Homosexual Marriage: Is Society Ready for Legitimacy?

[Zero]

My only agendas are freedom, equality, and tolerance. All parents influence their children in some ways, often unpredictable ways. That holds true of heterosexuals too...and I think homosexuals may in fact have an easier time in being parents, and being married as well. When they do it, it is because they WANT to, without a lot of the societal pressure to do it, as in hetero couples.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
I think the issue is still to hot to push for homosexual benefits, which is the root of this thread. Companies that may feel very strongly against homosexuals due to religious or morals views would be forced to accept them and give them benefits and I think this will only cause friction and problems.

Completely incorrect. What it does, is force people to deal with the issue instead of trying to sidestep it or ignore it. It also opens new avenues. People who are forced to interact with homosexuals who had no previous interaction and thus, uninformed views, may find their opinions changing if they are forced to interact with homosexuals.

But let's induldge you for a moment. So your belief is that we should not force people to interact with other people who are homosexual because it causes friction. Following your line of reasoning, we must also ban blacks from working, because it might severely affect the working environment for KKK members. And also women shouldn't be able to interact, because there are still those people who think a woman's place is in the home, and forcing them to work with women would cause friction. So how many other people should we segregate from the office in the interests of harmony?

Well boy, you'd better have hard workers there, because it's going to be you and 3 other white, heterosexual males running the entire company based on your philosophy

 

[Zantra]

Uh huh. So why do all the national medical and phychological associations agree with them? Last I checked, the AMA and APA are pretty conservative in their views, generally.

Hmm, it would appear that evidence supporting my argument presents itsself. Unless someone wants to contest the conservativism and imperical studies of these organizations.

Again, this is an argument that holds little water. You seem to be in support of bigotry, in that you suggest that the bigots should get to bully people, and their attitude should be given ultimate authority.

Children will always find reasons to ridicule their peers. If it wsan't homosexuality, it would be because the kid's overweight, or too smart, or too small, or too dumb, or too something else. But using young bullies to make your point is shaky ground to say the least.

Again, I wonder what the agenda of the American Academy of Pediatrics is, besides the welfare of children? http://www.aap.org/policy/020008.html includes this statement: "The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual" That isn't a partisan group, or a gay rights group. [/B]

Again must agree here that the American phsychiatric Association is not known for it's radical liberalism by any stretch. Any studies or findings that are upheld by these organizations should be held up as fact until otherwise disproved. It doesn't get much more solid than this.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
My only agendas are freedom, equality, and tolerance. All parents influence their children in some ways, often unpredictable ways. That holds true of heterosexuals too...and I think homosexuals may in fact have an easier time in being parents, and being married as well. When they do it, it is because they WANT to, without a lot of the societal pressure to do it, as in hetero couples.

But for whom? Are we to be more concerned about homosexual self esteem than what is best for children?

I think you make too light of the fact that nature has firmly estblished male and female as the parenting standard. It is not comparable to cite tribal sociology . . . that is not genetically determined. Male-female parenting is about as deep and consistent as evolution gets.

Zero, I wish you knew me . . . I do not judge someone for their sexual preferences as long as no one is harmed. But our children are our future . . . we need to be really, really careful there.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Sounds like McCarthy screaming "communist" at anybody daring to think about things outside of what is politically sanctioned.

A comparison could also be made of the people against homosexual marriages to various groups such as the KKK who didn't want "thier kind" mixing with "our kind" and viewed blacks as lower than dirt. And everyone who befriended blacks were deemed as "$$#ger lovers"

If homosexuals could raise children perfectly fine, then I would be perfectly fine with it. I doubt it because of my life experiences, not because I have some closet paranoia about homosexuality. It sounds like you are the one with some agenda.

Personally, my agenda is equality, and making people see the glaring similarities between bias against homesexuals and our past biased agaist blacks, women, and even further back, pertaining to religion.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
But for whom? Are we to be more concerned about homosexual self esteem than what is best for children?

I think you make too light of the fact that nature has firmly estblished male and female as the parenting standard. It is not comparable to cite tribal sociology . . . that is not genetically determined. Male-female parenting is about as deep and consistent as evolution gets.

Zero, I wish you knew me . . . I do not judge someone for their sexual preferences as long as no one is harmed. But our children are our future . . . we need to be really, really careful there.

