Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Boxcar,
Please don't take this argument in circles. I don't like repeating what I've already explained.
Homosexuals can & often do have ceremonies, celebrating their union. That's fine - if they want to do that & not force their lifestyle on others, especially children. But WHY do they need the legal stamp of marriage which is in place to protect the children in society?
I don't believe homosexuals should raise children. Children deserve better than just moms or just dads.
They need both a mother & father, as they were naturally conceived with both. It's not rocket science.
The insults, putdowns & jumping to conclusions about ME in this thread - as if I am the focus of this discussion - makes me wonder if you have nothing better to comment on regarding this subject.
In what way does the legal contract of "marriage" protect children?
Again, should childless couples (like myself and my wife) also be denied legal marriage, since we will have no children to protect?
Thus far your argument is making little sense, honestly.
Can we put the shoe on the other foot for a moment? WHY should homosexuals be denied access to a legal marriage? Perhaps if we start there we can all better understand your thoughts on this.
I'm sorry, I don't mean to offend you. And I'm not trying to take this conversation in circles.
I am only trying to point out what I think are the flaws in your reasoning. Because I don't think your reasoning is sound on this issue. I'm sure your an otherwise fine person, so it's not about that. I just want to point out why your stated explanation isn't really valid.
For example, would it be better for a single mom to raise a child by herself, or for her to get married to another woman?
It seems to me that if one simply didn't like the idea of homosexuals, they would say it would be better for the woman to raise the child by herself.
But if a person really cared about the children, they would say that it is better for the mother to get married to another mother.
Another example: If children aren't an issue because the woman is barren, may the woman marry a man but not another woman?
If children aren't an issue, then your answer should be the same, no matter what your answer is. But if it's really just the idea of homosexuality that you disapprove of, you would say that a barren woman could marry a man but not a woman.
These questions are just to highlight what I see are the problems in your reasoning.
It might just be easier for you to say that while you don't think a homosexual marriage is the optima situation, there are several other situations that you would allow that are also less than optimal. So out of a sense equality we should allow gay couples there happiness as well.
But none of this means I personally don't like you.
Thank you, Boxkill. Although, as I mentioned there have been jumping to conclusions, you have been one of the most reasonable to discuss this with.
I'm surprised your asking if it would be better for a single mother to stay heterosexual or become homosexual. Why would you ask such a thing? This is really off topic, but I'll tell you - it would be better for a woman to find a man that has proved himself to be a good husband & father. If a mother finds herself parenting alone, it would be best to surround her & her children with as much social support (grandparents, uncles, aunts, friends) as possible.
IF (& that's a big IF) there were so many babies that there was desperate need for ANYBODY to care for them, there wouldn't be waiting lists for adopting babies. And as we know, children thrive best being raised by the 2 types that naturally conceived them - a MOTHER & a FATHER. (see previously posted links to studies & articles supporting this.)
Furthermore, "The 2000 U.S. Census Bureau found that homosexual couples constitute less than 1% of American households." Why would you want to cherry pick homosexual couples out of the entire population, to be parents, especially when children need more than they can provide? Children need a mother & a father.
You mentioned I "allow" situations that are ALSO less than optimal than children being rasied by 2 dads or 2 moms. It's not that I allow it - it's just what happens & it's sad. (2009, the US Census Bureau- estimated 26% of children under 21 were growing up in single-parent homes!). I do not see single women asking for marriage rights, despite being single. Nor, do I see many women having their goal to parent singly. Yes, you have a few selfish women who deliberately choose to deny their child of being raised by a father, but the majority of single mothers are single because the father left, or for some reason it didn't work out. I acknowledge that fathers also take care of the children & sometimes the mother isn't the primary care giver, yet this is less common. I hope the best for single parents, realizing they do the best they can. Yet, that is separate, topic.
In what way does the legal contract of "marriage" protect children?
Again, should childless couples (like myself and my wife) also be denied legal marriage, since we will have no children to protect?
Thus far your argument is making little sense, honestly.
Can we put the shoe on the other foot for a moment? WHY should homosexuals be denied access to a legal marriage? Perhaps if we start there we can all better understand your thoughts on this.
Hooligan, maybe my argument doesn't seem to make sense because you haven't read it. I already explained this & even posted links to articles & statistics explaining it further.
Of course you & your wife are not denied legal marriage. The primary societal purpose of marriage is to protect children. The 2nd reason is to protect spouses. However, as you'll see after reading my previous posts, as it is, homosexual couples already have rights under Common-Law Marriages & Cohabitations Agreements. Homosexual couples could never, by themselves, procreate & contribute to the future of society. The only way they could have children is by adoption, which would be selfish, because they'd be denying children what they need - a MOTHER & a FATHER. (Again, refer to the studies & articles supporting this, besides common sense - that's how we all were created.) So, homosexual couples are asking for special recognition - to change the definition of marriage just for them - when it wouldn't be in society's best interest to.
...Of course you & your wife are not denied legal marriage. The primary societal purpose of marriage is to protect children. The 2nd reason is to protect spouses...
This would imply that homosexual spouses don't need protection?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperSoul
However, as you'll see after reading my previous posts, as it is, homosexual couples already have rights under Common-Law Marriages & Cohabitations Agreements.
I *have* read your arguments. It would seem that you haven't read mine. If YOU had bothered to read my reply to your post, you would have seen that I pointed out that many states that disallow same-sex marriage also disallow same-sex civil unions, etc. Cohabitation Agreements do not offer all the same benefits and protections that legal marriage do, nor do Civil Unions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperSoul
Homosexual couples could never, by themselves, procreate & contribute to the future of society.
And we're right back to the "no kids" issue. Yet you have no problem with childless heterosexuals being married. How can that not be viewed as bigotry when the only difference is the sexual orientation and genders of the couple in question?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperSoul
The only way they could have children is by adoption, which would be selfish, because they'd be denying children what they need - a MOTHER & a FATHER. (Again, refer to the studies & articles supporting this, besides common sense - that's how we all were created.) So, homosexual couples are asking for special recognition - to change the definition of marriage just for them - when it wouldn't be in society's best interest to.
And there are plenty of studies that show that children raised by homosexual couples are just as well adjusted and "normal", if not more so, than children raised by heterosexual couples. What's your point?
because they'd be denying children what they need - a MOTHER & a FATHER.
I see nothing to support such a claim. There is no "need" for a mother and a father as all the children bought up by gay.... or single.... parents testify. I am afraid simply calling your thoughts "common sense" fails to magically make them correct.
I see nothing to support such a claim. There is no "need" for a mother and a father as all the children bought up by gay.... or single.... parents testify. I am afraid simply calling your thoughts "common sense" fails to magically make them correct.
I think he's referring to the idea that both a male and female principle are healthy for people growing up - it has seemed to be the natural way of things with humans (for the most part) since our beginning. Girls must learn to become women, and boys must learn to become men. Socially, I don't think this viewpoint is open to debate: it's held by people. it doesn't make it correct - just that it is a view held.
The historical psychological view has agreed on this for a very long time, hasn't it? I'm sure someone could cite a modern psychologist's study and attempt to undermine hundreds of years of social observation, but doesn't this remain a constant?
Now - granted - male and female principles COULD be supplied in a non-heterosexual parental situation, could they not? But I think that the average person does worry about this very issue. And it's not strictly a heterosexual vs homosexual issue, either: it has been noted in families with divorce, etc..
Please bear in mind - I'm in the middle of all of this in certain areas. I neither completely agree or disagree with the modern politically correct views, and I neither completely agree or diagree with the collective wisdom of humanity that has guided us for thousands of years. I'm just trying to ask some questions, point out some curiosities - without getting into a finger-pointing escapade and trying to discredit another's views, points and data by using ad-hominem attacks: which there have been a lot of in this thread.
Homosexuality is a sin according to Scripture, but I am not about to go on an anti-gay crusade any time soon. People use the Bible as an excuse to hate and I want no part of it. I am not threatened by gay marriage. I have no problem with it despite what the Bible says. If that makes me a heretic, then so be it. If my name fails to appear in the Lamb's Book of Life because I failed to oppress homosexuals, so be it.
You have got it right, hate the sin not the sinner.
...Cohabitation Agreements do not offer all the same benefits and protections that legal marriage do, nor do Civil Unions.
Please post references indicating exactly which rights offered to couples by marriage, but are denied by cohabitation agreements, common law marriage & the like.
Quote:
And we're right back to the "no kids" issue. Yet you have no problem with childless heterosexuals being married. How can that not be viewed as bigotry when the only difference is the sexual orientation and genders of the couple in question?
How can that be viewed as bigotry? That's like saying your & my existence is bigotry - because we could not be conceived from 2 men or 2 women.
Marriage's first societal purpose is to protect children... heterosexual couples have the possibility of procreating, contributing to the future society. Homosexuals don't have that possibility.
Quote:
And there are plenty of studies that show that children raised by homosexual couples are just as well adjusted and "normal", if not more so, than children raised by heterosexual couples.
Please provide credible references indicating that children don't need a mother or father, & do better with just mothers or just fathers.
As mentioned, such research would likely be biased, since the vast majority of people have been raised by a mother & father, since we've kept track of history.
Indeed, I think it would be impossible for a "study" to deny the natural order of things - biologically & socially - & NOT be biased.
Last edited by SuperSoul; 10-21-2011 at 05:32 PM..
Nuclear family: also called elementary family, in sociology and anthropology, a group of people who are united by ties of partnership and parenthood and consisting of a pair of adults and their socially recognized children.
