Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-11-2008, 07:38 PM
 
4,050 posts, read 6,128,989 times
Reputation: 1574

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf View Post
I'll have a go at that, if I may. The whole historical idea of marriage, the concept of the bond between a man and a woman, is based on the metaphorical joining of opposites to create a union. Nothing in life is more difficult than the giving up of one's ego and self-image in the interest of, and in loving deference to, one's opposite and a member of the other sex -- with all of the concomitant delights, frustration, mysteries, and knowledges which are the potential result of such a union.

Two men or two women bonding as legal partners experience something like the same union, at least to the degree that another person is involved, and that the legal issues are similar. But to compare their union to that of a mature man and woman -- a "marriage" of opposite souls, undertaken in loving approach to understanding of the differing roles, needs, and transcendant value of the two sexes, needful of each other as they are to achieve completeness -- is to revise the basic concept of the term as our culture and our civilization knows and depends upon it, as the source of hope, of confident progeny conceived in love, and as the element which bonds us as men and women to our revered past, our complex present, and our perilous future.
That is highly subjective. If you really believe that two people of the same sex are under no circumstances opposites, that suggests that you have never tried to make a relationship with someone of the same sex work. Needless to point out, some relate better to and share more similarities (certain physical characteristics aside) to those of the opposite sex. I think your view of the sexes (as explained in that post, anyway) is an antiquated one--one that might not have ever been accurate but was held fast to nonetheless.

And much of what you've written there easily refers to many same-sex couples. It seems to me that, with all due respect, you can't see the numerous similarities between the two relationships because you can imagine being involved in only one of them. It's one of the ways in which looking past one's own viewpoint (possibly his or her very nature) is difficult.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-11-2008, 07:39 PM
 
Location: An absurd world.
5,160 posts, read 9,157,717 times
Reputation: 2024
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiksi View Post
Should they be allowed to adopt children? NO WAY.
Yes they should be allowed to. They are just like everybody else except for sexual preference. When you can show me an example of having gay parents having a negative effect on a child, then I'll consider your claim to be at least valid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2008, 08:48 PM
 
418 posts, read 563,585 times
Reputation: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haaziq View Post
Yes they should be allowed to. They are just like everybody else except for sexual preference. When you can show me an example of having gay parents having a negative effect on a child, then I'll consider your claim to be at least valid.
I would fight till my last drop of blood against that.

This "experiment" is TOO dangerous to perform on living beings.

I am against this, AND always will be. It's not natural, PERIOD.

You can support that if you want, i won't. I've talked with some psychologists... and they told me what negative impacts it might have on kids.
They CAN'T turn out as kids with mother and father do, now can they?

I will not go into depth as i'm tired now, but as far as i am concerned, NO.

Kids learn their behavior from parents, and NEED role models.

If nature HAD intended for woman and woman OR man and MAN to have/raise a child, THEN they could be able to procreate.
They can't...

Last edited by fiksi; 03-11-2008 at 08:59 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2008, 08:58 PM
 
Location: An absurd world.
5,160 posts, read 9,157,717 times
Reputation: 2024
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiksi View Post
I would fight till my last drop of blood against that.

This "experiment" is TOO dangerous to perform on living beings.

I am against this, AND always will be. It's not natural, PERIOD.

You can support that if you want, i won't.
What experiement? Adoption by gay parents has been taking place for a while now. You're a little late. I have yet to hear about a case where it damaged a child. You know why? Because unlike what many think, gays don't try to influence their lifestyle on their children. They let them make their own decisions. You're a little late on calling the "experiment". It already occurs everyday. After all, it is a personal right. Whether or not the parents are responsible matters way more than whether they are gay or not. As a matter of fact, being gay or straight doesn't matter..at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2008, 09:04 PM
 
Location: southern california
61,289 posts, read 87,247,282 times
Reputation: 55556
i am not hyping gay marriage however i must say b4
i would say negative things about gay unions i must
look at the dreadful current state of hetero marriage in the USA.
to not do so would be denial.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2008, 09:05 PM
 
418 posts, read 563,585 times
Reputation: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haaziq View Post
What experiement? Adoption by gay parents has been taking place for a while now. You're a little late. I have yet to hear about a case where it damaged a child. You know why? Because unlike what many think, gays don't try to influence their lifestyle on their children. They let them make their own decisions. You're a little late on calling the "experiment". It already occurs everyday. After all, it is a personal right. Whether or not the parents are responsible matters way more than whether they are gay or not. As a matter of fact, being gay or straight doesn't matter..at all.
I'm 1000% positive the child can't turn out the same as WITH normal, heterosexual parents. Are you a psychiatrist and know this for sure?