Actually, exclusively male-female relations is an abberation, isn't it? Don't many tribes historically have their children raised by one gender or the other exclusively at some point in their lives. Doesn't nature contain everything from abandoned offspring all the way to communal parenting?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zantra
A comparison could also be made of the people against homosexual marriages to various groups such as the KKK who didn't want "thier kind" mixing with "our kind" and viewed blacks as lower than dirt. And everyone who befriended blacks were deemed as "$$#ger lovers"

? It's not the same at all. If someone is against something out of predjudice, and it really doesn't matter what, then one can legitimately accuse him/her of bias.

But, what also goes on is that those on the receiving end of predjudice can become over-sensitive, and so paranoid that they pounce on anything that vaguely resembles predjudice, whether it is or not, screaming "unfair." What is one to do then, walk around on eggshells so as not to offend anyone?

Actually I do try to be mindful of people's sensitivities until, that is, an issue comes along that is more important than people's fragile egos.

Originally posted by Zantra
Personally, my agenda is equality, and making people see the glaring similarities between bias against homesexuals and our past biased agaist blacks, women, and even further back, pertaining to religion.

Your intentions may be noble, but your priorities are wrong. Before explaining what I mean, first let me acknowledge that children are in a lot of horrible situations right now, and a good home with any variety of parents or caregivers would be an improvement. But I assumed we were discussing the ideal of parenting, and how, if we have the opportunity, we’d select what a standard parenting situation should be.

With that in mind, then I say equality in this issue should become a concern only after we do what is best for the children. Why should children have to sacrifice even one iota so gays, blacks, women, or any other group can feel equal? I mean, what about the severely mentally handicapped? They are prejudiced against too, so why shouldn’t they adopt kids? Unfair!

Social fairness, equality and all that kind of idealist stuff is utterly irrelevant to what is best for parenting children. So I think you need to rearrange you priorities a bit. Work for equality and eliminating prejudice where that is done, and look at what is best for children separately from all other considerations.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
? It's not the same at all. If someone is against something out of predjudice, and it really doesn't matter what, then one can legitimately accuse him/her of bias.

But, what also goes on is that those on the receiving end of predjudice can become over-sensitive, and so paranoid that they pounce on anything that vaguely resembles predjudice, whether it is or not, screaming "unfair." What is one to do then, walk around on eggshells so as not to offend anyone?

Actually I do try to be mindful of people's sensitivities until, that is, an issue comes along that is more important than people's fragile egos.



Your intentions may be noble, but your priorities are wrong. Before explaining what I mean, first let me acknowledge that children are in a lot of horrible situations right now, and a good home with any variety of parents or caregivers would be an improvement. But I assumed we were discussing the ideal of parenting, and how, if we have the opportunity, we’d select what a standard parenting situation should be.

With that in mind, then I say equality in this issue should become a concern only after we do what is best for the children. Why should children have to sacrifice even one iota so gays, blacks, women, or any other group can feel equal? I mean, what about the severely mentally handicapped? They are prejudiced against too, so why shouldn’t they adopt kids? Unfair!

Social fairness, equality and all that kind of idealist stuff is utterly irrelevant to what is best for parenting children. So I think you need to rearrange you priorities a bit. Work for equality and eliminating prejudice where that is done, and look at what is best for children separately from all other considerations.

These emotional pleas to 'protect the children' are useless unless you show that they need to be protected! There is zero evidence that a same-sex 2-parent household is harmful for children. In fact, there may be some benefits, like an added level of tolerance being taught.

Why are you so afraid of homosexuals, Sleeth?

 

[Andy]

If you where a child that was brought up by homosexual parents do you not think that if any of the other children found out about this at school that they would bully you for it? Kids can be very cruel when it comes to bullying and i see this as a case where although the parents themselves wouldn't have done anything wrong they wouldn't be able to stop the bullying that the kid would receive, it is the way of the playground to pick on the kids that are different.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Andy
If you where a child that was brought up by homosexual parents do you not think that if any of the other children found out about this at school that they would bully you for it? Kids can be very cruel when it comes to bullying and i see this as a case where although the parents themselves wouldn't have done anything wrong they wouldn't be able to stop the bullying that the kid would receive, it is the way of the playground to pick on the kids that are different.

By thins logic, black children should have remained segregated, Christianity shouldn't exist(not all bad, I suppose), and women should still be barefoot and pregnant.

