The banning of homosexual marriage, and banning of Civil unions.

[wasteofo2]

As I'm sure most of you know, on Nov. 2, there were ballot initiatives in 11 states to define marriage as between a man and a woman exclusively, they all passed with considerable margins. In 8 of the 11 states there were further provision to essentially eliminate homosexual civil unions as a possibility.

Initially, I was so outraged Bush won, that I couldn't focus on any specific issue, but this is really horribly frightening.

I thought that this country was past it's legalized bigotry kick, but apparently not. It's just shoking that so many people feel it's so important that queer folk don't have any rights and don't get the same privileges they get when they marry someone.

I assume (and hope) that this is just a problem in rural America, where people rarely encounter anyone different from themselves, and have no reason/need to be tolerant, but I really don't know.

Can anyone here even try to offer an explanation as to why this is a good thing, or can you all realize that this is possibly THE most dispicable thing legally going on in America now.

To think, barely 30 years ago, interracial marriage was illegal. All those people from 30 years ago must've just shifted their energies or something.

 

[Smurf]

I talked to a christian girl in my school about this and she said that half of her didn't support it because it was their right, and as far as them signing a peace of paper to say they're married she didn't have a problem. But if it's a priest giving a blessing to them then she wouldn't support that because its blasphemy.

But that's an urban Canadian opinion, the rural american one is probably much stupider

 

[russ_watters]

It's just shoking that so many people feel it's so important that queer folk don't have any rights and don't get the same privileges they get when they marry someone.

They do get the same rights I do - they can't marry someone of the same sex and neither can I.

Can anyone here even try to offer an explanation as to why this is a good thing...

Not good or bad, but an explanation of why it happened: Like it or not, there are two different types of marriage - the religious one and the legal one. The religious one is defined by the various churches. The legal one needs a definition in law.

 

[Kerrie]

The religious one is defined by the various churches. The legal one needs a definition in law.

Being married by a priest but not receiving a marriage license does not entitle a person to the state benefits and laws that a couple receives if they are married by a justice of the peace. The gay folks are ultimately after the benefits not just the title of spouse. You have gay couples who have been together longer then many married couples who cannot make a decision for their spouse should they require to have a plug pulled (for example), but their parent (whom they have bad relations with for example) can make that decison, but does not know ultimately what they would want. Multnomah County in Oregon (where I live and the heart of all of those couples legally married) allowed civil unions prior to the gay marriage act being banned. In a way they may have it worse now then before all of the commotion.

America is quite hypocritical though...we ban a gay marriage, but we have 1-800-divorce or do it yourself divorce. Among heterosexual couples, the divorce rate is over 50%. If we are going to monitor morality, this is an area that needs to be addressed just as well.

 

[vanesch]

Can anyone here even try to offer an explanation as to why this is a good thing, or can you all realize that this is possibly THE most dispicable thing legally going on in America now.

Well, there's quite some discussion going on about that in several European countries. As far as I know, gay marriage is legal in Belgium (recently). France, for instance, hesitates, but has created a legal solution in that gay couples can subscribe to a contract which gives them rights (if one of them dies and so on) which are very similar to those of a married hetero couple.

Personally, I think there are 2 issues. I think that gay couples should have a kind of union contract such as a marriage ; but whether we have to call that "marriage" or something else doesn't really matter. I'm not opposed to calling it "marriage" but I have to say that it makes me smile a bit. Who's the bride and who's the groom and so on ? I think a lot of trouble can be spared if they have the same rights, but we give the thing another name.
The other issue, however, is a bit more involved, and concerns the adoption of children. I really don't know if that's a good idea. I don't say this on "moral" grounds or anything, it is just that I don't know if it is a good thing for the psychological development of a child to be raised by two daddies.
It is probably better to have two daddies than no daddy at all, but nevertheless, I have this gut feeling that one should be careful here.

 

[humanino]

I have this gut feeling that one should be careful here.

I disagree. I know of more than one homosexual couple who could very well raise a kid, at least much better than many irresponsible parents out there.

