gay marriages

Trippy discussions of moral issues, conspiracy theories, the paranormal and other otherworldly phenomenon.

Moderator: Dracofrost

Postby Gigafrost » Tue Mar 23, 2004 5:51 pm

the issue at hand is the protection of the family as a mean of protecting the children that could potentially derive from the relationship. In the case of homosexuals the certificate is not needed because it is naturally impossible.
"Children that could potentially derive from the relationship"...that in and of itself IMPLIES fertility. The argument that gays cannot marry because they cannot possibly conceive children is being arbitrarily drawn - two 70 year olds can marry, but it is naturally impossible for them to conceive children as well. In both cases there is no potential. In the case of homosexuals, this is the argued reason to exclude. In the case of heterosexuals, this is conveniently ignored. In other words, your sexual orientation IS being discriminated against, going with the assumption that marriage requires the potential to have children.

Of course, I could have completely misunderstood what you were trying to say. Or perhaps you didn't mean to include "could potentially have children" since that adds fertility to the issue, which you said wasn't the issue. The only other way I can interpret your statement, then, is that you're talking about encouraging families that raise children. Well, that dives back into the other half of the debate - are homosexuals fit to be parents?

Well, I am a lawyer, not a psycologist and I am not specialized in family law, so I don't keep notes on my sources, but the sources were europena psicologists and psychiatrists and were not refered only to sexual experimentation or even tendency to become homosexual, but more to real personality problems.

Note that the link I gave mentioned that there were problems in the children but that they were sexual, however the research referenced concluded *there were no differences* between hetero and homo. The American Psychiatric Association has a paper attempting to summarize much of the research done. Sure, there's not nearly enough research done on the subject to reach any sure conclusion. As was pointed out, though, the empirical data does not support the notion that homosexuals are bad parents. At least as far as that author looks.

In any case, I've got a link which is supposed to show "problems" with homosexual parenting, but I don't have the time to look over it now. It's really a collection of 52 "stories" and reasoning that most show problems. I'll have to look at it later.

I think you make a mistake here by asscociating visitation rights to marriage. A brother or a father should have visitation rights, so the regulation of visitation rights is not exclusive to marriage, and therefore do not say anything about the purpose of marriage, but about what society considers a respectable "close-relationship" be it marriage or any other.

The best I can do, since I'm short on time, is direct you to this link:
http://www.glad.org/Publications/CivilR ... yths.shtml
Myth #6 is, more or less, what I was trying to argue.

1) There is a tentation to idealize things and treat as equal things that are naturally different. Justice is achieved by giving each individual, or each situation its appropriate treatment, not by giving everyone the same (F.ex. paying more money to the one that works more or whose work is more useful is not discrimination, even if you treat two individuals differently) Even if both are respectable, homsexual and heterosexual couples are not the same.

2) Marriage, and matrimony is an institution that takes iits origin, even ethimologically, in the maternity, and therefore it is oriented to the creation of the family as a mean to protect the children.

1) Homosexual and heterosexual couples are not the same. White-white and black-white couples are not the same either. Young-young, old-old are not the same. The statement has no weight on the subject of marriage withouth reasoning why homosexual couples are different enough to be excluded.

2) The statement has no weight without reasoning why it shouldn't change from its origin. Voting used to be a white male privelege, yet that changed from its origins.


Links (for my and others' references)...
http://www.gargoyle-design.com/content/000040.html
http://www.glad.org/Publications/CivilR ... yths.shtml
http://www.marriageequality.org/facts.p ... s_in_court
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/librar ... jorus.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/c ... 071003.asp
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_homokids.html
http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html
User avatar
Gigafrost
Frost Weapon
Frost Weapon
 
Posts: 4900
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 5:09 pm
Location: Here

Postby Tar-Herunole » Tue Mar 23, 2004 6:06 pm

The problem is that marriage is a protection conceded to a pre-existing natural institution for a special purpose, not a prize or a punishment to anybody, and here lays the flaw of it all, because it is not that gay people have to be punished not to marry, is that the institution of matrimony is in its essence heterosexual.
The interests and rights of hetero or homo couples should be protected through different legal figures. It is the same that founding a public company without assets and with non-economic, only social functions. It's not possible for the essence of the public company is to pursue the profit and pool economical resources. A union of people with a social purpose should be done through association, but not through a public company.