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Zantra
Completely incorrect. What it does, is force people to deal with the issue instead of trying to sidestep it or ignore it. It also opens new avenues. People who are forced to interact with homosexuals who had no previous interaction and thus, uninformed views, may find their opinions changing if they are forced to interact with homosexuals.

Why must all lack of interaction with a group cause uninformed views? Is there something magic in talking to a homosexual that allows you to see everything so much more clearly? Of course whether they find their opinions wrong or right, that is irrelevant because we cannot predict how they will react.

But let's induldge you for a moment. So your belief is that we should not force people to interact with other people who are homosexual because it causes friction. Following your line of reasoning, we must also ban blacks from working, because it might severely affect the working environment for KKK members. And also women shouldn't be able to interact, because there are still those people who think a woman's place is in the home, and forcing them to work with women would cause friction. So how many other people should we segregate from the office in the interests of harmony?

I'm not sure I follow. Blacks, and woman? Are they homosexual? I thought this was a homosexual thread, it appears as if a black person and/or a woman have no choice in the matter of their gender or colour of their skin, so how is this following MY reasoning when I have never mentioned anything but homosexuals? You make it appear as if all negative views of all kinds of people that anybody could have are also my views. KKK members are violent towards blacks, I am not saying workers will be violent towards homosexuals, your example doesn't even compare.

Well boy, you'd better have hard workers there, because it's going to be you and 3 other white, heterosexual males running the entire company based on your philosophy

You mean there are only 4 white male heterosexuals in the world? Although you seem to think your previos paragraph reflected fairly my view on PEOPLE in general, not homosexuals. In fact I would hire a woman, a black, a Jew, a homosexual, or anybody if they could do the job well. I would simply like not to be forced to give benefits to people when those benefits directly conflict with certain moral choices of mine which could be based on ones religion [note: these benefits being a result of marriage between two homosexuals].

Don't many tribes historically have their children raised by one gender or the other exclusively at some point in their lives.

Their entire childhood? No, as you said, at some point in their lives.

Again, I wonder what the agenda of the American Academy of Pediatrics is, besides the welfare of children? The policy of the AAP towards homosexual parents includes this statement: "The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual" That isn't a partisan group, or a gay rights group.

From the AAP's Policy StatementABSTRACT. Children who are born to or adopted by 1 member of a same-sex couple deserve the security of 2 legally recognized parents. Therefore, the American Academy of Pediatrics supports legislative and legal efforts to provide the possibility of adoption of the child by the second parent or coparent in these families.

What we see here is their attempt to provide legitimate proof for the legalization of legally recognized parents. This seems to be marriage. One also must note that there are also a sufficiently equal number of professional literature (which happen to be only nine in this website) that contradict this statement. It would appear as if they had vested interest in the results though.

 

[Andy]

If you had the choice who would you rather be adopted by, homosexuals or hetrosexuals?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule

What we see here is their attempt to provide legitimate proof for the legalization of legally recognized parents. This seems to be marriage. One also must note that there are also a sufficiently equal number of professional literature (which happen to be only nine in this website) that contradict this statement. It would appear as if they had vested interest in the results though.

Can you show us professional opinions that contradict what I posted? Oh, and show me an agenda, besides the welfare of children...I am waiting with baited breath over here.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Andy
If you had the choice who would you rather be adopted by, homosexuals or hetrosexuals?

I don't see a distinction...I would prefer good parents, which could be anyone, really(except Christian Science whackjobs and other child abusers).

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Zero
Can you show us professional opinions that contradict what I posted? Oh, and show me an agenda, besides the welfare of children...I am waiting with baited breath over here.

As soon as you show me an unbiased STUDY, I don't care about professional opinions.

 

[Andy]

If you had the choice of being adopted either a perfectly good homosexual couple or a perfectly good hetrosexual couple who would you rather be adopted by?

I think that the vast majority of people would choose the hetrosexual couple, but a young child wouldn't have this choice.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Andy
If you had the choice of being adopted either a perfectly good homosexual couple or a perfectly good hetrosexual couple who would you rather be adopted by?

I think that the vast majority of people would choose the hetrosexual couple, but a young child wouldn't have this choice.

Why should it matter? I don't see it as being important either way, and I don't understand why you do.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
As soon as you show me an unbiased STUDY, I don't care about professional opinions.

