Homosexual Marriage: Is Society Ready for Legitimacy?

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

What is obvious is that children growing up with their parents being bigots is both unhealthy and immoral. But you don't see me going around passing laws that prevent homophobes from getting married and adopting children.

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
What is obvious is that children growing up with their parents being bigots is both unhealthy and immoral. But you don't see me going around passing laws that prevent homophobes from getting married and adopting children.

That's cute how you picked up on Zero's accusation

This thread isn't about bigots though, you should start one if you feel you have something to say. In fact, your post doesn't have anything to do with the topic of homosexuals.

The nearest relation I can find is, it isn't healthy for bigot homosexuals to adopt children either, but that doesn't make much sense, because that is obvious. There is a screening process, you don't just walk into an agency and say I want that one and they give you the childs papers and you are on your way.

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
That's cute how you picked up on Zero's accusation

This thread isn't about bigots though, you should start one if you feel you have something to say. In fact, your post doesn't have anything to do with the topic of homosexuals.

The nearest relation I can find is, it isn't healthy for bigot homosexuals to adopt children either, but that doesn't make much sense, because that is obvious. There is a screening process, you don't just walk into an agency and say I want that one and they give you the childs papers and you are on your way.

My point is that the same arguments against homosexual adoption and marraige now are the same arguments that the klan, republican congressmen, and other assorted bigots used thirty-forty years ago when interracial marriage was illegal. Oh, won't somebody think of the children! Oh, they'll grow up being either niggers or cool person lovers like their parents. You don't see two different species in nature acrossin', therefore it ain't natural, and therefore it should be outlawed.

Now, it's fine with me if you think that homosexuals are immoral, and sick and unnatural. It's also fine with me if you think blacks are lazy and shiftless and degenerate. But who in the hell are you to tell me who I'm allowed to love and consider a part of my family?

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
My point is that the same arguments against homosexual adoption and marraige now are the same arguments that the klan, republican congressmen, and other assorted bigots used thirty-forty years ago when interracial marriage was illegal. Oh, won't somebody think of the children! Oh, they'll grow up being either niggers or cool person lovers like their parents. You don't see two different species in nature acrossin', therefore it ain't natural, and therefore it should be outlawed.

Different races aren't different species Think of mules, it isn't unheard of for slight variations in species to reproduce, even though mules are sterile, it is still natural that they can be made.

Now, it's fine with me if you think that homosexuals are immoral, and sick and unnatural. It's also fine with me if you think blacks are lazy and shiftless and degenerate. But who in the hell are you to tell me who I'm allowed to love and consider a part of my family?

I don't think it is immoral or sick to be homosexual. As for the blacks, those words are your opinion, you can't say we think that, only you. Nobody is trying to say homosexuals cannot be homosexuals. The intent of this thread was to question if society is ready for homosexuals, and it has shifted to different topics, but not once has it been said homosexuals shouldn't be able to have sex or love each other. As for who is a part of your family, those children that are up for adoption are raised by society, so naturally society should be able to dictate who is fit, by means of the adoption agencies screening. Consider the child at the adoption agency to be part of your family if you would like, you simply shouldn't have the natural right to raise the child in an unnatural family unit, IMO.

 

[Zantra]

The real issue here is "are homsexuals good parents?" Will they influence their children to follow in their footsteps? Well seeing as how a large amount of homosexuals were raised by heterosexual parents, you can't automaticall assume that they would influence their children. That's a prejudice which simply isn't true. Good parents are good parents, and bad parents are bad parents, regardless of their sexual orientation. If they are good parents, they will allow their children to make their own choices without influencing their decisions.

It's my personal believe that anyone who believes that gay parents adversely affect their children are both narrow-minded and prejudice. "they'll turn them gay" is not a fact, it's an opinion, and one based on lack of information at that. It IS no better than saying "oh well mixed couples will turn their children into black people".. blah blah blah. Merely a step or two away from racism. Show me the scientific study please where children of gay parents became gay adults. Otherwise, it's simply uninformed, racist conjecture with absolutely no basis in fact.

 

[wuliheron]

I dont't believe for a minute that the real issue is whether or not gays make good parents or not. If it were the real issue, people would not be debating it so hotly.