In the other issue. the personality disorders I was referring to, are not social problems but personality disorders including but not limited to lack of self-esteem, such of schizophrenia, obsesiveness, etc... But even if the problem was only a social problem, the interest that has to be prevalent is that of the kids, not of the parents. You cannot use the children and make them pay for your intention of reform society.
High King of the Noldor in Middle-Earth
Honorary Knight of the Pointy Shiney
"... All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die"
User avatar
Tar-Herunole
Elite Guard
 
Posts: 1471
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 1:01 am

Postby TerraFrost » Tue Mar 23, 2004 9:44 pm

In the other issue. the personality disorders I was referring to, are not social problems but personality disorders including but not limited to lack of self-esteem, such of schizophrenia, obsesiveness, etc...


schizophrenia and obsessive behavior aren't forms of low self-esteem, to my knowledge. in any case, while i'm willing to concede that those raised by same sex couples may be more prone to low self esteem, i don't believe that is, in and of itself, a reason to disallow same sex marriages. as i said earlier, there are other situations that can give rise to higher than average instances of low self esteem, yet there aren't any proposals to curb those. so why should we curb low self esteem resulting from same sex marriages? also, low self esteem resulting from teasing can easily be avoided through home schooling or private schooling.

as far as same-sex couples inspiring schizophrenia... i've never heard that before, and i can't even see a causal relationship between the two, atm. could you provide a link that discusses this?

as for obsessiveness... assuming you mean obsessive compulsive behavior, i'm not really sure what the problem is. obsessive compulsive is just another word for dedication and passion. granted, people who are really dedicated risk pursueing stuff to the detriment of other things, but... who knows... it might, in the end, pay off.


also, and to sorta reiterate on a point giga made, it seems to me that single parents are going to be much more of a danger to their kids than are gay parents. the following links demonstrate how this is the case:

http://vanderbiltowc.wellsource.com/dh/ ... sp?ID=1079
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-wc67.html

so if we're going to ban same-sex marriages because they do harm to children, why don't we disallow the raising of kids by single parents?

for that matter, we should disallow divorce, as divorce harms kids. of course parents who don't divorce can also be a danger to kids, too, heh. hmmmm.

on a side note... why does the state even recognize marriage at all? why do they give tax breaks to married couples, allow married couples to co own stuff, whereas they might not be able to, otherwise, etc?
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby Tar-Herunole » Wed Mar 24, 2004 12:06 am

I did not meant schizo or obsessive (the menthal illness) were forms of self-steem. Unfortunately, the sources I have are not on-line (and in Spanish) but the reason for schizophrenia for example, is that the son of a male homosexual couple has a tendency to imitate his parents behaviour, and not being homosexual himself, finds a conflict that produces schizophrenic problems... (actuall same phenomenon ocurrs to homosexuals who are socially forced to repress their tendencies)
About divorce, it was forbiden for long, specially if they were children involved. Nonetheless a malfunctioning family could be even more harmful than a divided one, isn't it?

I did not have time to check your links, but in case it was proved that the children was better off alone I would support banning adoption by single parents.
High King of the Noldor in Middle-Earth
Honorary Knight of the Pointy Shiney
"... All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die"
User avatar
Tar-Herunole
Elite Guard
 
Posts: 1471
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 1:01 am

Postby TerraFrost » Wed Mar 24, 2004 1:46 am

i hadn't considered that your sources would be in spanish, heh.

anyways, those who act homosexual, but aren't, tend to be called metrosexuals - something that i've never heard associated with schizophrenia. here's a wikipedia entry on the subject of metrosexuals:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrosexual

I did not have time to check your links, but in case it was proved that the children was better off alone I would support banning adoption by single parents.


so do you think children are better off raising themselves than they are if raised by homosexual parents?

in any case, i'm not saying that children being left alone are better off than children adopted by single parents - rather, i'm saying that if it came between an adoption by a single parent and an adotopion by a couple, an adoption by a couple would be the prefered option. likewise, on the basis that the child in question might be teased (depending on where he lived), i'm willing to concede, for the sake of argument, that if it came between a homosexual couple adopting a kid, and a heterosexual couple, that a heterosexual couple would be prefered. however, i think both homosexual and single parents would be prefered to the child being alone. but, if we're to ban adoption by homosexuals because, while it may be better than the kid living on his own, it isn't the best thing out there, then i can't see why adoption by single parents shouldn't be banned, either.

