Homosexual Marriage: Is Society Ready for Legitimacy?

[Zantra]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I can't speak for Kyle, but I think your points are really off the mark for why I have reservations about homosexual parenting.

Before explaining them let me say that in my opinion you are not being realistic about the studies done supporting gay parenting. I believe in general the science community is very liberal about such things, and would wish to find ways to help get prejudice out of society if they could. It is noble, but is it correct?

Those studies are virtually impossible to do properly with a small sampling and in a few years. It is psychological testing to begin with, and already that makes it exremely difficult to isolate all influences at work. How are you going to test the effects of everything else that has gone on in the child's life? And how can you tell what happens over a lifetime?

To say no differences have been observed doesn't mean there aren't differences. The science community has told us bovine growth hormone has no negative consequences . . . is it just the igorance of the general population that resists that stuff? Or do they sense in those hormones some potential long-term affect on them undetected as of yet in the laboratory?

Let's not be naive about the difficulty of discovering what we need to about this.

Getting back to exactly what my concern is, and it is not the effects of homosexuality on kids, or the possibility that homosexuality is a physcological problem which kids might be subjected to . . . as some have pointed out, nobody, whatever their sexual preference, is perfect.

My concern is sanctioning, no, actually equating same gender parents with the natural situation. You seem so determined to exhibit love and equality to all humanity that you are unable to analyze this problem objectively.

I am saying that a child has a complex physiology which includes various proportions of hormones, certain leanings in brain development, and particular susceptibilities to outside influences. The early life exposure to both mixes of those factors found in healthy males and females might be the optimum way to develop them in a balanced manner. I suspect this for two reasons. The first is my observation of children raised in homes where both the male and the female are strong (and healthy) influences.

Second, logically it makes sense to me too that the many billions of years of evolution it took to establish two-gender parenting is a lot more trustable than the latest social trend in creative parenting, especially when it might be for no other reason than to pump up the self esteem of some oppressed element of the population.

So I say again, let's not be too quick to mess with mother nature.

Ok you have some valid points here. I do agree that no parent is perfect, and that our society is predicated based on a male and female two parent home. But even those dynamics are changing. Nowadays approximately 40 percent of american households(may be slightly off on this statistic- it's from memory) are single parent households. And this is not restricted to america. It's spreading all throughout the world, allbeit slower than here. Then there are the latckey kids. Both parents working full time jobs, because let's face it, in today's economy the days of Dad working a 9-5 while june cleaver cleans up the house and sends the kids off with their lunches is dead, dead, dead. It's been replaced with Dad working his butt off while mom works one or two part time jobs and goes to school. So the term "equal parenting time" no longer applies. It's be a parent when it's convenient, or else ship them off to the babysitter, daycare, or whatever method allows them to bring home the bacon. So you're right- no parent is perfect, but that is the price people pay nowadays to have the 2nd sports car, or put little jimmy through college at a rate that is at leas 7 percent above national gpd growth. Little jimmy may have to fork over an average of 200k for his bachelors degree by the year 2015.

My point to all this is that today's society has changed from the "ideal" family situation that it was 40 years ago. the post nuclear family is a rarity, and it would seem that if 2 people can spare enough time between them to give little jimmy a better quality of life and the benefits of a 2 parent household, then weather they are man and woman, woman and woman, or man and man, if they have the commitment to be a good parent, when so many parents are NOT good parents nowadays- I'm all for it. Especially when you weigh it against the issues of hetro households these days. It may not be morally accepted, but which is it? 2 gay parents who love and care for jimmy, or 2 parents who are divorced and bounce jimmy around like a ping pong ball? It's essentially the lesser of 2 evils.

Now you say that it's "unnatural" and whatnot. But 50 years ago people would have considered single parent households completely unnatural. It's just not right that a boy or girl should be without his father or mother. 50 years ago people also said it was "unnatural" for people of different races to intermix- "it's not god's design, or creation's intentions" were common phrases during that time period- that is if it was even dared to be done.