Gays have been discriminated against, beaten, and killed just because of their sexual orientation. This has been done by right wing religious nuts, atheists, and people from every spectrum of american life. Disney and other large corporations have extended them benefits to their partners and received a great deal of press as a result.

The real issue is the US is full of free will bigots, especially men, who reject and deny their own sexual desires on a consistent basis. When polled the most adamently anti-gay men in the US are also quite honest about being the most tempted to have sex with another man. Along with free will bigotry comes hypocracy.

So tobacco kills, its a choice isn't it? So most fatal car accidents involve alcohol, its a choice isn't it? So most pot smokers are peaceful, lock them up and keep it illegal. So most gays are perfectly good citizens, deny them their human rights! Hypocracy and bigotry in the name of free will. War is peace after all.

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Different races aren't different species Think of mules, it isn't unheard of for slight variations in species to reproduce, even though mules are sterile, it is still natural that they can be made.


No ****, Sherlock. It's just crap that bigots come up with. Like the idea that homosexuality isn't natural. And homosexuality in nature isn't just random humping dogs. There are plenty of examples of life long monogamous homosexual relationships in those animals that have monogamous relationships, such as geese.

Not that it's important. The whole homosexuality is bad because it's not natural is a stupid spurious argument anyway.


I don't think it is immoral or sick to be homosexual. As for the blacks, those words are your opinion, you can't say we think that, only you. Nobody is trying to say homosexuals cannot be homosexuals. The intent of this thread was to question if society is ready for homosexuals, and it has shifted to different topics, but not once has it been said homosexuals shouldn't be able to have sex or love each other. As for who is a part of your family, those children that are up for adoption are raised by society, so naturally society should be able to dictate who is fit, by means of the adoption agencies screening. Consider the child at the adoption agency to be part of your family if you would like, you simply shouldn't have the natural right to raise the child in an unnatural family unit, IMO.

The topic of interracial marriage is a valid comparison. A majority of americans felt that blacks were unfit to be wed to whites, and thus made it illegal. And today in every state in the country it's illegal for gays to get married because bigots have passed laws against it. There is not one good reason why somebody's significat other can't be allowed visitation rights, or marital tax benefits, or insurance claims, or inheritance rights, but there's an organized bigotted movement out there that denies millions of people these things.

It's absolutely disgusting. It's unamerican. And thiry to forty years from now school kids in history class will be looking back in disbelief at how the rights of so many people were denied because of narrowminded nazi bigots.

 

[Zantra]

Much the same thing was done with racsim against blacks- history is cyclic. The same attitudes were prevelant about 40 years ago against blacks. Now we've realized the error of our ways, and attitudes overall have changed drastically. Much as the attitudes against women have drastically been altered from 100 years ago. In another 50 years we'll probably regard homosexuality with the same respect afforded to blacks and women. Until then, people will fight against change. Like seeks out like, and repels different, so people will rebel against people or ideals that differ from their own. I said it before and I'll repeat- knowing the path is different than walking the path, and people are ultimately afraid of "becoming gay" more than they are repusled by the act itsself.

What really makes me laugh is the irony of minorities against things like homosexuality. Because let's face it- unless you're a white heterosexual male in America, chances are you've faced some type of discrimination in the past. In some cases even if are that demographic. People scream bloody murder when it happens to them, but then turn around with their own bias and discriminate. The entire human race still has a long way to go when it comes to judging someone on their individuality, and not on some generalization. The only absolute is that there are no absolutes- For every generalization, or bias, or prejudice that could be produced, chances are I could present an exception to that rule, because everyone in this world is a uniquie individual and not subject to generalization. That is the ultimate form of acceptance and tolerance, and we won't see that in our lifetimes.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
The topic of interracial marriage is a valid comparison. A majority of americans felt that blacks were unfit to be wed to whites, and thus made it illegal. And today in every state in the country it's illegal for gays to get married because bigots have passed laws against it. There is not one good reason why somebody's significat other can't be allowed visitation rights, or marital tax benefits, or insurance claims, or inheritance rights, but there's an organized bigotted movement out there that denies millions of people these things.

It's absolutely disgusting. It's unamerican. And thiry to forty years from now school kids in history class will be looking back in disbelief at how the rights of so many people were denied because of narrowminded nazi bigots.

