Can Anyone Give a Legitimate Non-Religious Reasons Against Gay Marriage

[doppelganger]

Sexual orientation is not a "whim". Religious superstition, however, is.

Neither is a whim.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Before sodomy was made legal by the supreme court in 2003 (not that long ago) homosexuality was so rare as to be almost non-existent.

Funny... somebody should have told this to the people I went to high school with (1991-1996 - and before you think I failed a year, I should tell you that high school in Ontario was five years at the time - we kinda got a year of AP-like courses tacked onto the end).

I remember when several people I knew came out (one guy was funny about it - he gave himself the nickname "Mr. Bi" ) and I remember when my one friend got his "honorary lesbian" button given to him, which he proudly displayed on his backpack. I also remember when people started trying to get the principal to approve a gay and lesbian student group... although that didn't finally happen until after I graduated, when my principal retired and a new one took over.

Even the jocks knew about homosexuality. I remember one long-running discussion among the jocks that flowed out of the question "if you had to be 'gay for' someone, who would it be?" While I think it showed a misunderstanding of homosexuality, it was at least a nod to the fact that they knew it existed.

Maybe things were different from you, but for me, homosexuality was generally known even as early as the Grunge era.


BTW - for those playing at home, the most popular answer was apparently Harrison Ford. I think this was mainly attributable to the popularity of Star Wars.

You could hang out with people of the same sex and be friends with them – not have to worry about them coming on to you. Now there is no friendships. Every relationship for the next generation will be under the suspicion of the other wanting some sexual favor out of it. IOW – it has destroyed friendships.

Funny, I've never approached any friendship with suspicion like that... whether it's with a man or a woman. I've also never had a friend come on to me. I think you must be either exceedingly paranoid or devastatingly attractive.

Another point, yes I have seen all the biased data that G/L groups hand select to try and say that kids do OK in their households. The truth is all adopted kids do not do as well as kids raised by their biological parents. Adopted kids have enough to deal with already…

Hang on... first off, not all children of same-sex couples are adopted.

Second, I think you're implying an apples-to-oranges comparison. It's not like same-sex couples who adopt are taking kids from homes with mothers and fathers; no matter what happens, the kids that they adopt would be adopted by someone.

Another truth, heterosexual kids need heterosexual attention. No, not sex, I’m talking about all the studies that show that (heterosexual) girls raised without a strong father figure seek inappropriate attention from other males. Girls without father figures do horribly in school, have low self-worth, etc. etc. (Visa versa with boys although there is not as much data on it as so many kids are raised by single moms. ) Homosexuals obviously do not understand the needs of heterosexual children. Most children are heterosexual.

By the same token, if the child of a heterosexual couple turns out to be gay, should we step in, remove that child and place him or her with a same-sex couple to raise him?

After all, it would be for the child's own good, right? As you pointed out, difference in sexual orientation is a chasm that parental understanding apparently cannot cross.

 

[Green Gaia]

I'd frubal you Penguin, but I can't again just yet.

 

[Autodidact]

I did not read the entire thread, so I do not know if this has been said yet or not… Personally, I see it as making friendships harder to come by.

Gay marriage? How does gay marriage make it harder for you to make friends?

I mean growing up we used to have slumber parties etc… and it was safe if it was not co-ed. Now any type of sleepover is pretty much co-ed… Before sodomy was made legal by the supreme court in 2003 (not that long ago) homosexuality was so rare as to be almost non-existent. You could hang out with people of the same sex and be friends with them – not have to worry about them coming on to you. Now there is no friendships. Every relationship for the next generation will be under the suspicion of the other wanting some sexual favor out of it. IOW – it has destroyed friendships.

Wow, this is one of the weirder reasons I've ever seen. Let's see if I can follow you here. If gay people can get married, then it's harder for idea to make friends with them, because s/he might worry that they want to have sex?!?! What?!?! Do you have no friends of the opposite sex? No gay friends? And actually, are you in the habit of having sex with married people? Wouldn't getting those extremely sexy gay people married help make it clear that you're NOT going to have sex with them?

Another point, yes I have seen all the biased data that G/L groups hand select to try and say that kids do OK in their households.

Stop lying. Just stop it. It's not biased, and it's not handpicked. Stop slandering these social scientists. Tell you what--you go out and find the research. Find me any study using good methodology, comparing children in intact, two-parent gay households, and intact, two-parent straight households (you agree that would be the least biased way to study this, right?) that shows that children in the latter do better in any significant way. If you can't, will you please stop spreading this lie? Don't you consider lying to be immoral?

The truth is all adopted kids do not do as well as kids raised by their biological parents. Adopted kids have enough to deal with already…

Interesting. Cite? Anyway, how is this relevant? btw, I have 3 kids, and only one is adopted. Of course, the irresponsible HETEROSEXUALS who gave birth to her, as well as the lousy HETEROSEXUAL foster parents who gave her up, weren't willing or able to take care of her. It's a good thing there's a quality, responsible LESBIAN around to do it. At least, that's how the Department of Human Services saw it, when they placed her with me. Now, how is this an argument against gay marriage? Do you think they should have put her in an orphanage? Or let some more irresponsible HETEROSEXUALS screw her up even worse? Or do you think that we, her parents, should not be able to get married, and that will benefit her in some way?

Another truth, heterosexual kids need heterosexual attention. No, not sex, I’m talking about all the studies that show that (heterosexual) girls raised without a strong father figure seek inappropriate attention from other males. Girls without father figures do horribly in school, have low self-worth, etc. etc. (Visa versa with boys although there is not as much data on it as so many kids are raised by single moms. ) Homosexuals obviously do not understand the needs of heterosexual children. Most children are heterosexual.

So you've got a study that shows that heterosexual girls raised in heterosexual homes do better than those raised in gay homes? Please cite it. If you can't, please stop spreading these vicious lies.

How about all those poor girls that are molested by their heterosexual step-fathers? Now that's actually quite a common problem. Maybe we should prohibit any heterosexual woman with children from remarrying. btw, that would actually be consistent with what the Bible says on the subject.

 

[Rin]

I did not read the entire thread, so I do not know if this has been said yet or not… Personally, I see it as making friendships harder to come by. I mean growing up we used to have slumber parties etc… and it was safe if it was not co-ed. Now any type of sleepover is pretty much co-ed… Before sodomy was made legal by the supreme court in 2003 (not that long ago) homosexuality was so rare as to be almost non-existent. You could hang out with people of the same sex and be friends with them – not have to worry about them coming on to you. Now there is no friendships. Every relationship for the next generation will be under the suspicion of the other wanting some sexual favor out of it. IOW – it has destroyed friendships.

Being a bisexual male, I haven't experienced this problem. I'm currently living in a flat with 5 girls none of whom have expressed a problem with either my sex or my sexuality. I'm very sorry if you have lost friends due to inappropriate conduct on their part but please do not feel that all homosexuals and bisexuals are like that. In my opinion anybody, regardless of their sexuality, who begins a relationship under false pretenses in order to have sex is clearly in the wrong.

Another point, yes I have seen all the biased data that G/L groups hand select to try and say that kids do OK in their households. The truth is all adopted kids do not do as well as kids raised by their biological parents. Adopted kids have enough to deal with already…

If data is biased then it needs to be shown to be biased, not asserted. Similarly, if you have data that you claim to be the truth, you need to demonstrate that claim.

However, the claim that all adopted kids do worse than non-adopted kids is irrelevant because
1) Not all kids who have gay parents are adopted.
2) If adopted kids of gay parents do just as well as adopted kids of straight parents then homosexuality is still irrelevant to child rearing. Furthermore, if you believe that homosexuals can only have kids via adoption then this is false (see 1) and irrelevant because there are numerous kids who need to be adopted.

