Homosexual Marriage

[Nikkums]

As we have agreed, the definition of marriage changes through time as well as geographic location. Marriage has never had a concrete meaning and never will and to argue otherwise is illogical. The laws surrounding marriage are no different than its meaning in that respect. The laws surrounding marriage, as they are now are only a small consideration in determining the way they should be in the future. Like many laws and morals our society has established, marriage has begun as a simple idea to be improved apon. Through-out history we have made changes even to the initial idea, such as the definition from ownership of wife to union of man and woman. This has been done to better suit our societal needs/wants and become more inclusive to all. The simple idea is being overruled by a sometimes forgotten, more fundemental, idea: EQUALITY.

I've argued all along that gay couples and straight couples AREN'T equal anyway.

Heterosexual and homosexual couples ARE equal.
You can not say marriage is designed, in the end, INCASE people have children without saying it is, basically, for having children. Stability, fine, stability for children, no. It is just NOT PROVEN. That would be like saying lawyers are there make you financially broke. Sure, they may do that in alot of cases, but that's not their purpose. Sure, marriage MAY provide stability to SOME couples that MIGHT have kids, but it is a side-effect, not a purpose.

Currently, marriage is not a good idea for most people. Statistically speaking, most couples are likely to divorce, which is costly, and frankly a huge pain in the ass for every party involved (except the lawyers, of course). While a select group of people may benefit from marriage finacially, they may not be "better off" married (there are other aspects to marriage other than finances). Those who are "better off" married are the few who love each other, not lust each other, or have a business agreement. Gay people are as capable of emotion as anyone else.. they are EQUAL. They are PEOPLE.

Ok, so the US government is set up to provide stability to potentially procreative whatever.. bla bla. Even if that IS true, it is not the way it SHOULD be.

there is no REASON to recognize same-sex couples because their sexual unions are inconsequential from the state's point of view

I have to ask a question: Is it in YOUR best interest to provide for a government who is unwilling to provide for everyone it governs?
Isn't it "for the people, by the people"???????? Not "we only like the people who make the government money??"
Are you spreading propaghanda, or do you believe this blasphomy??

Oh for God's sake... go to the inner city and take a look at the single moms, then drive to the suburbs and look at the two parent homes and tell me which parenting method is more beneficial to society. Stop acting like you are clueless about the relationship between stable families and marriage

Ok, WHAT? Only single women live inner city and only married couples live in suburbs? How about comparing inner city single parents to inner city couples. How is the comparison then? And are you implying single women are unable to be stable financially?? Maybe emotional/physcial stability is more important. I do not see how parenting meathods are relative to marital status.
And I seriously hope you don't mean the single mom's in Women's shelters downtown (which are for BATTERED women).
(oh and for the record, it is much more expensive to live inner city than it is to live in the suburbs where I live)

Please, Dirty Mind, stop being so ignorant. Stop making assumptions about the way other people are and why they are that way. You obviously have no clue!

[Spoken Word]

This is a simple opinion, I hope I don't offend anyone.

Society has changed drastically. More and more things are considered normal, when in the past they would have been looked down upon.
Homosexuality is normal now, people of all ages are homosexual.
I have nothing agaisnt two people marrying(regardless of sexual orientation)
What I'm agaisnt is homosexuals trying to adopt children.
What bothers me about gay marriage is the thought of the couple marrying and then wanting children since they love each other so much.
But with so many different problems in the world, more importantly-our country, I would love for two more people to enjoy happiness.

[fushigi]

Gay couples already adopt. It's not marriage that causes them to want to adopt, it's their love and relationship.

This assertion would be tough to prove, but a simple poll could determine its accuracy.

"Why do you want to get married? (check all that apply)

a) As a symbol of my love for my partner
b) To enjoy the societal/financial benefits straight couples enjoy
c) To legitimize gay relationships
d) To legitimize adopting a child
e) Other"

And so forth. Anyone know of such a poll?

Gay marriage wouldn't make them any more desirous of adopting; neither would it make the women giving their children up for adoption any more willing to let a gay couple have the baby.

[Spoken Word]

You misunderstood me. I'm not saying the only reason these certain couples adopt is cause they are gay and they are married.
What I'm saying is, it's fine if they marry for the right reasons.
When any couple marries, the next step is to have children. I know it's more meaningful than that, but you understand where I'm coming from.

Now, if a gay couple marries, then wants to adopt a child(for whatever reason)-that's where I draw the line. So, if gay marriage means more gay adoption, I have to say I'm against it.
But gay marriage is the topic here.
So again...
I'm all for two homosexual people, that are in love, uniting and offically calling themselves a couple. Just as long as they don't adopt a child.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Spoken Word I'm all for two homosexual people, that are in love, uniting and offically calling themselves a couple. Just as long as they don't adopt a child.

Do have some proof that children adopted by gay or lesbian couples develop abnormally or are in anyway inferior to children raised by heterosexual parents?

[fushigi]

So, essentially you're in support of gay marriage.

I was just pointing out that the relationship between gay marriage and adoption hasn't, and can't, be proven.

Good posts. Welcome to Volconvo, by the way!

fushigi

[Spoken Word]

Quote by: The Decider Do have some proof that children adopted by gay or lesbian couples develop abnormally or are in anyway inferior to children raised by heterosexual parents?

I don't need proof for my opinion.
I never -->said<-- that gay couples are inferior or would raise a child better or worse than a heterosexual couple. Proof is used when you are proving something. I'm not proving anything nor am I discrediting anyone who believes otherwise.

If you want to know why I believe that. Sure, I'll let you know. Just as long as you respect my opinion, as I will respect yours.

First of all, it's not natural for two homosexuals to have children(thats a fact lol). I know there are heterosexual couples that can't have children but they could if certain things weren't in the picture. Since we are all human beings, I think it's wrong to go against our very nature. A person can kill another human being, which is wrong, but it's possible. Again, two homosexual people CANNOT have children. Why go against nature?????
More importantly..... Concerning the child
I'm not saying it's negative for a child to be in a homosexual household, but as society is today, that child will most likely get ridiculed and made fun of. This could lead to many potentially dangerous situations for that child.
Im also not saying that homosexuals are any worse than heterosexual parents at raising children. Quite the oppisite of what I believe actually. I think its the only positive thing about gay adoption. That the parents can teach the child how to accept "different" kinds of people and have the potential to be GREAT parents. And the child will learn the positive about society and that what this world needs.But this is not the only route...... The child can also be put into a world on confusion that would test it's strength early in it's life.Some children don't have that much strength.

My most important point is the child's development in sexual matters. NO, i am not saying the child has a bigger chance or being gay like most ignorant people would say. I don't think being gay is negative.
What I am saying, is that the child will not only have to learn about sexual education(like taught at school) but would have to learn a very different kind of sex ed. And the thought of a young child knowing and thinking of anal, oral or any kind of "unatural" sex, bothers me. Keeping in mind that a child is very innocent and imagination runs wild, it's best if anything other than "normal" sex is brought to it's attention. This wouldnt be the case in a homosexual household. They would have countless questions and doubts to what they hear in school and what they see on t.v.
After all we are talking about children here.
I can see a teenager having issues with living in a homosexual household, but teenagers by nature are rebellious(sp). Children absorb everything.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Spoken Word I don't need proof for my opinion. I never -->said<-- that gay couples are inferior or would raise a child better or worse than a heterosexual couple. Proof is used when you are proving something. I'm not proving anything nor am I discrediting anyone who believes otherwise.

No need to be so defensive. I just asked a question related to child-rearing by homosexuals.