You could have scrolled to the bottom...and I'm not sure what you mean by unbiased. Generally, the APA and the AAP would tend to use unbiased studies, don't you think? The bias, of course, is in huge evidence on your side of the issue. The ONLY evidence I have seen against homosexuality has come from religious sources.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
? It's not the same at all. If someone is against something out of predjudice, and it really doesn't matter what, then one can legitimately accuse him/her of bias.

Ok then how do you definte prejudice? You're saying that someone being gay cannot be a good parent- that is prejudice and bias.

But, what also goes on is that those on the receiving end of predjudice can become over-sensitive, and so paranoid that they pounce on anything that vaguely resembles predjudice, whether it is or not, screaming "unfair." What is one to do then, walk around on eggshells so as not to offend anyone?

Ok the then where do we draw the line between political correctness and the rights of people? If you're trying to tell someone else what they can do with their children, that's infringing on personal human rights. If they were trying to influence your children, that would fall in your court. But the bottom line is that it's their RIGHT to raise children because it doesn't harm others (which I realize is the debate).

Actually I do try to be mindful of people's sensitivities until, that is, an issue comes along that is more important than people's fragile egos.

So then what qualifies you to tell someone they're not fit to be a parent? This isn't about egos, it's about people's right to be a parent.

Your intentions may be noble, but your priorities are wrong. Before explaining what I mean, first let me acknowledge that children are in a lot of horrible situations right now, and a good home with any variety of parents or caregivers would be an improvement. But I assumed we were discussing the ideal of parenting, and how, if we have the opportunity, we’d select what a standard parenting situation should be.

With that in mind, then I say equality in this issue should become a concern only after we do what is best for the children. Why should children have to sacrifice even one iota so gays, blacks, women, or any other group can feel equal? I mean, what about the severely mentally handicapped? They are prejudiced against too, so why shouldn’t they adopt kids? Unfair!

Social fairness, equality and all that kind of idealist stuff is utterly irrelevant to what is best for parenting children. So I think you need to rearrange you priorities a bit. Work for equality and eliminating prejudice where that is done, and look at what is best for children separately from all other considerations.

First, I do believe that the children's best interests should be kept at heart. And I believe having a 2 parent home is in their best interests. Your argument is based on the faulty premise that being raised by 2 parents of the same sex is bad for the child.

Yet in society we have excepted exactly that. Ever see "my two dads" or "full house"? Both were TV sitcoms in which 2, and 3 men respectively raised a family. No they were not gay, just friends or related. Society doesn't view 2 parents as wrong- it views 2 GAY parents as morally incorrect because they go on the assumption that the parents will teach the values of homosexuality to their children. This is false, and the studies be the APA and AMA have shown that.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Why must all lack of interaction with a group cause uninformed views? Is there something magic in talking to a homosexual that allows you to see everything so much more clearly? Of course whether they find their opinions wrong or right, that is irrelevant because we cannot predict how they will react.

Because sexual preference aside, they are people, just like you and I. They go to school, they have careers, and they have friends and family. You're generalizing someone soley based on their sexual preference which is just one aspect of a whole person. And what can you tell me of gays from personal experience. You're saying that you base all your views on other people's experiences. That's a biased view.

I'm not sure I follow. Blacks, and woman? Are they homosexual? I thought this was a homosexual thread, it appears as if a black person and/or a woman have no choice in the matter of their gender or colour of their skin, so how is this following MY reasoning when I have never mentioned anything but homosexuals? You make it appear as if all negative views of all kinds of people that anybody could have are also my views. KKK members are violent towards blacks, I am not saying workers will be violent towards homosexuals, your example doesn't even compare.

Oh I see, so now we're soley basing discrimination on weather they can HELP their "disadvantage" So if someone "can't help what they are" then it's bad to discriminate against them. Now I'm following your reasoning. There is a very relavant theme in my post of discrimination. My point is that prejudice against blacks and woman is the same as prejudice against homosexuals. Some would make the argument that they can't help it because they were born that way-so you would be contradicting your own beliefs by discriminating against them. And people ARE violent against homsexuals, or have you just had your head under a rock for the last 20 years?

You mean there are only 4 white male heterosexuals in the world? Although you seem to think your previos paragraph reflected fairly my view on PEOPLE in general, not homosexuals. In fact I would hire a woman, a black, a Jew, a homosexual, or anybody if they could do the job well. I would simply like not to be forced to give benefits to people when those benefits directly conflict with certain moral choices of mine which could be based on ones religion [note: these benefits being a result of marriage between two homosexuals].

