Be a Supporter!

A Different Spin On Gay Marriage

  • 4,022 Views
  • 140 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
Migel
Migel
  • Member since: Nov. 11, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 20
Movie Buff
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-04-08 20:22:36 Reply

At 4/6/13 04:00 PM, Feoric wrote: It would helpful if I actually remembered to post my source.

I read some of the reports mentioned in that pdf some time ago. I really dislike the overall "we can proof the other theory is bad and that we are on the right track, but still don't have used the resources to come with an definite theory" response.
While the conclusion ties well together with the results of which sex makes the better parent theories, I would have loved to see a more bald and progressive conclusion tying other fields together to test it.

That said it's nice that you continue this conversation, but what are we doing here? We got one person who is adequate in bringing her points. But her weakness is her age and like she stated herself, her upbringing. The points themselves conflict with the title name, when I came here I was expecting a new twist. So I thought about the financial exploitation of marriage by non gay guys, or something like that. But it´s from a conservative, so it might feel new to her but´s it not new to us. I would suggest further personal growth by spending some time in a top 10 listed progressive country, just to get some personal growth done before you are 25. Hell

Her points are:
1) Being homosexual is a choice, because what you do, determines who you are. It's like driving a car, makes you a driver.
2) Gay parents can't raise a child well.
3) Mariage is solely used for pro recreation
4) And if you allow gays to marry, people will marry a dog

We got passed this. Sticking to an ideal being either conservative or progressive has no practical value. You should accept that some things change while others stay the same.

A good example of the usefulness is the marriage with a dog part, it's purely a philosophical standpoint. It has no practical value as the bond of marriage can only happen in consent by both parties. If a young male or female are deemed unfit to grasp the reality of their situation, we don't let them marry until they reach a proper age. How the hell could a dog consent to a marriage? The answer is we wouldn't allow it. If the conversation trails to far from this you are reinventing reality.
It's a clever gimmick to compare ssm to marrying a dog, I give you that.

But you guys are insulting the progress we have made sofar by replying in this discussion so seriously.

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-04-08 20:41:55 Reply

At 4/8/13 08:22 PM, Migel wrote:
At 4/6/13 04:00 PM, Feoric wrote: It would helpful if I actually remembered to post my source.
I read some of the reports mentioned in that pdf some time ago. I really dislike the overall "we can proof the other theory is bad and that we are on the right track, but still don't have used the resources to come with an definite theory" response.

I think you're phrasing it in loaded terms but it's definitely not concrete. I mean, the sample size isn't that large because gay marriage is illegal in over half the country. So I really don't see what's to dislike when a study openly admits more studies need to be done as opposed to just drawing inane conclusions. It's an honest collection of data and all of it points in one direction.

But you guys are insulting the progress we have made sofar by replying in this discussion so seriously.

When has progress not started with a dialogue?

MultiCanimefan
MultiCanimefan
  • Member since: Dec. 19, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Blank Slate
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-04-08 22:34:50 Reply

Something seems a little off about your statistics. Cam pointed some thing out, but it just feels like a giant blob of correlation equaling causation. You claim that kids raised in SSM households overcome the odds not because of their predicament, but in spite of it? What? Do you think there is some gene that tells someone to tough it out regardless of who brings them up? On your points of mothers and fathers both needing to be present to learn self-respect and such, why can't you simply teach a child to respect everybody, regardless if they're a male or female and give good reasons why? Do you need to know a black or white person in order to not treat either one like a sub-human monster? No. Mothers and fathers don't have some sort of separate, magical properties that are exclusive to them. Because it's not based on biological masculinity or femininity, but on what they experience. A female can teach a "male" lesson to a child and vice versa.

I want to see the statistics for wealthy children being brought up by single parents, because I have a feeling the tendency for crime and what-not is due to the economic struggle of being a single parent more than anything innate.

Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-04-09 20:32:14 Reply

@Camarohusky

As Mr. Regnerus from the Dept. of Sociology and Population stated in his article, the New Family Structures Study compared all family types - a broad spectrum which included all lesbian/gay situations. The team sought to distinguish their analysis from biased studies notorious for selective, small samples most often of white, upper-middle class lesbian mothers of toddlers. The NFSS results are representative of a greater portion of the population despite the minority of gay parents (especially gay fathers). Thus, the study includes adults from a wider variety of family units.

Their statement:

The results are typically robust in multivariate contexts as well, suggesting far greater diversity in lesbian-parent household experiences than convenience-sample studies of lesbian families have revealed âEU¦. Researchers sometimes elect to evaluate the outcomes of children of gay and lesbian parents by comparing them not directly to stable heterosexual marriages but to other types of households, since it is often the case - and it is certainly true of the NFSS - that a gay or lesbian parent first formed a heterosexual union prior to "coming out of the closet," and witnessing the dissolution of that union. So comparing the children of such parents with those who experienced no union dissolution is arguably unfair. The NFSS, however, enables researchers to compare outcomes across a variety of other types of family-structural history.

Your response was a knee-jerk dismissal of valid sources (I sense a pattern). The accusation against NFSS indicates that you failed to read a great chunk of the paper due to the undesirability of the results found. Observations were not made to directly contrast gay from IBF parenting, rather, they included non-intact relationships from both sides (divorced, etcetera). While some respondents applied for multiple categories, each was designated into the most exclusive variable. This not only indicated where the majority of homosexual relationships originate - hint, unstable environments - but allows for reliable results without variables so specific that no samples can be adequately compared. Any respondent for LM or GF could have also applied for other categories such as adopted, divorced, step-family, single parent, etc. These categories also stand separately - statistically, the LM/GF percentage for each question would simply be a rough mean of all variables, save IBF, under the premise that homosexual families are no different than heterosexual ones. However, the results indicate that homosexual relationships deal a huge blow to child development.