Typically, but not always, the adults in a nuclear family are married. Although such couples are most often a man and a woman, the definition of the nuclear family has expanded with the advent of same-sex marriage. Children in a nuclear family may be the couple’s biological or adopted offspring.
Thus defined, the nuclear family was once widely held to be the most basic and universal form of social organization. Anthropological research, however, has illuminated so much variability of this form that it is safer to assume that what is universal is a “nuclear family complex” in which the roles of husband, wife, mother, father, son, daughter, brother, and sister are embodied by people whose biological relationships do not necessarily conform to the Western definitions of these terms. In matrilineal societies, for example, a child may be the responsibility not of his biological genitor but of his mother’s brother, who fulfills the roles typical of Western fatherhood.
Closely related in form to the predominant nuclear-family unit are the conjugal family and the consanguineal family. As its name implies, the conjugal family is knit together primarily by the marriage tie and consists of mother, father, their children, and some close relatives.
The consanguineal family, on the other hand, typically groups itself around a unilineal descent group known as a lineage, a form that reckons kinship through either the father’s or the mother’s line but not both. Whether a culture is patrilineal or matrilineal, a consanguineal family comprises lineage relatives and consists of parents, their children, and their children’s children. Rules regarding lineage exogamy, or out-marriage, are common in these groups; within a given community, marriages thus create cross-cutting social and political ties between lineages.
The stability of the conjugal family depends on the quality of the marriage of the husband and wife, a relationship that is more emphasized in the kinds of industrialized, highly mobile societies that frequently demand that people reside away from their kin groups. The consanguineal family derives its stability from its corporate nature and its permanence, as its relationships emphasize the perpetuation of the line.
Please provide credible references indicating that children don't need a mother or father, & do better with just mothers or just fathers.
As mentioned, such research would likely be biased, since the vast majority of people have been raised by a mother & father, since we've kept track of history.
Indeed, I think it would be impossible for a "study" to deny the natural order of things - biologically & socially - & NOT be biased.
The APA isn't an anti-gay religious propaganda group like the website links you posted. It's rather hilarious that you ask for "credible references" yet you post links to anti-gay religious groups full of propaganda based on myths, negative stereotypes, distortion of facts and misrepresentation of studies. No doubt you think the APA is 'biased' yet the "opinion pieces" from your propaganda websites are "credible" despite being discredited and debunked over and over.
The overall results? Children raised by lesbian and gay parents do just as well as children raised by heterosexual parents.
In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth.
...
Beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation...
...
The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers' and gay fathers' parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual couples. For instance, Flaks, Fischer, Masterpasqua, and Joseph (1995) reported that lesbian couples' parenting awareness skills were stronger than those of heterosexual couples. This was attributed to greater parenting awareness among lesbian nonbiological mothers than among heterosexual fathers.
In one study, Brewaeys and her colleagues (1997) likewise reported more favorable patterns of parent-child interaction among lesbian as compared to heterosexual parents, but in another, they found greater similarities (Vanfraussen, Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, & Brewaeys, 2003).
A recent study of 256 lesbian and gay parent families found that, in contrast to patterns characterizing the majority of American parents, very few lesbian and gay parents reported any use of physical punishment (such as spanking) as a disciplinary technique; instead, they were likely to report use of positive techniques such as reasoning (Johnson & O'Connor, 2002).
Certainly, research has found no reasons to believe lesbian mothers or gay fathers to be unfit parents (Armesto, 2002; Barret & Robinson, 1990; Bigner & Bozett, 1990; Bigner & Jacobsen, 1989a, 1989b; Bos et al., 2003, 2004; Bozett, 1980, 1989; Patterson, 1997; Patterson & Chan, 1996; Sbordone, 1993; Tasker & Golombok, 1997; Victor & Fish, 1995; Weston, 1991).
On the contrary, results of research suggest that lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive home environments for children.
...
Gender-Role Behavior. A number of studies have reported that gender-role behavior among children of lesbian mothers fell within typical limits for conventional sex roles. In summary, the research suggests that children of lesbian mothers develop patterns of gender-role behavior that are much like those of other children.
Personal Development: Overall, the belief that children of lesbian and gay parents suffer deficits in personal development has no empirical foundation.
Social Relationships: Results of research to date suggest that children of lesbian and gay parents have positive relationships with peers and that their relationships with adults of both sexes are also satisfactory. The picture of lesbian mothers' children that emerges is one of general engagement in social life with peers, with fathers, with grandparents, and with mothers' adult friends-both male and female, both heterosexual and homosexual. Fears about children of lesbians and gay men being sexually abused by adults, ostracized by peers, or isolated in single-sex lesbian or gay communities have received no support from the results of existing research.
No doubt you will ignore all these studies just like you ignored Sanspeur's links and here too.
Last edited by Ceist; 10-22-2011 at 04:30 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
