Gay marriage Debate: Karl Rove vs. schoolgirl

[Berzerker]

what's to stop people from using these arguments to justify interspecies marriages if they become widely accepted?

What is "I Do" in pig latin?

 

[Homie]

I wasn't, it was a joke directed at Homie, didya see the wink?



Kansans also suffer from the stereotype of being a bit on the dull side, will you help combat this stereotype in the future by reading comments in context?

I noticed that he took your comment seriously, even though it was obviously directed as a joke on me. Hehe, that provided some amusement.

 

[Homie]

There are examples of gay couples that have brought up children quite well. Your assumption that a child needs a father's and a mother's touch&influence is nothing but a conservative fantasy, an outraguous lie and plain crap .

Just because a child may be able to overcome an upbringing by 2 homos doesn't mean that it is the optimal situation. I don't think it is a conservative fantasy, I believe it is reality. Also, you are likely just assuming that there are these examples, I doubt you have witnessed them (i.e. have intimate knowledge of such a situation).

 

[Berzerker]

I got a good lecture for that wisecrack

 

[Leif]

You are the prime example of what I am talking about. You typify the people that change values rapidly with time, and still don't see that there is a slippery slope. So where do you draw the line between nudity and pornography? It doesn't matter, because the Leif of the (near) future will be asking the Homie of the future: What is wrong with pornography on TV, it is just a beautiful, natural act of humans.

My question is how you think you can prove that homosexual marriage and adoption is a decline in morality.

I've held the general world view my entire life, I was raised a Unitarian Universalist.

 

[Grisu]

To add to that though, if you were to ask my personal opinion on gay marriage, it has changed in the recent months. This is my position today:
If a gay couple wants to legally and technically be married in a court or something, let them do so. But churches shall not be forced to wed a gay couple as it is against the teaching of the Bible. Also, the government should not interfere with religious matters.

well, actually I mostly agree with this.
Civil wedding and religious wedding should be separated. the former should grant all the legal rights that come with weddings, while the latter doesn't grant any civil rights and is a purely religious thing. Wait, that's who things already are here!!!

 

[kramerfan86]

Boy have I seen this argument many-a-times. So many of these same arguments come up on CFC that I should really have a document with responses so i can just copy and paste into every discussion. But I don't, so here goes:

If one institution is by definition an inferior institution, it doesn't not matter if the alternative institution sometimes produces bad results. I.e. if gay parenting is never a desirable way to bring up a child, then the fact that some hetereosexual parents are unfit for parenthood is irrelevant. If A = always bad and B = sometimes bad, should A be allowed because B is?

Furthermore, it is not about being fit or unfit parents, because that is a hard decision to make, and who shall make it? I am not saying that gays are unfit to be parents, I am saying that a child needs a father + mother for a complete upbringing, if only one part is present, then something is naturally missing.

Who says its "always bad" though? Society or reality? What says two women or two men cant properly raise a mentally healthy normal child? What is so special about a man and woman? If a man who is particularly feminine marries a woman how is that incredibly different then a particularly masculine woman marrying a woman and raising a kid? To me there seems to be very little evidence other then perceived cultural norms that back up this idea that homosexual cant not provide and equally healthy habitat for a child as heterosexuals.

 

[Leifmk]

There are examples of gay couples that have brought up children quite well.

Indeed, what research that exists on the subject of children raised by same-sex couples seems to indicate that they're no more likely to have psychological or emotional problems than ones raised by hetero couples. Nor are they significantly more likely to be gay themselves (although the ones who are gay are, obviously, far less likely to be closeted). All argumentation along the lines of "it will obviously harm the children" is pure BS.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The reason some kids growing up in homosexual relations get messed up is also because they are faced with complete ignorance from people who cannot stomach homosexuals. This is also the reason why some statistics seem to back up the claim that it's not a healthy enviroment for the kid to grow up in.

Being told that your parents are evil on a regular basis can have that effect on kids. Sounds strange, I know, but there you have it.

 

[Stapel]

Just because a child may be able to overcome an upbringing by 2 homos doesn't mean that it is the optimal situation. I don't think it is a conservative fantasy, I believe it is reality. Also, you are likely just assuming that there are these examples, I doubt you have witnessed them (i.e. have intimate knowledge of such a situation).

Well, I actually do know three gay couples with (adopted) kids, but I should admit that their education has not yet been completed, due to their age. But so far, nothing seems to be a problem. I have good reasons to believe your fear for gay-upbringing is based on a conservatiev fantasy . Anyway, before you exclude a group from the adoption proces, because this group is believed not to be capable to b ring up kids properly, I think their should be solid evidence for it. Just your believe won't do.

On the other hand, I kinda dislike the idea that Christians can adopt people. I usually consider Christians less suitable to bring up children. Not saying all do a poor job (het my folks did fair enough, though the Christian part caused many frictions), but many do, imho. I guess you would argue against that, not?

You see the point Homie: We will never agree on this. Fair enough. But here comes where I think you go wrong:

Just like you cannot tell me to which school I should send my children, I cannot tell you to which school you should send yours. I think you an I agree on this.

