eternity because they like guys instead of girls (or vice versa)? How is that right?

 

[Swift]

...whether they want to be 'saved' and go to heaven or not.

So because you believe it, everybody must. I'm afraid that's a position I will never have sympathy with and in fact I can barely understand.

Well, I, like God is not willing that would any be lost. But that everyone would come undert the grace of God. So, there you go. If you don't agree, that's ok. I don't like that cause I'd much rather see you in heaven then judged and going to hell.

 

[Duke]

Well, I, like God is not willing that would any be lost. But that everyone would come undert the grace of God. So, there you go. If you don't agree, that's ok. I don't like that cause I'd much rather see you in heaven then judged and going to hell.

I understand that you honestly don't see it this way, but that's such an incredibly arrogant, presumptuous, and condescending statement that it's hard to imagine much more dialogue following it.

 

[Swift]

I understand that you honestly don't see it this way, but that's such an incredibly arrogant, presumptuous, and condescending statement that it's hard to imagine much more dialogue following it.

It's not condesending at all. It's my personal faith. Since you don't have any, I can see why you have problems with it.

 

[Duke]

It's incredibly condescending.

If you were quietly pursuing your own faith in your own way, there'd be no issue whatsoever. But you're sitting here saying, earnestly, that other people should not be allowed to live the way they want to because your faith says it's a sin.

You say "it shouldn't bother you because you don't have faith", yet you are using your faith to dictate the terms of my life. You're darn straight that bothers me, and no little bit, either.

Understand: no one is requiring you to live that way. You are still free to live the way you choose.

 

[Ten]

I don't like that cause I'd much rather see you in heaven then judged and going to hell.

But you see, I am judged. I can't see the difference.

 

[Sage]

If you were quietly pursuing your own faith in your own way, there'd be no issue whatsoever. But you're sitting here saying, earnestly, that other people should not be allowed to live the way they want to because your faith says it's a sin.

You say "it shouldn't bother you because you don't have faith", yet you are using your faith to dictate the terms of my life. You're darn straight that bothers me, and no little bit, either.

And that's exactly why I'm so angry. "Hey, I know better than you, you have to live your life the way I see fit."

Swfit – Believe it if you wish, but don't force other people to oblige by it.

 

[Delirious]

here are my 2 cents

why would any child want to be raised in a male-male or female-female family? i just find that horrific...

wouldnt it make better sense for male-female since they are perfect matches? thats kind of like having 2 cars but no one to drive them or two people who dont have any cars...

kind of like fitting 2 different pieces of a puzzle together to form a picture of unity

i would hate to be the child who was raised in a male male or female female family...if any of his classmates found out (anywhere from K-12) he would not be a happy campler in school

not to mention God created adam and eve, not adam and steve...the bible calls homosexuality sin...but thats a different topic for another thread

 

[Ten]

here are my 2 cents

why would any child want to be raised in a male-male or female-female family? i just find that horrific...

wouldnt it make better sense for male-female since they are perfect matches? thats kind of like having 2 cars but no one to drive them or two people who dont have any cars...

kind of like fitting 2 different pieces of a puzzle together to form a picture of unity

i would hate to be the child who was raised in a male male or female female family...if any of his classmates found out (anywhere from K-12) he would not be a happy campler in school

...all of this a result of painfully unaccepting and close-minded people such as yourself.

You're a bonsai kitten, stuck in a jar and afraid. Your lid is closed, and you have no room to grow outward and experience things for what they could be. So, trapped in what limited environment you have, you conform to the shape of your surroundings.

I pity you, as I would the kitten.