Gay Marriage

[SirRumpole]

But again Tink, what doe this have to do with Gay marriage?

Slice by slice. "You have recognised our rights to marry, now recognise our 'rights' to have children".

 

[Value Collector]

There is no point in answering your question because you do not offer a choice that could exist in reality. No one has the option to choose whether or not they exist and under what conditions.

.

But by banning gays from becoming biological parents to their own children, you are in fact making that decision for them, You are saying you would rather these children don't exist, than them live a life where they had gay parents.

The question that those of us who do exist have to decide is whether gay parenting provides any advantage, or at least no disadvantage to children that heterosexual parenting, all else being equal gives.

Do you understand that the biological children of gay parents never had the option of hetero parents to begin with. It's not like if you ban gay parenting, then those children will just pop out of a heterosexual womb somewhere else.

That's the whole point of my question.

 

[Value Collector]

Slice by slice. "You have recognised our rights to marry, now recognise our 'rights' to have children".

that's called the slippery slope logical fallacy bud, each topic is a separate debate.

 

[SirRumpole]

Do you understand that the biological children of gay parents never had the option of hetero parents to begin with. It's not like if you ban gay parenting, then those children will just pop out of a heterosexual womb somewhere else.

That's the whole point of my question.

So what if some people never exist ? As I said before, billions of sperm are never fertilised and therefore never "exist" as living individuals. Should we hold memorial services for them all ?

What is important is the quality of life when people are actually given the chance of life. Gay parenting does not give the proper male/female balance and role models that the traditional form does, among other psychological side effects.

Children raised by gay parents are being disadvantaged in comparison to those of heterosexual parents.

 

[SirRumpole]

that's called the slippery slope logical fallacy bud, each topic is a separate debate.

Call it what you like, it's a representation of reality.

 

[Value Collector]

Call it what you like, it's a representation of reality.

everything would be banned if we allowed slippery slope arguments.

I mean we should probably ban hetero marriage, because if we allow hetero marriage then gays want marriage, and if we allow that, then people will want to marry dogs etc.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

 

[SirRumpole]

everything would be banned if we allowed slippery slope arguments.

I mean we should probably ban hetero marriage, because if we allow hetero marriage then gays want marriage, and if we allow that, then people will want to marry dogs etc.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

Well, if we allow gay marriage on the condition that gays are banned from raising children, that's fine by me.

How about you ?

 

[Value Collector]

So what if some people never exist ? As I said before, billions of sperm are never fertilised and therefore never "exist" as living individuals. Should we hold memorial services for them all ?

.

I am fine with people never existing, offcourse it's normal that lots won't, I am here instead of a trillion others.

However, you are making a judgement, taking away the chance of a whole subgroup of potential people, because you feel only those with hetero parents will enjoy life.

What is important is the quality of life when people are actually given the chance of life

There is nothing that says that someone who is born to gay parents can't have a quality life, so why deny their chance. you keep saying we should deny them the chance because hetero couples are better, but even if that were true that person your denying doesn't have that as an option.


.

Gay parenting does not give the proper male/female balance and role models that the traditional form does, among other psychological side effects

.

I would like to see the studies that say that, or are you just making that up?

Children raised by gay parents are being disadvantaged in comparison to those of heterosexual parents

I don't believe they are, but even if there was a slight disadvantage, it would pale in comparison against all the other possible advantages and disadvantages children are born into.

You can not say every child born into a gay relationship is worse off than every straight relationship child.

 

[Value Collector]

Well, if we allow gay marriage on the condition that gays are banned from raising children, that's fine by me.

How about you ?

I think each topic deserves a rational separate debate.

 

[SirRumpole]

I would like to see the studies that say that, or are you just making that up?

You really need a study to work out that a child raised by two lesbians does not have a male role model parent ?

 

[Value Collector]

You really need a study to work out that a child raised by two lesbians does not have a male role model parent ?

You need a study that would show that a child raised without a male role model is sufficiently disadvantaged to warrant us banning that child from having a chance at life.

Lots of men have been raised by females, I don't think many of them regret that they were born because of that. But anyway, generally kids have more male role models around than just their father.

 

[SirRumpole]

But anyway, generally kids have more male role models around than just their father.

You mean like Shane Warne and Buddy Franklin ?

 

[Value Collector]

You mean like Shane Warne and Buddy Franklin ?

Grand fathers, uncles, cousins, neighbors, family friends, sports coaches, school teachers, members of other social groups, the list really does go on. who says every biological father is a positive role model anyway?

 

[SirRumpole]

Grand fathers, uncles, cousins, neighbors, family friends, sports coaches, school teachers, members of other social groups, the list really does go on. who says every biological father is a positive role model anyway?

Who says a homosexual father/mother is a positive role model anyway ?

And you seem to suggest that people on the periphery of ones family are just as effective role models than a person the child sees most of the time.

You are being PC for the sake of it. If you believe what you say then you think it should be fine to give up your children to be raised by sports coaches while you have nothing further to do with them. Would you really do that ?

 

[Value Collector]

Who says a homosexual father/mother is a positive role model anyway ?

?

Not me, your the one trying to define who we can and can't accept, and what sort of role models children need.

