Gay Marriage. I am honestly confused

reply to post by kaylaluv


What does aging have to do with Gay Marriage? He pointed out that without procreation a species could not survive...and this is just a fact. Having read other posts from Neno, I know he is very hands on with his Grandchildren, so he is still helping to raise his children's kids. That's the circle of life, and someday when our parents get older we will help take care of them.

Unless a Gay couple finds an alternative way to have children, that cycle stops with the two of them, and the same could be said of hetro couples that don't have children, that doesn't make it "bad" it just is what it is.

The orgins of marriage has a lot to do with the paternity and well-being of Children, and that requires a man and a women to create. Why would Gay people even want thier unions to be defined by a term that is so closely associated with a traditional male /female pairing?

reply to post by MountainLaurel
I think proponents of the gay lifestyle, adoption, etc. will find any reason to argue.

Those of us that don't care (just as long as my freedoms remain intact) I think irritate the proponents. Because it isn't a cause celebre to us. Bring up child rearing and adoption brings back to he fore the whole issue of "is this an appropriate lifestyle to raise children in"?

Children grow up in homes that are broken, have single parents, have disabled siblings, have disabled parents, and turn out normal.

But the big difference between these homes and the homes of gay parents is that it is realised early on that the above listed homes aren't "normal".

With that basic framework and foundation in mind, a child can adjust.

When they (the children) are raised in a home with gay parents and are told that it is normal, then a conflict between the two "normals" arises.

Just my take on the issue.

Originally posted by MountainLaurel
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

What does aging have to do with Gay Marriage? He pointed out that without procreation a speces could not survive...and this is just a fact. Having read other posts from Neno, I know he is very hands on with his Grandchildren, so he is still helping to raise his children's kids. That's the circle of life, and someday when our parents get older we will help take care of them.

Unless a Gay couple finds an alternative way to have children, that cycle stops with the two of them, and the same could be said of hetro couples that don't have children, that doesn't make it "bad" it just is what it is.

The orgins of marriage has a lot to do with the paternity and well-being of Children, and that requires a man and a women to create. Why would Gay people even want thier unions to be defined by a term that is so closely associated with a traditional male /female pairing?

My point was, we can (and have been able to) find ways to cheat nature. So what if two gay men or two lesbians can't biologically procreate together? There are other alternatives to having children. Sperm donors, surrogates, adoption - some gays have children from previous hetero relationships. Heck, we may be able to artificially create an embryo from one person's cells! Who knows what the future holds.

Marriage has evolved. This is the next step. Soon, the term will not be so closely associated with the male/female pairing. Our children's children will probably assume that gay marriage has always been around. Actually, it won't even be "gay marriage" and "straight marriage". It'll just be -- marriage.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by MountainLaurel

 

I think proponents of the gay lifestyle, adoption, etc. will find any reason to argue.

Those of us that don't care (just as long as my freedoms remain intact) I think irritate the proponents. Because it isn't a cause celebre to us. Bring up child rearing and adoption brings back to he fore the whole issue of "is this an appropriate lifestyle to raise children in"?

Children grow up in homes that are broken, have single parents, have disabled siblings, have disabled parents, and turn out normal.

But the big difference between these homes and the homes of gay parents is that it is realised early on that the above listed homes aren't "normal".

With that basic framework and foundation in mind, a child can adjust.

When they (the children) are raised in a home with gay parents and are told that it is normal, then a conflict between the two "normals" arises.

Just my take on the issue.

That's B.S. Beezzer. Whatever home a child grows up in - to that child - it is normal, because that is all he has ever known. You are implying here that a child is better off in an abusive home with a heterosexual parent, than in a loving home with a gay parent. That's just wrong, on so many levels.

reply to post by kaylaluv
Bullspit.

Don't place words in my mouth!

I said that growing up in a home where there are gay parents and calling that NORMAL will cause a conflict due to heterosexual parents in a normal household.

If a child is raised in an abusive home and that is called "normal;" it raises the same conflicts.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Bullspit.

Don't place words in my mouth!

I said that growing up in a home where there are gay parents and calling that NORMAL will cause a conflict due to heterosexual parents in a normal household.

If a child is raised in an abusive home and that is called "normal;" it raises the same conflicts.

It doesn't matter what it's called. A child is better off in a stable, loving home, period - regardless of the sexual orientation of his parents.

True. But a child must be taught the differences between their home and others. As in homes where the parent(s) may be disabled or a sibling(s) is disabled.
Any deviation from the social "norm" will cause internal conflict if the child isn't taught the difference.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Oh for goodness sakes, barren straight couples use these methods too.

