Bush Speaks out against Gay Marriage

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by druez

I'm not sold on the idea of "gay couples" raising children. You are a product of your environment and I'm not very sure that the environment is conducive to raising a well adjusted child. I'm sure you can point to examples both ways. But, I look at it this way.

Are you relying on any kind of evidence to back up this assumption, or are you just speculating?

[Huckleberry]

I haven't ignored the gay adoption issue at all. I responded to it earlier on this thread and stated that I approve of gay couples' right to adopt. What do you want me to say on that issue?

And you are hearing me about as well as you think I'm hearing you. The very fact that 2 is better than one in MOST cases is a good reason for the government to subsidize 2 instead of 1.

Governments should encourage happy families of all shapes and sizes.

How do you propose they do that? The most probable makeup that will become a happy family is a 2-parent household. That is why I advocate the government encouraging that makeup.

...marriage is not just about kid production.

For the people involved, that is very true. For the government, I don't agree that this is a true statement. Government should not concern itself with my romantic happiness or how much nookie I'm getting from the ladies. Their only valid concern with the personal relationships between two people that want to call themselves married is the outcome of children. Everything else is none of their damn business. That's why I don't believe marriage should be subsidized unless that outcome is a possibility.

[druez]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Are you relying on any kind of evidence to back up this assumption, or are you just speculating?

Not sure what kind of evidence you would want. Other then the fact you aren't being raised in a traditional family. As I said, I'm sure you can point to children that turned out both good and bad. But, socially it would be rough on any child.

There were studies done many times, that state a child really needs a mother and a father to be completely whole. In fact, its often stated that a daughter's self esteem especially when dealing with men, reflects on the relationship she had with her father.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by druez

A gay couple can't have a child naturally and I'm pretty sure their is a reason for that.

I always find quotes like this one funny.

Is there a reason some women are infertile? Is it because they would be bad mothers?

Is there a reason some people are mentally retarded?

Is there some reason people are gay?

Is there some reason people are left-handed? Is it only to give some right tackles better negotiating power?

If a gay couple can love and care for a child, I don't know what "reason" there is to assume they shouldn't.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by druez

Not sure what kind of evidence you would want. Other then the fact you aren't being raised in a traditional family. As I said, I'm sure you can point to children that turned out both good and bad. But, socially it would be rough on any child.

There were studies done many times, that state a child really needs a mother and a father to be completely whole. In fact, its often stated that a daughter's self esteem especially when dealing with men, reflects on the relationship she had with her father.

"Completely whole." Wow. Crazy talk.

As to your first paragraph - the same arguments are made for bi-racial kids, kids with only 1 parent, adopted kids, etc. Not all of us have "traditional families" and I think the world is much better for it.

[stevew]

Well, I for one dont want to sit and explain to my 5 year old in Kindergarden why "Susie" has 2 mommies.

[druez]

Well John, its called science or how about the survial instincts.

Lets put 20 gay couples on an island and 20 mixed couples on an island. Lets assume they have all the things needed to sustain life for 200 years.

Guess what in a 100 years one island will be completely empty.

[Huckleberry]

John -

Now, you see, the problem with being against the legalization and subsidizing of gay marriages in my state for my personal reasons is that I get lumped into the "No" category with the above inane arguments.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by stevew

Well, I for one dont want to sit and explain to my 5 year old in Kindergarden why "Susie" has 2 mommies.

Why not...kids have two mommies now be they gay or straight. Divorce, visitation ect...

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by stevew

Well I guess it all comes back to whether you think "being gay" is normal.

Being "gay" is definitely not "normal." At most, 8 percent of the population is gay (and that number is too high). Other things that aren't "normal": being black, hispanic, east Asian, being infertile, being left-handed, having no legs, being mentally retarded, poor, etc.

Normal is boring. Normal is dogma. Normal is whatever those in the majority say it is.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by druez

Well John, its called science or how about the survial instincts.

Lets put 20 gay couples on an island and 20 mixed couples on an island. Lets assume they have all the things needed to sustain life for 200 years.

Guess what in a 100 years one island will be completely empty.

Really? You think? Put 20 infertile couples on an island too - what will happen? But I guess infertile couples would have made bad parents anyway.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by stevew

Well, I for one dont want to sit and explain to my 5 year old in Kindergarden why "Susie" has 2 mommies.

