We should ensure that homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else. Priveleges are another thing entirely. We give priveleges to a man and a woman who marry for obvious reasons going back to the beginning of civilization. There are fewer reasons to encourage monogamy in homosexuals. We can say, as a society, that we don't care whether homosexuals are monogamous without saying that we hate their guts. Those who deny that you can make that distinction are just being obnoxious and are begging to have their guts hated.
Here is the real crux of the matter in my view. The difference is that heterosexual couples procreate AND raise children. I have yet to hear anyone seriously argue that children will develop as well in committed homosexual environments as in committed heterosexual environments. The old tired rationalization is that many heterosexual couples have big problems so why not allow homosexual couples to adopt and raise kids and call that a marriage and a family. It isn't, and never will be, the same. If gay/lesbians want to live together that is one thing. That is their decision and it affects only their lives. It is when children are involved that I have a problem. What I hear is a bunch of selfish sounding "I want" stuff. Well it isn't just about what you want. It is about what is best for the children. I have often heard it said that the most important job of any generation is training the next one. That job is best done in a heterosexual family and that is called a marriage. Bringing children into the equation when they have no choice, and calling that a marriage is wrong. That is selfishness. Whether homosexuality is a choice or genetically determined is irrelevant to the children. They are better with a Mommy and a Daddy. And it is up to the adults, and yes, the politicians, to protect what is best for the children.
Plenty of reasons to encourage monogamy in the gay community. All the same reasons for doing so in the hetero community in fact.
Jesus loves the little children. To be honest this is one area that does bother me, despite my ranting for equality. The problem is that in your opinion kids shouldn't be raised by gay parents. I personally feel that there could be some serious issues. But I have absolutely no basis for that opinion. Are we to just assume that a gay couple simply can't raise a child as well or to be as normal as a a hetero couple? And then flatly deny the right to raise a child based upon that assumption, despite a lack of compelling evidence either way? I'm not sure.
Sure. I've taken a position that I believe that our sexuality is behavioral rather than genetic. That has nothing to do with a quote from the bible that says homosexuality is bad. I think there are alot of people that object to the idea that they will accept homsexual couples as equal to heterosexuals. My ideas are not based on religion and I hope that our country is not so stuck on the one liner you mentioned that we can't think and draw our own conclusions.
I don't believe I have a problem with your own reasoning and basis for your opinion. I do believe our nation is unfortunately stuck on the religious aspect of this fight. Obviously life isn't as simple as a one liner. The hostility towards the idea of gay marriage most likely stems from a combination of these factors, and I believe the religious factor to be the strongest. Sadly. The behavioural issues I think I could deal with and society could eventually deal with. Other factors just run far too deeply.
Dead goats, yes. Capra is the genus for goats. Someone who was sexually attracted to regular non-dead goats would be a caprapheliac, and someone who was sexually attracted to undead goats would be a chupacabrapheliac.
I will not go so far as to say that gay parents should never raise children but I think those situations should exist only when there is no other choice for the child. An example might be a teenager who has no other option but to be bounced from one foster home to another. By this time that child's sexual preference is set and they are not as much in need of seeing that natural male/female role-modeling as a younger child would need. If you do some looking on the 'net, you will find quite a bit of material on the subject. I have had several experiences in my life of coaching/teaching where this issue has come up and the professional child counselors have always said the same thing; it is best for the child to be in hetero families. I know this sounds harsh to the gay/lesbians who would like to have children to love and raise. I certainly can't imagine what my life would have been like without my son. However, it is part of the price to pay for the sexual preference. I'm sorry. I wish there was a softer way to say that but there isn't.
That brings us back to the idea that the D's will continue to lose every 4 years if they make this an important issue. It's great to be principled but it sucks doing it from home.
It will never happen. Its just a waste of time. There are more important things to worry about then what some people do in their beds
You tell 'em! Straights are much better role models than a buncha damn queers! Sincerely, Woody, Mia and Soon-Yi
I don't know why folks can't personalise it this way, particularly in the frame of a claimed dogma where you can't get me into Heaven, or Hell, and vice-versa, a dogma of a personal relationship with that Uncaused Cause. The missionary streak in the dogma is why the bans, and the 10-40 war.
Don't bring up Indians to BushCo. They might get confused and push for an amendment putting gays on reservations. "Outta sight, outta mind. Who's up next for some 'compassion?'"
It sounds much better when you phrase it as you do above, but the end result is the same--you think there is something unnatural and deviant about homosexuality, and therefore gays are, by default, deficient as parents. As for the point about younger children being exposed to 'natural' male/female role modeling, well, I'd like to hear you blame gays for the divorce rate amoung heterosexuals. As well as the out-of-wedlock birthrate. And the rate of absent fathers. And of domestic violence. And of child molestation by heterosexual family members. And so forth.
When children do not see females behaving as females and males behaving as males, yes, there IS something deficient in that relationship; it lacks a female/mother and a male/father. That is deficient. This totally flawed bit of non-logic has been used so many times it would be silly if it were not serious for children. But once again it proves my previous post that this entire argument is a very selfish one. It is all about what 2 adults want, not what is better for child development. As I posted previously, I have no problem with 2 adults living together. In fact I believe I presented a convincing argument for civil unions. But when it involves children, this is not the best way to raise children.
Do you actually know anyone raised by gay parents, or are you projecting? My wild guess is that you're projecting.
As my wife and I are both in the education system, we have seen multiple situations in the 20+ years we have spent working with kids. Frankly, I just don't see why this is so hard for people to see but then I recognize all of the talking points deal with the feelings of the adults who are trying very hard to keep the needs of the children out of the discussion.
Your argument is internally logical. However, your point here rests on the idea that homosexual role modeling is inherently worse than heterosexual role modeling. Kids learn a lot of things from their parents; sexuality is an incredibly minor piece of the puzzle that I would argue isn't learned from one's parents anyway. If you want to make your argument without indicating some relative distate for or prejudice toward homosexuals, you have to leave this part out (see Smiley321's arguments for an example).
You are conflating sexuality with our society's traditional gender roles. Mr. Mom didn't turn his kids gay.