This study was perfectly sound, and the rejection of it on the basis of perceived poor statistical procedure can only be due to reading-comprehension impairment and/or an extreme case of confirmation bias. Allow me to underscore the more important facets of the study - try your best not to skim over them:

NFSS

"The NFSS data collection project is based at the University of Texas at AustinâEUTMs Population Research Center. A survey design team consisting of several leading family researchers in sociology, demography, and human development - from Penn State University, Brigham Young University, San Diego State University, the University of Virginia, and several from the University of Texas at Austin - met over 2 days in January 2011 to discuss the projectâEUTMs sampling strategy and scope, and continued to offer advice as questions arose over the course of the data collection process. The team was designed to merge scholars across disciplines and ideological lines in a spirit of civility and reasoned inquiry. Several additional external consultants also gave close scrutiny to the survey instrument, and advised on how best to measure diverse topics âEU¦. The data collection was conducted by Knowledge Networks (or KN), a research firm with a very strong record of generating high-quality data for academic projects âEU¦. The NFSS completed full surveys with 2988 Americans between the ages of 18 and 39."

The survey can be found here: http://www.prc.utexas.edu/nfss/documents/NFSS-Survey-Instrum ent.pdf

Groups

1. IBF: Lived in intact biological family (with mother and father) from 0 to 18, and parents are still married at present (N=919)

2. LM: R [respondent] reported RâEUTMs mother had a same-sex romantic (lesbian) relationship with a woman, regardless of any other household transitions (N=163).

3. GF: R reported RâEUTMs father had a same-sex romantic (gay) relationship with a man, regardless of any other household transitions (N=73).

4. Adopted [A]: R was adopted by one or two strangers at birth or before age 2 (N=101).

5. Divorced later or had joint custody [DJC]: R reported living with biological mother and father from birth to age 18, but parents are not married at present (N=116).

6. Stepfamily [SF]: Biological parents were either never married or else divorced, and RâEUTMs primary custodial parent was married to someone else before R turned 18 (N=394).

7. Single parent [SP]: Biological parents were either never married or else divorced, and RâEUTMs primary custodial parent did not marry (or remarry) before R turned 18 (N=816).

8. All others [AO]: Includes all other family structure/event combinations, such as respondents with a deceased parent (N=406).

Results

Table 1
Table 2
Table 3

As stated previously, the NFSS used a significantly broader sample than most studies on SS parenting. Rather than comparing all children of SSF to those of IBF, the team included children who grew up in unstable/non-traditional families. Thus, the numbers better represent the various backgrounds of the population. When compared with all other categories (not exclusively IBF), SS households fare the worst - yet, gay-marriage advocates claim otherwise.

Here are the categories in which each group scored least favorably:

IBF - N/A (IBF scored most favorably for nearly each inquiry, or tied with another group).

LM - Educational Attainment (followed by AO), Family Security (followed by GF), Family Negative Impact (followed by DJC), Physical Health (followed by AO), Depression (followed by GF), Attachment (followed by GF), Impulsiveness (followed by GF), Income (followed by AO), Smoking Frequency (followed by GF), # of Male Sex-Partners as Male (followed by GF), Welfare (followed by GF), Currently on Pub. Assist. (followed by DJC), Currently Employed (followed by GF), Identifies as Entirely Heterosexual (followed by GF), Sexually Touched as a Child (followed at a long distance by SF), Raped (followed by GF).

GF - Overall Happiness (followed by AO), Current Relationship Quality (followed by A), Current Relationship Stability (followed by LM), Drunkenness Frequency (followed by DJC), Arrests (followed by LM), Non-Minor Offenses (followed by LM), # of Female Sex-Partners as Female (followed by LM), # of Female Sex-Partners as Male (followed by SF), # of Male Sex-Partners as Female (followed by SF), Suicidal Tendency (followed by LM), # of Affairs (followed by SF).

A - Closeness to Biological Mother (followed by GF).

DJC - Anxiety (followed by GF and A).

SF - N/A (SF scored at a moderate-low rate, but never as least favorable).

SP - Closeness to biological father (followed by DJC).

AO - Currently in therapy (followed by LM and GF).


"Yes!" - Fred Fredburger
CC | Nemesis | Lit Lovers | Ideas Worth Spreading

BBS Signature
Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-04-09 20:46:10 Reply

(cont.)

If you haven't yet noticed, children who grew up with gay parents emerged as the least favorable. You claim the study "lumped" groups of homosexual homes together, and is therefore unreliable. Unfortunately, you ignored the other categories which also apply in heterosexual cases. LM and GF collectively scored lowest out of nearly every inquiry. While other groups surely showed the harmful effects of their homes, the element of homosexuality is obviously no neutral factor - as the LM/GF statistics do not represent the averages for A, DJC, SF, SP, and AO. Further, the study confirms my assertion that IBF traditional, mother-father homes are superior to all other family structures. Children who were raised in IBF became the most responsible, emotionally stable, and confident of all other applicants including the alternative non-gay family groups.

NFSS referenced many developmental, social, and child psychologists, pediatricians, psychiatric nurses, and sociologists - in addition to several universities including Harvard and Duke - within the paper analyzing the results of the study. The FRC article was simply a summary of the results and analysis. Please offer a more valid reason as to why you find the NFSS to be lacking in its study(s).

Slightly separate note, Feoric and I are still waiting for you to show us exactly which marriage benefits would not, if same sex marriage were granted, be able to apply to homosexuals because they cannot conceive within the marriage.

Benefits apply to members of an institution. Gay relationships are not yet part of the institution; therefore, they receive no benefits. Upon their introduction into the institution, benefits will then apply.

Have you completely skipped over the previous page of this thread? Perhaps I am not understanding why this is even relevant.

--

@Feoric

I will be able to address your reply either tomorrow, or later this week (assuming my post tonight is inadequate as a response); this way, I will have enough time to read through the PDF and also develop a more complete position on it.


"Yes!" - Fred Fredburger
CC | Nemesis | Lit Lovers | Ideas Worth Spreading

BBS Signature
Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-04-09 20:51:37 Reply

At 4/9/13 08:46 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: @Feoric

I will be able to address your reply either tomorrow, or later this week (assuming my post tonight is inadequate as a response); this way, I will have enough time to read through the PDF and also develop a more complete position on it.

Thanks for taking the time to do that.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-04-09 23:05:06 Reply

At 4/9/13 08:46 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: Benefits apply to members of an institution. Gay relationships are not yet part of the institution; therefore, they receive no benefits. Upon their introduction into the institution, benefits will then apply.