We are evolving as a society. We are more and more open minded about new ideals every day that previous generations wouldn't have even considered. It's the progress of change, and it's innately human t do so. What's funny is that 50 years from now I know there will be something new and groundbreaking socially from the next generation and I'll be sitting where you are saying that it's just "not natural" or at least thinking it. However the next generation will be that much more accepting of homosexuals because it is the natural progression of society to first reject,, then carefully guard against, and finally aceept new ideals that seem radical. To kiss someone in public now is "no big deal" assuming it's done tastefully. Now go back 100 years and do that- see if everyone in view doesn't just turn and stare.

Progress is inevitable my friend, and there's nothing any of us can do to stop it.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Andy
Being seen as pro-gay without openly saying that you are pro-gay is now fashionable, i have seen an Eddie Murphy live on stage video from 198? don't know the exact year but the jokes he was saying in that about homosexuals would be completely shunned upon now whereas back then it seems that it was fashionable to laugh openly about homosexuals, whereas now you are called homophobic for such things. What i am trying to say is that people would much rather be seen as pro-gay than anti-gay.

I saw that one- eddie murphy "raw" and it was totally hilarious

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
LOL, here you go again with the nonexistant evolution/culture confusion.

There's that brilliant rebuttal is again. From now on I will just answer you with " IS TOO!"

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
There's that brilliant rebuttal is again. From now on I will just answer you with " IS TOO!"

And that would be different how, exactly?

 

[Andy]

I saw that one- eddie murphy "raw" and it was totally hilarious

The video i was referring too was the Delerious video, and to zero's comment i never said that Eddie Murphy was evidence i only used him and the audiences reaction to his jokes as an example.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Andy
The video i was referring too was the Delerious video, and to zero's comment i never said that Eddie Murphy was evidence i only used him and the audiences reaction to his jokes as an example.

LOL, I was just giving you crap, dude!

 

[Andy]

Very few things on this forum can't be taken seriously, especially with some of the members we have here.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Andy
The video i was referring too was the Delerious video, and to zero's comment i never said that Eddie Murphy was evidence i only used him and the audiences reaction to his jokes as an example.

Didn't see that one- and I was only referring to it in passing

 

[dschou]

quote:

"We are evolving as a society. We are more and more open minded about new ideals every day that previous generations wouldn't have even considered...Progress is inevitable my friend, and there's nothing any of us can do to stop it."

not so fast. homosexuality has been accepted before. a more accurate term in place of progress is regress. but i digress...

you shouldn't equate every change with progress (and you do this with statements like "we are more and more open minded about new ideals every day that previous generations wouldn't have even considered").

the reason why this cannot be done is that most changes are not progressive. in short, there is nothing new under the sun - its all been done before, ad nauseum.

 

[FZ+]

you shouldn't equate every change with progress (and you do this with statements like "we are more and more open minded about new ideals every day that previous generations wouldn't have even considered").

But every change is progress, as progress is only relevant with a defined direction. The key is to define it as more in tune with the will of the majority, than to define it in terms of an absolute code. Society must change, but it should change in the way people want, that works with the word, instead of trying to make it stay the same.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by dschou
quote:

"We are evolving as a society. We are more and more open minded about new ideals every day that previous generations wouldn't have even considered...Progress is inevitable my friend, and there's nothing any of us can do to stop it."

not so fast. homosexuality has been accepted before. a more accurate term in place of progress is regress. but i digress...

you shouldn't equate every change with progress (and you do this with statements like "we are more and more open minded about new ideals every day that previous generations wouldn't have even considered").

the reason why this cannot be done is that most changes are not progressive. in short, there is nothing new under the sun - its all been done before, ad nauseum.

Homosexuality was accepted before religion intervened. Only then was it seen as wrong, I believe. That was part of the whole social upheaval, but that's for another post and too lengthy to go into.

I agree that every change doesn't necessarily bring social advancement. But I define social advancement as an accepted social value that does not bring personal harm, squash freedoms such as speech, and force people to think and believe a certain way. I believe that homosexuality meets these criteria.