EDIT: if my previous post was tough to understand, its because i made it while i was at work, trying to do this in the free moments i had, heh.
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby shahmask » Wed Mar 24, 2004 2:40 am

tar, i suggest u go and read what causes, or what we think causes, schizophrenia. our best guess is inheritence plays the largest role, along with stressors during pregnancy and brain development. references below
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/schizmenu.cfm
http://www.schizophrenia.com
i do not know how u can use your one case there as a source. perhaps every parent that has a schizophrenic child is a bad parent.

there appears to be no research in the US from a reputable source, and believe me, they have tried, to show links between homosexual upbringings and mental disease. countless government, medical, and research organizations have found no evidence of children of homosexual couples statistically developing abnormally.
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cg ... 9/2/339#R1 -references
The american academy of pediatrics even supports the legal adoption of a second parent of the same sex.
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cg ... ;109/2/339
Here is a scientific source made 9 months by the aap
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cg ... /4/631.pdf about homosexuality.
Also, everything you have said, except for your one source of schizophrenia, has been baseless. you have provided nothing to support your positions. you are not debating.
User avatar
shahmask
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 508
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 4:07 am
Location: in the valley of silicon hills

Postby tsian » Wed Mar 24, 2004 4:35 am

is that the son of a male homosexual couple has a tendency to imitate his parents behaviour, and not being homosexual himself, finds a conflict that produces schizophrenic problems

Sort of like the low self esteem resulting from a gay child attempting to fit into the "norm" and the example set by his/her parents by acting straight?

And, if they are to have low esteem resulting from teasing and the like, that seems to be more a problem with society rather than with the children themselves or their parents. Would denying interracial couples marriages on the grounds their children would face more teasing and thus lower self esteem be acceptable?
Vive le titre de deux.
In an ironic twist, the only trait I find completely appaling is intolerance.
User avatar
tsian
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:19 am
Location: BC, Canada

Postby Tar-Herunole » Wed Mar 24, 2004 11:18 am

shahmask wrote:Also, everything you have said, except for your one source of schizophrenia, has been baseless. you have provided nothing to support your positions. you are not debating.


:lol
I think this quote is the more baseless thing in the whole thread. I guess Terra and Giga would agree that we have been debating and not talking to ourselves...



With Tsian I agree almost fully. That's why I said myself that the same problem could be find in people with repressed homosexual tendencies.
Plus, I never said you should forbid people having children based only in protecting children from mockery, I was just trying to underline that the focus should be in the protection of the children, not in the protection of the wishes of the parents.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I did not have time to check your links, but in case it was proved that the children was better off alone I would support banning adoption by single parents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Finally, I think that children are better off raised by any resposible parent, (single, homosexual, or of any race) than being raised by themselves or an inpersonal collective institution. I only think that a natural family should be prefered in order to protect the interest of the children. In absence of a natural family, the other options are considerable, but they should not have the same "rights" because the question is not the rights of the parents, but the interest of the child. But that's my belief. If it was proved that wthey were better off alone or in acollective institutiobn than with a single parent or a homo couple, then I would support to have them alone, no matter what single parents or homo couples thought they were entitled to. I guess I am agreeing with Terra on this.
High King of the Noldor in Middle-Earth
Honorary Knight of the Pointy Shiney
"... All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die"
User avatar
Tar-Herunole
Elite Guard
 
Posts: 1471
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 1:01 am

Postby tsian » Thu Mar 25, 2004 1:17 am

I was just trying to underline that the focus should be in the protection of the children, not in the protection of the wishes of the parents

True, and so far there don't seem to be any excellent reasons to deny gay parents children. An interesting fact is that since gay parents have fought more for children, they are more likely to be stay at home parents. As for 'straight' children with gay parents, I would argue that since gay parents realize its perfectly normal to be straight or gay and so I would imagine gay parents, as a whole, would be supportive of their children, regardless of their sexuality... so its arguable that there would be no pressure on the children to be gay.
Vive le titre de deux.
In an ironic twist, the only trait I find completely appaling is intolerance.
User avatar
tsian
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:19 am
Location: BC, Canada

Postby Tar-Herunole » Thu Mar 25, 2004 12:27 pm

From a pragmatic reason, and given that there is more children without proper parents (specially in third world countries) than couples willing to adopt, I would support as well adoption by single or gay parents, whenever they can prove to be resposible parents.
High King of the Noldor in Middle-Earth
Honorary Knight of the Pointy Shiney
"... All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die"
User avatar
Tar-Herunole
Elite Guard
 
Posts: 1471
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 1:01 am

Postby Real_Pochacco » Sun Apr 11, 2004 6:58 am

The phrase "institution of marriage" makes me want to puke. Any importance that marriage might have had is undermined by the high rate of divorces and adultery and etc.
Just that phrase. It's full of crap. Mebe as a child of divorced parents I feel particularly strong about that.
"If you want to be one of the non-conformists, all you have to do is dress just like us and listen to same music we do."

"And what happens when you repress something? It comes back all crazy and pissed off."
User avatar
Real_Pochacco
Recruit
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2004 1:46 am
Location: The Secret Place You'll Never Find Me (AKA San Carlos, CA)

Previous

Return to Twilight Zone

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron