Gay Marriage

[Value Collector]

For anyone who may think gays are squeaky clean when it comes to domestic violence.

It's not about them being "squeaky clean", its whether being gay makes you more likely to commit offences, if the answer is "No you are no more likely" then that's the end of the argument.

I not at all interested in the listing of situations where straight or gay individuals have committed offences, but if you want to play that poker game, then I see your lesbian stabbing, and I raise you one straight lady murdering 8 children in cairns.

 

[SirRumpole]

It's not about them being "squeaky clean", its whether being gay makes you more likely to commit offences, if the answer is "No you are no more likely" then that's the end of the argument.

I not at all interested in the listing of situations where straight or gay individuals have committed offences, but if you want to play that poker game, then I see your lesbian stabbing, and I raise you one straight lady murdering 8 children in cairns.

I previously said that gays are no more or less likely than hets to commit violent acts, but some people like to portray that they are the picture of innocence compared to the things going on in the straight community. That's clearly not the case.

 

[Value Collector]

I previously said that gays are no more or less likely than hets to commit violent acts, .

If you are talking about acts of extreme violence, eg. Bashing, stabbing etc that leads to death or hospitalisation the biggest risk factor is simply being male. Now I am not sure, but a lot of homosexuals to seem to have more feminine characteristics, this my in fact me they are less risk, But we would need to see a study on this to confirm that.

Either as you rightly point out, any argument that suggests they are more likely is bunk.

but some people like to portray that they are the picture of innocence compared to the things going on in the straight community. That's clearly not the case

I don't think any memebers are portraying a picture of innocence, So members are trying to portray a picture of vile sexual deviants.

 

[sydboy007]

The children argument is more to do with a balance of male and female opinions and attributes in the child's upbringing which gives them a balanced outlook in their lives. Gay parenting does not provide that apart from peripheral characters in the child's life which is not the same as parental guidance.

So if you got to watch a room full of young children playing and interacting with each other, and there some with male and female parents, others with just a single parent, and some with same sex parents, are you saying you could pick which children came from which family?

If not, how would you be able to determine / prove that the children from the heterosexual couple were developing in a mentally / emotionally superior way? Would a heterosexual couple always provide the superior childhood growth? As we see in the newspapers and on TV there are varying parental standards out there. Surely at some point single and same sex couples would provide a superior outcome for the child.

 

[SirRumpole]

Surely at some point single and same sex couples would provide a superior outcome for the child.

It would be pretty hard to prove that same sex parents/ single parents are better for a child ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL.

Of course you can always take a dysfunctional het relationship and say that a stable gay relationship is better for children, but that is a false argument because you are comparing apples with oranges. A stable het relationship would be even better because of the factors I mentioned before.

 

[sydboy007]

It would be pretty hard to prove that same sex parents/ single parents are better for a child ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL.

Of course you can always take a dysfunctional het relationship and say that a stable gay relationship is better for children, but that is a false argument because you are comparing apples with oranges. A stable het relationship would be even better because of the factors I mentioned before.

We live in an imperfect world. There are far too many dysfunctional heterosexual relationships where children are involved.

What metrics are you using to show that children from a same sex marriage are developmentally impaired? My friends have 3 children from surrogacy. I'm confident in saying you'd not pick them out as being from a same sex couple. They know their biological mother in the USA.

A work colleague is going through a divorce. The ex husband to be seems to have little to no interest in the welfare of the children. More so the daughter from a previous marriage gets more support from my college than her biological father, and the daughter has for awhile wanted to be known as a he. Her / his biological mother passed away from cancer a couple of years ago.

So we have a non biological parent providing more support than than the biological parent. How does that compute? Should we stop the non biological parent from providing that support and force the father to step up?

 

[Tink]

Syd, with everything you have mentioned, I would rather strengthen Marriage than weaken it.
Keep it as the nuclear family -- the Gold standard.

Marriage is there for parents to take responsibility for their children, and it seems from what you are saying, people are no longer taking responsibility and sacrifice seems to be an outdated word.
The children are theirs and they need to step up and take responsibility.

Children should be put as first priority, not last.
How has this changed through the years?

Encouragement of both the mother and father to be with their children is what we should be doing.
Picking up peoples responsibilities is what is happening here, and the state is not the place to be handing the children.

Civil unions already gives you all the rights that a marriage couple have, except for adopting children, is that right?

I don't think weakening marriage makes it better for society, but worse.

Singling out the father as the big bad wolf is not going to help the situation, as we know we see it both ways, where women are just as much to blame in these situations.
One is not more than the other.