Another truth, heterosexual kids need heterosexual attention. No, not sex, I’m talking about all the studies that show that (heterosexual) girls raised without a strong father figure seek inappropriate attention from other males. Girls without father figures do horribly in school, have low self-worth, etc. etc. (Visa versa with boys although there is not as much data on it as so many kids are raised by single moms. ) Homosexuals obviously do not understand the needs of heterosexual children. Most children are heterosexual.

If you are purely looking at data on single mums then such data does not entail any relevance to sexuality or gender roles. It can also be explained as a 2-parents vs 1-parent dynamic. Kids who have 1 parent do worse than kids with 2 parents because they get less parental attention and resources. Given this possibility, there is no reason to assume that gender or sexuality is relevant especially.

Furthermore, the data which links neglect to a worse childhood is causal in that we understand exactly how and why children need attention and consequently why neglect causes them to have a worse experience. Conversely, there is no similar theory which explains why children need specific gender roles in order to do well.

 

[Autodidact]

O.K., I got so sick of people slandering us gay parents that I created a thread for you to present your evidence and attack the evidence on the other side, idea, starfish, and anyone else who wants to talk bad about us gay parents. If you cannot do so, I will please ask you to stop slandering us in public like this; it's immoral.

 

[Father Heathen]

I did not read the entire thread, so I do not know if this has been said yet or not… Personally, I see it as making friendships harder to come by. I mean growing up we used to have slumber parties etc… and it was safe if it was not co-ed. Now any type of sleepover is pretty much co-ed… Before sodomy was made legal by the supreme court in 2003 (not that long ago) homosexuality was so rare as to be almost non-existent. You could hang out with people of the same sex and be friends with them – not have to worry about them coming on to you. Now there is no friendships. Every relationship for the next generation will be under the suspicion of the other wanting some sexual favor out of it. IOW – it has destroyed friendships.

Gays would be gay regardless of what laws are set against them. That's like saying racial segregation resulted in less blacks. And as far as compromising friendships, who wants to be friends with bigots and homophobes anyway?

 

[Starfish]

Slander goes both ways. I am accused of being hateful, bigoted and intolerant. This kind of slander is also immoral. In truth, I have a great deal of sympathy and compassion for homosexuals. Furthermore, I don't believe one's sexuality defines one. It's just a small part of who we are. All people, without exception, are my brothers and sisters, and I am under commandment from God to love them all. (Sorry, a little of my faith slipped in.)

I just believe that all children are better off with a father and a mother. Men and women are different and each bring unique and important parenting qualities into a family. Boys desparately need good men in their lives. They need role models. They need a dad. Girls also need fathers. It's a tremendous help to her self-esteem. Just as children need mothers.

(I don't agree with a previous post in this thread, btw, that adopted children are worse off than those raised by biological parents.)

 

[Autodidact]

Slander goes both ways. I am accused of being hateful, bigoted and intolerant. This kind of slander is also immoral.

It's not slander if it's true.

In truth, I have a great deal of sympathy and compassion for homosexuals. Furthermore, I don't believe one's sexuality defines one. It's just a small part of who we are. All people, without exception, are my brothers and sisters, and I am under commandment from God to love them all. (Sorry, a little of my faith slipped in.)

I'm not concerned about your sympathy and compassion, but about your honesty. You've slandered gay parents, and don't even have the integrity or courage to either support your base accusations or withdraw them. Yeah, I'm pretty intolerant of evil lies. btw, I want you to know that I also have a great deal of sympathy and compassion for you and all Mormons as well.

I just believe that all children are better off with a father and a mother. Men and women are different and each bring unique and important parenting qualities into a family. Boys desparately need good men in their lives. They need role models. They need a dad. Girls also need fathers. It's a tremendous help to her self-esteem. Just as children need mothers.

Yes, I know you believe that. You're wrong. Now, were you the poster who offered actual research in support of your opinion?

(I don't agree with a previous post in this thread, btw, that adopted children are worse off than those raised by biological parents.)

I don't know; has anyone researched this?