Of course they do, but in the context of this thread, we are discussing gay marriage.

So we should outlaw adoption?

No, but it ought to be a lot easier for adoptees to find their biological relatives. Disclosure ought to be a requirement, not only because of this, but even more so because of the potential for hereditary illnesses.

What's to stop an orphan from marrying their unknown sibling if they happen to have grown up in an orphanage and didn't know who their other siblings were? What if two siblings were separated at birth due to an accident where the parents died?

While those are possibilities, they are far less likely to occur because of the record keeping involved, and the fact that there is no intentional anonymity involved.

You could "what if" all day long - this is a ridiculous reason to be against gay marriage.

No more ridiculous than using child rearing as an excuse to justify gay marriage.

Originally posted by beezzer

True. But a child must be taught the differences between their home and others. As in homes where the parent(s) may be disabled or a sibling(s) is disabled.
Any deviation from the social "norm" will cause internal conflict if the child isn't taught the difference.

It doesn't matter what it's called. A child is better off in a stable, loving home, period - regardless of the sexual orientation of his parents.

edit on 28-7-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-7-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)

Taught the differences is not the same as being told their family "isn't normal". The term "isn't normal" sounds an awful lot like dysfunctional. If it's a stable, loving environment, no way is it dysfunctional. But to say to the kid, "some families have mommies and daddies, and some families have two daddies, and some families have two mommies", is just telling kids that there is diversity in families. Nothing wrong with diversity, as long as there is no family set-up that is more valued than another. In other words, the gay parents don't need to be telling the kid that their set-up is better than one mom and one dad. Nor do they need to tell them that the mom/dad set-up is better. It's just different.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by beezzer

True. But a child must be taught the differences between their home and others. As in homes where the parent(s) may be disabled or a sibling(s) is disabled.
Any deviation from the social "norm" will cause internal conflict if the child isn't taught the difference.

It doesn't matter what it's called. A child is better off in a stable, loving home, period - regardless of the sexual orientation of his parents.

edit on 28-7-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-7-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)

Taught the differences is not the same as being told their family "isn't normal". The term "isn't normal" sounds an awful lot like dysfunctional. If it's a stable, loving environment, no way is it dysfunctional. But to say to the kid, "some families have mommies and daddies, and some families have two daddies, and some families have two mommies", is just telling kids that there is diversity in families. Nothing wrong with diversity, as long as there is no family set-up that is more valued than another. In other words, the gay parents don't need to be telling the kid that their set-up is better than one mom and one dad. Nor do they need to tell them that the mom/dad set-up is better. It's just different.

This is an attempt at normalising a behaviour that isn't (biologically) normal. And again, don't put words in my mouth. Disfunctional has an entirely different connotation.
Growing up "different" isn't bad. It adjusts the child from a variety of social interactions.
I grew up in a different home. Having parents with different skin colour tends to create issues outside the home. Thankfully, my parents prepared me for future social conflicts.

Having parents that are the same gender, however, are really at the tail of the bell curve.

reply to post by kaylaluv


Well, I guess that's where you and I would fundamentally disagree, I think it's a bad idea to try and "cheat" nature......when the big "M" comes for me, I won't take hormones...i might seek out nutritional options, but hopefully mine will be as easy as my Mom's was, she had very few symptoms, and her Mom lived to be 92...lol...she claimed it was the grapefruit she ate everyday......

Other then adoption, I'm leery of childless couples "cheating" nature to have children. I also don't approve of GM foods, most modern medical practices / drugs, etc....I believe crap is being put in our food and water for the purpose of sending little girls into puberty early, and is making males more feminine.....I also believe there is an "agenda" at work...and I'm sorry, but part of that agenda is to convince people that Gay marriage is as "normal" as a traditional marriage between a man and a women.

I UNDERSTAND that Gay people want equal rights and the right to exist without feeling persecuted, and that is reasonable, I think it is unreasonable to try and convince the majority that nature is somehow "wrong" ...there's a lot of things about nature I wish weren't true, earthquakes, floods, big scarey spiders, etc.,,,,but that doesn't make them any less real or true.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Oh for goodness sakes, barren straight couples use these methods too.

Of course they do, but in the context of this thread, we are discussing gay marriage.

If it's good enough for straights, it's good enough for gays.

So we should outlaw adoption?

No, but it ought to be a lot easier for adoptees to find their biological relatives. Disclosure ought to be a requirement, not only because of this, but even more so because of the potential for hereditary illnesses.