What is wrong with the popular american opinions, I wish I knew. I thought television was very careful in pretending all minorities have equal rights, including the homosexual community. I always found it funny, because I think sodomy is still forbidden in some states How can one pretend to respect a community and forbid sexual act for them !?

 

[vanesch]

I disagree. I know of more than one homosexual couple who could very well raise a kid, at least much better than many irresponsible parents out there.

I wasn't saying that homosexual couples can't be good and responsible parents. I wonder what it does to the child, however. I think I would have found it quite disturbing not to have a mother and a father.

because I think sodomy is still forbidden in some states

:rofl: :rofl:

I heard that in the white house, fellation is forbidden ? :tongue: :tongue:

 

[Gokul43201]

The last state to have anti-sodomy laws was Texas which was ordered to shove it, a couple of years ago. So, I don't believe there are now any states in the US with anti-sodomy laws.

Now for fellatio in the White House, however ...

 

[PerennialII]

I wonder what it does to the child, however. I think I would have found it quite disturbing not to have a mother and a father.

Parents aren't required anything ... anyone who pretty much wants can have a kid and raise him/her in any way they like (the letter of law is not a parental guidebook, nor does it lead to explicitly good parenting). So I can't see a reason why same sex couples could not raise kids and as good of a job in it as anyone else ?

 

[Les Sleeth]

I wasn't saying that homosexual couples can't be good and responsible parents. I wonder what it does to the child, however. I think I would have found it quite disturbing not to have a mother and a father

My reservations about gay "marriage" are the same. To me an important part of what marriage represents is the commitment to maintain a nurturing home for raising children. But what constitutes the ideal nurturing environment for a child? Well, I think children are taught something, much of it viscerally, by having a balance of male and female in the house. I don't think two males or two females provide that; and it isn’t an indictment of, or prejudice against, homosexuality to recognize that if it’s true.

Right now of course, there are plenty of homes without both parents present. There are orphans without anyone to care about them. Around here where I live (where there’s a large gay/lesbian population) I often see formerly married people who are now involved in a homosexual relationship and who have brought the children with them. These are situations where one realizes one does the best one can under the circumstances.

But if marriage is legal recognition and benefits for those who will raise children, whether from sex or adoption, then I hope it continues to stand for what we ideally would like the home environment to be.

That leaves the possibility for civil union, and I hope we allow it for homosexual couples who want to commit. It is good for society to have people working as a team, not having multiple sex partners, and feeling accepted by and part of the community. I wouldn’t even mind if heterosexual couples were only legally granted “civil union” status until they had children.

 

[adrenaline]

While no church could ever be ordered to recognize or preform same sex marriages, we should not block a courthouse marriage between two consenting adults.

I actually find the issue refreshing (although not the most important issue on my politcal agenda) as we are in a time when marriage is rapidly losing its allure for many hetrosexuals, this deep desire of so many gays to commit themselves to marriage, with all its rewards and sacrafices, is quite promising. (In fact, Denmark which has sanctioned gay marriages for over 10 years show that gay marriages have 1/5 the divorce rate of heterosexual marriages) and this, in my opinion, contributes to some societal stability.

But that's just my two cents.


But let's face it, much of the history of marriage involves marriage as a strictly utilitarian tool, a social and economic contract between individuals. It was a means to ally political bases or dole out and distribute wealth and land etc. etc. It wasn't until recently that we interjected love and sancitity into it. Thus, this issue of gay marriage is just trying to get back to the roots of marriage! It is a means by which a gay couple can receive all the legal and economic benefits that a heterosexual couple enjoys as its contract with society!

 

[Evo]

While no church could ever be ordered to recognize or preform same sex marriages, we should not block a courthouse marriage between two consenting adults.

I actually find the issue refreshing (although not the most important issue on my politcal agenda) as we are in a time when marriage is rapidly losing its allure for many hetrosexuals, this deep desire of so many gays to commit themselves to marriage, with all its rewards and sacrafices, is quite promising. (In fact, Denmark which has sanctioned gay marriages for over 10 years show that gay marriages have 1/5 the divorce rate of heterosexual marriages) and this, in my opinion, contributes to some societal stability.