 

[MoonWater]

Slander goes both ways. I am accused of being hateful, bigoted and intolerant. This kind of slander is also immoral. In truth, I have a great deal of sympathy and compassion for homosexuals. Furthermore, I don't believe one's sexuality defines one. It's just a small part of who we are. All people, without exception, are my brothers and sisters, and I am under commandment from God to love them all. (Sorry, a little of my faith slipped in.)

I just believe that all children are better off with a father and a mother. Men and women are different and each bring unique and important parenting qualities into a family. Boys desparately need good men in their lives. They need role models. They need a dad. Girls also need fathers. It's a tremendous help to her self-esteem. Just as children need mothers.

(I don't agree with a previous post in this thread, btw, that adopted children are worse off than those raised by biological parents.)

lets assume for a moment that what you say IS true and kids DO do better with opposite sex parents than same sex... how is that an argument AGAINST same-sex marriage? for one thing not all couples have children and for another there are many same sex couples out there that can't get married that DO have children. Don't you think that those kids should be afforded all the protections that marriage gives? Do you really think these kids are better off with their parents being unmarried?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

lets assume for a moment that what you say IS true and kids DO do better with opposite sex parents than same sex... how is that an argument AGAINST same-sex marriage? for one thing not all couples have children and for another there are many same sex couples out there that can't get married that DO have children. Don't you think that those kids should be afforded all the protections that marriage gives? Do you really think these kids are better off with their parents being unmarried?

I agree. The real question in same-sex marriage isn't whether same-sex parents make for better families than opposite-sex parents, it's whether the protections of marriage would benefit the kids of same-sex parents.

Does anyone here seriously believe that they wouldn't? Because that's the real issue here.

 

[Starfish]

lets assume for a moment that what you say IS true and kids DO do better with opposite sex parents than same sex... how is that an argument AGAINST same-sex marriage? for one thing not all couples have children and for another there are many same sex couples out there that can't get married that DO have children. Don't you think that those kids should be afforded all the protections that marriage gives? Do you really think these kids are better off with their parents being unmarried?

Too bad the parents of these children didn't think of all this before the children were conceived. They knew the existing laws and the long tradition of marriage in our society and still made the decision to bring children into an unmarried situation.

If SSM is legalized and legitimized, then more and more children will be brought into this world with no hope of a father. I guess I just feel it's worth fighting for children's rights to have a dad.

 

[England my lionheart]

Marriage is not about having Kids,it's a union of two people,a contract of Love if you like and not a premise for having Children,so there can be no(IMO)non-religious reasons for not having same sex Marriage.

 

[MoonWater]

Too bad the parents of these children didn't think of all this before the children were conceived. They knew the existing laws and the long tradition of marriage in our society and still made the decision to bring children into an unmarried situation.

The only reason they are unmarried is because according to the law they CAN'T get married. If the law allowed them to get married this wouldn't be an issue.

If SSM is legalized and legitimized, then more and more children will be brought into this world with no hope of a father. I guess I just feel it's worth fighting for children's rights to have a dad.

You didn't answer my questions. And you do realize that there are tons of kids out there in orphanages that need adopting right? Denying gay marriages or adoptions doesn't give those kids a better chance of getting a home with a mommy and a daddy. It DECREASES their chances of getting a family of any kind PERIOD. Even if same-sex parents aren't the ideal do you honestly believe that these kids would be better off in an orphanage? And again what about the children already being raised by same-sex couples? Are you suggesting we take those kids away from their parents and place them in an oppostie sex home or an orphanage? Or that we should just say oh well it's the parents fault for blah blah blah and leave the kids to suffer the consequences of their parents not having the rights and protections that marriage affords them and their kids? You really think that that will help children?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Too bad the parents of these children didn't think of all this before the children were conceived. They knew the existing laws and the long tradition of marriage in our society and still made the decision to bring children into an unmarried situation.

If you didn't have any of the legal benefits of marriage that you do now, would you have decided not to have kids?

