gay marriage

[Bacchus]

someone who seriously believes that someone raised by gay people have more chances to turn out gay is probably gay.

 

Watch out for Coming Out, it's catchy...

[Aileron]

You were raised by liberals. Did you come out conservative?

[Bacchus]

rofl, most ridiculous analogy ever!

 

do you think sexual orientation is akin to political stance!?

 

And yes, my family political affiliation is conservative and i ended up a liberal...but it'S different here than in the US. in quebec we have a Provincial liberal party (social conservative tradition if you want but it's a front nowadays, they are very "republican" in action) which is in power now. A Quebec's party, which was in power for the last 10 years or so. This is our national party, so they are are rather for a merge in business and culture so to speak...yea, before someone mention it, they also are separatists but that's another story. There's the ADQ, the NPD, UFP, etc. smaller parties with no real political strenght.

 

So you see, unless you live with your parent for a very long time..the outside world from elementary school and up will affect you a lot.

 

Read Duck post...

 

check on every rebel kid out there...

[Aileron]

The point was that its been proven that 50% of what defines a person's personality is caused by their environment. If the adopted parents are gay, the child will most likely grow up gay.

 

Yes, maybe if you have the childhood of having the public school be nicer to you than your parents, it would define you more, but that's beside the point.

 

I don't know why society has a problem with children growing up gay as opposed to growing up alcoholic or abusive, I'm just stating the facts.

[Bacchus]

facts? where?

 

You haven't shown anything yet but opinions, which is find devoid of anything factual.

 

Show me sources or stop stating "facts". this either an open discussion with personal view or a do-*BAD WORD*-ented one. If you want facts i'll find lots of them. show me yours, i'll show you mine...or is it "morally unacceptable" ?

[Dav]

Societies' problem with gay adoption is obvious.  While we view gays as equals, we really don't want to raise people gay.  We view the individuals as equals, but not the behavior.

 

That is the problem with both gay adoption and gay marriage, because they both cross the line between gay rights and homosexualism.

well the opposite is true for stright couples. You could argue that childern should be brought up impartially and if homosexuality is genetic instinct it wont matter if the parents are gay or not.

[Wargh!!!]

well the opposite is true for stright couples.  You could argue that childern should be brought up impartially and if homosexuality is genetic instinct it wont matter if the parents are gay or not.

Exactly. We cant really be impartial about this, can we? if we were, society would be one -*BAD WORD*- of a different place now.

 

 

They are EQUAL, they are PEOPLE, they want to raise caring, helpful members of society.

 

now i ask you, WHAT THE -*BAD WORD*- IS WRONG WITH THAT?

[Aileron]

Not that you do not ask me. I am only taking this side as devil's advocate.

 

 

The people may be equal, but the behavior is not the same. Women may be equal to men, but they shouldn't be allowed to go into the Men's bathroom. Its the same thing here.

[Bacchus]

rofl

 

you really have a way with bad analogy

 

 

So by your reckoning, gay should be allowed in both?

 

Whoaaa, That'S novel!

 

When i need to take a leak and men's are full, i go to women's. Try as i want i can't see a difference between a manly toilet seat and a womanly one <_<

 

-*BAD WORD*-, must mean i'm gay! who wants to marry me?

or i'm a liberal raised by gay, no wait...liberals are gay...

 

aaaaah -*BAD WORD*-, i'm confused again.

[Dav]

well the opposite is true for stright couples.  You could argue that childern should be brought up impartially and if homosexuality is genetic instinct it wont matter if the parents are gay or not.

Exactly. We cant really be impartial about this, can we? if we were, society would be one -*BAD WORD*- of a different place now.

 

 

They are EQUAL, they are PEOPLE, they want to raise caring, helpful members of society.

 

now i ask you, WHAT THE -*BAD WORD*- IS WRONG WITH THAT?

well thatb all good in a perfect world, if it was all genetic then it wouldnt really matter, however there is significant argument for phycological influsences that cause homosexuallity and thats why there is an issue.

 

I guss it can be couter argued that stright parents phyco,logically promote anti gay behavoir to the children but then kildren arent made by homosexual relationships.

 

A couple of facts:

 

1. the word gayby is being added to the dictionary for a child that is born by a sarreogate mother for gay parents.

 

2. Homosexual men must be 18 to engage in sexual behavoir in the UK, however lesbians have no age limit as they have been deemed to "not exist". In reality lesbians cannot accually have sex.

[Bacchus]

those are rather "useless facts" number 1 and 2 if you ask me. What's the link between legal age, vocabulary and psychological issues with homosexuality?

 

off course there might be psychological factors. So what? psychology isn't only studying sicko's you know...Me, him, her and you are all a product of some psychological factors. Even hetero rules out their sex life with the help of some psychology...if we weren't we'd be animals.

 

 

Gay marriage is a non-issue!

unless you're some Jesus freak/religious fanatics.

 

 

In reality lesbians cannot accually have sex.

 

lmao

 

open kazaa>search for lesbian sex>get a move on.

[Wargh!!!]

of course there might be psychological factors. So what?

See, there are definatly going to be rather large psychological factors, and i can disagree to that. A male child brought up by a lesbian couple, for example.

 

The child will probably grow up to be more femine than masculine, if the father figure is non-existant. But things change when put in social groups.

 

The only REAL DIFFERENCE the child has, is the fact that he/she will have to learn the hard way how to act. The child will do 'social experments' until they get somthing right. When they do, they stick to it.

Anyways, who said that the gay couple do not have parents, both fater and mother, who can be involved in the childs life?

 

Children brought up by Homosexuals will have a tougher social life early on. Except from that, i dont really see anything that can excuse a homosexual couple from having children of their own.

[Bacchus]

or look at it from the winning side :

 

-A boy is raised by gay parents and...o lord...he turns out gay

So?.... As far as i'm concerned it only means more women for me!

 

-A boy is raised by a lesbian couple and...o lord...turns out gay

Read above

 

-A girl is raised by gay parents and...o goodness...she turns out ...GAY!

Yay! more girls for me!

 

-A girl is raised by lesbian parents and turn out to...allelujah...a girl!

Yay, more girls for me!

 

 

GG homophobes! You're just sore losers with a wicked woody and no sex life!!!

 

 

aha

[Tipme]

they could always make their kids listen to radiohead

radiohead can change kids

radiohead sends sleep messages@

[Dav]

ok i agree my pointe were useless.

 

The thing avboutb gay couples with children at the moment is that alot of !@#$%^&*umptions are made, we dont accually know if they will turn out messed up or not.

[Aileron]

Gay marriage is a non-issue!

unless you're some Jesus freak/religious fanatics.

 

It is a very controversial issue!

Unless you are pig-headed enough to dismiss the other side when you don't have a complete arguement.

 

I will admit that you almost have a complete arguement going for you, but there are still a few holes. Hence, I believe you, but want to apply some resistance to those areas. Until you fill in those holes, please be kind enough to restrain comments.

 

The hole with homosexual couples has pretty much been filled in. Children in our society are raised in so many non-ideal environments that the suffering caused by being raised by gays is small.

 

Now try this one...the arguement you present for why gays should be allowed to marry could easily be applied to Polygamy, Beastiality, some kind of Pedophile marriage, etc. Is there a clear and logical reason why gays should be allowed to marry and not these groups?

 

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind gays marrying. What I DO mind is society changing without a complete logical arguement.

[»Ducky]

I know how ya feel.. I changed my underwear this morning after argueing with myself for 15 minutes whether I could let it slide another day

[Bacchus]

ok, i'll try my luck at logic...(i know it's nonsense don't bother pointing it to me )

 

Firstly, my opinion is that gay marriage isn't a profound change in society. Gays always existed, they are part of our society...single or committed. Marriage is just a step toward integration. I mean, our civil society has been thought, built and written by and for hetero. The only real change is a legal one.

Adoption rights? -*BAD WORD*-, why not? as you said, i don't think that a "gay" family would matter very much in the long run.

Tax benefits? Does someone actually care about that?

so forth.

 

The only "against" argument, is the religious one. I can understand why some people will resist this marriage issue if they believe God wanted otherwise...but to that i'll also answer that Jesus was preaching unconditional love (among many thing). If 2 people love each other, i believe it's wrong to judge them because of sexual behavior. It's not sex that matters here, it's feelings.

ok, that was naive...some will marry to benefit from the system...like so many others from any culture around the world.

 

What about other sexual orientation? good question that one.

I'd be tempted to say that it's their turn...Just like women right to vote, i'm pretty sure someone pointed out the same problem at the time :"women to vote? hey, why not give dogs a right to vote also, and children while your at it!".

Nothing is perfect. We can't have anything at once.

 

but here's my incomplete thoughts about polygamy, pedophilia, etc.

I've travelled to country where polygamy is allowed. Here's how it works: When a man and woman want to marry they choose (under civil scrutiny), or check a box if you want, to either form a monogamous or polygamous union. In some instances, a polygamous union is more practical. A rich and bif family, lots of kids, big landhold, etc. Having more than one wife is a way to "share" riches among so many families. The first wife usually rules the house.

 

The drawback is either a very strict marriage where women are litteraly herded or quite a loose one (rarer though if i got it right at the time).

 

Poorer family will usually choose monogamous union, it's easier, cheaper and less mobile pieces means stronger integrity. But, women might just as well be sequestered...all depends on where you are. Afghani women obeys very strict rules, but that'S not true everywhere. In west africa (Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, Cote d'Ivoire, Senegal, etc) , women are usually treated with respect even if men clearly hold the big end of the stick. Oh and while i'm at it (and off topic), muslims are for a very large part, quite cool people. Very open, curious people. But i'm a man, so it's a bit biased. They showed me what a man should see...

 

I don't mind polygamy, so long as it's respectful of women...I mean, so long as they can marry more than one man also. Treated equally, each sex could either have more than one spouse and everyone could bail out whenever they wish.

It wouldn't work in america...we were almost all raised in a "religiously" tainted context. I for one would have a hard time being happy if i knew my wife was sleeping with other men then me. We were thought to see our partners like "property".

 

Bestiality wouldn't work either for obvious reason..."i'm sorry, i have to walk my wife, maybe later". An animal can't participate in society. Can't work, can't ahve a social life, can't consume anything. It has no self-conscience...it is not sentient.

 

Pedophilia...i don'T ahve any argument but those of the heart. I don't if a psycho wants to marry his dog or fish...i'll have a laugh and go away. But kids? the mere thought of it is unsettling. And i guess i could go with the argument as bestiality: Even if they are sentient, they aren't ready to understand the full extend such an union and as such it shouldn't be allowed.

I know there'S culture in which it's acceptable, but those are not ours...i mean north american.

 

Regarding underwear...that's a tricky one. Let me think about it...

 

 

 

 

Ah! don't wear any! owned!

[Bacchus]

sorry about the bad english...i'm too lazy to correct myself.

[Aileron]

Well, the only thing you are clearly wrong about in that post is that there actually are arguements against gay marriage that aren't religious. I'd cite some examples, but the arguements barely hold water. (I didn't say they were GOOD arguements)

 

The simplest good arguement consists of the fact that we don't have gay marriage currently, and that it is unwise to change society without reason. While this arguement is flawless, it can be taken down with a single logical arguement from the other camp.

 

 

It seems to me that on the basic level, the two side have different opinions on what gays are. The pro gay marriage crowd views gays as a kind of race on its quest to recieve equality. The anti-gay marriage crowd views homosexuality as a psychological disease that was given a new status due to numbers.

[Bacchus]

so, you agree with pro-gay marriage?

 

And it's not about a new race...it's about equality among fellow humans. It's about laying down differences, it's about openess of minds and freedom from prejudice!

 

ALLELUJAH!!!

 

may the easter bunny die in car crash!

[Aileron]

Well, I personally would be against gay marriage, but the best arguement I've seen favors it. Thus, I'm effectively pro-gay marriage until I see an arguement that beats the it.

 

 

The problem with equality and freedom from predudice is that life is not and never will be fair. Positions of honor and power will always be dealt out by fate, not by the merits of the reciever.

 

When we removed the segregation of jobs with respect to race, (lets assume for the sake of arguement that we have atleast made progress.) we did not make things fair. Instead of segregating out those who were born of a certain race, we now segregate out those of lesser intelligence. There are many benefits to society with the latter type of descrimination, but the recipient of the postion as well as those denied deserve their status no more or less than if the position had been decided by race.

 

Thus, I don't think it wise to seek equality for its own sake. All we should do is change our discrimination so that it follows functional variables.

[Bacchus]

you know, you can't love or appreciate everything in this world...but try as i might it seems my "discrimination drive" is almost off...

 

I mean, the human mind works by discriminating what our senses perceives (black/white)...better word yet we differenciate. Wether the table will be a round one or a square one we'll still call it a table. What's the difference with humans? Wether they are white, red, yellow, black, green, gay, hetero, bozo, legless, faithless, etc. They are still, in the end humans.

We chose a society built on some basics principles: equity, fairness, democracy, etc. Although those are still to be seen at large, we should always try to uphold them to the best of our abilities.

 

~Shake hands~

 

[Aileron]

Even after those things have been attained, equality and fairness will not exist. People are dealt relevent qualities such as intelligence by the same means as they are dealt irrelevent qualities such as race. A man who got his job because he was smart did not deserve his position any more than a man who got his job by being white. Both qualities are a result of luck.

 

 

The question for this issue. Is being gay a relevant compromise to the idea of marriage? To do so requires an in depth analysis of the reasons why society created marriage in the first place, as well as the purpose it serves.

[Dav]

scientifically speaking marrage is a way to show our stying woth our mates to benifit the offspring. That way gay marrage isnt valid as it yeils no offspring as a direct result.