view on gays?

[ohlookitspaul]

i just started this thread because of my curiosity. i'm liberal, as i'm sure some of you know, and i know there are quite a few conservatives on this forum. and so i was curious what y'all's views on gays, gay marriage, gay rights and etc. were. i want to know exactly why it IS that some people want gay people ostracized, essentialy, etc. etc...y'all know what i mean.

[open mind]

i come from a cristian background but i don't give a damn what you like to do with your genitals, just know i'm straight so don't hit on me if your a dude and it's not a problem with me.

[ohlookitspaul]

i come from a cristian background but i don't give a damn what you like to do with your genitals, just know i'm straight so don't hit on me if your a dude and it's not a problem with me.

that's respectable...sort of a "don't bother me and i won't bother you" kind of philosophies, right?

i'm wondering though, if, for example, a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages, essentially, did pass, would you be angry? just wondering to what extent your philosophy goes...

[ATFEH4President]

As long as they don't hit on me or do stuff in front of me they can do whatever they want to


If an amendement passed i wouldn't be angry but i really think making an amendment is a little overkill.

[hXc_pwnage]

I support gay rights. If a gay guy hits on me, it's ok. I don't mind it really. Unless they are really ugly ( and no, I am not gay, I am a heterosexual male. )

If they made an amendment banning it, I'd be extremely pissed off.

[UndefinedBoy]

i just started this thread because of my curiosity. i'm liberal, as i'm sure some of you know, and i know there are quite a few conservatives on this forum. and so i was curious what y'all's views on gays, gay marriage, gay rights and etc. were. i want to know exactly why it IS that some people want gay people ostracized, essentialy, etc. etc...y'all know what i mean.

That's like asking whats my opinion of blacks/jews/christians/muslims/anyone but white people. They're just people. I don't judge based soley on who they're naturally attracted to. They're people just like the rest of us, deserving of every right I have. If any amendment ever passed I would be angry beyond words.

[ohlookitspaul]

That's like asking whats my opinion of blacks/jews/christians/muslims/anyone but white people. They're just people. I don't judge based soley on who they're naturally attracted to. They're people just like the rest of us, deserving of every right I have. If any amendment ever passed I would be angry beyond words.

well that's all i was asking, for your opinion...of course it's just like asking your opinion of blacks/jews etc. i'm asking for people's opinions on a particular group in our society.

[boysdontcry]

i don't care if someone's gay. it doesn't matter to me what they do in their private time. i happen to have a friend who's gay and he's just a normal guy (and one funny mother fucker).

a guy hit on me at carl's jr. once though, that was weird.

[venus/bacchus]

...who they're naturally attracted to
that's debatable...nurture vs. nature eh?

personally, I don't care how another person wants to live their life, if you choose to be/are naturally gay, it doesn't bother me...but it's difficult for me to fathom being attracted to the same sex in any situation

If gays would like to live together and declare to the world that they are together, more power to them, although I'm against "marriage"...I think it waters down the term, and keeps a fuzzy line connected to the word, so it'd be difficult to ever define it again (ie, polygamy, marriage to animals, etc)

Also, I question the repercussions of gay couples raising children (which they would need to have the right to do if they state acknowledges that there's nothing wrong with the marriage). I don't know if it would be good or bad for the kids in the end.

In any case, I end up flip flopping on the issue...nowadays, marriage has lost most of its meaning anyway...it used to mean a union for life, but that part of the definition has been dropped, why not just drop the stipulation that it needs to be two members of the opposite sexes?

[aurora]

They're just people. I don't judge based soley on who they're naturally attracted to. They're people just like the rest of us, deserving of every right I have. *If any amendment ever passed I would be angry beyond words.
*if any amendment was ever passed banning gay marriage...

With that clarification, which is what I can see you meant anyway, I agree with everything said by UndefinedBoy.

[ohlookitspaul]

[QUOTE=venus/bacchus]Also, I question the repercussions of gay couples raising children (which they would need to have the right to do if they state acknowledges that there's nothing wrong with the marriage). I don't know if it would be good or bad for the kids in the end.[QUOTE]

wait are you saying that being gay can cause bad kids?

[venus/bacchus]

[QUOTE=venus/bacchus]Also, I question the repercussions of gay couples raising children (which they would need to have the right to do if they state acknowledges that there's nothing wrong with the marriage). I don't know if it would be good or bad for the kids in the end.[QUOTE]

wait are you saying that being gay can cause bad kids?
I'm saying that two members of the same sex who are romantically involved could have an effect on the kids, it could be good, it could be bad, but it's not something you should ignore.

[ohlookitspaul]

I'm saying that two members of the same sex who are romantically involved could have an effect on the kids, it could be good, it could be bad, but it's not something you should ignore.

well of course it could have some sort of effect on kids, so can being divorced, having an affair, being unemployed or any number of other factors. but i dont' believe that it's a factor larger than any other of the million ones.