Quote by: Spoken Word First of all, it's not natural for two homosexuals to have children(thats a fact lol). I know there are heterosexual couples that can't have children but they could if certain things weren't in the picture. Since we are all human beings, I think it's wrong to go against our very nature. A person can kill another human being, which is wrong, but it's possible. Again, two homosexual people CANNOT have children. Why go against nature?????

Some might argue that killing other people for no apparent reason is uniquely human behavior, and therefore "natural." No other species commits mass murder because of mental voices or drug-induced hysteria or jealousy. We have laws and institutions to curb those natural instincts. Doing what is "natural" isn't always desirable.

In any case, even if you don't buy the more pessimistic view of human nature, you certainly know that marriage is for more than procreation. In fact, many heterosexuals refuse to procreate as you admit. Homosexual marriage partners couple for the same diverse reasons.

Quote by: Spoken Word More importantly..... Concerning the child I'm not saying it's negative for a child to be in a homosexual household, but as society is today, that child will most likely get ridiculed and made fun of. This could lead to many potentially dangerous situations for that child.

At one time in our nation, it was "potentially dangerous" to be a black child in America. Would you argue that black parents in America's segregated past should have foregone childbirth to save their children from potential harm in a white-dominated society? Of course not. We attack the racism that made life for black children so difficult. And we'll attack the homophobia that affects adopted children of gay couples where and when it exists.

Quote by: Spoken Word The child can also be put into a world on confusion that would test it's strength early in it's life.Some children don't have that much strength.

I'm sure that children of blind and deaf parents face some challenges growing up too. I prefer to think of the challenge as character building.

Quote by: Spoken Word What I am saying, is that the child will not only have to learn about sexual education(like taught at school) but would have to learn a very different kind of sex ed. And the thought of a young child knowing and thinking of anal, oral or any kind of "unatural" sex, bothers me. Keeping in mind that a child is very innocent and imagination runs wild, it's best if anything other than "normal" sex is brought to it's attention. This wouldnt be the case in a homosexual household. They would have countless questions and doubts to what they hear in school and what they see on t.v.

"Normal" sex? Man and women engage in sodomy. They use sex toys. Some even spank each other. So what is "normal" sex? In any case, many sex education programs include the topic of homosexuality. The children of gay couples will learn about sex at the same rate as their peers, more or less.

[Spoken Word]

Quote by: The Decider No need to be so defensive. I just asked a question related to child-rearing by homosexuals Some might argue that killing other people for no apparent reason is uniquely human behavior, and therefore "natural." No other species commits mass murder because of mental voices or drug-induced hysteria or jealousy. We have laws and institutions to curb those natural instincts. Doing what is "natural" isn't always desirable. In any case, even if you don't buy the more pessimistic view of human nature, you certainly know that marriage is for more than procreation. In fact, many heterosexuals refuse to procreate as you admit. Homosexual marriage partners couple for the same diverse reasons. At one time in our nation, it was "potentially dangerous" to be a black child in America. Would you argue that black parents in America's segregated past should have foregone childbirth to save their children from potential harm in a white-dominated society? Of course not. We attack the racism that made life for black children so difficult. And we'll attack the homophobia that affects adopted children of gay couples where and when it exists. I'm sure that children of blind and deaf parents face some challenges growing up too. I prefer to think of the challenge as character building. "Normal" sex? Man and women engage in sodomy. They use sex toys. Some even spank each other. So what is "normal" sex? In any case, many sex education programs include the topic of homosexuality. The children of gay couples will learn about sex at the same rate as their peers, more or less.