...and that cuts to the heart of the issue, and why I've by and large stopped participating in direct discussions on this issue (although the sidebar issues such as the politics of this statement are interesting). Eventually it is almost always going to bottom out that one segment of the population believes that homosexual behavior is fundamentally immoral, and another segment believes that it is perfectly fine. Those two positions are irreconcilable.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by stevew

Well, I for one dont want to sit and explain to my 5 year old in Kindergarden why "Susie" has 2 mommies.

Yeah, that's rough.

Do you have trouble explaining to your five year old why your neighbors go Susie is Muslim too?

[druez]

Originally Posted by John Galt

"Completely whole." Wow. Crazy talk.

As to your first paragraph - the same arguments are made for bi-racial kids, kids with only 1 parent, adopted kids, etc. Not all of us have "traditional families" and I think the world is much better for it.

Nope sorry, bi-racially kids are made naturally. Adopted kids usually goto families with 2 hetorsexual partents. Some of the problems in society today are part of the parent syndrome, or two parents who work and leave their kid in day care. "Same thing in my book"

I believe a parent should stay at home with their child and raise them, rather then ship them off to day care.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

...and that cuts to the heart of the issue, and why I've by and large stopped participating in direct discussions on this issue (although the sidebar issues such as the politics of this statement are interesting). Eventually it is almost always going to bottom out that one segment of the population believes that homosexual behavior is fundamentally immoral, and another segment believes that it is perfectly fine. Those two positions are irreconcilable.

I STRONGLY disagree with this conclusion. Believing something is immoral is not the same thing as fighting to outlaw that lifestyle. I believe many of the people in these threads are "immoral" yet I would never argue that they shouldn't be able to marry.

There is room for tolerance and there is room to surrender arrogance and recognize that you might be wrong. Fighting to outlaw lifestyles (be they religions or sexual orientation) is not a necessary outcome.

[druez]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Really? You think? Put 20 infertile couples on an island too - what will happen? But I guess infertile couples would have made bad parents anyway.

Being gay is a choice, being infertile is not.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

...and that cuts to the heart of the issue, and why I've by and large stopped participating in direct discussions on this issue (although the sidebar issues such as the politics of this statement are interesting). Eventually it is almost always going to bottom out that one segment of the population believes that homosexual behavior is fundamentally immoral, and another segment believes that it is perfectly fine. Those two positions are irreconcilable.

Another factor that makes it impossible to debate is that some believe that being gay is a choice and others believe you are born that way.

Myself, I have a hard time assigning morals to others. I have a hard enough time doing what I think is right daily. Who am I to sit and judge.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by druez

Being gay is a choice, being infertile is not.

I don't see how you can conclude that...

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by druez

Being gay is a choice, being infertile is not.

This is has been argued many times before. Please look up some of the other threads on this because there is a TON of evidence the other way. Religion is a choice too? Should Muslims be denied the right to marry?

And what happened to survival instincts? You abandon your arguments each step of the way.

[druez]

rkmsuf, I point to the high amount of homesexual activity in our prison systems. Many of these men or woman go in hetrosexual, then have homosexual relationships based on their physical and or social needs. This was a choice made by some.

What defines gay? Is it the act of having sex with a person of the same sex?
What if you have 2 people who live together their whole lives, either 2 men or 2 woman. They never have sex, does this make them gay?

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by druez

rkmsuf, I point to the high amount of homesexual activity in our prison systems. Many of these men or woman go in hetrosexual, then have homosexual relationships based on their physical and or social needs. This was a choice made by some.

What defines gay? Is it the act of having sex with a person of the same sex?
What if you have 2 people who live together their whole lives, either 2 men or 2 woman. They never have sex, does this make them gay?

I have no idea...I guess that is my point. Your point of view sounds terribly closed minded...

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by druez

Being gay is a choice, being infertile is not.

Thus said God, in a post on a football game messageboard at 11:55 AM on February 24, 2004. Now that this issue has been indisputedly resolved, we can all move on.

[corbes]

You might say that there's no such thing as normal, and there's no such thing as absolute morality. Or you might say there is, and then try to define it.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by corbes

You might say that there's no such thing as normal, and there's no such thing as absolute morality. Or you might say there is, and then try to define it.

Well that clears it up...I'm satisfied

[corbes]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Well that clears it up...I'm satisfied

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I STRONGLY disagree with this conclusion. Believing something is immoral is not the same thing as fighting to outlaw that lifestyle. I believe many of the people in these threads are "immoral" yet I would never argue that they shouldn't be able to marry.