STOP COPPING OUT!! A major crux of your argument is that because marriage is built for child reproduction, homosexuals will make the institution worthless. You have yet to say how infertile heterosexuals do not do the same thing. You also say that it would be discriminatory to heterosexuals to give homosexual the benefits that apply to the act of concieving within a marriage. I am simply asking you to point out exactly which benefits would not be able to apply to homosexual marriages but still to heterosexual marriages.

Have you completely skipped over the previous page of this thread? Perhaps I am not understanding why this is even relevant.

It's relevant because you keep basing your arguments on it. You have repeatedly said that marriages that cannot produce children would ruin the marriage for everyone, yet have failed to distinguish why you think it;s ok for heterosexuals who cannot have kids from homosexuals. You gave a half ass "well it's not required" answer which invalidates your entire point.

You also made the question of benefits relevant by saying the heterosexual marriage would cost ore than civil unions because of the benefits that they could not recieve relating to childbirth. So I ask you what exactly are the benefits of marriage that are solely tied to conception within the marriage?

So, PLEASE, patch the holes we have shown in your argument.

Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-04-10 23:51:04 Reply

@Feoric

(Note: If you haven't already, I recommend that you look over the NFSS paper since I will be referencing it periodically. My post above outlines the pertinent information, but the full article can be found here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12 000610)

The LGBC publication certainly contains valid information, and I feel that the studies were carried out appropriately. However, the analysis given by the office in this document is mostly irrelevant. To be clear, my argument is that IBF (the healthy, traditional family home) is the ideal setting for raising children to become stable, contributing members of society - thus, a strong rebuttal would be one containing evidence that products of LM/GF are, on average, on par with or superior to IBF. While this study does address some concerns which I respond to below, our theses do not directly conflict.

I. Parents

First, I must say that the opening arguments given by the LGBC do not pertain at all to my position. They primarily address "the belief[s] that lesbians and gay men are mentally ill, that lesbians are less maternal than heterosexual women, and that lesbians' and gay men's relationships with sexual partners leave little time for ongoing parent-child interactions." I completely agree that all of these assumptions are unfounded. There is no evidence, of course, that gays are mentally ill; lesbian families do not lack femininity (I argue there is actually a lack of masculinity); and the "too-much-sex" theory is laughable. So, I ignore arguments against these as they are irrelevant to both my stance, and the analysis by the NFSS.

The parenting methods in LM/GF would obviously appear similar to IBF structures, as most lesbian/gays were raised by heterosexuals. Unfortunately, the LGBC study focuses on the similar methods rather than the very different results; plus, the methods it does mention are quite lacking (happiness and "parenting awareness," for example). However, I found one interesting difference - granted, it was the only difference they elected to reference - and that is, same-sex parents tend not to use physical punishment, such as spanking, as disciplinary action. While I do not intend to divert this topic towards the effectiveness of spanking, the LGBC chose to mention this particular difference due to their animosity towards the type of discipline. Plus, they blatantly support the assumption that LM/GF is actually superior to IBF, yet offer no real evidence for this - "evidence" being results.

Anyway, onto the main topic of discussion.

II. Children

A troubling issue with the LGBC study is that it focuses nearly all of its attention on children and adolescents (ages "5 - 14," for example) rather than grown adults who have moved out of the house. I understand that they wish to dispel theories about abused and neglected children of same-sex parents; but, it resulted in a poor argument in favor of LM/GF as a viable IBF alternative. In other words, they either ignored or neglected to mention who/what these children will statistically become as adults. Moreover, the behaviors and attributes of children they addressed, I feel, are trivial or misleading in nature (if not contradicted by the NFSS). Here are the major cases of the latter category:

1. Huggins (1989) interviewed 36 adolescents, half of whom had lesbian mothers and half of whom had heterosexual mothers. No children of lesbian mothers identified themselves as lesbian or gay, but one child of a heterosexual mother did; this difference was not statistically significant.

While this may seem credible at face value, it does not respond to the appropriate question. The issue is not whether children of LM/GF become gay, rather, if children of LM/GF develop homosexual tendencies. The NFSS survey provided a more clear picture into the sexual orientation of these children once they became adults:

- Identifies Entirely As Heterosexual
IBF: 0.90
LM: 0.61
GF: 0.71
X: ~0.82 (mean of all other groups)

As you can see by the statistics of approximately 3000 individuals, adults from LM became the least likely to identify entirely as heterosexual (followed by only 71% of GF adults). This is a >10% difference from non-IBF children (none were lower than 81%). The problems with the 1989 study is that it A) questioned adolescents, B) used a sample of only 36 people, C) sought to identify homosexuals rather than heterosexuals. The 1997 study was similarly flawed, yet "young adults with lesbian mothers were more likely to report that they would consider entering into a same-sex sexual relationship, and they were more likely to have actually participated in such a relationship." I would imagine had the NFSS worded the inquiry "Identifies As Homosexual," the results would have been more align with Huggins.

The statistics on sexual partners also show that children of LM/GF tend to have more same-sex partners on average (nearly 5x more than IBF), and girls have had a higher average of male partners (over double that of IBF). Both of these statistics are the highest among all family structures - making same-sex homes the most likely to produce gay or bisexual children. I would argue that this is also strong evidence that "homosexuality" is an action rather than a biological trait (the thesis of my OP), given that most children of LM/GF were born in heterosexual unions.

2. 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 .... A recent study did, however, find that none of the lesbian mothers participating in a longitudinal study had abused their children (Gartrell et al., 2005). Fears that children in custody of lesbian or gay parents might be at heightened risk for sexual abuse are without basis in the research literature.

While persecution and isolation theories of LM/GF children are unfounded, fears about sexual abuse are not. I realize this LGBC analysis was published in 2005, so the NFSS had not yet addressed this issue. NFSS results showed that 23% of adults from lesbian homes were sexually touched at some point in their childhood. A striking 31% were forced to have sex against their will. These statistics are both higher than other non-IBF homes which stand at 9% and 18% respectively - IBF remains the lowest at 2% and 8% respectively.