Two things- first want to point out that in Hawaii gay marriages ARE legally binding.

Secondly I wanted to point out Los Angeles as an example. It's one of the most racially, sexually, and otherwise diverse city in the country (new york being a possible exception). Anyhow, here interracial relationships and marriages are extremely common. And so is homosexuality. I've found here that people are generally much more accepting of such things than in other parts of the country such as the midwest and south. Even though things are accepted in LA, if you were to go to any town in say, Iowa(not picking on iowa if anyone's from there) and an interracial couple walked into a restaurant, there would be absolutely no acceptance. Same applies to homosexual couples. Yet if the same situation happened at a popular LA eatery, you'd find no resistance whatsoever. Eventually the rest of the country will catch up, but for now it's still a regional thing.

 

[BoulderHead]

Majority prejudice rules. It doesn’t have to make good sense to be implemented, although when looking through the ol’ tinted lenses it might appear well reasoned...

I wonder if what bothers some is the fear that the adopted child would be used for sodomy, which is not to say that child molestation and incest does not occur within traditional family units. Anyway, are there not laws to deal with child abuse that could be applied equally to heterosexuals and homosexuals?

I’m inclined to believe if heterosexual couples can produce homosexual children that homosexual couples can also raise heterosexual children. If you’re going to allow by law for couples to receive some benefit after exchanging a few vows and signing on the dotted line then I don’t see how the sex of these people making such a commitment should matter.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Majority prejudice rules. It doesn’t have to make good sense to be implemented, although when looking through the ol’ tinted lenses it might appear well reasoned...

I wonder if what bothers some is the fear that the adopted child would be used for sodomy, which is not to say that child molestation and incest does not occur within traditional family units. Anyway, are there not laws to deal with child abuse that could be applied equally to heterosexuals and homosexuals?

I’m inclined to believe if heterosexual couples can produce homosexual children that homosexual couples can also raise heterosexual children. If you’re going to allow by law for couples to receive some benefit after exchanging a few vows and signing on the dotted line then I don’t see how the sex of these people making such a commitment should matter.

If gay teenagers said they didn't want to live with a heterosexual mom and dad because he was afraid they'd turn him "straight", we'd laught at him right? If he said he was afraid they'd force him to date women, or watch them kiss, handhold, or otherwise act as a couple we'd think that was nuts, correct?

So you see where I'm going with this...

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Zantra
The real issue here is "are homsexuals good parents?" Will they influence their children to follow in their footsteps? Well seeing as how a large amount of homosexuals were raised by heterosexual parents, you can't automaticall assume that they would influence their children. That's a prejudice which simply isn't true. Good parents are good parents, and bad parents are bad parents, regardless of their sexual orientation. If they are good parents, they will allow their children to make their own choices without influencing their decisions.

It's my personal believe that anyone who believes that gay parents adversely affect their children are both narrow-minded and prejudice. "they'll turn them gay" is not a fact, it's an opinion, and one based on lack of information at that. It IS no better than saying "oh well mixed couples will turn their children into black people".. blah blah blah. Merely a step or two away from racism. Show me the scientific study please where children of gay parents became gay adults. Otherwise, it's simply uninformed, racist conjecture with absolutely no basis in fact.

It is not at all like saying mixed couples will turn their children into black people, because there is a white person in the mix, there is no heterosexual in the homosexual mix, so the comparison is invalid. This happens to be like nothing else. Show me the scientific studies that demonstrate children aren't influenced sexually by their homosexual parents.

I wouldn't even say this is the root of the question, I don't care if a child turns out homosexual, what I care about is whether a child turns out screwed up and not mentally balanced. That link Wuli provided was more or less an interview with a guy, no statistics or any hard concrete findings, I wouldn't call that a scientific study.

One might find it interesting that there is also the possibility of bias. GLPCI Network—The Newsletter of the Gay and Lesbian Parents Coalition International Summer 1992. Interesting.

EDIT: Imagine the social stigma a child would receive from peers if they had homosexual parents, this alone should be cause for concern with letting homosexuals adopt children.