We need to get back to basics where people are made to take responsibility for their actions.

We don't want the word 'Marriage' hijacked, thanks, leave it as it is.

 

[Tisme]

We live in an imperfect world. There are far too many dysfunctional heterosexual relationships where children are involved.

What metrics are you using to show that children from a same sex marriage are developmentally impaired? My friends have 3 children from surrogacy. I'm confident in saying you'd not pick them out as being from a same sex couple. They know their biological mother in the USA.

A work colleague is going through a divorce. The ex husband to be seems to have little to no interest in the welfare of the children. More so the daughter from a previous marriage gets more support from my college than her biological father, and the daughter has for awhile wanted to be known as a he. Her / his biological mother passed away from cancer a couple of years ago.

So we have a non biological parent providing more support than than the biological parent. How does that compute? Should we stop the non biological parent from providing that support and force the father to step up?

I for one don't condone surrogacy or hands off parenting and those two wrongs don't make a right.

I've related a girl of a family ties lesbian coupling before and related my observations of that girl . She is moving towards teens and I don't see any improvement in the emotional "metrics" we would consider well adjusted to society. Her dominating real mum doesn't allow any influences on the girl that might impact on her own sexual pursuits and desires ... how dare a child question the out of kilter that is so patently obvious. The girl is more like a Rose in the Attic that gets paraded before all insundry as a trophy for The Sisters' cause.

 

[Tisme]

We don't want the word 'Marriage' hijacked, thanks, leave it as it is.

Ownership of anything these days is considered poor form. Everything is up for grabs because we left the dark ages behind us in year 2000. An age of enlightenment has befallen us where peace, brotherhood and calm reigns supreme. Now we can bring all those who previously chose to live in the fringes into the main stream and bring all their cultural value systems with them for the betterment of society. Yeah!!!

 

[SirRumpole]

We live in an imperfect world. There are far too many dysfunctional heterosexual relationships where children are involved.

Of course, and the solution is more guidance before people get married and have children, not just assertion that gays could do a better job.

What metrics are you using to show that children from a same sex marriage are developmentally impaired? My friends have 3 children from surrogacy. I'm confident in saying you'd not pick them out as being from a same sex couple. They know their biological mother in the USA.

It depends on what age the children are as to whether there are any differences in their behaviour. Children grow up however and are then more able to comprehend their position and how better or worse off they may have been if circumstances were different. Asking 5 year old kids about their "parents" is useless because there is still a dependency of the children on their parents.

A work colleague is going through a divorce. The ex husband to be seems to have little to no interest in the welfare of the children. More so the daughter from a previous marriage gets more support from my college than her biological father, and the daughter has for awhile wanted to be known as a he. Her / his biological mother passed away from cancer a couple of years ago.

This happens all the time in society. Trying to assert that gay people would be any different in that situation is unsupported.

 

[sydboy007]

Of course, and the solution is more guidance before people get married and have children, not just assertion that gays could do a better job.

Exactly how do you propose to achieve this? If it was so important why hasn't it been done a decade ago or more?

This happens all the time in society. Trying to assert that gay people would be any different in that situation is unsupported.

Saying the outcomes would be worse via a same sex couple is also unsupported. It seems those arguing against same sex marriages hold them to the highest of standards in defence against it, but then are happy to acknowledge that the standard is not met happens all the time in society. So if a same sex couple were generally providing children with the family closer to the "gold" standard, how would that be a worse situation that what we have in our imperfect world?

To follow you logic to the extreme, no one should be able to have a child until they can prove they can live up to the "gold" standard over the life of a child, otherwise aren't we allowing too much risk for the children?

 

[SirRumpole]

Exactly how do you propose to achieve this? If it was so important why hasn't it been done a decade ago or more?

Probably something to do with neo Conservatism and hatred of the "nanny state". Throw people in the deep end and let them sort it out themselves, it's not the government's business, apart from paying for domestic violence, law enforcements, divorce courts and child care.

Saying the outcomes would be worse via a same sex couple is also unsupported. It seems those arguing against same sex marriages hold them to the highest of standards in defence against it, but then are happy to acknowledge that the standard is not met happens all the time in society. So if a same sex couple were generally providing children with the family closer to the "gold" standard, how would that be a worse situation that what we have in our imperfect world?

To follow you logic to the extreme, no one should be able to have a child until they can prove they can live up to the "gold" standard over the life of a child, otherwise aren't we allowing too much risk for the children?