III. Summary

Lesbian & Gay Parenting does not address whether children become adults statistically identical to those of IBF (or even broken heterosexual homes such as divorces). Instead, the office focused on comparing children to children during the process of development; while there are plenty of similarities in childhood, it is becoming apparent that children of LM/GF fare the worst of all family structures.

Children of LM/GF collectively scored worst on educational attainment, family security, family negative impact, physical health (self-identified), depression, attachment, impulsiveness, income level, smoking frequency, welfare and public assistance received, employment, overall happiness, relationship quality and stability, alcoholic consumption, arrests and felonies, and sexual affairs. These are all attributes based on adulthood - which is the object of discussion. LM/GF is not only inefficient when compared to traditional homes, but they evidently result in more dire situations than those of single-parent children.

I cannot then, advocate a government sponsorship (equal to marriage) of broken, obscure family structures - Civil Unions are more than enough. Institutionalizing SSM is similar to institutionalizing single-parenthood at the same level as IBF, given the harmful effects of growing up with either single or gay parents.


"Yes!" - Fred Fredburger
CC | Nemesis | Lit Lovers | Ideas Worth Spreading

BBS Signature
Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-04-10 23:54:54 Reply

At 4/6/13 03:51 PM, Feoric wrote: Homosexuality, polygamy and bestiality are separate issues that are in no way analogous, and permitting one does not mean that you have to permit all.

I'd imagine most of my arguments in favor of polygamy etc. will be more relevant and structured when marriage is redefined. So, all of this is presently speculation! However, the difference between monogamy and polygamy is a number. If the institution keeps the limit at two individuals, yet alters the function to be simply "the ability to raise children," then if members of an open relationship (a new trend rising quickly) wish to get married, their polygamous relationship will not be sponsored because the government "decided that only two people can raise children, be in love," etc. It can also be argued that polygamy is a sexual orientation; I hear plenty of debates by members of open relationships who assert that most humans are not built to be monogamous which is the root of adultery.

Also, If homosexuality is defined as a physical trait before science has found the definitive "gay gene," then bestiality can be justified if the animal exhibits a desire to mate with a human (which has been observed throughout history). It certainly should not be illegal under this premise, and depending on the new legal definition of marriage, I see no reason why a man and dog cannot raise a child as a single parent can with a pet. But, this is a weaker argument because it is essentially a step ahead of even polygamy - it is probably better to postpone both elements until SSM is legalized and I will actually be able to cite the institution itself.

Attraction is what determines sexuality.

And, under this premise, I point to all alternative attractions such as zoophilia, pedophilia, and necrophilia.

How many states have sodomy laws?

Sodomy is nonexclusive to homosexuals.

At 4/9/13 11:05 PM, Camarohusky wrote: You have repeatedly said that marriages that cannot produce children would ruin the marriage for everyone, yet have failed to distinguish why you think it's ok for heterosexuals who cannot have kids from homosexuals.

On page 2, Feoric said: ... We don't wait until a couple has a kid to bestow the legal benefits of marriage.

My response: Now, I'm not saying that marriage should be changed to fix this. Philosophically it would have to - but the logistics of doing so would be nearly impossible to accomplish. Yet, since the purpose of marriage is to encourage procreation (not force it), it could be argued that restricting an infertile couple's benefits would be discouraging to people who may not be infertile. Again, this is a difficult philosophical issue to solve whereas preventing homosexual marriages is manageable. You know the saying "two wrongs don't make a right."

However, adopted heterosexual parents in a healthy relationship operate near the quality of IBF - certainly not less than necessary to go through the trouble of eliminating the infertile from marriage!

So I ask you what exactly are the benefits of marriage that are solely tied to conception within the marriage?

When did I say this? Please link me to the post.


"Yes!" - Fred Fredburger
CC | Nemesis | Lit Lovers | Ideas Worth Spreading

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-04-11 10:53:16 Reply

At 4/10/13 11:54 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: On page 2, Feoric said: ... We don't wait until a couple has a kid to bestow the legal benefits of marriage.

Im not reading every single exchange between you and Feoric.

Now, I'm not saying that marriage should be changed to fix this. Philosophically it would have to - but the logistics of doing so would be nearly impossible to accomplish. Yet, since the purpose of marriage is to encourage procreation (not force it), it could be argued that restricting an infertile couple's benefits would be discouraging to people who may not be infertile. Again, this is a difficult philosophical issue to solve whereas preventing homosexual marriages is manageable. You know the saying "two wrongs don't make a right."

That's a terrible response. In other words, you said absolutely nothing, but gussied it up so you could think you said something.

Please explain your farfetched and wholly unsupported logical jump. Also, as you characterize being infertile in marriage as a "wrong" explain how. (yes, you may need to repeat yourself, but it should not be my job to comb through your older posts just to understand every new argument you make. You could easily spend the minute it takes to repeat a simple point, heck you might even just clarify that point better than the first time.)


However, adopted heterosexual parents in a healthy relationship operate near the quality of IBF - certainly not less than necessary to go through the trouble of eliminating the infertile from marriage!

What about homosexuals in a healthy relationship? Where's your study on that?


When did I say this? Please link me to the post.
At 3/28/13 05:40 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote:
At 3/28/13 05:28 PM, Camarohusky wrote: So, aside from the legal issues, which you say they would get in civil unions, how exactly is the government losing money here?
The cost would be offsetting the expected return.
At 3/28/13 07:46 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: Marriage, in this scenario, ceases to be an institution because it lacks a function and return. It can and should no longer be attributed with the same benefits because the cost to the government required to sponsor each marriage outweighs the predicted gain received from a growing population and economy.
At 3/29/13 08:26 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: I have repeatedly suggested rewriting the benefits in order to accommodate non-productive members of the institution.

So, how's about you FINALLY tell us exactly what in marriage is only applicable to procreation within the marriage. Because fertile homosexuals can procreate outside of their marriage, and infertile people can ease the improper procreation fo another by adoption.

Here's the question, and I want a DIRECT answer:

"What procreation benefits would apply to couples who can concieve within the marriage that would not apply to those who could concieve outside the marriage or who could adopt?"

Leads into a second, very fundamental question:

"Is marriage about the mere production of children regardless of quality or how they are raised, or is it about the raising of productive competant citizens?"

Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-04-12 21:47:48 Reply

At 4/11/13 10:53 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 4/10/13 11:54 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: Now, I'm not saying that marriage should be changed to fix this. Philosophically it would have to - but the logistics of doing so would be nearly impossible to accomplish.
Please explain your farfetched and wholly unsupported logical jump.

I am unaware of any "unsupported logical jumps" made. I clearly admitted that the procreational issue also applies to the infertile; however, the logistics of eliminating this small group from the institution would be extraordinarily difficult and trivial considering the minute effects it would have. Moreover, heterosexual adoptive parents operate quite similarly to IBF - whereas other cases such as divorced homes, single-parents, and LM/GF are dramatically harmful to children by comparison.

What about homosexuals in a healthy relationship? Where's your study on that?

The NFSS examined a pool of homosexual homes and found that not only are the vast majority even less beneficial than single-parents, but they are collectively the absolute worst of all family structures. In other words, a "healthy homosexual relationship" has exactly null to do with child development considering most gay couples claim to be quite happy together. It is your responsibility to present me with evidence that LM/GF are either equal to or superior to traditional IBF.

"What procreation benefits would apply to couples who can concieve within the marriage that would not apply to those who could concieve outside the marriage or who could adopt?"

Perhaps you misunderstand the difference between benefits and qualifications. A benefit can easily be a discount on a type insurance - which most of the population would be able to use, and thus, applies to everyone so long as they are in the institution. A qualification is designed to admit certain people who meet the requirements to receive any or all benefits within the institution. So, while one might be able to use a benefit ordinarily given to members, this does not equate to a qualification. It would be logical to assume gay couples (once admitted) will receive all benefits associated with marriage - isn't that the point? However, because they are not presently included in the institution, no benefit can be applied to them.

"Is marriage about the mere production of children regardless of quality or how they are raised, or is it about the raising of productive competant citizens?"

Marriage is about procreation and the subsequent raising of responsible children. Gay couples are the most inferior family types for both requirements - as I have illustrated. So again, you must provide me with an argument which indicates LM/GF are, in fact, equally efficient as traditional homes. You will have to actually read through the NFSS paper (or my summary at bare minimum) to more fully understand the case made. Plus, doing so will prevent yet another unproductive exchange from being made between us.

I do find it troubling, though, that you have chosen not to read my responses to other users; this indicates to me that you have no real desire to understand the positions as wholly as possible. What is your goal in this discussion other than satisfying your bias?


"Yes!" - Fred Fredburger
CC | Nemesis | Lit Lovers | Ideas Worth Spreading

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-04-13 10:48:06 Reply

Had something big written up last night and when I got up to do something, the wife closed the window. So round two will likely be a bit worse.

At 4/12/13 09:47 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: I am unaware of any "unsupported logical jumps" made. I clearly admitted that the procreational issue also applies to the infertile; however, the logistics of eliminating this small group from the institution would be extraordinarily difficult and trivial considering the minute effects it would have.

In short you're advocating laziness? Its too hard to make marriage work properly for heterosexuals, but at least we can keep those homosexuals from fucking it up more. What kind of public policy is that?

Moreover, heterosexual adoptive parents operate quite similarly to IBF - whereas other cases such as divorced homes, single-parents, and LM/GF are dramatically harmful to children by comparison.

You rely far too hard on your study, which openly admits that it has numerous flaws, especially regarding whether LGBT couple deserve marriage or can raise children. They point to the fact that the LGBT child-rearing culture has changed dramatically since their sample date (not to ignore that adoption laws have as well). They also point to what I did before, that many of these problems could be born from the stigma of those who would wish to hold them and their families as a lower class of family. Also, they point to the lack of legal support not noyl for the children, but for the parents' relationship.

The study, as they admit, shows only one thing: there are differences, from whatever ever reason or cause, and that more study should be undertaken.

I also seriously question some of the responses they got (2% of IBF children reporting having been forced to have sexual contact?! What? Did they all live in a gated community? That's a massive statistical outlier to the norm, and my gut says that there was some major covering up going on amongst the sexually repressive units known as IBFs. One reason LM and GFs report higher instances of sexual contact both good and bad is that the LGBT community is far more open and communicative about sex, both good and bad. A person raised in that environment is far less likely to cover up a rape or avoid sexual contct, which is a GOOD thing, not a bad one.) The missing causation element combined with the self reporting element is HUGE for this study.


The NFSS examined a pool of homosexual homes and found that not only are the vast majority even less beneficial than single-parents, but they are collectively the absolute worst of all family structures. In other words, a "healthy homosexual relationship" has exactly null to do with child development considering most gay couples claim to be quite happy together. It is your responsibility to present me with evidence that LM/GF are either equal to or superior to traditional IBF.

NFSS examined the parental status of people who were bron between 1972 and 1993. 1993 was the year that the first homosexual adoption was allowed. So the parental relationships they speak of fall more into the categories of straight parents who turned homosexual, likely causing massive trauma within the family already, and homoexuals concieving outside of their relationship.

So essentially, all this study actually shows is that a brroken home headed by a homosexual has a higher percentage of problems than a borken home run by a heterosexual. It has absolutely ZERO bearing on whether a stable homosexual couple can raise a stable child.

However, because they are not presently included in the institution, no benefit can be applied to them.

Why do you keep saying this? Tis not only is a completely obvious answer. It's an answer to a questio no one here has ever asked. No one is asking why homosexuals should receive benefits from an institution they're not part of. The questions have been "why should they be barred from the isntitution?" and "when in the institution what benefits will not be able to apply to them?"

Marriage is about procreation and the subsequent raising of responsible children. Gay couples are the most inferior family types for both requirements - as I have illustrated.

No you haven't. Your study has massive holes and really only addresses broken homes compared to broken homes. It does not prove that homosexuality is the cause, and it doesn't go into the question of what bearings the stigma and complete lack of legal support have on the issue. I also, as I have said before, severely question the quality of the self reporting they reieved as it, in itself, seems to have some major statistical outliers to reality.

So again, you must provide me with an argument which indicates LM/GF are, in fact, equally efficient as traditional homes. You will have to actually read through the NFSS paper (or my summary at bare minimum) to more fully understand the case made. Plus, doing so will prevent yet another unproductive exchange from being made between us.