[venus/bacchus]

well of course it could have some sort of effect on kids, so can being divorced, having an affair, being unemployed or any number of other factors. but i dont' believe that it's a factor larger than any other of the million ones.
I agree, but with gay marriage, as a society we're directly allowing this to happen, saying it's ok (not that it isn't, I don't want my words twisted on me). With affair, divorce, unemployment or anything else, I think these are things that society frowns upon. They don't openly put them on kids.

[ohlookitspaul]

I agree, but with gay marriage, as a society we're directly allowing this to happen, saying it's ok (not that it isn't, I don't want my words twisted on me). With affair, divorce, unemployment or anything else, I think these are things that society frowns upon. They don't openly put them on kids.

well it's not like we're telling everyone to become gay and get married. yes, you're right, we are saying it's ok. also, we're saying that divorce is ok because of it IS legal, affairs are romanticized and thrust upon us in hollywood and pop culture constantly...and what do you mean by "they don't openly put them on kids?" i really didn't get that statement...

[venus/bacchus]

well it's not like we're telling everyone to become gay and get married. yes, you're right, we are saying it's ok. also, we're saying that divorce is ok because of it IS legal, affairs are romanticized and thrust upon us in hollywood and pop culture constantly...and what do you mean by "they don't openly put them on kids?" i really didn't get that statement...
I don't think society views divorce as ok, nor do they see adultery as ok. Of course it's romanticized in Hollywood, because America has a thirst for gossip and what "wrong" things people do. I don't think America as a society says that divorce is ok by legalizing it, but rather they say that it causes less problems if it is legal (ie violent relationships, adultery, translating difficult relationships onto the children, etc). It's more damage control.

by that last statement, I was trying to say "America doesn't openly choose to put divorce, affair and other things on children. If they allow gays to have children, they'd be openly allowing them into that situation. Whenever two people consider divorce are in an affair, the first thing people say is think of the kids." I don't know if that explained it any better, but that's sort of what I was meaning to say.

[open mind]

that's respectable...sort of a "don't bother me and i won't bother you" kind of philosophies, right?

i'm wondering though, if, for example, a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages, essentially, did pass, would you be angry? just wondering to what extent your philosophy goes...
i'm against the government telling people what's an acceptable way to live their life (if it's not a criminal lifestyle anyways), so i would be pissed about it because it would set a bad precedent.

[open mind]

I don't think society views divorce as ok, nor do they see adultery as ok. Of course it's romanticized in Hollywood, because America has a thirst for gossip and what "wrong" things people do. I don't think America as a society says that divorce is ok by legalizing it, but rather they say that it causes less problems if it is legal (ie violent relationships, adultery, translating difficult relationships onto the children, etc). It's more damage control.

by that last statement, I was trying to say "America doesn't openly choose to put divorce, affair and other things on children. If they allow gays to have children, they'd be openly allowing them into that situation. Whenever two people consider divorce are in an affair, the first thing people say is think of the kids." I don't know if that explained it any better, but that's sort of what I was meaning to say.
society doesn't have to view being a gay married couple as ok either, but if society can put up with divorce it can deal with gay marriage.
letting gay people have kids isn't putting a stamp of approval on anything more then letting people get divorced, and it's proven that putting kids through a bad divorce can have negative effects, it's not proven that letting gay people have kids is bad for the kids.

[UndefinedBoy]

Also, I question the repercussions of gay couples raising children (which they would need to have the right to do if they state acknowledges that there's nothing wrong with the marriage). I don't know if it would be good or bad for the kids in the end.sexes?

You know gay couples can adopt, right?

[ohlookitspaul]

society doesn't have to view being a gay married couple as ok either, but if society can put up with divorce it can deal with gay marriage.
letting gay people have kids isn't putting a stamp of approval on anything more then letting people get divorced, and it's proven that putting kids through a bad divorce can have negative effects, it's not proven that letting gay people have kids is bad for the kids.

yeah that's pretty much what i was going to say, except he got to it first, haha

[venus/bacchus]

society doesn't have to view being a gay married couple as ok either, but if society can put up with divorce it can deal with gay marriage.
letting gay people have kids isn't putting a stamp of approval on anything more then letting people get divorced, and it's proven that putting kids through a bad divorce can have negative effects, it's not proven that letting gay people have kids is bad for the kids.
yeah, I guess that's right, but I'm still not sold either way on gay marriage, I tend to just grab a differing side and argue for it. And I think that not knowing the possibilities would a pretty good reason to question allowing them to adopt, or have surregate mothers or whatever. Have we looked into how the past and current gay couples have had an effect on their children? I'm not saying it could have negative effect, it could have positive, but an effect is something that should definitely be looked into.