But that's just my two cents.


But let's face it, much of the history of marriage involves marriage as a strictly utilitarian tool, a social and economic contract between individuals. It was a means to ally political bases or dole out and distribute wealth and land etc. etc. It wasn't until recently that we interjected love and sancitity into it. Thus, this issue of gay marriage is just trying to get back to the roots of marriage! It is a means by which a gay couple can receive all the legal and economic benefits that a heterosexual couple enjoys as its contract with society!

Ditto. My thoughts exactly.

My former boss was gay, but had chidlren from a former heterosexual marriage. He won legal custody of his three kids because he was a better parent than the mother and the kids have been raised by him and his partner for the last 15 years. These kids turned out great. I've been to their home many times over the last 13 years and I'd have let them raise my kids if anything happened to me.

 

[wasteofo2]

The other issue, however, is a bit more involved, and concerns the adoption of children. I really don't know if that's a good idea. I don't say this on "moral" grounds or anything, it is just that I don't know if it is a good thing for the psychological development of a child to be raised by two daddies.
It is probably better to have two daddies than no daddy at all, but nevertheless, I have this gut feeling that one should be careful here.

I know a girl who has 2 fathers, you'd never know she had two fathers, is never mocked for it, and acts just as normal as any teenage girl.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I know a girl who has 2 fathers, you'd never know she had two fathers, is never mocked for it, and acts just as normal as any teenage girl.

Citing too limited of a sampling isn't a good argument. What we really need are studies. I admit my own opinion is intuitive, plus how much I value having had both a female and a male present throughout my childhood. I can most definitely see in myself the results of early and constant male and female influences in the home.

I also have to add that we liberal types who want to stick up for the abused -- gay and lesbian fellow human beings in this case -- should not let sentimentality get in the way off thinking about this issue clearly. Personally, my ONLY concern is the child-rearing thing, and I don't think we should rush ahead with that before we understand all the consequences.

 

[adrenaline]

http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/RP30.html

A number of concerns have been raised about the potential negative effects of being raised in a gay or lesbian-headed family. These include the child's confusion in terms of gender identity; problems in personal development and social relationships; harm resulting from family disruption (on the assumption that gay and lesbian relationships are more short lived than heterosexual relationships); and fear of sexual molestation by their gay or lesbian parents (Patterson 1992). The overall mental health of lesbian mothers compared with that of heterosexual mothers has also been raised as an issue (Patterson 2002: 322). Another anxiety is that children might be teased and ostracised by their peers, and consequently show difficulties in social and emotional development.

A literature is accumulating that suggests that children raised by gays or lesbians do not show poor adjustment when compared with other children (Golombok, Spencer and Rutter 1983; Green, Mandel, Hotvedt and Smith 1986; Patterson 1992, 2000). Further, no differences have been found when lesbian and heterosexual mothers are compared on measures of self-concept, happiness, overall adjustment, psychiatric status, parenting style and general parenting ability (for a comprehensive review of the research on children in gay and lesbian households see Patterson 2002, 2000; see also Golombok 1999: 440; Allen and Burrell 1996). Studies based on fathers' reports of their own behaviour suggest that gay fathers may be more likely than their heterosexual counterparts to exhibit authoritative patterns of parenting behaviour (Patterson 2002: 324).

However, much of the available research has involved small, unrepresentative samples that are predominantly well educated, middle class and American (Patterson 2002). The degree to which results reflect sampling biases of the research, and their applicability in the Australian context, are thus difficult to evaluate.

 

[Les Sleeth]

http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/RP30.html

Well, I've had this debate before with Zero when he was a mentor here, and was made to feel like I was homophobic (not that you are doing any such thing . . . it just makes me hesitate to defend my views). If you knew me you'd know I am about as sexually liberated as a person gets . So what I have to say has nothing to do with thinking anything is "morally" wrong with homosexuality (I don't even think sex itself is a moral issue, and I am not religious either).