So, why should someone (read: the government) have anything to say by whom someones kids should be adopted, would the parents die in a car crash? Isn't the choice of adoption not a parential issue? It's not yours, neither the government's. It's quite common for parents to make official documents saying that, if something might happen to them, they'd prefer their kids to be adopted by, for instance, a catholic couple. Even when unwanted pregnant women decide to send their baby into the adoption circuit, they can set preferences or vetos.


Furthermore, you though I was likely assuming there are good examples of gay-upbrining. This more or less proves you simply have fear for the unknown. That is a typical conservative trait.

 

[Leifmk]

Civil wedding and religious wedding should be separated. the former should grant all the legal rights that come with weddings, while the latter doesn't grant any civil rights and is a purely religious thing. Wait, that's who things already are here!!!

Indeed, that would seem to be the best way of handling it. Certainly sounds a lot simpler than the Norwegian setup -- while the law considers marriage to be an entirely civil affair (and you can indeed get married by simply going down to an office and filling out the necessary paperwork) it is also possible to have it done via a religious or meta-religious ceremony (the state bestows marrying rights on officiants belonging to any religious or para/quasi/meta-religious organization who jump through certain hoops and learn how to fill out the necessary paperwork -- so you can have a Lutheran or Catholic or Muslim or Hindu or Secular Humanist wedding ceremony and also have it mark the start of your legal marriage). This results in a great deal more bureaucracy than the Swiss or French approach.

I don't think it's likely that churches will be "forced" to perform same-sex marriages. There will be some churches that choose to do so and others that don't. I mean, divorce and remarriage have been legal for ages, but is anyone forcing e.g. Catholic priests to perform those second (and third, etc.) marriages, hm?

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Since Massachusetts has allowed gay marriage (and my own state has introduced sweeping civil unions legislation), I haven't felt any differently about my straight marriage. How is my marriage weakened by the Massachusetts gays? I can't tell. I love my wife just as much. If someone could just explain this to me, maybe I'd come over to your side. Y'all have asserted that gay marriage weakens straight marriage -- you have the burden of at least showing how it can be true.

(Regarding children: you can't separate the development of children of gay couples from the bigotry they encounter as children of gay couples, so there's no real data showing that gay couples can't parent as well as straight couples. Obviously the children have a harder time, because people are constantly -- at best -- telling them that their parents are fundamentally deficient. Since there's no real reason to think that gay couples can't parent as well as straight couples, and no data showing it, I think we should start from an assumption of equality and try to prove why discrimination is necessary. That is how America's supposed to work, after all.)

Berzerker,

Well, the Fair Housing Act is based on the Commerce Clause, not the Equal Protection Clause, but you'll just say, "Well, Congress can't do that under the Commerce Clause!" And I'll respond, "Well, the Supreme Court and decades of constitutional law and practice say you're wrong." And we won't actually get anywhere.

Cleo

 

[Aegis]

He got her at the end by arguing Polygamy, imo.

 

[Arwon]

Churches can't even be forced to wed a Catholic and a non-Catholic if they don't want to, the idea that they could be forced to carry out a same-sex ceremony against their will is utterly insane.

 

[Arwon]

Indeed, what research that exists on the subject of children raised by same-sex couples seems to indicate that they're no more likely to have psychological or emotional problems than ones raised by hetero couples. Nor are they significantly more likely to be gay themselves (although the ones who are gay are, obviously, far less likely to be closeted). All argumentation along the lines of "it will obviously harm the children" is pure BS.

Apparently kids do better with two parents, on average.

Thing is, their genders aren't a significant variable. Really we should be taking kids from single parents and giving them to gay couples if this is really all about OMG THE CHILDREN and not OMG THE FAGGERTS.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Which is logical. I bet they'd do even better with 3 parents.

 

[warpus]

A certain poster on CFC who shall remain nameless (MobBoss), argued, a while back, that the legalization of gay marriage would lead to an influx of homosexuals into the country, overwhelming your healthcare system.

I don't want to speak for that certain poster, but I remember this because of how silly it sounded when I first read it. Not sure if that position is still held by unnamed poster.

Moderator Action: The accuracy of that representation is questioned by said nameless poster, so either find a direct quote or remove this post (including this warning) if you can't find one. Eyrei.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[holy king]

because they all got aids?

 

[I'm Cleo!]

It's funny you should mention that, warpus, because I read somewhere that Massachusetts legalizing gay marriage has noticeably helped Massachusetts's economy. Every gay couple in the United States is going to Massachusetts to have their wedding, and weddings ain't cheap. And if you think about how much Bridezillas pump into an economy, imagine a bunch of gay guys picking out china patterns, tuxedo styles, &c.

Cleo

 

[Leifmk]

Which is logical. I bet they'd do even better with 3 parents.

To be halfway serious, I wonder if maybe that would hit diminishing returns due to the additional complexities in maintaining a stable polygamous relationship. (I have only anecdotal evidence, but of those polygamous people I have known or known of, relatively few have managed to stay together in the long-term.)

Generalizing a bit further, it does seem reasonable that having additional "close" adults around (e.g. aunts and uncles, grandparents, good family friends) would be beneficial.