And yes, i know it's happening...

I'm not saying the child will become gay. it's all about natural models and roles. The child WILL be different.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2008, 09:12 PM
 
Location: San Diego North County
4,803 posts, read 8,734,905 times
Reputation: 3022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Funny, relativistic thinking is the one that has the problems with existing by its own definition. It is also the chosen rhetoric of the unfounded and illogical.

I laid out the facts to you, explained it through history and definition, yet you proclaim "your" truth by citing occurrences that do not change the facts, but rather attempt to explain away the deviation from them.

"Its true for you, but not for me" is nothing more than an emotional offense that requires no founding, no proof, no reason, no understanding, no logic. It exists simply because a mouth is opened and spews it forth. Its fallacy is that by its simple existence, it is therefore valid. It is no wonder it is so often used by those with "no leg to stand on".
Historically speaking, you are wrong.

Throughout history, dating back thousands of years, same sex marriages have been recognized and encouraged by various societies. You simply refuse to acknowledge this as truth because it doesn't fit into your idealistic western civilization notion of marriage. I hate to burst your bubble but those very protagonists of "Western Civilization," the Greeks and the Romans both practiced same sex marriages.

By dismissing same sex marriages in societies other than our own, you show your ethnocentricity. By refusing to acknowledge that marriages in many other cultures are formed for reasons than procreation, you show a certain naivete with regards to culture in its widest ethnographic sense. Same sex marriages flourished in societies where they were promoted for reasons of companionship, financial stability, and even as a form of birth control.

I have a B.A. in Anthropology and am currently working on my Master's. I have read more ethnographies than Carter has little green pills. There are numerous societies even today where same sex marriage is practiced and has been practiced for thousands of years. The U.S. didn't invent marriage and it certainly doesn't have a patent on the "correct" marriage method. As a matter of fact, the first written record of marriage was written in cuneiform and is a listing of the bride's dowry. Yes, even those heathen Sumerians practiced the exclusive tradition of marriage.

My "legs" are the legs of scientific study and anthropological evidence. I believe that I will continue to look to science for answers rather than some guy on a forum who really has nothing more than his own insistence that he is correct.

If ever you decide to actually research the subject, let me know. I have a list of scholarly articles and reading materials you might find helpful.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2008, 09:17 PM
 
19,198 posts, read 31,424,072 times
Reputation: 4013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf View Post
But to compare their union to that of a mature man and woman -- a "marriage" of opposite souls, undertaken in loving approach to understanding of the differing roles, needs, and transcendant value of the two sexes, needful of each other as they are to achieve completeness -- is to revise the basic concept of the term as our culture and our civilization knows and depends upon it, as the source of hope, of confident progeny conceived in love, and as the element which bonds us as men and women to our revered past, our complex present, and our perilous future.
As far as I can see, this is nothing but an attempt to create a Norman Rockwell painting via keyboard. Opposite souls...transcendant values...completeness? What a lot of fluff and aether. As for the revered past, marriage has spent by far the greatest portion of its history under the heading Property Transactions. That's your tradition for you. So much as the mere concepts of romance and courtship did not appear until well into the millenium recently completed. Toward the end of that millenium, the supposedly traditional definition of marriage still included legally enforced strictures based on race and religion. It was barely more than 40 years ago that we finally managed to rid ourselves of the last of those two. Next up? One man and one woman. The time has not quite come, but it is coming.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2008, 09:22 PM
 
19,198 posts, read 31,424,072 times
Reputation: 4013
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiksi View Post
If nature HAD intended for woman and woman OR man and MAN to have/raise a child, THEN they could be able to procreate. They can't...
Nature doesn't have any intentions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2008, 09:24 PM
 
4,050 posts, read 6,128,989 times
Reputation: 1574
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiksi View Post
I'm 1000% positive the child can't turn out the same as WITH normal, heterosexual parents. Are you a psychiatrist and know this for sure?
"Normal" is usually a pretty meaningless adjective, I'd say.

Quote:
I'm not saying the child will become gay. it's all about natural models and roles. The child WILL be different.
They are all different from each other, as children who are raised by heterosexual couples are all different as well. There are more variables than any of us can possibly list. Children raised by Christian parents are all different, in that people tend to adhere to and practice the religion in different ways and to different degrees. That goes for any religion or philosophy in general. And that's just a single example. Of course they're different.

Do you know any children or adults who were raised by or are being raised by same-sex parents? I would imagine that person's perspective would be invaluable to you. I know one I can think of off the top of my head (probably some others that I don't realize) and she is doing particularly well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top