It appears that all of the research done on homosexual parenting is done by individuals or groups with a vested interest in the outcome. You can provide a paper on why there are no negative outcomes and I can provide a paper that show there are negative outcomes. So, to all thsoe that think what they say is factual and nonbiased, it becomes clear that all views at the current time are simply opinions, that can be backed up by scientific studies with flawed methodology.

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
I’m inclined to believe if heterosexual couples can produce homosexual children that homosexual couples can also raise heterosexual children. If you’re going to allow by law for couples to receive some benefit after exchanging a few vows and signing on the dotted line then I don’t see how the sex of these people making such a commitment should matter.

I think the issue is still to hot to push for homosexual benefits, which is the root of this thread. Companies that may feel very strongly against homosexuals due to religious or morals views would be forced to accept them and give them benefits and I think this will only cause friction and problems.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
It is not at all like saying mixed couples will turn their children into black people, because there is a white person in the mix, there is no heterosexual in the homosexual mix, so the comparison is invalid. This happens to be like nothing else. Show me the scientific studies that demonstrate children aren't influenced sexually by their homosexual parents.

Show me where homosexuality is wrong or harmful, from someone other than homophobic bigots.

I wouldn't even say this is the root of the question, I don't care if a child turns out homosexual, what I care about is whether a child turns out screwed up and not mentally balanced. That link Wuli provided was more or less an interview with a guy, no statistics or any hard concrete findings, I wouldn't call that a scientific study.

One might find it interesting that there is also the possibility of bias. GLPCI Network—The Newsletter of the Gay and Lesbian Parents Coalition International Summer 1992. Interesting.

Uh huh. So why do all the national medical and phychological associations agree with them? Last I checked, the AMA and APA are pretty conservative in their views, generally.

EDIT: Imagine the social stigma a child would receive from peers if they had homosexual parents, this alone should be cause for concern with letting homosexuals adopt children.

Again, this is an argument that holds little water. You seem to be in support of bigotry, in that you suggest that the bigots should get to bully people, and their attitude should be given ultimate authority.

It appears that all of the research done on homosexual parenting is done by individuals or groups with a vested interest in the outcome. You can provide a paper on why there are no negative outcomes and I can provide a paper that show there are negative outcomes. So, to all thsoe that think what they say is factual and nonbiased, it becomes clear that all views at the current time are simply opinions, that can be backed up by scientific studies with flawed methodology.

Again, I wonder what the agenda of the American Academy of Pediatrics is, besides the welfare of children? http://www.aap.org/policy/020008.html includes this statement: "The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual" That isn't a partisan group, or a gay rights group.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
Why is there some assumption that a child raised in a same-sex marriage household will never interact with anyone but those two adults? The whole 'exposure to both genders' thing is a non-issue. Good parenting involves exposing children to LOTS of influences, which any couple can do.

Honestly, I just see you guys as closet homophobes who are grasping at straws.

Sounds like McCarthy screaming "communist" at anybody daring to think about things outside of what is politically sanctioned.

Personally, I have never cared a hoot about what someone does sexually. Homosexuality is rather tame compared to horse and dog lovers, necrophiliacs and scat enthusiasts.

When you shout "homophobe" at those of us concerned about how children should be influenced as they grow, it seems you are more concerned about homosexual image than children's well being.

If homosexuals could raise children perfectly fine, then I would be perfectly fine with it. I doubt it because of my life experiences, not because I have some closet paranoia about homosexuality. It sounds like you are the one with some agenda.

 

[Zero]

My only agendas are freedom, equality, and tolerance. All parents influence their children in some ways, often unpredictable ways. That holds true of heterosexuals too...and I think homosexuals may in fact have an easier time in being parents, and being married as well. When they do it, it is because they WANT to, without a lot of the societal pressure to do it, as in hetero couples.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
I think the issue is still to hot to push for homosexual benefits, which is the root of this thread. Companies that may feel very strongly against homosexuals due to religious or morals views would be forced to accept them and give them benefits and I think this will only cause friction and problems.

Completely incorrect. What it does, is force people to deal with the issue instead of trying to sidestep it or ignore it. It also opens new avenues. People who are forced to interact with homosexuals who had no previous interaction and thus, uninformed views, may find their opinions changing if they are forced to interact with homosexuals.