So you're solution is to give the children of LGBT families the finger and say "Well, we know things are bad for you, so we're going to deny you the benefits straight folks kiddos recieve, and we'e going to add major instability into your parents' relationship by not giving them any benefits that straight couples recieve, oh, and your parents are monsters." Again, I ask, what kind of public policy is that?


I do find it troubling, though, that you have chosen not to read my responses to other users; this indicates to me that you have no real desire to understand the positions as wholly as possible.

You and Feoric are arguing different parts of the argument that I am arguing. It's a lot of stuff to read to essentially provide no use to the points I am making.

What is your goal in this discussion other than satisfying your bias?

Get off your fucking high horse. You have NO grounds to take the high road here. You would deny adequate couple and their children the simple respect of being considered normal, whilst removing much of the governmental aid toward raising a child. You put forth a horrifically shitty argument which has poked full of holes like swiss cheese and you continue to act as if your argument is infallable. You fail to even completely understand the study with which you are trying to bludgeon people over the head with, all the while claiming they haven't read it. Get some real arguments, and grow the courage it takes to ACTUALLY RESPOND TO AN ARGUMENT HEAD ON, and then, maybe, you can get on your high horse. You're full of cop out arguments, shifting goal posts, undeserved arrogance, evasive answers, and semantic games. It's like debating a bratty toddler.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-04-13 15:24:40 Reply

I'm also quite curious about how you justify labelling a group of over a million based upon the reportings of 176 of their children (and the likely under reporting of their co-reporters). Not to mention the proof with which you make the sweeping generalization expressly states that it is not to be used as such because it misses out on many key details.

It's like seeing two black men commit a crime then going all sadisticsmonkey and saying that that one crime means all black people are criminals.

Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-04-13 20:54:00 Reply

At 4/13/13 10:48 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Had something big written up last night and when I got up to do something, the wife closed the window. So round two will likely be a bit worse.

Ouch! That's one reason I prefer typing in a document.

At 4/12/13 09:47 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote:
In short you're advocating laziness? Its too hard to make marriage work properly for heterosexuals, but at least we can keep those homosexuals from fucking it up more. What kind of public policy is that?

Very well. From now on, any imperfection within a system is justification for compounding the problems.

The study, as they admit, shows only one thing: there are differences, from whatever ever reason or cause, and that more study should be undertaken.

Obviously more studies are necessary. Unfortunately, the results of this particular one indicate these "differences" are universally harmful to the children. LM/GF scored the worst on virtually every inquiry - not "poorly," but the worst. It is true that the vast majority of gay relationships originate due to broken homes. How then, can one even begin to consider sponsoring this family structure? Is it because there may be a handful of exceptions? Reasoning in this way would result in the sponsorship of abandoning children due to the exceptional orphans who have become successful.

I also seriously question some of the responses they got (2% of IBF children reporting having been forced to have sexual contact?! What? Did they all live in a gated community?

Actually, the percentage is 10% including the children who were raped. Only 2% were sexually touched without being forced into sexual relations. The study divided respondents based on the most exclusive answers - so, those who were sexually touched through (or including) rape were placed into a single category. This is why the "forced to have sex" percentage is higher than "sexually touched."

The NFSS examined a pool of homosexual homes and found that not only are the vast majority even less beneficial than single-parents, but they are collectively the absolute worst of all family structures.
So essentially, all this study actually shows is that a brroken home headed by a homosexual has a higher percentage of problems than a borken home run by a heterosexual.

And you support this?

I briefly touched on this issue. The LM/GF groups do not represent an average statistic for all other non-IBF groups (even with the omission of Adopted parents), rather, they scored worse than divorcees, single-parents, step-parents, and all other family structures. As you said, this indicates that damaged families are the worst off among homosexuals. In a hypothetical dream world where adopted gay parents perform equal to IBF, the LM/GF statistics would still be well below the average among broken family homes.

Sponsoring SSM is equivalent to sponsoring divorces and single-parenthood. While some benefits may aid in unfortunate situations, this lifestyle is statistically harmful to children and should not be encouraged at all - certainly not at the same level as IBF, which scored most favorably on every inquiry.

"when in the institution what benefits will not be able to apply to them?"

What are you talking about?! Why would any benefit not apply to them? You claim my answers have been obvious, so why do you continue to ask this irrelevant question?

A qualification is designed to admit certain people who meet the requirements to receive any or all benefits within the institution. So, while one might be able to use a benefit ordinarily given to members, this does not equate to a qualification. It would be logical to assume gay couples (once admitted) will receive all benefits associated with marriage - isn't that the point?

Your study has massive holes and really only addresses broken homes compared to broken homes. It does not prove that homosexuality is the cause,

You indicated yourself that homosexuality is the cause:

"... All this study actually shows is that a brroken home headed by a homosexual has a higher percentage of problems than a borken home run by a heterosexual."

So you're solution is to give the children of LGBT families the finger

No, it is to discourage (or, at the very least refrain from encouraging) LGBT families from having any parental responsibilities over children who will consequently become the least educated, most irresponsible, and most insecure members of society. I never said we should withhold all aid from such families - but the institution would certainly not be on par with marriage... more along the lines of DJC, SP, and AO.

It's like seeing two black men commit a crime then going all sadisticsmonkey and saying that that one crime means all black people are criminals.

This is an awful metaphor. Biology has nothing to do with crime - it has everything to do with having and raising children. Moreover, "homosexuality" is not hereditary nor is it a trait of any other sort beyond action-description.

What is your goal in this discussion other than satisfying your bias?
Get off your fucking high horse.

Answer the question - further unnecessary ramblings optional.


"Yes!" - Fred Fredburger
CC | Nemesis | Lit Lovers | Ideas Worth Spreading

BBS Signature
ROBLOX-MAN
ROBLOX-MAN
  • Member since: Feb. 26, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Filmmaker
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-04-19 09:47:37 Reply

I am not gay, so ok.

Ravariel
Ravariel
  • Member since: Apr. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Musician
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-04-19 20:33:07 Reply

At 4/13/13 08:54 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: Very well. From now on, any imperfection within a system is justification for compounding the problems.