Loving biological parents are the gold standard. Children have contact with parents and know they are wanted, they have a proper male/female balance and role models and they don't get ribbed at school. They know their heritage, medical history and they don't need to justify their parents to anyone. Can gay parents provide all that ?

 

[luutzu]

....
Loving biological parents are the gold standard. Children have contact with parents and know they are wanted, they have a proper male/female balance and role models and they don't get ribbed at school. They know their heritage, medical history and they don't need to justify their parents to anyone. Can gay parents provide all that ?

Why not?

Homosexual couples would really really have to want kids to get them. Hetero have your shot gun weddings and just plain old accidents.

Aren't all role models from TV, music and politicians?

Homosexual parent might be good model by the simple fact they chose to be themselves despite all the legal and social difficulties.

All kids will get rib at school... .children are nice and creative that way. There's blubber if you're fat; (kidsname) germ if you got a cold and sneeze it all out some day; then just plain old fun and games with names - Scott no balls; Toddler...

Medical, heritage... yes. Justification? Why need to justify to anyone? They could learn to tell others where to go if they're bigotted.

 

[sydboy007]

Probably something to do with neo Conservatism and hatred of the "nanny state". Throw people in the deep end and let them sort it out themselves, it's not the government's business, apart from paying for domestic violence, law enforcements, divorce courts and child care.




Loving biological parents are the gold standard. Children have contact with parents and know they are wanted, they have a proper male/female balance and role models and they don't get ribbed at school. They know their heritage, medical history and they don't need to justify their parents to anyone. Can gay parents provide all that ?

Let me paraphrase your argument

Even though there's no evidence that children with same sex parents have any developmental issues, you believe same sex parents can never provide the level of care you view as appropriate.

Therefore all same sex parents should be prohibited from having children.

You accept that a significant minority of heterosexual parents have been shown to not provide the level of care you view as appropriate.

Therefore there should be no restrictions on which heterosexual parents can have children, nor should there be any limits on how many children they can have, nor any restrictions on having children with multiple partners.

Basically you are only calling for same sex parents to meet the gold standard.

 

[SirRumpole]

Basically you are only calling for same sex parents to meet the gold standard.

No I'm saying that same sex parenting by its very nature does not provide the qualities that are necessary for a balanced upbringing. Male and female parental role models, knowledge that both your biological parents love and want you (as opposed to one of them just ejaculating into a jar for money), and being part of mainstream society rather than being on the fringe.

Every person should ask themselves what they would prefer for themselves. I would say the vast majority would want a mother and father, and the few that prefer otherwise would most likely be gay themselves.

Gay marriage for consenting adults OK, disadvantaging non consenting children, not OK.

 

[sydboy007]

No I'm saying that same sex parenting by its very nature does not provide the qualities that are necessary for a balanced upbringing. Male and female parental role models, knowledge that both your biological parents love and want you (as opposed to one of them just ejaculating into a jar for money), and being part of mainstream society rather than being on the fringe.

Every person should ask themselves what they would prefer for themselves. I would say the vast majority would want a mother and father, and the few that prefer otherwise would most likely be gay themselves.

Gay marriage for consenting adults OK, disadvantaging non consenting children, not OK.

So then you're saying some same sex marriages could provide the same level of care and outcomes as heterosexual parents?

What do you propose for the significant number of "non consenting children" brought into the world by heterosexual parents that are not willing / able to provide the gold standard of care?

I think love is love. A child that has at least 1 loving parent is usually going to be OK in life.

For some strange reason the focus is on same sex couples when there is already a too high level of harm from heterosexual parents already. Those poor "non consenting children"

 

[SirRumpole]

For some strange reason the focus is on same sex couples when there is already a too high level of harm from heterosexual parents already. Those poor "non consenting children"

Again you are using one deficiency to justify another which is not a valid argument, but I'm not going to argue any more, I've given my reasons why I believe the gay parenting is less desirable for children than two loving biological parents and nothing you have said has changed my mind.

 

[Tisme]

Again you are using one deficiency to justify another which is not a valid argument, but I'm not going to argue any more, I've given my reasons why I believe the gay parenting is less desirable for children than two loving biological parents and nothing you have said has changed my mind.

Don't forget the studies to justify good parenting:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/a...not-prove-that-gay-parents-are-better-122966/

 

[SirRumpole]

The health and well-being of the children are based upon what the parents say they are.
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/a...arents-are-better-122966/#PGHT6lTfoj8TTLge.99

Yeah right. This is the biggest con of such studies. As if (any) parents are not going to exaggerate their child's health and well being to show themselves in a better light.

These studies are rubbish.

 

[Tisme]

If a man marries his son, is that incest?