But let's induldge you for a moment. So your belief is that we should not force people to interact with other people who are homosexual because it causes friction. Following your line of reasoning, we must also ban blacks from working, because it might severely affect the working environment for KKK members. And also women shouldn't be able to interact, because there are still those people who think a woman's place is in the home, and forcing them to work with women would cause friction. So how many other people should we segregate from the office in the interests of harmony?

Well boy, you'd better have hard workers there, because it's going to be you and 3 other white, heterosexual males running the entire company based on your philosophy

 

[Zantra]

Uh huh. So why do all the national medical and phychological associations agree with them? Last I checked, the AMA and APA are pretty conservative in their views, generally.

Hmm, it would appear that evidence supporting my argument presents itsself. Unless someone wants to contest the conservativism and imperical studies of these organizations.

Again, this is an argument that holds little water. You seem to be in support of bigotry, in that you suggest that the bigots should get to bully people, and their attitude should be given ultimate authority.

Children will always find reasons to ridicule their peers. If it wsan't homosexuality, it would be because the kid's overweight, or too smart, or too small, or too dumb, or too something else. But using young bullies to make your point is shaky ground to say the least.

Again, I wonder what the agenda of the American Academy of Pediatrics is, besides the welfare of children? http://www.aap.org/policy/020008.html includes this statement: "The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual" That isn't a partisan group, or a gay rights group. [/B]

Again must agree here that the American phsychiatric Association is not known for it's radical liberalism by any stretch. Any studies or findings that are upheld by these organizations should be held up as fact until otherwise disproved. It doesn't get much more solid than this.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
My only agendas are freedom, equality, and tolerance. All parents influence their children in some ways, often unpredictable ways. That holds true of heterosexuals too...and I think homosexuals may in fact have an easier time in being parents, and being married as well. When they do it, it is because they WANT to, without a lot of the societal pressure to do it, as in hetero couples.

But for whom? Are we to be more concerned about homosexual self esteem than what is best for children?

I think you make too light of the fact that nature has firmly estblished male and female as the parenting standard. It is not comparable to cite tribal sociology . . . that is not genetically determined. Male-female parenting is about as deep and consistent as evolution gets.

Zero, I wish you knew me . . . I do not judge someone for their sexual preferences as long as no one is harmed. But our children are our future . . . we need to be really, really careful there.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Sounds like McCarthy screaming "communist" at anybody daring to think about things outside of what is politically sanctioned.

A comparison could also be made of the people against homosexual marriages to various groups such as the KKK who didn't want "thier kind" mixing with "our kind" and viewed blacks as lower than dirt. And everyone who befriended blacks were deemed as "$$#ger lovers"

If homosexuals could raise children perfectly fine, then I would be perfectly fine with it. I doubt it because of my life experiences, not because I have some closet paranoia about homosexuality. It sounds like you are the one with some agenda.

Personally, my agenda is equality, and making people see the glaring similarities between bias against homesexuals and our past biased agaist blacks, women, and even further back, pertaining to religion.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
But for whom? Are we to be more concerned about homosexual self esteem than what is best for children?

I think you make too light of the fact that nature has firmly estblished male and female as the parenting standard. It is not comparable to cite tribal sociology . . . that is not genetically determined. Male-female parenting is about as deep and consistent as evolution gets.

Zero, I wish you knew me . . . I do not judge someone for their sexual preferences as long as no one is harmed. But our children are our future . . . we need to be really, really careful there.

Actually, exclusively male-female relations is an abberation, isn't it? Don't many tribes historically have their children raised by one gender or the other exclusively at some point in their lives. Doesn't nature contain everything from abandoned offspring all the way to communal parenting?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zantra
A comparison could also be made of the people against homosexual marriages to various groups such as the KKK who didn't want "thier kind" mixing with "our kind" and viewed blacks as lower than dirt. And everyone who befriended blacks were deemed as "$$#ger lovers"

? It's not the same at all. If someone is against something out of predjudice, and it really doesn't matter what, then one can legitimately accuse him/her of bias.

But, what also goes on is that those on the receiving end of predjudice can become over-sensitive, and so paranoid that they pounce on anything that vaguely resembles predjudice, whether it is or not, screaming "unfair." What is one to do then, walk around on eggshells so as not to offend anyone?

Actually I do try to be mindful of people's sensitivities until, that is, an issue comes along that is more important than people's fragile egos.

Originally posted by Zantra
Personally, my agenda is equality, and making people see the glaring similarities between bias against homesexuals and our past biased agaist blacks, women, and even further back, pertaining to religion.

Your intentions may be noble, but your priorities are wrong. Before explaining what I mean, first let me acknowledge that children are in a lot of horrible situations right now, and a good home with any variety of parents or caregivers would be an improvement. But I assumed we were discussing the ideal of parenting, and how, if we have the opportunity, we’d select what a standard parenting situation should be.

With that in mind, then I say equality in this issue should become a concern only after we do what is best for the children. Why should children have to sacrifice even one iota so gays, blacks, women, or any other group can feel equal? I mean, what about the severely mentally handicapped? They are prejudiced against too, so why shouldn’t they adopt kids? Unfair!

Social fairness, equality and all that kind of idealist stuff is utterly irrelevant to what is best for parenting children. So I think you need to rearrange you priorities a bit. Work for equality and eliminating prejudice where that is done, and look at what is best for children separately from all other considerations.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
? It's not the same at all. If someone is against something out of predjudice, and it really doesn't matter what, then one can legitimately accuse him/her of bias.

But, what also goes on is that those on the receiving end of predjudice can become over-sensitive, and so paranoid that they pounce on anything that vaguely resembles predjudice, whether it is or not, screaming "unfair." What is one to do then, walk around on eggshells so as not to offend anyone?

Actually I do try to be mindful of people's sensitivities until, that is, an issue comes along that is more important than people's fragile egos.



Your intentions may be noble, but your priorities are wrong. Before explaining what I mean, first let me acknowledge that children are in a lot of horrible situations right now, and a good home with any variety of parents or caregivers would be an improvement. But I assumed we were discussing the ideal of parenting, and how, if we have the opportunity, we’d select what a standard parenting situation should be.

With that in mind, then I say equality in this issue should become a concern only after we do what is best for the children. Why should children have to sacrifice even one iota so gays, blacks, women, or any other group can feel equal? I mean, what about the severely mentally handicapped? They are prejudiced against too, so why shouldn’t they adopt kids? Unfair!

Social fairness, equality and all that kind of idealist stuff is utterly irrelevant to what is best for parenting children. So I think you need to rearrange you priorities a bit. Work for equality and eliminating prejudice where that is done, and look at what is best for children separately from all other considerations.

These emotional pleas to 'protect the children' are useless unless you show that they need to be protected! There is zero evidence that a same-sex 2-parent household is harmful for children. In fact, there may be some benefits, like an added level of tolerance being taught.

Why are you so afraid of homosexuals, Sleeth?

 

[Andy]

If you where a child that was brought up by homosexual parents do you not think that if any of the other children found out about this at school that they would bully you for it? Kids can be very cruel when it comes to bullying and i see this as a case where although the parents themselves wouldn't have done anything wrong they wouldn't be able to stop the bullying that the kid would receive, it is the way of the playground to pick on the kids that are different.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Andy
If you where a child that was brought up by homosexual parents do you not think that if any of the other children found out about this at school that they would bully you for it? Kids can be very cruel when it comes to bullying and i see this as a case where although the parents themselves wouldn't have done anything wrong they wouldn't be able to stop the bullying that the kid would receive, it is the way of the playground to pick on the kids that are different.

By thins logic, black children should have remained segregated, Christianity shouldn't exist(not all bad, I suppose), and women should still be barefoot and pregnant.

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Zantra
Completely incorrect. What it does, is force people to deal with the issue instead of trying to sidestep it or ignore it. It also opens new avenues. People who are forced to interact with homosexuals who had no previous interaction and thus, uninformed views, may find their opinions changing if they are forced to interact with homosexuals.

Why must all lack of interaction with a group cause uninformed views? Is there something magic in talking to a homosexual that allows you to see everything so much more clearly? Of course whether they find their opinions wrong or right, that is irrelevant because we cannot predict how they will react.

But let's induldge you for a moment. So your belief is that we should not force people to interact with other people who are homosexual because it causes friction. Following your line of reasoning, we must also ban blacks from working, because it might severely affect the working environment for KKK members. And also women shouldn't be able to interact, because there are still those people who think a woman's place is in the home, and forcing them to work with women would cause friction. So how many other people should we segregate from the office in the interests of harmony?

I'm not sure I follow. Blacks, and woman? Are they homosexual? I thought this was a homosexual thread, it appears as if a black person and/or a woman have no choice in the matter of their gender or colour of their skin, so how is this following MY reasoning when I have never mentioned anything but homosexuals? You make it appear as if all negative views of all kinds of people that anybody could have are also my views. KKK members are violent towards blacks, I am not saying workers will be violent towards homosexuals, your example doesn't even compare.

Well boy, you'd better have hard workers there, because it's going to be you and 3 other white, heterosexual males running the entire company based on your philosophy

You mean there are only 4 white male heterosexuals in the world? Although you seem to think your previos paragraph reflected fairly my view on PEOPLE in general, not homosexuals. In fact I would hire a woman, a black, a Jew, a homosexual, or anybody if they could do the job well. I would simply like not to be forced to give benefits to people when those benefits directly conflict with certain moral choices of mine which could be based on ones religion [note: these benefits being a result of marriage between two homosexuals].

Don't many tribes historically have their children raised by one gender or the other exclusively at some point in their lives.

Their entire childhood? No, as you said, at some point in their lives.

Again, I wonder what the agenda of the American Academy of Pediatrics is, besides the welfare of children? The policy of the AAP towards homosexual parents includes this statement: "The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual" That isn't a partisan group, or a gay rights group.

From the AAP's Policy StatementABSTRACT. Children who are born to or adopted by 1 member of a same-sex couple deserve the security of 2 legally recognized parents. Therefore, the American Academy of Pediatrics supports legislative and legal efforts to provide the possibility of adoption of the child by the second parent or coparent in these families.

What we see here is their attempt to provide legitimate proof for the legalization of legally recognized parents. This seems to be marriage. One also must note that there are also a sufficiently equal number of professional literature (which happen to be only nine in this website) that contradict this statement. It would appear as if they had vested interest in the results though.

 

[Andy]

If you had the choice who would you rather be adopted by, homosexuals or hetrosexuals?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule

What we see here is their attempt to provide legitimate proof for the legalization of legally recognized parents. This seems to be marriage. One also must note that there are also a sufficiently equal number of professional literature (which happen to be only nine in this website) that contradict this statement. It would appear as if they had vested interest in the results though.

Can you show us professional opinions that contradict what I posted? Oh, and show me an agenda, besides the welfare of children...I am waiting with baited breath over here.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Andy
If you had the choice who would you rather be adopted by, homosexuals or hetrosexuals?

I don't see a distinction...I would prefer good parents, which could be anyone, really(except Christian Science whackjobs and other child abusers).

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Zero
Can you show us professional opinions that contradict what I posted? Oh, and show me an agenda, besides the welfare of children...I am waiting with baited breath over here.

As soon as you show me an unbiased STUDY, I don't care about professional opinions.

 

[Andy]

If you had the choice of being adopted either a perfectly good homosexual couple or a perfectly good hetrosexual couple who would you rather be adopted by?

I think that the vast majority of people would choose the hetrosexual couple, but a young child wouldn't have this choice.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Andy
If you had the choice of being adopted either a perfectly good homosexual couple or a perfectly good hetrosexual couple who would you rather be adopted by?

I think that the vast majority of people would choose the hetrosexual couple, but a young child wouldn't have this choice.

Why should it matter? I don't see it as being important either way, and I don't understand why you do.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
As soon as you show me an unbiased STUDY, I don't care about professional opinions.

You could have scrolled to the bottom...and I'm not sure what you mean by unbiased. Generally, the APA and the AAP would tend to use unbiased studies, don't you think? The bias, of course, is in huge evidence on your side of the issue. The ONLY evidence I have seen against homosexuality has come from religious sources.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
? It's not the same at all. If someone is against something out of predjudice, and it really doesn't matter what, then one can legitimately accuse him/her of bias.

Ok then how do you definte prejudice? You're saying that someone being gay cannot be a good parent- that is prejudice and bias.

But, what also goes on is that those on the receiving end of predjudice can become over-sensitive, and so paranoid that they pounce on anything that vaguely resembles predjudice, whether it is or not, screaming "unfair." What is one to do then, walk around on eggshells so as not to offend anyone?