If SSM is legalized and legitimized, then more and more children will be brought into this world with no hope of a father. I guess I just feel it's worth fighting for children's rights to have a dad.

But that's not what you're doing. Prohibiting same-sex marriage does not magically take kids from same-sex-parented homes and put them somewhere with a new mommy and daddy. What it does do is put children at a disadvantage.

It boggles my mind how anyone can characterize taking protections, benefits and rights away from families and the children in them as "fighting for children's rights". To me, this is the height of doublespeak.

I think it's worth fighting for children's rights to be in a family with the protections of marriage... but apparently you don't share this view.

 

[Autodidact]

Too bad the parents of these children didn't think of all this before the children were conceived. They knew the existing laws and the long tradition of marriage in our society and still made the decision to bring children into an unmarried situation.

So if society is against something--such as interracial marriage--then it's the fault of the people that society is discriminating against?

If SSM is legalized and legitimized, then more and more children will be brought into this world with no hope of a father. I guess I just feel it's worth fighting for children's rights to have a dad.

Try really hard to sound self-righteous and correct, you might manage to convince yourself. Do remember though that your entire argument is based on a lie.

Shouldn't you be campaigning against gay people having children, rather than getting married?

We've established, Starfish, that the children of gay and lesbian parents do at least as well as the children of straight parents, despite the discrimination their parents face. The people who bring children into the world without thinking are not gay people, Starfish, they're straight people, like you. Maybe we should de-legalize straight marriage.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Slander goes both ways. I am accused of being hateful, bigoted and intolerant.

I'm no lawyer, but I believe that for such accusations to be classified as "slander", they actually have to be false.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I did not read the entire thread, ....

I know what you mean. I try to skip the blatantly uninformed posts - like #280.

 

[Starfish]

The only reason they are unmarried is because according to the law they CAN'T get married. If the law allowed them to get married this wouldn't be an issue.




You didn't answer my questions. And you do realize that there are tons of kids out there in orphanages that need adopting right? Denying gay marriages or adoptions doesn't give those kids a better chance of getting a home with a mommy and a daddy. It DECREASES their chances of getting a family of any kind PERIOD. Even if same-sex parents aren't the ideal do you honestly believe that these kids would be better off in an orphanage? And again what about the children already being raised by same-sex couples? Are you suggesting we take those kids away from their parents and place them in an oppostie sex home or an orphanage? Or that we should just say oh well it's the parents fault for blah blah blah and leave the kids to suffer the consequences of their parents not having the rights and protections that marriage affords them and their kids? You really think that that will help children?

You haven't read my posts. I've said numerous times that a gay home is better than no home. Let SS couples adopt hard-to-place children with no other hope for parents. Of course. But don't predestinate an unborn child to a life without a father.

I've never said that a child should be taken from their parent. I'm talking about future, unborn children. They ALL deserve a father. I don't agree with laws that encourage otherwise.

All adults KNEW the laws and traditions of our society BEFORE conceiving their children. Then they complain that society isn't changing to suit what they've created--children with unmarried parents. Children deserve to be BORN into a home with married parents, AND every child deserves a mother and a father. We as adults have the responsibility (to the best of our ability) to see that this happens.

Do I have the moral right to deny my child a father because I don't prefer men?

As far as existing children in SS homes, love them, nurture them, raise them. But their parents conceived them in an unmarried situation. They set this up deliberately. They did this to their children; society didn't do it.

 

[Starfish]

If you didn't have any of the legal benefits of marriage that you do now, would you have decided not to have kids?

No, I would not have had children unless I was married.

But that's not what you're doing. Prohibiting same-sex marriage does not magically take kids from same-sex-parented homes and put them somewhere with a new mommy and daddy. What it does do is put children at a disadvantage.

It boggles my mind how anyone can characterize taking protections, benefits and rights away from families and the children in them as "fighting for children's rights". To me, this is the height of doublespeak.

I think it's worth fighting for children's rights to be in a family with the protections of marriage... but apparently you don't share this view.

I answered this in the above post.