[qnxde]

Does anyone have any good links against this? I've just been in a discussion about it on IRC for the past *looks at watch* 3 hours and google brings up lots of pro arguments, but not many against. And the only ones I could find are from awful awful biased websites like www.ouramericanvalues.org and sites like this. http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1034938/posts

Being gay, I personally am FOR this situation but I'd like to read some of the reasoning behind the people who are against it just out of interest. (not religious based pleased, more scientific studies that might show problems with it)

Does anyone have any links to unbiased studies or similar that end with a recommendation against this? I sure as hell can't find any - all information from places like the american psychiatric association and the american medical association seems pretty much for it.

[Cipher13]

There really is no decent argument against it once the point of divorced parents and custody comes into play.

[Ghoser777]

What difference does it make? If the argument is that same sex relationships are immoral and so they shouldn't be able to adopt, then everyone else shouldn't be allowed to adopt or even have kids because everyone is immoral at some time or in some way. As long as the kid is being raised in a home by parents who love their kids instead of in an adoption home or being homeless on the street, I see no problem.

[OldManMac]

There's plenty of discussion on this subject here. What it shows here, is that there are some very rigid people, who won't listen to anything except what they want to hear.

[selowitch]

That gay marriage and adoption are acceptable should be obvious to anyone who bothers to think about it. Gay folks have the same capacity to love as anybody else -- why shouldn't they be able to solemnize those relationships? How can we possibly stand in the way of that?

[Captain Obvious]

I doubt there has been a study done that was funded by the feds. So you'd have to contact private research groups to see if there was ever an unbiased study done, but I doubt that there is.
Adoption is fine and should be made easier and once that is done the point of using that as justification for why there should be gay marriages can be put to rest because it will be moot. Adoption should be done by the ability to pay for the raising of the child as well as verification that the motives for waiting the child are sound. Then those new parent(s) can get the tax breaks.

[Mrjinglesusa]

As you have probably already discovered from your searches and posts here, there is no REASONABLE argument against it. Only ones that I have seen really opposed to it are the religious right and Bush (I know they are one and the same) and they don't have any logical arguments.

[forkies]

Originally posted by selowitch:
Gay folks have the same capacity to love as anybody else

i thought they were only sex-crazed pedophiles who are out to sodomize everyone they see (or at least me...i swearthat guy in the locker room was looking me up and down!! goddamn gays)



seriously though, i think that's the only argument

[qnxde]

Okay then, well if what everybody is saying is true, and nobody has been able to prove otherwise - then why is there still so many legal troubles surrounding the issue when I'm sure there are kids waiting to be taken into loving families. Seems a bit silly to me...

[Captain Obvious]

Originally posted by qnxde:
Okay then, well if what everybody is saying is true, and nobody has been able to prove otherwise - then why is there still so many legal troubles surrounding the issue when I'm sure there are kids waiting to be taken into loving families. Seems a bit silly to me...

Because no one has proven that there isn't some additional risk or cause for scrutiny. Adoption in the US is hard because there is an inherent liability in being the one regulating it. If one thing goes wrong the organization who helped the adoption take place will be sued and people will be found guilty of neglecting some detail they should have considered before allowing it to take place. So extra levels of scrutiny and bureaucracy are inserted as a precaution. Why do you think so many American couples go abroad to adopt? Have fun trying to sue some adoption agency in El Salvador or China.
And before some numbnut pipes in about how any man and woman can go pop a kid out and abuse the child and how we can hold them responsible, you are right, but no one else had to screen them to be parents and if you want to restrict the ability to breed then that is another thread . I doubt if you are OK with gays adopting you will be OK will someone saying its not OK for you to have kids.

[Angus_D]

Actually, I believe the argument is that it's "immoral" and will further undermine the idea of the family unit. There was some study published recently which showed that this was just FUD, but I don't have a link handy.

[vcutag]

One argument my stepmother always uses is that "children need a mother and father figure in their lives to develop normally." I don't buy this, personally, because it reinforces traditional stereotypes that, in my case at least, didn't apply.

Then again, this is the same woman who thinks I 'caught the gay' because I was around guys too much growing up (as opposed to the traditional "too much feminine influence early in life" stereotype.) Her theory is that I turned out this way because my mother wasn't really a part of my life, and therefore....

Well, sh!t, I have no idea how her reasoning works from there.

But there are some people who blindly believe that a child must have a mother and a father, and that two men or two women can't be as good for the child. I personally don't buy it, based on studies that have been done (I don't have cites, but I'm sure I could dig them up, my research is 3-4 years old.)

Ultimately, it boils down to the child having two loving parents instead of one, or life in an orphanage.

[Oisín]

The only at least partly valid point I can think of against gay people getting married and having children is in fact more like a part of the problem.

The only reason I can think of why having gay parents would be bad for the child is because it could cause the child a lot of grief and abuse by other children in school and the likes. But since this would not be an issue if there weren't this whole social stigma against gays and marriage, that's more a part of the problem to be solved than a valid reason for not solving it... or something...

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by Ois�n:
The only at least partly valid point I can think of against gay people getting married and having children is in fact more like a part of the problem.

The only reason I can think of why having gay parents would be bad for the child is because it could cause the child a lot of grief and abuse by other children in school and the likes. But since this would not be an issue if there weren't this whole social stigma against gays and marriage, that's more a part of the problem to be solved than a valid reason for not solving it... or something...

Yea, that's the same argument people had against interracial marriages too. Didn't fly then and doesn't fly now.

[Angus_D]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
Yea, that's the same argument people had against interracial marriages too. Didn't fly then and doesn't fly now.

<Zimphire>You just had to play the race card, didn't you?


[insert stupid smiley or graphic here]</Zimphire>

[qnxde]

Originally posted by Ois�n:
The only reason I can think of why having gay parents would be bad for the child is because it could cause the child a lot of grief and abuse by other children in school and the likes. But since this would not be an issue if there weren't this whole social stigma against gays and marriage, that's more a part of the problem to be solved than a valid reason for not solving it... or something...

Yeah that's what the other guy was arguing but really, kids will tease kids about anything these days, whether it's what sex their parents are, down to if they're not wearing the right clothes. It's quite a trivial thing really, and if that's the best they can come up with, it makes their side of the argument seem kinda lame.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Angus_D:
<Zimphire>You just had to play the race card, didn't you?


[insert stupid smiley or graphic here]</Zimphire>

I wasn't even a part of this thread....

[kmkkid]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I wasn't even a part of this thread....

You're missing an 'i'.


There's no reason why gays shouldnt be able to adopt or marry. It's all silliness.


Chris

[forkies]

(don't worry zimphire, it only took me 5 min to make it and i was even talking on the phone while i did it!! not sad!!)

[forkies]

here's an interesting document that describes the current situation regarding many issues (including adoption rights):

Technical Report: Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents [30 KiB]

[ort888]

The only halfway decent arguement is the slipery slope arguement. If you allow two men to get married, why not allow one man and two women to be married? Why not allow a man to marry a goat. Why not allow a 50 year old and a 10 year old to get married? You have to draw the line somewhere and it has been drawn at a man and a woman.

Not that I agree at all, but it at least holds more weight then the "it's against dat der bible" or "it's just plum wrong" arguements.

I think that in 50 years we'll be looking back at how we treated gays in the same way we look back at how we treated blacks 50 years ago. We'll look like uncivilized barbarians.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by forkies:

(don't worry zimphire, it only took me 5 min to make it and i was even talking on the phone while i did it!! not sad!!)

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by ort888:
The only halfway decent arguement is the slipery slope arguement. If you allow two men to get married, why not allow one man and two women to be married? Why not allow a man to marry a goat. Why not allow a 50 year old and a 10 year old to get married? You have to draw the line somewhere and it has been drawn at a man and a woman.

Not that I agree at all, but it at least holds more weight then the "it's against dat der bible" or "it's just plum wrong" arguements.

I think that in 50 years we'll be looking back at how we treated gays in the same way we look back at how we treated blacks 50 years ago. We'll look like uncivilized barbarians.

Nope. You can draw the line at TWO consenting adults of LEGAL age. Period. For the slower people out there that is two HUMANS that are of LEGAL age (i.e. 18 or whatever it is in your state). Limits it quite simply to a man and woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

[kmkkid]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
Nope. You can draw the line at TWO consenting adults of LEGAL age. Period. For the slower people out there that is two HUMANS that are of LEGAL age (i.e. 18 or whatever it is in your state). Limits it quite simply to a man and woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

So...


I can't marry my gay goat? and have a few 'kids'??

[ort888]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
Nope. You can draw the line at TWO consenting adults of LEGAL age. Period. For the slower people out there that is two HUMANS that are of LEGAL age (i.e. 18 or whatever it is in your state). Limits it quite simply to a man and woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

I agree 100%, but this guy was looking for counter arguements and that's the only one that is even close to being valid.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by ort888:
I agree 100%, but this guy was looking for counter arguements and that's the only one that is even close to being valid.

Exactly. And my point is that there AREN'T any valid arguments. Period. Even the one that is "close" to being valid is shot out of the water (see my post above). Again, what it boils down to is that the religious right are SCARED of gays, let alone gay marriage. It makes them uncomfotable. It gives them the heebie-jeebies to think of two men together (they probably get off on the thought of two women together but that's another topic). Hell, anything that conflicts with their limited moral view is in the crosshairs for some kind of legislation to make it illegal. Anyway, that's all I have to say about that. Off to go see Spiderman 2!

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
the religious right are SCARED of gays

No.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by vcutag:
One argument my stepmother always uses is that "children need a mother and father figure in their lives to develop normally." I don't buy this, personally, because it reinforces traditional stereotypes that, in my case at least, didn't apply.

There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of child-raising studies that overwhelmingly support your stepmother's argument.

[qnxde]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of child-raising studies that overwhelmingly support your stepmother's argument.

Even kids in "normal" families barely get that these days. The parents are out working most of the time, or just not home, and the kids look after themselves. Or the TV looks after them. What about single mothers and fathers? Are you saying kids raised by a single parent are somehow going to be less well adjusted than others?

[vcutag]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of child-raising studies that overwhelmingly support your stepmother's argument.

So, in that case, the bigger problem, statistically, would be the 50%+ of marriages that end in divorce.

Why not an amendment to ban divorce? Or single-parent adoption? Why all the fuss over something that is, statistically speaking, a drop in the bucket?

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by vcutag:
So, in that case, the bigger problem, statistically, would be the 50%+ of marriages that end in divorce.

Why not an amendment to ban divorce? Or single-parent adoption? Why all the fuss over something that is, statistically speaking, a drop in the bucket?

The fuss over something that is, statistically speaking, a drop in the bucket, is because it gives people something to keep their minds off the facts that they have lots of their own problems, which they don't really want to face, so this gives them a handy excuse. It also gives them something to feel self-righteous about, because they can crow about how "superior" they are to others.

[mrtew]

Originally posted by vcutag:
Why not an amendment to ban divorce? Or single-parent adoption? Why all the fuss over something that is, statistically speaking, a drop in the bucket?

Yeah, the child rearing thing is always the argument that's brought up against gay marriage, but how many gay people want to have children? Very few guys anyway! And if they want children, they can have all they want without anyone's permission, or legal marriages or anything, just by hooking up with eachother... it's a lot easier than jumping thru adoption hoops. The adoption worries are just a last grasp for a reason to deny people equal marriage rights.

[fireside]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of child-raising studies that overwhelmingly support your stepmother's argument.

i'm sure these studies are based on the "perfect" family. there's no way i was better off with my alcoholic, non-caring dad who was making everyone in the family worse off & mom than i am now with just my loving mom.

[Zimphire]

One instance at least has a chance to be normal. One never does.

[vcutag]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
One instance at least has a chance to be normal. One never does.

Define normal?

[Zimphire]

Mother<>Father<>Child

[Oisín]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Mother<>Father<>Child

The problem with playing the "normal" card is that the conceptions of "normal" tend to change quite a bit. In this case, it is again possible to draw parallels to the situation of interracial marriages, where "normal" changed from "White mother + white father + white child" into "mother (of any race) + father (of any race) + child (of any race)". The way society is developing, it is almost inevitable that "normal" (or perhaps rather "ideal") will, sooner or later, be changed into "consenting, responsible, loving parent (of any race or gender) + consenting, responsible, loving parent (of any race or gender) + child (of any race or gender)"...

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by Ois�n:
The problem with playing the "normal" card is that the conceptions of "normal" tend to change quite a bit. In this case, it is again possible to draw parallels to the situation of interracial marriages, where "normal" changed from "White mother + white father + white child" into "mother (of any race) + father (of any race) + child (of any race)". The way society is developing, it is almost inevitable that "normal" (or perhaps rather "ideal") will, sooner or later, be changed into "consenting, responsible, loving parent (of any race or gender) + consenting, responsible, loving parent (of any race or gender) + child (of any race or gender)"...

Well put. And Zimphire, Mother<>Child<>Father is NOT "normal" for a gay couple. See, that is the problem with these arguments against gay marriage. They all rely on a concept of "normal" that is based on the values and morals of whoever is making the argument and is exactly why those who argue against it fear it becoming reality. Their whole concept of what is "normal" and "right" will become muddled.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Ois�n:
The problem with playing the "normal" card is that the conceptions of "normal" tend to change quite a bit.

No, it's always the same. I think you mean different values change. Their "norm" meter sometimes goes off into bizarro world.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
One instance at least has a chance to be normal. One never does.

so?

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
One instance at least has a chance to be normal. One never does.

According to whom? If you are going to make a blanket statement like that you need to back it up. There are no studies that show children of a gay couple are not adjusted or "normal." Why? Because they have never been given the opportunity.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
There are no studies that show children of a gay couple are not adjusted or "normal."

good point. "normal" =! adjusted/healthy

i think when dim says normal, he means "the majority".

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
According to whom? If you are going to make a blanket statement like that you need to back it up. There are no studies that show children of a gay couple are not adjusted or "normal." Why? Because they have never been given the opportunity.

I'm not talking about just children. I am talking about the whole family.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:

i think when dim says normal, he means "the majority".

Dim? How original. Should I start calling you "penixboy69" or something?

And no, I didn't mean the "majority"

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Should I start calling you "penixboy69" or something?

if that turns you on honey...

Originally posted by Zimphire:
And no, I didn't mean the "majority"

well, then define "normal".

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
if that turns you on honey...

Wanna go out back and make out?

well, then define "normal".

Conforming to a standard, lacking abnormalities or deficiencies.

You know, normal.

Now, you can say "its perfectly normal to me" And it may very well be.

Some people would claim hanging themselves from metal hooks to be normal as well.

That is why I said some people's "norm" meter is off.

Just because YOU claim it's normal to YOU doesn't make it so.

Normal is really not as subjective as people would like it to be. Especially not in this case.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Wanna go out back and make out?

Conforming to a standard, lacking abnormalities or deficiencies.

You know, normal.

Now, you can say "its perfectly normal to me" And it may very well be.

Some people would claim hanging themselves from metal hooks to be normal as well.

That is why I said some people's "norm" meter is off.

Just because YOU claim it's normal to YOU doesn't make it so.

Normal is really not as subjective as people would like it to be. Especially not in this case. [/B]

See now you just blew you own argument out of the water and made my point for me. When you say normal and "conforming to a standard, lacking abnormalities or deficiences" you are saying that a gay person and/or his/her family is abnormal. That is the whole point. They are NOT abnormal. They may not conform to YOUR standard but that does not make them abnormal. For them, what they are doing is perfectly normal. And to quote your other point: "Just because it is normal to you doesn't make it so" applies to you as well. And "normal" is VERY subjective, in this and all cases. I don't think it's "normal" to pray at the same time everyday facing a certain direction but to people in Islamic countries this is normal and routine. Get my point? The norm is different everywhere. There is and should never be a standard "norm." This is why this whole gay marriage argument gets to me - certain people are against it because it doesn't fit into what THEY consider normal. The fact is, it really doesn't matter what they consider normal. Again, back to about, what, 30-40 years ago? The "majority" considered interracial marriages "abnormal." The EXACT same arguments used against them then are being used against gays now.

[Zimphire]

No, it's not subjective. Just because people have lower standards doesn't make the norm any different.

Take for example having 5 fingers on each hand is normal.

Some people like attaching more fingers to their body. While they may THINK this is normal. It is not. Their mind is just clouded with junk.

BTW, this shouldn't be in the lounge. Crap is usually posted in the PL.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No, it's not subjective. Just because people have lower standards doesn't make the norm any different.

Take for example having 5 fingers on each hand is normal.

Some people like attaching more fingers to their body. While they may THINK this is normal. It is not. Their mind is just clouded with junk.

BTW, this shouldn't be in the lounge. Crap is usually posted in the PL.

So a decent discussion that you can't make a valid argument against makes it crap? I agree with it being in the PL but it is definately not crap.

Poor attampt at an anology BTW. Having 5 fingers on a hand in NO WAY compares to giving gays the same civil rights that you and I take for granted. Again, another person using the "lower standards" card. So, in your view, anyone that does something that doesn't conform to YOUR norm has lower standards? Who makes the norm? The majority?

If you are going to reply at least answer the questions I ask instead of giving stupid analogies that don't apply or help make your argument.

I'll make it simple. Here are two questions I want answered: 1) Who decides what is "normal?" 2) How is the right for gays to marry any different than the rights of people of different races to marry (taking into consideration the arguments used against it in the 50's and 60's)?

PS. Mods, please move to PL...

[Zimphire]

Like I said, people can try to justify it till the cows come home. It wont change the FACTS.

BTW I never said anything about NOT giving civil rights.

I was talking about normalcy.

Who decides what is normal? Can two males EVER produce a kid on their own? No.

And how is it different than race? Homosexuality and race can't be compared. One you can't change the other you can.

A black man and a white woman can indeed have children of their own.

It always cracks me up when people try to put race issues and sexual preference issues in the same boat.

Can homosexuality not stand own it's own merits? I guess not.