Ok the then where do we draw the line between political correctness and the rights of people? If you're trying to tell someone else what they can do with their children, that's infringing on personal human rights. If they were trying to influence your children, that would fall in your court. But the bottom line is that it's their RIGHT to raise children because it doesn't harm others (which I realize is the debate).

Actually I do try to be mindful of people's sensitivities until, that is, an issue comes along that is more important than people's fragile egos.

So then what qualifies you to tell someone they're not fit to be a parent? This isn't about egos, it's about people's right to be a parent.

Your intentions may be noble, but your priorities are wrong. Before explaining what I mean, first let me acknowledge that children are in a lot of horrible situations right now, and a good home with any variety of parents or caregivers would be an improvement. But I assumed we were discussing the ideal of parenting, and how, if we have the opportunity, we’d select what a standard parenting situation should be.

With that in mind, then I say equality in this issue should become a concern only after we do what is best for the children. Why should children have to sacrifice even one iota so gays, blacks, women, or any other group can feel equal? I mean, what about the severely mentally handicapped? They are prejudiced against too, so why shouldn’t they adopt kids? Unfair!

Social fairness, equality and all that kind of idealist stuff is utterly irrelevant to what is best for parenting children. So I think you need to rearrange you priorities a bit. Work for equality and eliminating prejudice where that is done, and look at what is best for children separately from all other considerations.

First, I do believe that the children's best interests should be kept at heart. And I believe having a 2 parent home is in their best interests. Your argument is based on the faulty premise that being raised by 2 parents of the same sex is bad for the child.

Yet in society we have excepted exactly that. Ever see "my two dads" or "full house"? Both were TV sitcoms in which 2, and 3 men respectively raised a family. No they were not gay, just friends or related. Society doesn't view 2 parents as wrong- it views 2 GAY parents as morally incorrect because they go on the assumption that the parents will teach the values of homosexuality to their children. This is false, and the studies be the APA and AMA have shown that.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Why must all lack of interaction with a group cause uninformed views? Is there something magic in talking to a homosexual that allows you to see everything so much more clearly? Of course whether they find their opinions wrong or right, that is irrelevant because we cannot predict how they will react.

Because sexual preference aside, they are people, just like you and I. They go to school, they have careers, and they have friends and family. You're generalizing someone soley based on their sexual preference which is just one aspect of a whole person. And what can you tell me of gays from personal experience. You're saying that you base all your views on other people's experiences. That's a biased view.

I'm not sure I follow. Blacks, and woman? Are they homosexual? I thought this was a homosexual thread, it appears as if a black person and/or a woman have no choice in the matter of their gender or colour of their skin, so how is this following MY reasoning when I have never mentioned anything but homosexuals? You make it appear as if all negative views of all kinds of people that anybody could have are also my views. KKK members are violent towards blacks, I am not saying workers will be violent towards homosexuals, your example doesn't even compare.

Oh I see, so now we're soley basing discrimination on weather they can HELP their "disadvantage" So if someone "can't help what they are" then it's bad to discriminate against them. Now I'm following your reasoning. There is a very relavant theme in my post of discrimination. My point is that prejudice against blacks and woman is the same as prejudice against homosexuals. Some would make the argument that they can't help it because they were born that way-so you would be contradicting your own beliefs by discriminating against them. And people ARE violent against homsexuals, or have you just had your head under a rock for the last 20 years?

You mean there are only 4 white male heterosexuals in the world? Although you seem to think your previos paragraph reflected fairly my view on PEOPLE in general, not homosexuals. In fact I would hire a woman, a black, a Jew, a homosexual, or anybody if they could do the job well. I would simply like not to be forced to give benefits to people when those benefits directly conflict with certain moral choices of mine which could be based on ones religion [note: these benefits being a result of marriage between two homosexuals].

I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but the unitied states of america was founded on the premise that everyone has the right to freedom of choice- thier's is lifestyle choice, and regardless of weather they conflict with your moral views, by default they are allowed to practice those views because that's the american way. In the same vien you don't have the right to deny them the same rights ans you simply because of a moral conflict. That's not what the US was founded on, God Bless the US of A