I am happy to say that I have no reason to believe two mothers or two fathers can not raise well rounded children.

And you seem to suggest that people on the periphery of ones family are just as effective role models than a person the child sees most of the time.

Who knows every situation is different,

You are being PC for the sake of it. If you believe what you say then you think it should be fine to give up your children to be raised by sports coaches while you have nothing further to do with them. Would you really do that

Your just being silly there.

your logical fallacy is - https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

 

[SirRumpole]

And I suppose its not a straw man to demand I choose between non-existence and gay parents ?

 

[luutzu]

Has it gotten to "save the children"?

These kids with gay parents doesn't seem to need any help.

 

[SirRumpole]

Has it gotten to "save the children"?

These kids with gay parents doesn't seem to need any help.

I haven't watched it but you can bet that the PC brigade won't put up anything that harms their cause.

And at the age those kids are, they wouldn't know any different anyway.

 

[Value Collector]

And I suppose its not a straw man to demand I choose between non-existence and gay parents ?

no it's not a straw man.

You were making the point that we shouldn't allow the possibility that these kids exist because their parents are gay. I was simply trying to get you to ask yourself if you were in that position which you would prefer, mandatory non existence or a chance to live, but with gay parents.

 

[luutzu]

I think the trap here is thinking that somehow we have been moving to an enlightenment, when I fact we should probably look behind us and see what we have left behind or brought along with us. Australia was not the cultural backwater many pointy heads would have us believe and we have consistently been a benefactor nation to the poor surrounding us, a net +ve migration country, shown strong restraint in putting up with waves of old world cultures with their pagan hoodoos, even allowing them to create ghetto enclaves to hide in and set up "communities" (which I totally do not subscribe to).

Back a few generations we cared about who, what and where, but it seems these days we are more concerned about not getting involved. We have been carefully crafted to agree to anything that was customarily a taboo as out moded thinking. We have even have laws to force us to agree. What is happening is an extension of the way we sit idly by and allow the Catholic Church manage priests into pedophilia, which male on male is homosexuality, which is ironically anti Christian, no two ways about it.

No one is going to stop some men sticking their penis into another man's effluent pipe, but I don't see how that translates to special privileges because of it. Society is a majority thing and I doubt very much society agrees being verballed by a vocal minority. IMO the entertainment industry and social media has much to blame for the desensitisation of the latest generations to accepted no go zones; the few have a disproportionately big voice . Even discussion boards have become places where people no longer speak frankly and freely, but are now vehicles for individuals to get all hurt and bent out of shape because someone doesn't agree with them and their push agenda (usually looking for validation of their insecure conscience).

There is no doubt in the near future children will be gratuitously, but legally conceived for the pleasure of homosexuals wanting to role play mum and dad. And with it will be a plethora of movies and magazine propaganda to wash our concerns away. Even homosexuals who think the gay marriage and gay parenting thing is a sham will saddle up to the tribe of bothers and sisters because they must.

Because others repetitively asserts they agree with things that go against one's instinct doesn't make that instinct wrong, if anything it galvanises one's resolve. I am steadfast in believing marriage is an invention patented for hetrosexual couples (likely to earn a few shillings for the friars and monks) and it should not be tinkered with. Personally I don't think people should marry unless they intend to start a family, but that's my view. I have major problems with allowing women to become breeding heifers and cows for the pleasure of others ; I have a major problem with IVF outside of couples who would otherwise be fertile if not for injury; I have major concerns genetically manipulating conception and; I have really gigantic concerns for the deliberate breeding/concept of children to be involuntary placed/stuck with parents who live at the fringes of society and social norms who lack the paternal and maternal drives that would steer them into procreating as our bodies are designed.

It's fine to believe that marriage ought to be between a man and a woman; that children ought to be raised in a "traditional" family with a father and a mother... and if you believe that and think that works best, no one ought to tell you otherwise. I'm fine with it, but if I or others are not, that's our problem.

I actually think my kids benefit greatly with a "father figure" like yours truly, ahem, but others might think differently, and others, gay or otherwise, also think they too could be as awesome. Let them try I'd say


Society evolves, cultural norms evolve. I personally think it's a sign of progress when minority groups within society are given equal rights and privileges as the rest of society. Don't see why they shouldn't when they too are citizens, pay their share of taxes, do what they can to contribute to society.

Life's already full of obstacles and challenges, there's no need to pile more of it on some to make them "normal" like us or the majority of us.

What people do in their bedroom, their living room, their kitchen, their basement, haha... is their business. And if we're uncomfortable if it's male on male or female on female, let them have children and that **** will stop pronto.

And if gay parents are harmful to children - in terms of they abuse, mentally or physically harm the kids - there are laws that deal with that. Traditional marriage and parenting does not guarantee healthy kids, same with wealth or poverty being good or bad for children... case by case seems fair.


I think you're also concern with the vocal minority demanding obedience and accommodation from the majority... what with the gay pride parade, or some people pushing their gayness in our faces... I guess some people just do things like that - some show their gayness like it's everybody's business, others wear $10,000 Apple Watches to show they're rich idiots; Some pride parade is not just about weird stuff, but raising awareness... telling those homosexual who's confused or afraid that it's OK to be yourself etc.