Or we can actually do the hard stuff, and work on ironing out the imperfections while also treating everyone equally. Strange idea, I know.

It is true that the vast majority of gay relationships originate due to broken homes. How then, can one even begin to consider sponsoring this family structure? Is it because there may be a handful of exceptions? Reasoning in this way would result in the sponsorship of abandoning children due to the exceptional orphans who have become successful.

This is in the logical fallacy called "begging the question". Your premise is not implicitly true, which renders your conclusions completely unsupportable.

It would be logical to assume gay couples (once admitted) will receive all benefits associated with marriage - isn't that the point?

He's Socrates-ing you. And finally you have answered his first question. I believe now is when the second question hits. My guess is that it will be this:

Specifically which of these benefits do you believe should not apply to a homosexual couple based on their inability to conceive a child in the "normal" manner (ignoring for the moment that there is no actual barrier to homosexuals reproducing in non-standard ways) with each other, as well as which benefits are wasted on heterosexual couples who do not procreate)?

My apologies if I have stolen any thunder, or misinterpreted the thrust of this particular line of questioning.

Your study has massive holes and really only addresses broken homes compared to broken homes. It does not prove that homosexuality is the cause,
You indicated yourself that homosexuality is the cause:

"... All this study actually shows is that a brroken home headed by a homosexual has a higher percentage of problems than a borken home run by a heterosexual."

No, only you attribute cause. Camaro only states the statistical correlation of a very small sample in one study. You are falling prey to yet another logical fallacy; that of Hasty Generalization.

Moreover, "homosexuality" is not hereditary nor is it a trait of any other sort beyond action-description.

Heredity is a far more complicated beast than you seem willing to comprehend. We already know that a single gene is not the cause of homosexuality, nor a mere pair. It is a cocktail of genes, hormones, and upbringing that likely make homosexuality a thing. However, there is clear statistical evidence that homosexuality has a genetic component.


Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-04-22 12:53:39 Reply

At 4/13/13 08:54 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: Ouch! That's one reason I prefer typing in a document.

That leads to those darm EAUTM things.

At 4/12/13 09:47 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote:
Very well. From now on, any imperfection within a system is justification for compounding the problems.

No, it's textbook discrimination. Two sets of people. Both do not qualify for an institution based on the same reason: inability to concieve within the couple. Yet one gets the benefits of the institution and the other does not? TEXTBOOK.

It is true that the vast majority of gay relationships originate due to broken homes.

No. It WAS true. Homosexuals can now adopt in numerous states, where they could not in the study period. There has also been a very large push in the homosexual community to create stable families for their adopted children, which did not exist during the study period. You're decrying the troubles of TV because Rabbit ears suck, when we no longer use rabbit ears.

How then, can one even begin to consider sponsoring this family structure?

Because a highly likely cause for much of the trouble is the fact we have yet to sponsor them.


Actually, the percentage is 10% including the children who were raped. Only 2% were sexually touched without being forced into sexual relations. The study divided respondents based on the most exclusive answers - so, those who were sexually touched through (or including) rape were placed into a single category. This is why the "forced to have sex" percentage is higher than "sexually touched."

Yet the national average is closer to 20%. So if their numbers are off here, doesn't it beg the question about the rest of their numbers?


Sponsoring SSM is equivalent to sponsoring divorces and single-parenthood. While some benefits may aid in unfortunate situations, this lifestyle is statistically harmful to children and should not be encouraged at all - certainly not at the same level as IBF, which scored most favorably on every inquiry.

No study has shown the lifestyle has ANY effect on the children. All this study shows was that in an extremely small sample size there was shown a correlation, not a causation. The study itself also indicates NUMEROUS areas in which it fails in making a causation and even a correlation connection. Yet you take it as gospel.


It would be logical to assume gay couples (once admitted) will receive all benefits associated with marriage - isn't that the point?

So your point that the extra cost it would take to bring homosexuals up for civil unions to marriage is prohibitive is a load.


You indicated yourself that homosexuality is the cause:

Correlation =/= cause.


No, it is to discourage (or, at the very least refrain from encouraging) LGBT families from having any parental responsibilities over children who will consequently become the least educated, most irresponsible, and most insecure members of society. I never said we should withhold all aid from such families - but the institution would certainly not be on par with marriage... more along the lines of DJC, SP, and AO.

So your argument is about family quality? What about poor families? What about hispanic or black families? Why don't you start denying them marriage, because those groups statistically produce more delinquent, less educted, and worse off children?

You're oipening up a major can of worms here. NOT only ar you allowing numerous statistically shitty parenting groups to get a free pass, you're juding ALL parents based on statistics, and not on their specific merits as a parent. I've many well to do white family be fucking terrible at raising kids, yet they belong to the group that has the best statistical likelihood. Should we let those kids rot because their parents' demographic is largely good at it? Should we let a homosexual family who is great at parenting rot because their demographic has been shown to correlate to bad outcomes?

What kind of public policy is that? Soviet? Nazi? PRC?


This is an awful metaphor. Biology has nothing to do with crime - it has everything to do with having and raising children. Moreover, "homosexuality" is not hereditary nor is it a trait of any other sort beyond action-description.

Here's a better analogy:

Two groups, fat kids and skinny kids. Both bad at PE (gym). You would allow the skinny kids to graduate high school but not the fat kids, and then claim that it's because they're bad at PE. Well, you let the skinny kids graduate even though they were bad at it too. You also claim that those people bad at PE don't make good economic workers, and put forth a study that is one dimensional showing that there is a slight correlation between poverty and the ability to play pickleball. Yet, you let the skinny kids graduate.

Just like here, you're making decisions on eligibility based on categories that have NOTHING to do with your stated goal, of creating children or quality children. You're making large logical jumps based on extremely insufficient data, and making individual decisions based on statistical outcomes as opposed to individual qualifications. You know what would be easier than pretzelling and shifting your arguments all over the place? Allowing homosexual marriage. It'll prove you wrong, far better than any of us can.

Answer the question - further unnecessary ramblings optional.

Likewise.