There is room for tolerance and there is room to surrender arrogance and recognize that you might be wrong. Fighting to outlaw lifestyles (be they religions or sexual orientation) is not a necessary outcome.

I never said anything about outlawing that lifestyle, and you're not going to suck me into this discussion again. I'll restate my positions once, so you're clear:

I am not interested in the discussion of whether you're "born" homosexual or "decide" to be homosexual. I was either "born" or "decided" to be tempted to have sex with any attractive female with whom I come in contact. It is my decision whether or not I act on that temptation. The same is true for someone who is tempted with homosexual sex. This position has nothing to do with whether or not these acts should be illegal or not. Consenting adults should be free to do basically whatever they want as long as, by force or fraud, they don't deprive anyone else of all or a portion of their life, liberty and/or property.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Another factor that makes it impossible to debate is that some believe that being gay is a choice and others believe you are born that way.

See my response to John Galt. This is pretty immaterial as far as I'm concerned.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by druez

rkmsuf, I point to the high amount of homesexual activity in our prison systems. Many of these men or woman go in hetrosexual, then have homosexual relationships based on their physical and or social needs. This was a choice made by some.

You can't be serious? Your categorical statement that being gay is a choice is based entirely on your understanding of the prison system? You could at least have run a google search and cut and pasted something not so silly.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Yeah, that's rough.

Do you have trouble explaining to your five year old why your neighbors go Susie is Muslim too?

One is fundamentally sexual in nature while the other is not...explaining anything sexual to a 5-year old is something a number of parents tend to avoid.

[druez]

Originally Posted by John Galt

This is has been argued many times before. Please look up some of the other threads on this because there is a TON of evidence the other way. Religion is a choice too? Should Muslims be denied the right to marry?

And what happened to survival instincts? You abandon your arguments each step of the way.

John, you need to read what you post. My argument 100% backs up my survival instincts. You have an instinctual desire to be with the opposite for pro-creation. You make a choice whether or not you pursue that. Its a lifestyle choice.

I'm might be coming off as anti-gay. But, I am 100% not. I could care less if anyone is gay or has a gay "union". Good for them, I hope you find happiness. But, bring a child into that lifestyle through surragate 3rd partner is not natural.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Originally Posted by HornedFrog Purple

I predict this will be another 10 pager...

and I'm sticking to it

[druez]

Originally Posted by yabanci

You can't be serious? Your categorical statement that being gay is a choice is based entirely on your understanding of the prison system? You could at least have run a google search and cut and pasted something not so silly.

I was citing an example of a situation where you are put in an environment of only the same sex. This is only one such example and a valid one.

[druez]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I am not interested in the discussion of whether you're "born" homosexual or "decide" to be homosexual. I was either "born" or "decided" to be tempted to have sex with any attractive female with whom I come in contact. It is my decision whether or not I act on that temptation. The same is true for someone who is tempted with homosexual sex.

Exactly

[Calis]

The interesting thing about these threads is the people have to realize at some point they're talking to a wall, and yet continue to do it.

I find that more intriguing than the actual argument. Is it even considered an argument if there's no chance of anyone's opinion being changed?

The one good thing that came from this thread so far imo is the laugh I got from the prison example of how being gay is a choice. That's classic. Almost makes me want to have a sig.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

John -

Can you please cite your "best available evidence" you referred to earlier? So far you have supplied nothing but anecdotal evidence and have even granted that the majority probably are better in 2-parent situations.

And it would seem a reasonable goal of the government to give the children the best chance at a happy outcome, which would mean putting them in the situation that is more probable to be beneficial. Which, again, you have granted as being the 2-parent household.

p.s. Lunchtime.

Huck,

You seem to think that the only reason why gay couples shouldn't be married is because they'd get some sort of tax benefit and you don't think taxpayers should subsidize marriage unless society could benefit from productive, happy, well-adjusted children. As you see it, the best way to ensure this is to have marriage only between a man and a woman, because together they could be the natural birth parents of some child. I am paraphrasing, but that's how I understand it.

Ok. A very economical approach. What about the many studies that prove that married couples are happier, healthier, live longer, earn more, work more, and save more money? Doesn't that sound like a benefit to societ worth subsidizing? People who make more are taxed more, giving more back to the public. People who are healthier will have less medical problems and will be less of a burden on our medical system, insurance, etc.