The limited amount of studies done don't tell us yet what we need to know; and I have to say that I also suspect some of the research is let's say "sympathetic." The main concern I have is for infants through age 5. Although there isn't enough information to evaluate long-term effects, there are people nonetheless saying "go ahead anyway" out of the desire to make gays and lesbians feel accepted. A noble gesture, but is it what's best?

The marriage situation is in pretty bad shape, that's for sure, with lots of single parents trying to work and raise the kids alone. Even couples that stay together might dislike each other and fight all the time, or ignore or mistreat their children, and so fail to provide a nurturing home life. With things such a mess, how much difference can it make even if same-sex child rearing turns out not to be what is best for children?

I suppose I am conservative in this regard, and hope that instead of letting the family ideal drift whatever way the wind blows it, that we take a clue from the fact that nature itself spent millions of years creating the male-female basis of child rearing. Maybe as we increase our understanding of human psychology, and make sure the general population is taught that, relationships will improve to the point that we can better practice what nature seems to have established.

But if after we do have suffiecient evidence it turns out that same sex parenting makes no difference to the development of the child, then my concern will disappear.

 

[vanesch]

Citing too limited of a sampling isn't a good argument. What we really need are studies. I admit my own opinion is intuitive, plus how much I value having had both a female and a male present throughout my childhood. I can most definitely see in myself the results of early and constant male and female influences in the home.

I also have to add that we liberal types who want to stick up for the abused -- gay and lesbian fellow human beings in this case -- should not let sentimentality get in the way off thinking about this issue clearly. Personally, my ONLY concern is the child-rearing thing, and I don't think we should rush ahead with that before we understand all the consequences.

You express exactly my thoughts

 

[Gokul43201]

The limited amount of studies done don't tell us yet what we need to know; and I have to say that I also suspect some of the research is let's say "sympathetic." The main concern I have is for infants through age 5. Although there isn't enough information to evaluate long-term effects, there are people nonetheless saying "go ahead anyway" out of the desire to make gays and lesbians feel accepted. A noble gesture, but is it what's best?

Studies on what ? What consequences ? How can you have studies or consequences of a thing that is not allowed to happen ? Hope some other "reckless" culture allows it, so they can be studied ?

Not too many (four ?) decades ago, law-makers were concerned about the long term effects on young children who were born of a couple having one white parent, and one black. While the concern for the children of interracial marriage is not misplaced, would that have been sufficient reason to stop a black man from marrying a white woman ? What do you think, Les ?

On a more mainstream (the above concern is too liberal and hardly the popular concern) note, though : "If you can marry blacks, what next...will you also ask to marry your dog ?" is simply what we hear now for gay-marriage. And it's pathetic ! A 1991 poll showed that 42% of Americans disapproved of interracial marriage !

Anyway, I too have concerns about the adoption issue...I'm still undecided on that. But that is not the only concern of the law-makers or the majority of the population. 'Cause if that were the only concern, we would maybe ban that alone. The concern is that you are rewarding sinners who should be punished (on the extreme side) and that you are denigrating the institution of marriage (by the rest).

And speaking of studies...since there are more "reckless" cultures, we fortunately, do have studies. In Denmark, where gay marriage has been legal since the early nineties, the divorce rate among "traditional" marriages is about 5 times as high as among same-sex marriages. I, however, have not seen any studies (yet) on same-sex adoption.

(PS : Les, I don't you to feel like I'm calling you homophobic...I share much the same concerns that you do)

 

[BobG]

Marriage is primarily intended on defining families in society. Like many pieces of our society, it winds up combining a few separate issues into one (actually, not only is combining several issues into one 'piece' efficient, but it ties all the separate 'pieces' closer together so the society's structure is less likely to fall apart).