I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but the unitied states of america was founded on the premise that everyone has the right to freedom of choice- thier's is lifestyle choice, and regardless of weather they conflict with your moral views, by default they are allowed to practice those views because that's the american way. In the same vien you don't have the right to deny them the same rights ans you simply because of a moral conflict. That's not what the US was founded on, God Bless the US of A

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
As soon as you show me an unbiased STUDY, I don't care about professional opinions.

Last time I checked, medical science, and psychology were based on imperical unbiased research and evidence.

Now I'm having to justify scientific research- this is becoming reminiscent of the argument for god.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Zantra
I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but the unitied states of america was founded on the premise that everyone has the right to freedom of choice- thier's is lifestyle choice, and regardless of weather they conflict with your moral views, by default they are allowed to practice those views because that's the american way. In the same vien you don't have the right to deny them the same rights ans you simply because of a moral conflict. That's not what the US was founded on, God Bless the US of A

You forgot that some people think that the most important part of freedom is teh freedom to hate as many groups as possible that are different from them, and do everything they can to discriminate against them.

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Zantra
I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but the unitied states of america was founded on the premise that everyone has the right to freedom of choice- thier's is lifestyle choice, and regardless of weather they conflict with your moral views, by default they are allowed to practice those views because that's the american way. In the same vien you don't have the right to deny them the same rights ans you simply because of a moral conflict. That's not what the US was founded on, God Bless the US of A

Again and again and again you are saying things that have nothing to do with what is being said.


NOBODY IS TRYING TO SAY HOMOSEXUALS CANNOT BE HOMOSEXUAL!

You will keep using this argument because you will not accept what we say, what I mean by this is you think we think this certain way and you are attacking that certain way you think we are seeing. This will probably even be misquoted as simply "you will not accept what we say". I suppose it is pointless to even keep posting because you quote something I say and use the same response no matter what I actually say.

This was what you quoted, perhaps you didn't look at it:

"You mean there are only 4 white male heterosexuals in the world? Although you seem to think your previos paragraph reflected fairly my view on PEOPLE in general, not homosexuals. In fact I would hire a woman, a black, a Jew, a homosexual, or anybody if they could do the job well. I would simply like not to be forced to give benefits to people when those benefits directly conflict with certain moral choices of mine which could be based on ones religion [note: these benefits being a result of marriage between two homosexuals]."

Now, tell me where in there I say homosexuals shouldn't have the right to be homosexual?

You forgot that some people think that the most important part of freedom is teh freedom to hate as many groups as possible that are different from them, and do everything they can to discriminate against them.

They sure do Zero and this does not pertain to anyone of us, try again, it was a great contribution, a PM to Zantra would have been infinitely more appropriate.

 

[Zero]

No, Kyle...you just claim that they cannot have the same rights as everyone else.

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Zero
No, Kyle...you just claim that they cannot have the same rights as everyone else.

Everyone doesn't have the right to adopt.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Everyone doesn't have the right to adopt.

Yes, they do, unless you can provide a convincing argument otherwise. Since you haven't bothered to do so...what would you like us to think about the reasons behind your attitude?

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Zero
You forgot that some people think that the most important part of freedom is teh freedom to hate as many groups as possible that are different from them, and do everything they can to discriminate against them.

Not trying to say that people should be denied the right to hate other people, as long as that hate doesn't interfere with other people's rights.

There's a big difference between hating someone and beating them up, or denying them the same freedoms as everyone else.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Zantra
Not trying to say that people should be denied the right to hate other people, as long as that hate doesn't interfere with other people's rights.

There's a big difference between hating someone and beating them up, or denying them the same freedoms as everyone else.

Yeah, I don't care about anyone's internal attitude. The problem is, some people want to legislate the restrictions that they set on their personal lives to affect everyone else.

 

[Hurkyl]

And some people want to remove any piece of legislation they don't understand.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
And some people want to remove any piece of legislation they don't understand.

Well, where is the explanation? I understand that anti-homosexual legislation is discriminatory, and SHOULD be removed. Where is the case for it, that isn't based on some religious or 'moral' grounds?

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Again and again and again you are saying things that have nothing to do with what is being said.


NOBODY IS TRYING TO SAY HOMOSEXUALS CANNOT BE HOMOSEXUAL!

You will keep using this argument because you will not accept what we say, what I mean by this is you think we think this certain way and you are attacking that certain way you think we are seeing. This will probably even be misquoted as simply "you will not accept what we say". I suppose it is pointless to even keep posting because you quote something I say and use the same response no matter what I actually say.

This was what you quoted, perhaps you didn't look at it:

"You mean there are only 4 white male heterosexuals in the world? Although you seem to think your previos paragraph reflected fairly my view on PEOPLE in general, not homosexuals. In fact I would hire a woman, a black, a Jew, a homosexual, or anybody if they could do the job well. I would simply like not to be forced to give benefits to people when those benefits directly conflict with certain moral choices of mine which could be based on ones religion [note: these benefits being a result of marriage between two homosexuals]."

Now, tell me where in there I say homosexuals shouldn't have the right to be homosexual?



They sure do Zero and this does not pertain to anyone of us, try again, it was a great contribution, a PM to Zantra would have been infinitely more appropriate.

Ok I think you're missing my point here. As Zero pointed out, it's not that you're saying they don't have the right to be who they are, it's that you're saying that they shouldn't be allowed the same rights as everyone else, such as adoption. You're saying that they won't make good parents, I'm saying they will, and as it was pointed our, there are professional, scientific studies to back up my claim. Yet despite this you keep saying the same thing over and over again as well-you're just presenting it in different ways, but it's the same arguement. However if you have evidence done by an unbiased organization or group that children of Gay couples are significantly more at risk for social and psychological damages as a result, then I'm perfeclty willing to consider it as a valid position. Otherwise it's just your viewpoint, not fact. You not wanting to work with gays, or extend them the same rights and priveledges based on their sexual orientation is not fundamentally correct. The rights are those of americans, not of heterosexual americans. That's my whole point, and you keep arguing it, but it's the same argument without objective evidence to support your claim.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to pick on you kyle. Yours is a common view. In fact, being raised in the midwest, I'm quite used to this point of view. I'm simply pointing on the common lack of ability of many people to regard someone with a blind eye their sexual preference. Do you believe a homosexual would be less capable of performing tasks at work? Less capable of functioning in society in the same manner a heterosexual person does? If your answer to those questions is no, then you have to ask yourself what gives you cause to believe they can't function as normal parents? Do you see all homosexuals as radicals bent on forcing their views and beliefs on anyone they can? If not, then what leads you to believe they would force their views on their children. Should people with odd fetishes such as bondage not be parents because they might unduly influence their children with respect to that fetish? These are just questions that you have to answer for yourself.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Zantra
Ok I think you're missing my point here. As Zero pointed out, it's not that you're saying they don't have the right to be who they are, it's that you're saying that they shouldn't be allowed the same rights as everyone else, such as adoption. You're saying that they won't make good parents, I'm saying they will, and as it was pointed our, there are professional, scientific studies to back up my claim. Yet despite this you keep saying the same thing over and over again as well-you're just presenting it in different ways, but it's the same arguement. However if you have evidence done by an unbiased organization or group that children of Gay couples are significantly more at risk for social and psychological damages as a result, then I'm perfeclty willing to consider it as a valid position. Otherwise it's just your viewpoint, not fact. You not wanting to work with gays, or extend them the same rights and priveledges based on their sexual orientation is not fundamentally correct. The rights are those of americans, not of heterosexual americans. That's my whole point, and you keep arguing it, but it's the same argument without objective evidence to support your claim

I would add that I am equally concerned with the sourse of teh study as I am with the sourse of the degrees of the people who do the studies. If you got a degree from a religious diploma mill, and did the 'study' for a religious group, then I will reject it out of hand. I'll buy research from certain religious schools, like Notre Dame, of course.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Zero
I would add that I am equally concerned with the sourse of teh study as I am with the sourse of the degrees of the people who do the studies. If you got a degree from a religious diploma mill, and did the 'study' for a religious group, then I will reject it out of hand. I'll buy research from certain religious schools, like Notre Dame, of course.

right and that's why I say unbiased. Religously influenced schools all have the influence and belief of those religions present in their studies. They are deemed as very conservative, and will not consider alternatives, scientific in nature though they may be, as valid.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
And some people want to remove any piece of legislation they don't understand.

What is it that you feel isn't being understood about these types of legislation? I thought I understood them fairly well, but what am I missing?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Zantra
right and that's why I say unbiased. Religously influenced schools all have the influence and belief of those religions present in their studies. They are deemed as very conservative, and will not consider alternatives, scientific in nature though they may be, as valid.