First, you asked for proof. I stated that I didn't need proof for my opinions.
No defense here.
Actually, I'm glad I can converse with people on the subject. Please, do not be offended with anything I say.
Everything you say I must admit is true. But if I keep on with the debate I feel like I'm attacking homosexuality and thats quite the opposite of why I replied to this thread.
I am all for having as much people get closer to happiness in hope of being at peace and having harmony and joy among them. These are my ultimate goals, I am sure there are homosexual people with these goals as well. I am not going to join any groups with hopes of forbidding adoption to the gay and married. As a matter of fact, if the gay couple HONESTLY believes they are ready to RAISE a human being, then there isn't anything I can rufuse to accept. Do you understand the responsibility of raising a person into this world is???
I do. I don't plan on having children until I'm finacially stable to endure the many stages of the child, wise enough to actually know/have something to say while raising, old enough to be patient and show them a calm and positive example and many other things I've listed as my goals.
That's even if I find a female that ready to spend her entire life with me and my goals/hopes.

I feel like I've sidetracked. My last point is if the couple really knows what they are getting into, I hope they are wise enough to raise a great child, I know it's possible. Human beings are capable of beautiful things.
[edit]it wouldn't be easier nor harder for a heterosexual/homosexual
also, im pro choice by the way. if it matters. even if it doesn't.....i believe in it

thank you fushigi

[Jack]

Why go against nature?????

Does nature intend that we travel in cars or communicate with computers? If we were to be truly natural, we'd walk and talk without artificial means. Humans have been improving on nature for some time now. An appeal to the natural state is not compelling.

I think all this fuss about gay marriage and parenting will eventually fade away. I'm old enough to remember the plight of Blacks in the pre-60s. They had to endure separate facilities, dating someone of another race could get them killed, etc. In 40 years we've managed to readjust our thinking about the place of Blacks in our society. I expect the same thing will happen in regard to gays. It may not even take as long, judging from what I'm seeing in the attitudes of the 20-something generation. They've grown up accepting gays in society as normal, just as my generation's attitudes helped Blacks achieve some equality of opportunity in this country.

[Zinkovich]

Before any of you view homosexual adoption as small cookies, consider these statistics from the 2000 U.S. Census on homosexual partners:

- Same-gender couples live in 99.3% of all US counties. - Same-gender couples are raising children in at least 96% of all US counties. - Nearly one quarter of all same-gender couples are raising children. - Nationwide, 34.3% of lesbian couples are raising children, and 22.3% of gay male couples are raising children (compared with 45.6% of married heterosexual and 43.1% of unmarried heterosexual couples raising children). - Vermont has the largest aggregation of same gender-couples (~1% of all households) followed by California, Washington, Massachusetts, and Oregon. - Regionally, the South has the highest percentage of same-gender couples who are parents; 36.1% of lesbian couples and 23.9% of gay couples in the South are raising children. - The second highest percentage is seen in the Midwest, where 34.7% of lesbian couples and 22.9% of gay couples are parenting children. - In the West, 33.1% of lesbian couples and 21.1% of gay couples are parents. - In the Northeast, 32.6% of lesbian couples and 21.7% of gay couples are raising children. - The states with the highest percentages of lesbian couples raising children are Mississippi (43.8%), South Dakota and Utah (42.3% each), and Texas (40.9%). - The states with the highest percentages of gay male couples raising children are Alaska (36%), South Dakota (33%), Mississippi (31%), and Idaho and Utah (30% each). - Six percent of same-gender couples are raising children who have been adopted compared with 5.1% of heterosexual married couples and 2.6% of unmarried heterosexual couples.{dagger} - Eight percent of same-gender parents are raising children with special health care needs, compared with 8.3% of heterosexual unmarried parents and 5.8% of heterosexual married parents. - Of same-gender partners raising children, 41.1% have been together for 5 years or longer, whereas 19.9% of heterosexual unmarried couples have stayed together for that duration.

( Gathered indirectly from http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-5.pdf )

As you can see, adoptive gay parents are a larger group than one might initially think. Considering the fact that over a quarter of gay partners adopt, up to 1.25 million children have found a stable home thanks to gay adoption- are any of you really willing to take away this big of a positive impact on our adoption system?

The number of monogamous gay relationships is increasing. Consider how many more households that can come out to before thinking about removing gay adoption based on merely your own intuition, rather than fact. If you want ot take away their rights, at least do some research into their demographic and give them a chance to speak for themselves as a real demographic rather than a stereotype.

[Zinkovich]

SpokenWord, consider this resolution from the American Psychological Association when voicing your further concerns:

Results of social science research have failed to confirm any of these concerns about children of lesbian and gay parents (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002; Tasker, 1999). Research suggests that sexual identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior, and sexual orientation) develop in much the same ways among children of lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents (Patterson, 2004a). Studies of other aspects of personal development (including personality, self-concept, and conduct) similarly reveal few differences between children of lesbian mothers and children of heterosexual parents (Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; Tasker, 1999). However, few data regarding these concerns are available for children of gay fathers (Patterson, 2004b). Evidence also suggests that children of lesbian and gay parents have normal social relationships with peers and adults (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; Tasker, 1999; Tasker & Golombok, 1997). The picture that emerges from research is one of general engagement in social life with peers, parents, family members, and friends. Fears about children of lesbian or gay parents being sexually abused by adults, ostracized by peers, or isolated in single-sex lesbian or gay communities have received no scientific support. Overall, results of research suggest that the development, adjustment, and well-being of children with lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents.

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parentschildren.pdf

The APA is an orginization that is at the forefront of psychological and sociological research, and is known for its rigor when it comes to reaching a conclusion on academic issues. Meanwhile, the only institutions I have seen that voice support against gay adoption has been orginizations like Fox News and Focus on the Family.

Consider that, and perhaps consider joinging those of us who oppose restricting gay adoption. Trust me, it feels much better to have cold hard fact rather than intuition on your side for once!

[Spoken Word]

That's great.
It isn't bad news to me. I just don't agree with it. Im sorry. I'm sure there are couples that would make great parents. But I know there's some that won't.
I judge people on what I see from them, not from what I "know" of them. Labeling people cause of their beliefs, race, gender, or in this case sexual orientation is misleading. I rather hang out with them and then (if I really cared) make my judgement on how good of a parent the person can be.

thanks for that information, very useful in a debate against someone that takes gay adoption serious. I am cool but I'm sure there are a lot of people that would find it offensive or "wrong" but not me. :)
Have a nice day.

[Hmm]

Quote by: Spoken Word Why go against nature?????

Are you saying that homosexuality is not natural?

[Spoken Word]

Ok, I am not against homosexuality nor am I trying to end it. I can care less what anyone does behind closed doors and for me to say it's wrong is like me telling a grown man how to piss. I am a very accepting person and I applaud anyone fighting for their rights, in a positive way. So don't turn my comments into a hate crime.

Yes. It isn't natural. It doesn't bother me, I have homosexual relatives but it isn't natural. Well, as far as "natural" human function and behavior goes.

[edit] please stop calling me out, im not the enemy here there are far more people with stronger view against homosexual adopting, marriage and against homosexuality itself

[fushigi]

Spoken,

We're very careful not to permit personal attacks here at Volconvo (no matter how fun they may be). However, if your opinion isn't based on logic, you can expect to have a great deal of opposition. I have been known to argue against someone on my own side simply for the reason that their opinion was based on faulty or non-existent logic.

[Spoken Word]

Ok, that's fine. I'm not saying --anything-- I stated is fact.
I don't think my word is final.
I'm not anal like most "debaters". Especially with this debate.

The truth is that....
there aren't "truths" in this debate simply because we are debating the lives of other people and I'll be damned if I sit here and attack homosexuals or argue that they are "monsters". That is not my opinion of them.
Maybe my opinion is "false" because I don't post proof and maybe it should disregarded. Fine by me.
But at least I know there are two sides to the debate and I'm open to hear the opposing argument. And I don't consider it lies simply because I don't agree with it.

there a difference between faulty, non-exsisting logic and reasonable opinions.

and I am for homosexual marriage, the topic of debate.

If I wanted to debate adoption, i'd reply in that thread.

[Zinkovich]

Spoken Word, I was merely responding to the parts of your posts that run along this theme:

My most important point is the child's development in sexual matters. NO, i am not saying the child has a bigger chance or being gay like most ignorant people would say. I don't think being gay is negative. What I am saying, is that the child will not only have to learn about sexual education(like taught at school) but would have to learn a very different kind of sex ed. And the thought of a young child knowing and thinking of anal, oral or any kind of "unatural" sex, bothers me. Keeping in mind that a child is very innocent and imagination runs wild, it's best if anything other than "normal" sex is brought to it's attention. This wouldnt be the case in a homosexual household. They would have countless questions and doubts to what they hear in school and what they see on t.v.

Here's the thing- your posts are really confused, and difficult to respond to. It's like you bring an assertion in, and then withdraw it or wave it aside with your next section/post. It was difficult for me to follow, and I apologize if I misconstrued your meaning.

Still, gay adoption is a relevant issue to this thread considering the previous discussions. Many who have argued against homosexual marraige in this thread assert that marraige exists to encourage stable families/households, and oftentimes imply that homosexuals do not count as a large enough group to warrant homosexuals being able to gain similar treatement. Others suggest that homosexuals should not have children due to the developmental issues it causes for the child, and cite that for the reason a homosexual should not marry.

The numbers disagreed with it, so I thought it was relevant enough to warrant me bringing these facts into play. Again, I apologize- I was a bit too eager in looking for a cue, and thus skimmed to a part that seemed to look like the sort of assertion that would give me an opening.

[Zinkovich]

Now that my apology is out of the way, about the rest of your post:

Quote by: Spoken Word The truth is that.... there aren't "truths" in this debate simply because we are debating the lives of other people and I'll be damned if I sit here and attack homosexuals or argue that they are "monsters". That is not my opinion of them.

You have the truth right there. Homosexuals are not monsters, they are individuals. They do not harm, deviate, or otherwise be bad people merely due to their homosexual nature.

Really, I don't see how you can say there is no truth in this issue. There are people who are homosexuals, and people who aren't. Have you noticed that the people who aren't homosexuals and have ulterior reasons for restricting their rights are the only people truly giving this argument lip service?

Maybe my opinion is "false" because I don't post proof and maybe it should disregarded. Fine by me.

It's not proof that makes something false. As many religious folk like to say, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".What makes a thing false or true for a certainty is whether or not the evidence for any contradicting statements are true.

But at least I know there are two sides to the debate and I'm open to hear the opposing argument. And I don't consider it lies simply because I don't agree with it.

So do I, but I have yet to hear proper perspective and support provided from those who disagree with my opinion on this issue. That's why I sound so arrogant when posting on this topic from time to time.

there a difference between faulty, non-exsisting logic and reasonable opinions.

Yes there is, and to tell you the truth I see no truly illogical statements in this thread, from either side. It's just the little issue of the other side of the debate providing support instead of relying on stereotypes based on one's intuition that often gets in the way.

and I am for homosexual marriage, the topic of debate. If I wanted to debate adoption, i'd reply in that thread.

The topic was brought up before I decided to post what I posted. Again, sorry for miscontruing your opinion but this is important issue to me as me and my partner might want to adopt a child of our own some day.

Edit: Trust me, I wasn't attacking you. Please don't take my posts personally, I'm just trying to bring some new statistics, directions, and facts concerning this topic as it's been going down the same path for the past 206 pages(!).

[Spoken Word]

personally when i read someones reply and it's pure nonsense, I disregard it. So why give my views any attention?

I'm pretty sure anyone who read all my replies could understand the general position of my beliefs.
but i know my vocab isn't the most sophistcated vernacular.
and i know on a forum like this is it discredits my opinion.
so consider my voice the "average joes"



but again, wether homosexuals adopt or marry, has nothing to do with my personal life, so I am not gunna keep debating on anythi