You know gay couples can adopt, right?
yes I know that, but only in the states where they are legally married, which isn't many as of now. So you don't hear much about how it affects the kids, and the percentages are very low in comparison with kids raised by heterosexual parents. As gay marriage is slowly adopted by every state, the percentage of gay parents would then have to also rise.

[Safetyin#]

yes I know that, but only in the states where they are legally married, which isn't many as of now. So you don't hear much about how it affects the kids, and the percentages are very low in comparison with kids raised by heterosexual parents. As gay marriage is slowly adopted by every state, the percentage of gay parents would then have to also rise.

That not right at all, no states, until Monday, allows gay marriage...it is illegal in every state and even when it become legal in Mass., on Monday, it will only be valid in that state......so marriage has nothing to do with gay adoption, which is legal anywhere because a single parent can adopt a child, legally, and then bring it into a same sex relationship and raise it with two parent...Yes, from a legal standpoint only one of the parents is the legitimate parent.....But this is no different from when a couple gets married and one of them have a child, only the original parent is a legal guardian, but both are raising the child as parents...

[ohlookitspaul]

yeah, I guess that's right, but I'm still not sold either way on gay marriage, I tend to just grab a differing side and argue for it. And I think that not knowing the possibilities would a pretty good reason to question allowing them to adopt, or have surregate mothers or whatever. Have we looked into how the past and current gay couples have had an effect on their children? I'm not saying it could have negative effect, it could have positive, but an effect is something that should definitely be looked into.

well yeah, i said that too, of course it can have an effect. i'm saying though that the effect gay marriage can have on kids is no more important or moral-altering or drastic than a number of other factors. plus, you might as well have a constitution banning divorces if anyone is going to say gay marriages have negative effects on kids. although, yes, i know you're not saying it's necessarily negative...

[Love As Arson]

I'm for gay rights. The whole basis for people to want to ban gay marriage and adoption comes from religion.Since there is a seperation of church and state this shouldn't even be a debate because without the religious factor it really boils down to civil rights and equal protection under the law. Also to say that it will cheapen marriage is a fallacy. There is no proof that gays getting married will somehow cheapen the institution of marriage. I'm for gay adoption because adoption is about who can take care of the child and love it. Gay parents can provide love for the children and take care of them. There is no basis to say that it could have a negative effect on children. We all know that not all children raised in gay or straight families for that matter have the same sexuality as the one prevalent in their family.

[cal1082]

I'm for gay rights. The whole basis for people to want to ban gay marriage and adoption comes from religion.

The whole basis for marriage comes from religion. So that in itself is merging religion and state.

[ohlookitspaul]

The whole basis for marriage comes from religion. So that in itself is merging religion and state.

yes but...ok i'm thinking of an argument but it's hard for me to articulate this so i'll try as best i can...

marriage is common to every society (with a few exceptions of course, i'm sure), and it's essentially the same, except with differing views on beating wives, # of spouses, etc., stuff like that. marriage is something that has been in human society and civilization since, well, a hell of a long time. religion, though, differs from society to society and the anti-gay marriage stance is not, however, universal or close to it. therefore, weddings and gay marriages should both be allowed, pertaining to the separation-of-church-and-state argument.

ok maybe that's a little rougher than i meant it to be...but respond as you will and i'll try and polish up my argument.

[Love As Arson]

The whole basis for marriage comes from religion. So that in itself is merging religion and state.
The origins of marriage have had less to do with religion and more to do with necessity. It provided stability and allowed for the man to have a clear heir.

[cal1082]

The origins of marriage have had less to do with religion and more to do with necessity. It provided stability and allowed for the man to have a clear heir.

So you dont think the concept of marriage is a religious one?

[ohlookitspaul]

So you dont think the concept of marriage is a religious one?

it's sort of like the same situation with funerals. funerals are religious and yet nobody suggests banning those. we have funerals for presidents, don't we? it's religious, yes, but it's such an inherent part of every society, the act of honoring the dead, that we would never think of putting that under the separation of church and state. marriage is like that too. both are religious concepts, yes, but are also parts of human culture too.

[hXc_pwnage]

Marriage and religion do not go together. That is something they want you to think. Where does it ever say that marriage is about because of religion?

[venus/bacchus]

I'm for gay rights. The whole basis for people to want to ban gay marriage and adoption comes from religion.Since there is a seperation of church and state this shouldn't even be a debate because without the religious factor it really boils down to civil rights and equal protection under the law. Also to say that it will cheapen marriage is a fallacy. There is no proof that gays getting married will somehow cheapen the institution of marriage. I'm for gay adoption because adoption is about who can take care of the child and love it. Gay parents can provide love for the children and take care of them. There is no basis to say that it could have a negative effect on children. We all know that not all children raised in gay or straight families for that matter have the same sexuality as the one prevalent in their family.
I don't know if anyone ever said it would cheapen marriage, rather it would alter the definition of marriage and potentially lead to a "slippery slope" in which marriage eventually loses all meaning, and just becomes a union of however many people or things love one another. If we don't draw the line somewhere, it will never be drawn. Do we draw it at "two people" or at "man and woman"? Do we draw it at "two people" or "as many people as are willing to consent"?

And parenting is a lot more than just providing love. What about the fact that this child could be raised without a male influence in his life, or vice versa? Or what about the potential alienation of the child to other children? It's not as simple as "gays can love kids just as well as straight people." And I don't think anyone's worried that the kid will grow up gay, that's almost not even an issue. If we say it's ok they can marry, then it should definitely be ok for the child to be gay also.

[Love As Arson]

So you dont think the concept of marriage is a religious one?
The concept of marriage was born out of necessity. Certain religions adopted marriage into their customs.So to say that the basis for marriage is religion is false.

[ohlookitspaul]

Marriage and religion do not go together. That is something they want you to think. Where does it ever say that marriage is about because of religion?

well marriage isn't based on any one religion or anything. i think, however, that marriage and religion are tied together. i mean aren't most marriages religious in nature? i can't think of examples besides las vegas weddings and some modern weddings where religion isn't mentioned at all.

however, just because it has a connection with religion doesn't mean it should be banned...don't think i'm trying to argue that. i am very anti church-and-state.

[venus/bacchus]

The whole basis for marriage comes from religion. So that in itself is merging religion and state.
the ceremony of marriage is definitely religious, but the idea of marriage as life-long monogamy is not religious in the least. It's been around since the earliest hominids, and it's even been witnessed in monkeys and apes. I wouldn't go as far as saying it provides a clear heir though as the reasoning. It's more for structure within a society. If a man goes around planting his seed every which way, and has to then get food for all those children and all those mothers, it's far too much work. He'll never be able to feed and protect them all, and eventually the species will die out and be replaced with a more effecient species ie a monogamous one.

[ohlookitspaul]

And parenting is a lot more than just providing love. What about the fact that this child could be raised without a male influence in his life, or vice versa? Or what about the potential alienation of the child to other children? It's not as simple as "gays can love kids just as well as straight people." And I don't think anyone's worried that the kid will grow up gay, that's almost not even an issue. If we say it's ok they can marry, then it should definitely be ok for the child to be gay also.

what's wrong with being raised without a male influence, actually? or a female influence? i personally very much believe that the whole concept of "every child needs good mother and father role figures to be normal" is complete bullcrap. i've never met my mother and i rarely talk to my father, and i've gone through more shit in my life regarding family situations than most people. a child not having a male influence will not make the child turn into a criminal.

[Love As Arson]

I don't know if anyone ever said it would cheapen marriage, rather it would alter the definition of marriage and potentially lead to a "slippery slope" in which marriage eventually loses all meaning, and just becomes a union of however many people or things love one another. If we don't draw the line somewhere, it will never be drawn. Do we draw it at "two people" or at "man and woman"? Do we draw it at "two people" or "as many people as are willing to consent"?

And parenting is a lot more than just providing love. What about the fact that this child could be raised without a male influence in his life, or vice versa? Or what about the potential alienation of the child to other children? It's not as simple as "gays can love kids just as well as straight people." And I don't think anyone's worried that the kid will grow up gay, that's almost not even an issue. If we say it's ok they can marry, then it should definitely be ok for the child to be gay also.
Slippery slope fallacy. There is no proof that making gay marriage legal will lead to marriage between however many people or things that love one another.
The fact is that a lot of kids in our society grow up without male or female influences when they have single mothers and fathers. They turn out just fine. Kids deal with alienation on almost a daily basis. If it's not for one thing it is for another. Kids deal with it though. I know that many kids deal with having their parents made fun of and it doesn't really phase them because they love their parents immensely.

[cal1082]

Marriage and religion do not go together. That is something they want you to think. Where does it ever say that marriage is about because of religion?

the Bible is one source.

[cal1082]

The concept of marriage was born out of necessity. Certain religions adopted marriage into their customs.So to say that the basis for marriage is religion is false.

Where's your proof that they were born out of necessity?

[venus/bacchus]

what's wrong with being raised without a male influence, actually? or a female influence? i personally very much believe that the whole concept of "every child needs good mother and father role figures to be normal" is complete bullcrap. i've never met my mother and i rarely talk to my father, and i've gone through more shit in my life regarding family situations than most people. a child not having a male influence will not make the child turn into a criminal.
I never said it would turn him into a criminal, but it definitely affects the child. Did it ever affect you? I find it hard to believe that you never wanted a male influence or someone to look up to. Having a good male influence on a young boy or a good female influence on a young girl is ALWAYS beneficial. I don't think you can argue that.