CWBHOODJONES
CWBHOODJONES
  • Member since: Nov. 24, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-04-28 09:41:19 Reply

Here's my two cents. I live in the southern united states (:

I see Cynical-Charlotte taking a moral side to the conflict of Gay Marriage. With my understanding of her points and relation with statistics; it becomes a family matter. To me masturbation is a sexual activity to pleasure yourself by acting out. I highly agree with Cynical-Charlotte that marriage should be between man and a women on the "They have to be able to multiply or their wrong" aspect is a great way to put it. I'm not homosexual and it could be an offspring gene. Who really knows what it is and for you people out there that are on this page along side of me this homosexuality is really a demotic force brought from the spawn of Satan himself. Use some faith of why things are the way they are. Where not that scientifically advanced yet to explain homosexuality. Anyways to sum this up; sex is fun (: Cynical-Charlotte I agree with your values you present


CWBJONES

Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-05-01 19:18:46 Reply

At 4/19/13 08:33 PM, Ravariel wrote:
At 4/13/13 08:54 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: It would be logical to assume gay couples (once admitted) will receive all benefits associated with marriage - isn't that the point?
Specifically which of these benefits do you believe should not apply to a homosexual couple based on their inability to conceive a child in the "normal" manner?

None. Next question please!

No, only you attribute cause.

Yet, only Feoric has offered a more comprehensive alternative position by citing a study which challenges my own. Camaro's arguments entail the denial of evidence and dismissal of valid sources whilst refusing to actually read them.

Moreover, "homosexuality" is not hereditary nor is it a trait of any other sort beyond action-description.
However, there is clear statistical evidence that homosexuality has a genetic component.

Certain biological facets linked to homosexuality are not exclusive to homosexuals; otherwise, the news media would be flooded by reports of the "gay gene." As you said, homosexuality is the result of a wide variety of factors including biological. Unfortunately, because people misuse the word "homosexual" both sides either dismiss or ignore the other's points - be them related to biological or environmental evidence. This is why I wrote Part II in the opening post as an introduction to my latter arguments. Because "gay" is not a scientific attribute, rather a description of an action or feeling (depending on the speaker), evidence and statistical analysis for homosexuality can often be unreliable or non-indicative. Earlier, I posted this as a follow-up on the subject:

What I mean, scientifically, is that similarities in variables do not necessarily equate to direct correlation. Here's an example:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8943121/Taxi -drivers-brains-rewired-by-The-Knowledge.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=london-taxi -memory

This indicates that the physical anatomy of a taxi driver is different from the average person's. Does their memory bank, stubbornness, and difficulty at adaptation define them as taxi drivers? Absolutely not. They are simply similarities either developed or naturally inherited that allow drivers to operate more efficiently in their environment. There are no genes for "taxi driver" because "taxi driver" is an attribute based on an action. Similarly, there are no genes for "gay" because "gay" is an attribute based on an action. Both taxi drivers and homosexuals are influenced solely by environmental and psychological factors with the exception of some inborn traits that may result in one engaging in either activity. To induce that there is a "gay gene" because certain people who claim to be gay have other similar traits that aren't even exclusive to their orientation is backwards, flawed science.

Unlike skin, eye, hair color, height, blood type, and even some diseases/allergies, homosexuality cannot be pinpointed solely to biology - thus, one cannot (currently) predict the sexual orientation of a child if this were even a physical trait. Moreover, one can become defined as homosexual simply by voluntarily engaging in sexual relations with the same sex. This action is completely independent of heredity despite certain attributes perhaps leading to homosexual acts in the future. Similarly, men and women born with supreme memory may later become taxi drivers as a result - given the right environmental conditions and opportunities.

Regardless of all these points I offer you, the institution of marriage still cannot apply to homosexuals even if the trait was purely biological. This is not only because of true science which continuously shows one male-female parenthood as being ideal, but the institution itself is designed to encourage the production of ideal citizens. Thus, marriage, by definition, only applies to heterosexuals. Not homosexuals, pedophiles, zoophiles, necrophiliacs, or single-parent homes.


"Yes!" - Fred Fredburger
CC | Nemesis | Lit Lovers | Ideas Worth Spreading

BBS Signature
Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-05-01 19:27:06 Reply

At 4/28/13 09:41 AM, CWBHOODJONES wrote: I highly agree with Cynical-Charlotte that marriage should be between man and a women on the "They have to be able to multiply or their wrong" aspect is a great way to put it.

Thanks for the support, but unfortunately this is not part of my position. I am not attempting to say that homosexuality is morally right or wrong. Instead, I am offering arguments in favor of traditional marriage as the social construct rather than the value system. I see no issue with gay unions - only the redefinition of a separate institution made to serve a vague, subjective purpose fueled by emotion.


"Yes!" - Fred Fredburger
CC | Nemesis | Lit Lovers | Ideas Worth Spreading

BBS Signature
Ron-Geno
Ron-Geno
  • Member since: Jun. 26, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 13
Gamer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-06-14 04:54:23 Reply

Question:
Can a straight person "turn" gay?
Can a gay person "turn" straight?

Is it possible for people to go through a "stage" or "phase" of homosexuality? Or are they just confused about what they really want?

Background: Friend of mine dating/banging guys for the longest. Dreamed of marrying a guy, etc. Two years ago, started dating females and guys. Currently is female exclusive, and she's in a happy monogamous relationship with a female. They're making long term plans; hopefully it works out so that they're both happy.

From what I get from it:
Sexuality doesn't seem set in stone; people can definitely lean more to one side of the spectrum for extended periods of time (if not for all of their life), but I believe that though we may be born to prefer one over the other, I don't believe that cements us to the hetero or the homo side of sexuality.

As far as marriage:
Again, what is marriage?
A clear definition = a clear decision on such a petty issue. There are more important things to discuss/fix.
BTW, religious standards ONLY APPLY to those practicing the religion of their choice...so yeah...Christians and Muslims really need to stop trying to force everyone to practice a lifestyle that half of them can't even maintain.
Instead, they should take a long look in the mirror, realize they can sometimes act worse than non-believers, and fix themselves first. Then we'll see more productivity coming from such places of worship and less scarring of people's lives with child rape and gossip and hypocrisy and murder....
ERMARGERD, I went on a rant.

Questions above; plz answer.
Thanks =)


Skynet is upon us.