One big part of marriage has to do with raising kids. Whether gay couples are allowed to adopt kids is something to be decided separately from the other aspects of marriage. While it may not be the 'ideal' arrangement for raising families, it would be hard to say it would be worse in practice. There's so many variations from the ideal that the whole idea that a heterosexual couple can raise a family more effectively may be flawed. I think the idea that heterosexual couples must be better at raising families may be based more on aesthetics than practical examples (i.e. - if it takes a heterosexual couple to conceive a child, then it must logically follow that a heterosexual couple can also raise kids better - what fiend would design a system where the homosexual couples were better at child raising?).

The child-rearing role of marriage and the appropriateness of extending those roles to gay couples is certainly debatable - with no clear cut best answer at this time.

A second part of marriage deals with how one handles his possessions, material wealth, etc and who makes decisions on your behalf if you're incapable of making those decisions yourself. It's no one else's business how you decide to resolve those kinds of issues.

The law should provide a mechanism for you to legally resolve those issues any way you see fit.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Studies on what ? What consequences ? How can you have studies or consequences of a thing that is not allowed to happen ? Hope some other "reckless" culture allows it, so they can be studied ?

Not too many (four ?) decades ago, law-makers were concerned about the long term effects on young children who were born of a couple having one white parent, and one black. While the concern for the children of interracial marriage is not misplaced, would that have been sufficient reason to stop a black man from marrying a white woman ? What do you think, Les ?

On a more mainstream (the above concern is too liberal and hardly the popular concern) note, though : "If you can marry blacks, what next...will you also ask to marry your dog ?" is simply what we hear now for gay-marriage. And it's pathetic ! A 1991 poll showed that 42% of Americans disapproved of interracial marriage !

Anyway, I too have concerns about the adoption issue...I'm still undecided on that. But that is not the only concern of the law-makers or the majority of the population. 'Cause if that were the only concern, we would maybe ban that alone. The concern is that you are rewarding sinners who should be punished (on the extreme side) and that you are denigrating the institution of marriage (by the rest).

And speaking of studies...since there are more "reckless" cultures, we fortunately, do have studies. In Denmark, where gay marriage has been legal since the early nineties, the divorce rate among "traditional" marriages is about 5 times as high as among same-sex marriages. I, however, have not seen any studies (yet) on same-sex adoption.

(PS : Les, I don't you to feel like I'm calling you homophobic...I share much the same concerns that you do)

I don't sense you are calling me homophobic. I think you are sticking up for a group that's endured a lot of hell for no good reason. That makes it almost impossible to criticize without appearing to deepen wounds.

I don't think the racial example is relevant, not at least to my point. Nor are all the many things wrong with society and relationships. I am only talking about the psychological balance provided by the early influence of two genders, and our willingness now, because of all the social-interpersonal problems in the world, to give up on the ideal of a child being entitled to a mother and a father. As I said, I am very aware of that dual influence in me, and appreciate that I was able to experience and learn from it.

 

[Political Prodigy]

People fear what is different from them. You can find it everywhere.
Anti semitism
Racism (against African Americans)
after september eleventh many muslims now deal with racism towards them.

It really is sad. The only thing I am going to say on the topic now is that maybe we should take action against the anti semitism and racism that still exists today. African Americans and Jewish people have been dealing with discrimination for thousands of years. While many people are against gay marriage and some people may disrespect them, I feel it is important to deal with the more pressing matters, not to say that they do not matter. It just "boggles my mind" to think of how long many africans and jewish people have dealt with discrimination and now all of a sudden there is a gay rights movement and they are near the top of the list of matters to be dealt with.

On the topic of gay marriage, I am undecided. Yes I think everyone should be free to marry who they wish, and I believe "all man were created equal." However, it is nearly impossible to have a free and equal society. For example communism can be said to give equality to all. A democracy/ capitalist system gives freedom. But can you ever truly have both?

 

[Les Sleeth]

I think the idea that heterosexual couples must be better at raising families may be based more on aesthetics than practical examples (i.e. - if it takes a heterosexual couple to conceive a child, then it must logically follow that a heterosexual couple can also raise kids better - what fiend would design a system where the homosexual couples were better at child raising?).