Of course, they start out backwards from real scientific study, in that they pick the idea they want to prove, and then pick and choose from the information, in order to support their beliefs.

 

[Hurkyl]

What is it that you feel isn't being understood about these types of legislation? I thought I understood them fairly well, but what am I missing?

That comment wasn't directed at you; you actually present a case in your posts.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
That comment wasn't directed at you; you actually present a case in your posts.

Which can't be said for you...or can it? Have I missed you posting a fact or a link?

 

[kyle_soule]

Of course, they start out backwards from real scientific study, in that they pick the idea they want to prove, and then pick and choose from the information, in order to support their beliefs.

Which appeared to be what the AAP did to support the legalization of homosexual marriage...

You not wanting to work with gays, or extend them the same rights and priveledges based on their sexual orientation is not fundamentally correct.

I didn't say I didn't want to work with gays, in fact, I said I would hire them.

You said "Now I'm having to justify scientific research- this is becoming reminiscent of the argument for god." Zero over here is denying religious groups are capable of scientific research, so why would I want to provide the studies when they will not be accepted? You also label religious research as biased.

I will sort through some pages and tomorrow present scientific studies to support my views.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule


Which appeared to be what the AAP did to support the legalization of homosexual marriage...

Strong statement...what do you base it on? I have a BASIS for rejecting the work of anti-gay groups, do you claim that the AAP is an actively pro-gay group, and if so, what is your evidence?

 

[Andy]

Strong statement...what do you base it on? I have a BASIS for rejecting the work of anti-gay groups, do you claim that the AAP is an actively pro-gay group, and if so, what is your evidence?

The AAP can't be seen as being anti-gay can it, its very hard to be completely unbiased so there are pro-gay, i am not saying there is anything wrong with this, unless they are doing studies into homosexuals in which case there is a problem with this.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
That comment wasn't directed at you; you actually present a case in your posts.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Andy
The AAP can't be seen as being anti-gay can it, its very hard to be completely unbiased so there are pro-gay, i am not saying there is anything wrong with this, unless they are doing studies into homosexuals in which case there is a problem with this.

By the same token they can't be seen as pro-gay, which would offend a great deal of people. the only neutral stance is a objective unbiased one. If they were going to taint results, they'd swing in favor of the anti-gay stance as it is still the prevelant one in american society. Take our president for exaple. Though he's made some token gestures to the gay community in order to retain their votes, the white house still stands by "family values" which is another politically correct way of saying he's anti-gay without actually saying it.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Andy
The AAP can't be seen as being anti-gay can it, its very hard to be completely unbiased so there are pro-gay, i am not saying there is anything wrong with this, unless they are doing studies into homosexuals in which case there is a problem with this.

That is nonsense, and you should know it. Anyone who isn't supporting you position must be actively biased towards the opposite? Come on! I don't think the AMA, APA, or AAP are powerless organizations. They are, in fact, nearly immune to questions of bias, because they are professional scientific organizations. If they say something is so, you can bet your money that they are simply following the evidence.

 

[Hurkyl]

They are, in fact, nearly immune to questions of bias, because they are professional scientific organizations.

...

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
...

I should rephase: "questioning without serious evidence." Every organization, and its individual members, can make mistakes, of course. The difference is, we can be pretty sure that none of the real medical groups can be accused of being actively, aggressively pro-anything. The same cannot be said of religious organizations, which by their own definition CANNOT and WILL NOT do unbiased proper science.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zantra
You're saying that they won't make good parents, I'm saying they will, and as it was pointed our, there are professional, scientific studies to back up my claim. Yet despite this you keep saying the same thing over and over again as well-you're just presenting it in different ways, but it's the same arguement. However if you have evidence done by an unbiased organization or group that children of Gay couples are significantly more at risk for social and psychological damages as a result, then I'm perfeclty willing to consider it as a valid position. Otherwise it's just your viewpoint, not fact. You not wanting to work with gays, or extend them the same rights and priveledges based on their sexual orientation is not fundamentally correct. The rights are those of americans, not of heterosexual americans. That's my whole point, and you keep arguing it, but it's the same argument without objective evidence to support your claim.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to pick on you kyle. Yours is a common view. In fact, being raised in the midwest, I'm quite used to this point of view. I'm simply pointing on the common lack of ability of many people to regard someone with a blind eye their sexual preference. Do you believe a homosexual would be less capable of performing tasks at work? Less capable of functioning in society in the same manner a heterosexual person does? If your answer to those questions is no, then you have to ask yourself what gives you cause to believe they can't function as normal parents? Do you see all homosexuals as radicals bent on forcing their views and beliefs on anyone they can? If not, then what leads you to believe they would force their views on their children. Should people with odd fetishes such as bondage not be parents because they might unduly influence their children with respect to that fetish? These are just questions that you have to answer for yourself.