[venus/bacchus]

Slippery slope fallacy. There is no proof that making gay marriage legal will lead to marriage between however many people or things that love one another.
The fact is that a lot of kids in our society grow up without male or female influences when they have single mothers and fathers. They turn out just fine. Kids deal with alienation on almost a daily basis. If it's not for one thing it is for another. Kids deal with it though. I know that many kids deal with having their parents made fun of and it doesn't really phase them because they love their parents immensely.
I don't think you can say it's fallacy, no theory can ever be labeled as fallacious. Just because there's no proof, doesn't mean it won't happen. You can't prove the future, you can only take logic and ideas and attempt to imagine what could happen. There's no proof that it wouldn't happen either.

I understand also that kids grow up without an influence and are alienated, but in those situations, we aren't just putting the kid in there knowingly. If divorce happens, it's damage control, the child is usually born with the intention of being raised with 2 parents. Just because it happens in other places and other ways doesn't mean we should just say "screw it, they can deal with it."

[ohlookitspaul]

I never said it would turn him into a criminal, but it definitely affects the child. Did it ever affect you? I find it hard to believe that you never wanted a male influence or someone to look up to. Having a good male influence on a young boy or a good female influence on a young girl is ALWAYS beneficial. I don't think you can argue that.

well of course it affected me. to come up with my views on many things, i would look to myself and i would be introspective to come up with views on things such as politics. i didn't have people telling me how i should feel or whatever, i relied on myself. i became more independent on many things, i would like to think.

and a) what exactly does having a good male influence on a boy do? b) back to the gay marriage thing, how do you think that having two good male figures affects a child? just wondering.

[Love As Arson]

Where's your proof that they were born out of necessity?
My proof is in history. The bible doesn't hold up as a source because it says nothing about any other cultures. It doesn't cover any of the human history up until about six thousand years ago.

[Safetyin#]

. Also to say that it will cheapen marriage is a fallacy. There is no proof that gays getting married will somehow cheapen the institution of marriage.

Thats not true either...countries that have "legalized" samesex marriages have seen an increase in the number of Cohabiting "familes" with children, a decrease in the number of marriages, an increase in the number of births out of wedlock, an increase in the number of divorces, and an increase of the number of adults not having children (and this one might not sound "bad" but you must remember that most of these countries also have dying populations)..........we might not want to pin all this on "gay" marriages, but to say a connection is a "fallacy" is just absurd...

[Love As Arson]

I don't think you can say it's fallacy, no theory can ever be labeled as fallacious. Just because there's no proof, doesn't mean it won't happen. You can't prove the future, you can only take logic and ideas and attempt to imagine what could happen. There's no proof that it wouldn't happen either.

I understand also that kids grow up without an influence and are alienated, but in those situations, we aren't just putting the kid in there knowingly. If divorce happens, it's damage control, the child is usually born with the intention of being raised with 2 parents. Just because it happens in other places and other ways doesn't mean we should just say "screw it, they can deal with it."
It's fallacious because there is no reason to believe that because gay marriage is legal that those things you mentioned are inevitable.
I am talking about one parent who abandons their kids and they are left with one parent. Those kids turn out fine. Also you assume that there will be no influence from other genders because they will only be raised by the parents when in reality the parents may have other members in their family which provides them with the influence you believe they need.
A kid may have an obese parent and they may get made fun of for it but we don't assume that they are bad parents because their kids gets made fun of for it and we certainly don't assume that they shouldn't have any kids because of it. Kids learn how to deal with it and they love their parents regardless of what anyone says.

[ohlookitspaul]

Thats not true either...countries that have "legalized" samesex marriages have seen an increase in the number of Cohabiting "familes" with children, a decrease in the number of marriages, an increase in the number of births out of wedlock, an increase in the number of divorces, and an increase of the number of adults not having children (and this one might not sound "bad" but you must remember that most of these countries also have dying populations).......

just curious, what's your source?

[venus/bacchus]

well of course it affected me. to come up with my views on many things, i would look to myself and i would be introspective to come up with views on things such as politics. i didn't have people telling me how i should feel or whatever, i relied on myself. i became more independent on many things, i would like to think.

and a) what exactly does having a good male influence on a boy do? b) back to the gay marriage thing, how do you think that having two good male figures affects a child? just wondering.
That could be one positive aspect of being raised without an influence, but there are still negative. What about someone to teach you about life, guide you through hard times, be a role model, etc? A woman can only do so much of that, but she doesn't have the same point of view.

I think I answered a) already. And b) honesntly, I'm not sure what 2 good males would do for a child. Potentially be better, but then you don't get the female side of things. I know my mom was always the one who would help me with girls or whatever, the things she knew first hand. That's a little difficult with 2 fathers. It could definitely be good though, especially if they're both good role models.

[Love As Arson]

Thats not true either...countries that have "legalized" samesex marriages have seen an increase in the number of Cohabiting "familes" with children, a decrease in the number of marriages, an increase in the number of births out of wedlock, an increase in the number of divorces, and an increase of the number of adults not having children (and this one might not sound "bad" but you must remember that most of these countries also have dying populations).......
I fail to see how the legalizing of gay marriage led to those things.

[Safetyin#]

just curious, what's your source?

i did my final paper for "world politics" on the subject....but if you don't believe look up "gay marriage" in the scandinavian countries....

[ohlookitspaul]

That could be one positive aspect of being raised without an influence, but there are still negative. What about someone to teach you about life, guide you through hard times, be a role model, etc? A woman can only do so much of that, but she doesn't have the same point of view.

I think I answered a) already. And b) honesntly, I'm not sure what 2 good males would do for a child. Potentially be better, but then you don't get the female side of things. I know my mom was always the one who would help me with girls or whatever, the things she knew first hand. That's a little difficult with 2 fathers. It could definitely be good though, especially if they're both good role models.

having a male and female mole rodel for a child can have just as many positive and negative effects as having two males or two females. in the end, i don't think it really matters that much.

teach me about life, guide me through hard times? in our modern times, there are many kids who don't get that even with a mom/dad family. how many dads do you really think sit down and give their son the "what is the meaning of life?" talk?

[ohlookitspaul]

i did my final paper for "world politics" on the subject....but if you don't believe look up "gay marriage" in the scandinavian countries....

well i also took a class on statistics and it taught me a lot. what about hidden variables? and did gay marriages necessarily cause all that? just because it happens doesn't mean it caused it. i mean, shit, divorces have been increasing in america for the past 50 years. coincidentally, television has become ever-popular then. does that mean television causes divorces?

[Safetyin#]

well i also took a class on statistics and it taught me a lot. what about hidden variables? and did gay marriages necessarily cause all that? just because it happens doesn't mean it caused it.


Exactly, we have no idea what caused these things, it could be gay marriage, it could be the welfare state they live in, or it could just be that people don't want to get married anymore…..but the point is, to say that any connection between gay marriage and these marriage related problems is a "fallacy," as Arson put it, is just absurd....because a justifiable case can easily be made for it and the statistics are there to back up this point of view....

[venus/bacchus]

having a male and female mole rodel for a child can have just as many positive and negative effects as having two males or two females. in the end, i don't think it really matters that much.

teach me about life, guide me through hard times? in our modern times, there are many kids who don't get that even with a mom/dad family. how many dads do you really think sit down and give their son the "what is the meaning of life?" talk?
I fail to see any negatives of having a male and female role model, although I might be overlooking something obvious. And I mean two good people, not a guy who beats his wife or whatever.

Just because parents don't do it as much doesn't mean we should subject other kids to it knowingly. If we have an opportunity to put a young boy in a house with a good male and a good female, or two good males/females, I think he'd get much more benefit from a more balanced (for lack of a better word) household. And it's not about having a meaning of life talk. Good parents are just always there. There is never a set time where the dad says "son, sit down." They're just always people you can rely on to be there when you need them, and they can apply what they've learned in their life to your own. If a young boy has no male figure who can do that for him, I think it could be somewhat damaging.

[open mind]

the argument that gay parents will have an effect on their children is dumb, what doesn't affect a kid when it comes to their parents? the parents can be gay or they can be straight it doesn't affect how the kid turns out. what does is how good the parents are at being parents.and it's not like the sexual orientation means you'll be the same as them otherwise there wouldn't be gay people
if you look around the world alot of countries have seen a rise in divorces, children born out of wedlock, and a host of other things, is it because of gay marriage? no because you see the same pattern in countries that have gay marriage and those that don't.

[venus/bacchus]

the argument that gay parents will have an effect on their children is dumb, what doesn't affect a kid when it comes to their parents? the parents can be gay or they can be straight it doesn't affect how the kid turns out. what does is how good the parents are at being parents.and it's not like the sexual orientation means you'll be the same as them otherwise there wouldn't be gay people
if you look around the world alot of countries have seen a rise in divorces, children born out of wedlock, and a host of other things, is it because of gay marriage? no because you see the same pattern in countries that have gay marriage and those that don't.
I never made the claim that gay parents will raise gay kids. I don't think anyone did. I still do think that a child would be better raised in a househole with one male and one female, though, for many reasons I've already listed. Although in the end, I guess only trying it would tell. It's a double edged sword potentially.

[open mind]

i know you didn't make that point i just like to shoot down arguments before they start sometimes.
they'd only be better off if both the man and woman are good people and parents.and it's already been tried gay people have adopted kids already, i haven't heard anything about a study or anything that shows gay parents are having more trouble then straight ones, if you have seen anything like that i'd like to see it.

[venus/bacchus]

i know you didn't make that point i just like to shoot down arguments before they start sometimes.
they'd only be better off if both the man and woman are good people and parents.and it's already been tried gay people have adopted kids already, i haven't heard anything about a study or anything that shows gay parents are having more trouble then straight ones, if you have seen anything like that i'd like to see it.
I completely agree, and I haven't read anything either...I'm sure some new studies will probably be popping up pretty soon

[open mind]

50 bucks says the studies dispute each other when they finally get some done, really it's such a charged issue that different political groups want to see different results.

[ohlookitspaul]

I never made the claim that gay parents will raise gay kids. I don't think anyone did. I still do think that a child would be better raised in a househole with one male and one female, though, for many reasons I've already listed. Although in the end, I guess only trying it would tell. It's a double edged sword potentially.

even if a mom/dad household were so much better than a gay household (which i'm not saying it is), what does that really mean? obviously you're not going to force all households to have one male and one female. what are the legal implications of saying that kid-raising with gay parents is inferior to a "normal" household?

[UndefinedBoy]

Exactly, we have no idea what caused these things, it could be gay marriage, it could be the welfare state they live in, or it could just be that people don't want to get married anymore…..but the point is, to say that any connection between gay marriage and these marriage related problems is a "fallacy," as Arson put it, is just absurd....because a justifiable case can easily be made for it and the statistics are there to back up this point of view....

Just as paul said you can't POSSIBLY prove causation with those statistics (Because statistics can never prove a causation). There are countless lurking variables, and think just logically for a second. How would GAY marriages increase BIRTHS out of wedlock. You can list all the stats you want but do you honestly believe the legalization of gay marriage caused that? Just because you're allowing a group of people who won't affect anyone but each other marry will somehow cause the entire institution of marriage to collapse on itself?

[ohlookitspaul]

this may be a few arguments back, but i was just reading "The Culture of Fear: Why Americans are Afraid of the Wrong Things" and i came upon something that pertained to this thread...

"...though in fact studies find that kids reared by lesbians have no greater academic, emotional, or behavioral difficulties than other children--aside from those caused by discrimination against homosexuals."

that only covers female homosexuals, but you get the point...

[Safetyin#]

Just as paul said you can't POSSIBLY prove causation with those statistics (Because statistics can never prove a causation). There are countless lurking variables?


This is where reading the whole thread before posting becomes necessary,....I never said that these were directly proven cause and effects, all I said is that saying there is ABSOLUTELY no correlation, which was said, between gay marriage and current marriage problems is bullshit....

[open mind]

how is there a correlation between gay marriage and the increase in children born out of wedlock?
like i said earlier the rise in the statistics you cited has nothing to do with gay marriage being legal or not because you see those same statistics rise in countries (like ours) that don't have legalized gay marriage.

[UndefinedBoy]

how is there a correlation between gay marriage and the increase in children born out of wedlock?
like i said earlier the rise in the statistics you cited has nothing to do with gay marriage being legal or not because you see those same statistics rise in countries (like ours) that don't have legalized gay marriage.

To Safetyin#, this is basically what I was saying. You say you can't say there is no correlation, and I'm saying yes you can. Many of these problems are completely unrelated so please try and explain how allowing gays to marry would cause all of these problems in heterosexual marriages.

[Safetyin#]

how is there a correlation between gay marriage and the increase in children born out of wedlock?
like i said earlier the rise in the statistics you cited has nothing to do with gay marriage being legal or not because you see those same statistics rise in countries (like ours) that don't have legalized gay marriage.

First off your second part is not true, beside divorce, none of those things are on the rise, nor have the increases been seen, like they are in these other countries....and even divorce rates has level off in America, while it is on the rise in most parts of Europe....

And there is a said correlation, or relationship, because of the time frame from when one was legalized and the other "exploded" in rates....all these areas saw their greatest increase (ever, in most cases) following the "opening" of marriage to alternative life styles...Now you could say that anything could have caused this, and that’s fine, but one of those "anything’s" has to be the "opening" of marriage, because in most of these countries (Sweden, Norway, Denmark) the time frames are the same...

[open mind]

we didn't have legalized gay marriage when the rates of divorce, children born out of wedlock, families that cohabitate, and the other things you cited increased, or a decrease in the amount of people being born, is my point, just because some stats increased when gay marriage was legalized in those countries does not mean they are related, other then the fact that they happened around the same time.
divorce became more acceptable by itself not because gay marriage was legal, look at our country as an example, we didn't have legal gay marriage when divorce became more accepted.
gay people more or less don't reproduce so how can they be blamed for a rise in children being born out of wedlock?
what is more likely to have an effect on the rate families that co-habitate more then gay marriage is lack of money or a desire to save money.
the birth rate constantly fluctuates all by itself depending on factors like economy much more then gay marriage, it's not like because gay marriage was legalized large amounts of people decided to be gay and not have kids.
i forgot what your other stats were on but you can see other, much more obvious factors that would cause rises in everything you mentioned more then legal gay marriage.

[Safetyin#]

, much more obvious factors that would cause rises in everything you mentioned more then legal gay marriage.

"more obvious" is nothing more then anothers opinion...that is it...no one is saying that it can't be a coincedence, but it is odd that each of these marriage related problems would explode, out of nowhere, everytime the "concept" of marriage is changed...

[ohlookitspaul]

"more obvious" is nothing more then anothers opinion...that is it...no one is saying that it can't be a coincedence, but it is odd that each of these marriage related problems would explode, out of nowhere, everytime the "concept" of marriage is changed...

can you explain to me how even the "concept" of marriage was changed? marriage is the official recognition of the two people, theoretically, in love. it's a union between the two. and it's not like the definition of marriage hasn't changed in the past. interracial marriages used to be illegal. prior to 1847, only church of england marriages were declared legal in ontario.

oh and btw, i looked it up. heterosexual divorce rates haven't increased in netherlands, at least, since gay marriage was legalized. i haven't found any info for the other countries yet...

[open mind]

"more obvious" is nothing more then anothers opinion...that is it...no one is saying that it can't be a coincedence, but it is odd that each of these marriage related problems would explode, out of nowhere, everytime the "concept" of marriage is changed...
much more obvious is nothing more then logical reasoning, much more so then something no one is able to prove are connected other then the fact that the numbers rose around the same time, i'm sure the number of people who died in that time rose to, but it can't be blamed on gay marriage.

[UndefinedBoy]

First off your second part is not true, beside divorce, none of those things are on the rise, nor have the increases been seen, like they are in these other countries....and even divorce rates has level off in America, while it is on the rise in most parts of Europe....

And there is a said correlation, or relationship, because of the time frame from when one was legalized and the other "exploded" in rates....all these areas saw their greatest increase (ever, in most cases) following the "opening" of marriage to alternative life styles...Now you could say that anything could have caused this, and that’s fine, but one of those "anything’s" has to be the "opening" of marriage, because in most of these countries (Sweden, Norway, Denmark) the time frames are the same...

I'm waiting for your explanation on how allowing gays to marry could possibly cause other entirely unrelated marriages to implode.

[venus/bacchus]

I'm waiting for your explanation on how allowing gays to marry could possibly cause other entirely unrelated marriages to implode.
Well I'll try to give it a shot. I don't necessarily agree with this, but I'll play devil's advocate.

When a society slowly starts to evolve and look at marriage differently and more lax, then the current marriages, who may have been together still solely for fear of being alienated or looked down upon by their neighbors or society, may get divorced because they see that society is starting to lose it's "traditional" idea of marriage, which would have also shunned divorce. It's a mindset of society.

That's the best guess I have.

[UndefinedBoy]

Well I'll try to give it a shot. I don't necessarily agree with this, but I'll play devil's advocate.

When a society slowly starts to evolve and look at marriage differently and more lax, then the current marriages, who may have been together still solely for fear of being alienated or looked down upon by their neighbors or society, may get divorced because they see that society is starting to lose it's "traditional" idea of marriage, which would have also shunned divorce. It's a mindset of society.

That's the best guess I have.

Alright I can see that. But is that even a bad thing? Those marriages weren't in place because of love, or because the people truly cared about each other. They were only together because they cared about how society viewed them. Removing yourself from that sort of position isn't a bad thing, it could turn those people's lives around.

People shouldn't be marrying because of society. You can say marriage is out of religion or whatever you want, but now marriage is there to bring together 2 people who are in love.

[xnotedgex]

i did my final paper for "world politics" on the subject....but if you don't believe look up "gay marriage" in the scandinavian countries....

how convenient...you come out spouting nonsense and can't support it..."you go find the evidence for my statements"

what a load of shit

[ohlookitspaul]

how convenient...you come out spouting nonsense and can't support it..."you go find the evidence for my statements"

what a load of shit

hahahaa

[El Hefe]

Gay people don't bother me. I don't see what the big deal is about marriage and stuff. Some people I know of have made arguments like, "It's gross and I don't want to see it" and I think that's just ridiculous. Some of the heterosexual married couples are disgusting as well.


Note: When I say "people" I mean people at my school, not political/intelligent people.

This will probably be my only post in this forum.

[UndefinedBoy]

Some of the heterosexual married couples are disgusting as well.

This will probably be my only post in this forum.

Haha, it was a good post.

[In2MyHurricaine]

Gay people don't bother me. I don't see what the big deal is about marriage and stuff. Some people I know of have made arguments like, "It's gross and I don't want to see it" and I think that's just ridiculous. Some of the heterosexual married couples are disgusting as well.


Note: When I say "people" I mean people at my school, not political/intelligent people.

This will probably be my only post in this forum.

:lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:

[VinnyVegas]

I think that John Stewart sumed up the whole issue best when he said, "I was upset about gay marriage, until I found out it wasn't mandatory".

[ohlookitspaul]

haha nice.