Hmmmmm. If we were to debate this in biology, strictly from an evolution point of view, then I think we'd hear the opinion that nature selected the two gender approach to child rearing. It doesn't have to be that way you know. It could have been that one human could create an offspring; or two humans but of the same gender. Should we be so quick to write off those millions of years of evolution as "aesthetics," or to replace it with theories of child-rearing that are barely decades old? Why not err on the side of caution?

It is difficult to be objective, no matter what side one is on. The homophobes and the sympathetic both have problems setting aside bias in order to look at what is best for the children.

 

[Integral]

They do get the same rights I do - they can't marry someone of the same sex and neither can I.

So much for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

Does this mean that my only rights are to be just like you? How can you possibly misinterpret the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution so badly? Perhaps we should simply start a fire with those outdated and ignored documents. I have little hope that personal freedoms (other then the freedom to be just like Russ Waters!) will be held important by the current adminstration. I see this as a distressing invasion of fundamental human rights. Why does the sex of the partners of a committed relationship make any difference to the state?

I am sorry Russ that you could possibly approve of this outcome.

As for the ability to raise kids, keep in mind that virtually all homosexuals are the product of heterosexual relationships. Really we know absolutely NOTHING about what makes a good parent. A good parent is something that that just happens , they are not made in shool or church or even by good parents. I do not think that there is ANY ONE that knows why or how to tell the difference, until the kids become adults.

Hopefully, some one will push this issue to the supreme court, where one would hope, that the fundamental principles this nation was founded on, will win out in the end.



Welcome to the Kalahari,

Land of the Bushmen.


I apologize to the true Bushmen of the Kalahari for this unfavorable comparison.

 

[russ_watters]

I am sorry Russ that you could possibly approve of this outcome.

I didn't say if I approve or disapprove, Integral - I'm actually fairly ambivalent about the issue. The reason I said the thing you objected to is simply to highight the rhetoric and point out that wherever the line is drawn, a line does have to be drawn, and someone will end up on a side they don't like. There are, and must be, constraints on who can marry who and that cannot be construed to mean that the laws are different for one person than another.

 

[Integral]

There are, and must be, constraints on who can marry who and that cannot be construed to mean that the laws are different for one person than another.

Yep, marriage is a committed relationship between two consenting HUMANS. Isn't that a pretty well defined line?

 

[Hurkyl]

Yep, marriage is a committed relationship between two consenting HUMANS. Isn't that a pretty well defined line?

Out of curiousity, when did the definition change from "man and woman" to "humans"? I find it ridiculous that homosexuals are seeking legal and financial benefits through redefinition of terms, rather than just seeking those benefits directly.

(And yes, I am also annoyed that the word "gay" has been commandeered to refer to a homosexual)

 

[Les Sleeth]

Yep, marriage is a committed relationship between two consenting HUMANS. Isn't that a pretty well defined line?

Although you say we "know absolutely NOTHING about what makes a good parent," it isn't true at all. We have accumulated a great deal of information about that. Keeping in mind that I have absolutely no opposition to humans of any gender or other persuasion committing to a permanent and exclusive relationship, I'd be interested in knowing your thoughts about the value of having both male and female parents involved a child's development as the ideal.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Out of curiousity, when did the definition change from "man and woman" to "humans"? I find it ridiculous that homosexuals are seeking legal and financial benefits through redefinition of terms, rather than just seeking those benefits directly.

(And yes, I am also annoyed that the word "gay" has been commandeered to refer to a homosexual)

Now THAT I don't understand. Do you think it is worthwhile to encourage people to live in a committed relationship over having multiple sex partners? Is it best for society for gays/lesbians to see themselves as being acceptable to the community and so feel encouraged to participate in it?

Think about it practically. Homosexuality, even if it is a choice, is not a choice the vast majority who feel it can do anything about; so one way or another it is not a choice. Also, we have to make certain that our attitudes are not being influenced by our personal revulsion of homosexuality (or the other side, sentimentality for the oppressed).