I can't speak for Kyle, but I think your points are really off the mark for why I have reservations about homosexual parenting.

Before explaining them let me say that in my opinion you are not being realistic about the studies done supporting gay parenting. I believe in general the science community is very liberal about such things, and would wish to find ways to help get prejudice out of society if they could. It is noble, but is it correct?

Those studies are virtually impossible to do properly with a small sampling and in a few years. It is psychological testing to begin with, and already that makes it exremely difficult to isolate all influences at work. How are you going to test the effects of everything else that has gone on in the child's life? And how can you tell what happens over a lifetime?

To say no differences have been observed doesn't mean there aren't differences. The science community has told us bovine growth hormone has no negative consequences . . . is it just the igorance of the general population that resists that stuff? Or do they sense in those hormones some potential long-term affect on them undetected as of yet in the laboratory?

Let's not be naive about the difficulty of discovering what we need to about this.

Getting back to exactly what my concern is, and it is not the effects of homosexuality on kids, or the possibility that homosexuality is a physcological problem which kids might be subjected to . . . as some have pointed out, nobody, whatever their sexual preference, is perfect.

My concern is sanctioning, no, actually equating same gender parents with the natural situation. You seem so determined to exhibit love and equality to all humanity that you are unable to analyze this problem objectively.

I am saying that a child has a complex physiology which includes various proportions of hormones, certain leanings in brain development, and particular susceptibilities to outside influences. The early life exposure to both mixes of those factors found in healthy males and females might be the optimum way to develop them in a balanced manner. I suspect this for two reasons. The first is my observation of children raised in homes where both the male and the female are strong (and healthy) influences.

Second, logically it makes sense to me too that the many billions of years of evolution it took to establish two-gender parenting is a lot more trustable than the latest social trend in creative parenting, especially when it might be for no other reason than to pump up the self esteem of some oppressed element of the population.

So I say again, let's not be too quick to mess with mother nature.

 

[Zero]

Liberal: Any person, study, fact, or point of view that does not agree with the farthest right-wing view.

Also, Sleeth, you have already used that 'it is unnatural' argument once, and it is just as wrong as is was yesterday as it is today. There is NO SINGLE STANDARD for parenting in the natural world.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule


Which appeared to be what the AAP did to support the legalization of homosexual marriage...



I didn't say I didn't want to work with gays, in fact, I said I would hire them.

You said "Now I'm having to justify scientific research- this is becoming reminiscent of the argument for god." Zero over here is denying religious groups are capable of scientific research, so why would I want to provide the studies when they will not be accepted? You also label religious research as biased.

I will sort through some pages and tomorrow present scientific studies to support my views.

Boy oh boy I'm looking forward to the 'scientific evidence'...woohoo!

 

[Andy]

That is nonsense, and you should know it. Anyone who isn't supporting you position must be actively biased towards the opposite? Come on! I don't think the AMA, APA, or AAP are powerless organizations. They are, in fact, nearly immune to questions of bias, because they are professional scientific organizations. If they say something is so, you can bet your money that they are simply following the evidence.

Being seen as pro-gay without openly saying that you are pro-gay is now fashionable, i have seen an Eddie Murphy live on stage video from 198? don't know the exact year but the jokes he was saying in that about homosexuals would be completely shunned upon now whereas back then it seems that it was fashionable to laugh openly about homosexuals, whereas now you are called homophobic for such things. What i am trying to say is that people would much rather be seen as pro-gay than anti-gay.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Andy
Being seen as pro-gay without openly saying that you are pro-gay is now fashionable, i have seen an Eddie Murphy live on stage video from 198? don't know the exact year but the jokes he was saying in that about homosexuals would be completely shunned upon now whereas back then it seems that it was fashionable to laugh openly about homosexuals, whereas now you are called homophobic for such things. What i am trying to say is that people would much rather be seen as pro-gay than anti-gay.

Wow...your proof is Eddie Murphy?!?