That's a topic for a different thread.

What's to stop an orphan from marrying their unknown sibling if they happen to have grown up in an orphanage and didn't know who their other siblings were? What if two siblings were separated at birth due to an accident where the parents died?


While those are possibilities, they are far less likely to occur because of the record keeping involved, and the fact that there is no intentional anonymity involved.

True statement.

You could "what if" all day long - this is a ridiculous reason to be against gay marriage.

No more ridiculous than using child rearing as an excuse to justify gay marriage.

I've never used child rearing as an excuse to justify gay marriage. I think gays should be allowed to be married because they are tax-paying, law-abiding citizens of the state, and they want to be allowed the choice of marriage to their partner. It doesn't matter if they choose to raise children or not.

If a man and a woman, both Atheist, want to get married...no one has a problem with that. Not to mention the plethora of couples who marry outside of their religion, and usually only FAMILY, if anyone, has a problem with that.
No one protests when two Satanists want to get married...

So, why do you care if gay people get married? Straight people make marriage look like a joke anyway...what's the divorce rate now...? Between 40% and 60% of new marriages end in divorce...or something like that...

If gay couples could legally marry, there'd be a boom in the wedding industry with fashion, planning, and super fabulous over-the-top weddings booked at all the best venues.

And I bet there'd be a boom in divorces, too, so the lawyers would profit. Let gay people get married with everything that comes along with it...like divorce, for example.

What's the problem? Marriage hasn't had anything to do with religion at all in the past 20 or 30 years now. Hell, no one even honors their vows anymore. People cheat like there's no tomorrow, whether they're married or whatever.

Let gay people get married if they want to, because really, we have other battles to fight that are more important.

Worry about your own soul, not what you think MIGHT happen to the soul of others, because not even all straight couples who are married believe in any type of religion or God.

And I didn't even touch on all the open marriages and polygamy that's been going on with straight people forever...

Originally posted by MountainLaurel
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Well, I guess that's where you and I would fundamentally disagree, I think it's a bad idea to try and "cheat" nature......when the big "M" comes for me, I won't take hormones...i might seek out nutritional options, but hopefully mine will be as easy as my Mom's was, she had very few symptoms, and her Mom lived to be 92...lol...she claimed it was the grapefruit she ate everyday......

Other then adoption, I'm leery of childless couples "cheating" nature to have children. I also don't approve of GM foods, most modern medical practices / drugs, etc....I believe crap is being put in our food and water for the purpose of sending little girls into puberty early, and is making males more feminine.....I also believe there is an "agenda" at work...and I'm sorry, but part of that agenda is to convince people that Gay marriage is as "normal" as a traditional marriage between a man and a women.

I UNDERSTAND that Gay people want equal rights and the right to exist without feeling persecuted, and that is reasonable, I think it is unreasonable to try and convince the majority that nature is somehow "wrong" ...there's a lot of things about nature I wish weren't true, earthquakes, floods, big scarey spiders, etc.,,,,but that doesn't make them any less real or true.

Well, we have manipulated nature and our environment pretty much since we started walking on two feet. Agriculture, transportation, communication, etc., etc. I agree sometimes it can go too far, but it is what it is.

I stand by my prediction that same-sex marriage will be no big deal in the eyes of our future progeny, just like interracial marriage is no big deal now. Marriage should be about love and commitment, not about exclusion and prejudice. Let's let gays who love each other get the exact same benefits as straights. That includes the benefits of calling their commitment a marriage, if that's what makes them happy. It won't hurt you and it won't hurt me.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by beezzer

True. But a child must be taught the differences between their home and others. As in homes where the parent(s) may be disabled or a sibling(s) is disabled.
Any deviation from the social "norm" will cause internal conflict if the child isn't taught the difference.

It doesn't matter what it's called. A child is better off in a stable, loving home, period - regardless of the sexual orientation of his parents.

edit on 28-7-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-7-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)

Taught the differences is not the same as being told their family "isn't normal". The term "isn't normal" sounds an awful lot like dysfunctional. If it's a stable, loving environment, no way is it dysfunctional. But to say to the kid, "some families have mommies and daddies, and some families have two daddies, and some families have two mommies", is just telling kids that there is diversity in families. Nothing wrong with diversity, as long as there is no family set-up that is more valued than another. In other words, the gay parents don't need to be telling the kid that their set-up is better than one mom and one dad. Nor do they need to tell them that the mom/dad set-up is better. It's just different.

This is an attempt at normalising a behaviour that isn't (biologically) normal. And again, don't put words in my mouth. Disfunctional has an entirely different connotation.
Growing up "different" isn't bad. It adjusts the child from a variety of social interactions.
I grew up in a different home. Having parents with different skin colour tends to create issues outside the home. Thankfully, my parents prepared me for future social conflicts.

Having parents that are the same gender, however, are really at the tail of the bell curve.

"Different" is fine. Telling a kid, "our family isn't normal" is going to give him a complex, and make him feel bad about his family. Telling a kid 'our family is different from some other families", and explaining why it's different - is probably a good thing. What's most important, is making sure the kid knows that he is loved and valued. He'll get through any social conflicts just fine if he has support from his family, and good self-esteem.

By the way - a lot of gay families hang out with other gay families. So, kids of those families see that there are other families just like them. It helps to "normalize" things a little in the kid's mind.
Being able to have parents who are officially and legally married also helps.
.

reply to post by kaylaluv
What is your definition of normal?

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Oh for goodness sakes, barren straight couples use these methods too.

Of course they do, but in the context of this thread, we are discussing gay marriage.

If it's good enough for straights, it's good enough for gays.

I don't think it's good enough for either one, but the real victims are the kids who, through no fault or action of their own, are the ones who will go through life never knowing where their DNA came from, or what ramifications that may have.

So we should outlaw adoption?

No, but it ought to be a lot easier for adoptees to find their biological relatives. Disclosure ought to be a requirement, not only because of this, but even more so because of the potential for hereditary illnesses.

That's a topic for a different thread.

Then why did you bring it up in this one?

You could "what if" all day long - this is a ridiculous reason to be against gay marriage.

No more ridiculous than using child rearing as an excuse to justify gay marriage.

I've never used child rearing as an excuse to justify gay marriage. I think gays should be allowed to be married because they are tax-paying, law-abiding citizens of the state, and they want to be allowed the choice of marriage to their partner. It doesn't matter if they choose to raise children or not.

To be fair, you WERE defending the concept here, or this conversation would never have occurred. I think they should be allowed to be (civilly) married - if that's really what they want - simply by virtue of the concept of equal representation under the law, regardless of tax payer status. I wouldn't want my own equality in any other arena to be tied to taxpayer status, either.

I just don't understand the apparent need for State approbation of their personal relationships any more than I understand the need for State approbation of heterosexual relationships. I REALLY don't understand the apparent need for societal approval. Seriously - why do gays care what I think of their relationships any more than I care what they think of mine?

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

What is your definition of normal?

Here's an example:

You are left-handed , so you are different from people that are right-handed.

You're left-handed, so you're not normal.

Both statements are basically true, but the statement about not being normal has more judgement associated with it. One could say that there are more right-handed people than left-handed people, without using the "not normal" statement. My parents had this situation with my brother. They told him he was as good as anyone else - just different.

Why can't the gay parents tell their kid that their family is as good as anyone else's - just different?

reply to post by kaylaluv


True enough, we have manipulated nature...and someday the "etch a sketch" that is Mother nature will "shake" itself and erase the current picture. Who ever survives will pick up the pieces the best they can, lol, and probably head down the same dumb-ass path we have for 1000's of years....rise to a level of our own incompetence..

The elite "mutants" will eventually come up to the surface...offering thier technology in exchange for the "blood" of the healthy and strong that survived...and my guess is in this type of senario gay rights will be a mute point.

Meanwhile, we really do have bigger fish to fry, at the end of the day we all have our own definitions of what "marriage" means to us, and reguardless of how the "criminals"...umm I mean government, defines it matters not to me...I decided a long time ago to resist them as much as possible.......lol...the irony is one of the few times the will of the majority has been respected, it has to be about Gay marriage.......sigh......

Originally posted by nenothtu

No, but it ought to be a lot easier for adoptees to find their biological relatives. Disclosure ought to be a requirement, not only because of this, but even more so because of the potential for hereditary illnesses.

That's a topic for a different thread.

Then why did you bring it up in this one?

I DID NOT bring up the subject of whether the adoption process needs to be revised.

I just don't understand the apparent need for State approbation of their personal relationships any more than I understand the need for State approbation of heterosexual relationships. I REALLY don't understand the apparent need for societal approval. Seriously - why do gays care what I think of their relationships any more than I care what they think of mine?

I get that you don't get it. Doesn't matter. They get it. Gays don't care what you think, as long as you don't stand in their way of equality under the law.