In every other case it has proven best to accept, absorb, and include those we formerly discriminated against. But (getting back to my concern) being non-judgemental about homosexual behavior is an entirely different issue from deciding if same sex parents are ideal for child rearing.

 

[bross7]

I think one of the most interesting things is how people who have not grown up with homosexual parentage say "Well I wouldn't like that very much".
Unless you specifically grew up in that type of home, how do you know?

 

[Dayle Record]

Bigots worry that the children raised by gay people, won't be bigoted enough, toward their parents sexual orientation. Bigots worry that children of homosexuals might be encouraged to be gay, and that is some strange projection from the bigot side of the fence. Bigots also worry that they will have to show their children how bigoted they are, by forbidding their children to associate with the children of gay people. Bigots are discomfited by the whole thing, so they attempt to make it go away. They try to project that their sacred marriages, that end in divorce are somehow less sacred because, gays can be married too.

Do heterosexual parents stand around encouraging their children to practice heterosexuality, by acting out sexually in front of their children? Is it the assumption of bigots, that gay people are also child molesters?

I think that once gay people marry and make families and move into neighborhoods, then bigots are forced to confront their bigotry. Therefore this can't happen.

Of course there is the Sodom and Gomorrah affect, in which people fear that God will come back all of a sudden, and wreak his fury on the Sodomites, Gomorrans, San Franciscans, and New Yorkers, if the righteous don't wreak his fury on gays, themselves, before he gets here. Yeah, like we need this mindset making legislation, or revising our splendid constitution.

 

[Hurkyl]

Now THAT I don't understand.

I think that's because you're interpreting my response as being to an issue to which it wasn't intended.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Bigots worry that the children raised by gay people, won't be bigoted enough, toward their parents sexual orientation. Bigots worry that children of homosexuals might be encouraged to be gay, and that is some strange projection from the bigot side of the fence. Bigots also worry that they will have to show their children how bigoted they are, by forbidding their children to associate with the children of gay people. Bigots are discomfited by the whole thing, so they attempt to make it go away. They try to project that their sacred marriages, that end in divorce are somehow less sacred because, gays can be married too.

Since I am the one mainly expressing concern for the upbringing of children, I have to ask: Do you think I've expressed the slightest bigoted sentiment?

 

[Les Sleeth]

I think that's because you're interpreting my response as being to an issue to which it wasn't intended.

Okay. I know it is quite easy to misinterpret when one is trading ideas on a forum.

 

[Gokul43201]

Hmmmmm. If we were to debate this in biology, strictly from an evolution point of view, then I think we'd hear the opinion that nature selected the two gender approach to child rearing. It doesn't have to be that way you know. It could have been that one human could create an offspring; or two humans but of the same gender.

"nature selected the two gender approach to child rearing"

Wait a minute. Don't you mean child-bearing ? At least your counter-examples only talk of child-bearing. The only biological advantage for child rearing that I can think of is the development of mammary glands (and this is not restricted to females, though the hormonal stimulus to lactation is natural for female humans). In short, I don't see evidence of any evolutionary trend favoring child rearing by a mother and father. There may well be many...I'm just not aware of them, and your counter-examples were not germane to child rearing, as such.

On the other hand, there does seem to be a kind of stability and utility to having and promoting monogamous relationships. Polygamous societies tend to be more backward and repressed.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I think one of the most interesting things is how people who have not grown up with homosexual parentage say "Well I wouldn't like that very much".
Unless you specifically grew up in that type of home, how do you know?

That isn't a very good argument. Back in the '70's when I was in college and newly married, I had a class with an older woman who was in an "open marriage." She spent a lot of time trying to convince me about the advantages of open marriage, and that I should try it. Now, do you say I had no basis for evaluating her proposal because I'd never tried it?

I have lived a few decades, I was raised by parents, I do live in the midst of very large gay and lesbian communities, I have studied psychology, I do notice things, I don't detect in myself any prejudice against homosexuality . . . I don't say I know the truth about this, but I do say that our children are important and that we should be careful.