So, letting two consenting adults get married appears to have many benefits to society, other than raising their own biological kids. I reckon that's worth a tax break here or there.

Studies:

http://www.2-in-2-1.co.uk/university/publicbenefit/

http://www.divorcereform.org/mel/abenefitsofmar.html

and one for the kids:

http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0209-01.htm

[Telle]

Originally Posted by druez

John, you need to read what you post. My argument 100% backs up my survival instincts. You have an instinctual desire to be with the opposite for pro-creation. You make a choice whether or not you pursue that. Its a lifestyle choice.

I'm might be coming off as anti-gay. But, I am 100% not. I could care less if anyone is gay or has a gay "union". Good for them, I hope you find happiness. But, bring a child into that lifestyle through surragate 3rd partner is not natural.

So, a heterosexual married couple decides after two kids that they don't want any more and both get "fixed". Five years later they decide they do in fact want another child. Their previous choice means that they can no longer have a child through "natural" means. Based on your logic, they should not be allowed to have another child.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Calis

The interesting thing about these threads is the people have to realize at some point they're talking to a wall, and yet continue to do it.

I find that more intriguing than the actual argument. Is it even considered an argument if there's no chance of anyone's opinion being changed?

The one good thing that came from this thread so far imo is the laugh I got from the prison example of how being gay is a choice. That's classic. Almost makes me want to have a sig.

Apply the same logic to veterinarians and you've got a comedy bit...

[Glengoyne]

I admit that I am posting to this thread without reading most of it's contents. I think this could be a big mistake for the President. I actually voted against prop 22. That was the law that passed here in CA defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. I was against it because it did not allow for a legally equitable option for same sex couples. I am pretty much against what is going on in Massachusetts, and am actually pissed off by San Francisco's mayor. On a side note, it is unbelievable to me that he was considered TOO Conservative by the democrats in San Francisco. I loved the George Will Column where he characterized the Democratic voters in S.F., as being "Just to the left of the Salad Fork". I just don't think I can get behind a Constitutional amendment to bring this into place.

I am a Reagan Democrat. I wasn't a big fan of the President, but voted for him mainly on his performance in the debates. More correctly, Gore's performance in the debates. Before that I was a big fan of Gore's. He was actually my candidate of choice back in '88. My point being that this issue might cost G.W. my vote. I don't think I am in so small of a minority opinion, that the President can afford to lose my vote. He needed all he could get back in 2000.

As for worst president ever? Come'on he's not even on the short list. Neither is Clinton though.

[druez]

Originally Posted by Telle

So, a heterosexual married couple decides after two kids that they don't want any more and both get "fixed". Five years later they decide they do in fact want another child. Their previous choice means that they can no longer have a child through "natural" means. Based on your logic, they should not be allowed to have another child.

Then can adopt, just like a gay couple.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Calis

The interesting thing about these threads is the people have to realize at some point they're talking to a wall, and yet continue to do it.

I find that more intriguing than the actual argument. Is it even considered an argument if there's no chance of anyone's opinion being changed?

The one good thing that came from this thread so far imo is the laugh I got from the prison example of how being gay is a choice. That's classic. Almost makes me want to have a sig.

Well, you've always got have a little hope that your fellow man is decent...

[Telle]

Originally Posted by druez

Then can adopt, just like a gay couple.

Just to clarify.. are you saying that the heterosexual couple should not be allowed to use fertility techniques that could involve a third party (in the form of donated sperm or eggs, or a surogate mother)?

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Being "gay" is definitely not "normal."

I usually use the term deviant. That is where I actually stand on the subject. I mean not just when I want to incite a flame war. I certainly don't wan't to restrict their rights to be as deviant as they choose. I don't necessarilly want to create special rights for them either.

On a separate note:
I am not swayed by the argument against Civil Unions, namely the "Separate but equal is not equal" argument. I think that is the way to go, and I believe the majority of Americans concur.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by stevew

Well I guess it all comes back to whether you think "being gay" is normal.

No, it doesn't. Whether or not you or I think being gay is normal or not has very little to do with how socially well-adjusted children of gay couples turn out.

Gay couples have been raising children in this country for many years. There is enough evidence from studies done of these situations to start drawing some meaningful conclusions on this issue. My point is that, instead of making an assumption on this matter, why not actually bother to read the reports of studies that have looked specifically at this issue?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by druez

Not sure what kind of evidence you would want. Other then the fact you aren't being raised in a traditional family. As I said, I'm sure you can point to children that turned out both good and bad. But, socially it would be rough on any child.

There were studies done many times, that state a child really needs a mother and a father to be completely whole. In fact, its often stated that a daughter's self esteem especially when dealing with men, reflects on the relationship she had with her father.

On your first point, pretty much any evidence that comes from a credible source is better than idle speculation without any study on the matter. You say that it would be socially rough on any child - why? Many gay couples settle in locations where being gay ranges from tolerance to outright acceptence - in these situations, why would being the child of a gay parent be any more socially problematic than anything else? You can point to children that turned out good and bad from straight couples, bi-racial couples, mixed-religion couples, etc., so I really don't follow your logic here.

As for your second point, I don't doubt that in an ideal world, with everything else being equal, that there are benefits to having a mom and a dad. The thing is, we don't live in an equal world; there are countless examples of poor couples that raise kids in a bad environment. Given the choice between letting a questionable straight couple adopt and a loving, stable gay couple, I contend the gay couple will provide the better environment.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by stevew

Well, I for one dont want to sit and explain to my 5 year old in Kindergarden why "Susie" has 2 mommies.

I don't understand what would be so difficult here. All you have to say is:

"Some adults prefer to be with people of their own gender, which is the case with Susie's mommies. I don't agree with their decision, but that's their business."

This is hardly a valid reason to deny homosexual unions and allowing gay couples to adopt - "I don't want to have to explain it to my kid."

[druez]

Originally Posted by Telle

Just to clarify.. are you saying that the heterosexual couple should not be allowed to use fertility techniques that could involve a third party (in the form of donated sperm or eggs, or a surogate mother)?

What I'm saying is. The couple made the descision to get "fixed". They have 2 children, if they want another child then by all means adopt one.

[Telle]

Originally Posted by druez

What I'm saying is. The couple made the descision to get "fixed". They have 2 children, if they want another child then by all means adopt one.

But you are against them creating a brand new child through whatever medical means, correct?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by druez

rkmsuf, I point to the high amount of homesexual activity in our prison systems. Many of these men or woman go in hetrosexual, then have homosexual relationships based on their physical and or social needs. This was a choice made by some.

What defines gay? Is it the act of having sex with a person of the same sex?
What if you have 2 people who live together their whole lives, either 2 men or 2 woman. They never have sex, does this make them gay?

You've GOT to be kidding - this is your proof that being gay is a choice?

Big Bubba grows up always attracted to only women, fantasizes about only women and has sex with only women. He gets thrown in jail for 20 years, and denied access to women and still possessing a strong sexual urge, and being physically imposing, he realizes that one way of satisfying his sexual urge is to rape other prisoners. This also satisfies his desire to feel powerful and in control.

Bubba has now become gay in your opinion? I think Bubba would have a differing opinion...

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Prison sex is not about men turning gay all of a sudden - for the most part it's about frustrated sexual urges and about the feeling of power and being in control. Is there some small fraction of men in prison that were closeted gays or bisexuals that now are more inclined to act on that nature? Maybe. But to use prison sex as a justification for the idea that being gay is a choice is a very weak argument.

Many otherwise straight boys grew up participating in a circle jerk - does this make them secretly gay?

[John Galt]

Not to mention, "relationships" are not the same thing as "rape" and if you talk to prisoners, you hear a lot more about "rape" than "love."

[druez]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

On your first point, pretty much any evidence that comes from a credible source is better than idle speculation without any study on the matter. You say that it would be socially rough on any child - why? Many gay couples settle in locations where being gay ranges from tolerance to outright acceptence - in these situations, why would being the child of a gay parent be any more socially problematic than anything else? You can point to children that turned out good and bad from straight couples, bi-racial couples, mixed-religion couples, etc., so I really don't follow your logic here.

As for your second point, I don't doubt that in an ideal world, with everything else being equal, that there are benefits to having a mom and a dad. The thing is, we don't live in an equal world; there are countless examples of poor couples that raise kids in a bad environment. Given the choice between letting a questionable straight couple adopt and a loving, stable gay couple, I contend the gay couple will provide the better environment.

I have no problem with gay couples adopting children. I just don't agree with surrogate mothers or fathers for gay couples.