Homosexual Marraiges

[Peregrine]

I wouldn't say that with such force untill there have been more same-sex couples raising children. Who knows, maybe the children would lack a male/female role modle so are more likely to have more sexual partners. Compensating a lack of a gender role modle does couse this to happen some times.

 

Take a look at single parent families. They're denied te male/female role model just as much. By that standard, every single parent should be forced to marry to avoid harming the child.

 

? #1. The statment your revering to is not making a point, only listing examples.

? #2. I never said these were bad qualities.

? #3. Not me.

 

You implied that by mentioning them. And you implied that qualities like that can be bad, and that they should be any of society's business.

 

Wrong. The two males (in almost ALL cases) would have diffrent personalitys (however slight the diffrences are). Diffrent personality combonations create diffrent children. Having two parent's (regardless of sexes) personalitys floating around a household impresing them selves on the child with out a doubt make a diffrent child then just one of those personalitys. Saying otherwise is nieve (wich is polite for stupid.)

 

And different personalities of different single-parent families are going to create different results. But that has nothing to do with the main point of your argument, that male/male or female/female parents would create a significant negative effect. The only way it could do so is the lack of the female/male parent.

 

No, I don't think I am. Parent's sexualality does effect childrens sexualaity, though it is not the supreme desiding factor (I never said it was).

 

Then if it's such a minor factor, why bring it up? Don't try to pretend you didn't make an argument once I prove it wrong.

 

I think you read my post wrong so I'll break it down a bit:

 

 

I'll just skip to the important part:

 

think

 

meaning I belive but know I may be wrong

 

And in this case, you are wrong.

[Muennin]

Here's my rather simplistic take on this matter. As I currently rent with a gay male, and value my status as a free-thinking heterosexual male (when I may enjoy such a title!), I would wish him well in every future endeavor he might encounter.

 

I have absolutely no power, mode of religious training, or thought process that wishes to prevent him from enjoying the joys of a limited lifespan to the fullest! The fact that I have viewed news bites today of my state Governor likening gay marriage to some haphazard law likened to endorsing unauthorized firearm dispersals and worse seems abominable...

 

Here's the simplistic portion: While there is enough pain, grief, and unsubstatiated hatred in the world, why not take a first stand against these enemies of humanity and common benefit?

 

I'm hoping our Supreme Court feels as enlightened to these mutual benefits to a progressive society even should they opt to provide an alternative title to "Marriage" as we come to know this union.

 

OT: Are there any studies available which document homosexual divorce as of yet?

[Nevermore]

You miss read the first post. Wich lead to my secound post. Wich you missed the point of.

 

So I'll repost my first post to show you why you are wastign your time by arguring things that need not be argued about.

 

What are the negitive aspects of two women raising a family?

 

First you have to look at what type of people the couple are. If they are two butching manly men then any girl raised in their house hold, i would think, would be more apt to be tomboyish. If the two men are more on the sentimental side, like say the queer eyes, then I would think that any male raised by them would be apt to be homosexual.

 

Not that tomboyish females are bad, or that homosexual males are either, I'm just randomly pointing out traits that may accour.

 

Now I'll point out soem things:

 

1. The first paragraph asks the question "what are negitives effects on children of same-sex couples?"

2. The topic sentance of the following paragraph says that the question can't be answered till the personalitys of the same-sex couple are examined

3. The next two sentance show the personalitys of a same sex couple then possable traits that the children raised by the said couple may have tendencies to exhibit.

4. The sentance from 3 where under the topic sentance of 2, and 2 was disscussing 1.

5. Some one may assume that the sentances in 3 where under the direct topic of the question in 1.

6. To aviod the confussion of what I was trying to say in the secound paragraph (confussion = 5) I added the next paragraph.

7. That paragraph states 3 is under topic 2, and not directly about 1.

 

So I'm guessing you did what many may have; wich is 5.

 

---------------------------------------------

Now that that is cleared up:

 

QUOTE 

I wouldn't say that with such force untill there have been more same-sex couples raising children. Who knows, maybe the children would lack a male/female role modle so are more likely to have more sexual partners. Compensating a lack of a gender role modle does couse this to happen some times.

 

 

 

Take a look at single parent families. They're denied te male/female role model just as much. By that standard, every single parent should be forced to marry to avoid harming the child.

 

I'm saying that you shouldn't say "there are no negitive side effects from having same-sex parents", because there simply isn't enough precadent to back that claim up. Untill this situation occours more often we can not see major trends in the side effects.

 

Talking about the simularites between the side effects of same-sex parents and single parents on the children has nothing to do with what I said.

 

On a side not: I do agree that same-sex couples do interfere with the much needed male/female role modles of the child. But I don't think any body should be forced to be married. When you said:

 

By that standard, every single parent should be forced to marry to avoid harming the child

 

You assumed that the problem of male/female role modle difficenty has to be solved. I simply say that the problem exists, not that we need to solve it.

[Peregrine]

1. The first paragraph asks the question "what are negitives effects on children of same-sex couples?"

 

Which I answered. There are none.

 

2. The topic sentance of the following paragraph says that the question can't be answered till the personalitys of the same-sex couple are examined.

 

And you'll find countless different personalities, so any conclusions you base on them will be relevant only to that specific pair.

 

3. The next two sentance show the personalitys of a same sex couple then possable traits that the children raised by the said couple may have tendencies to exhibit.

 

And implies that these are things that could be considered a problem.

 

Just to make this simple, no matter how you word lawyer it into somethign else, you implied that those characteristics can be considered bad.

 

I'm saying that you shouldn't say "there are no negitive side effects from having same-sex parents", because there simply isn't enough precadent to back that claim up. Untill this situation occours more often we can not see major trends in the side effects.

 

No, you have to look at what is most likely to happen. Single homosexuals do not show negative traits at a higher than average percentage of population. Therefore it is unlikely that putting two together would suddenly make them appear. Negative traits can not be passed on to children if they do not exist to begin with.

 

Talking about the simularites between the side effects of same-sex parents and single parents on the children has nothing to do with what I said.

 

WRONG. It has very much to do with it. As you yourself even concede, any problems would come from the lack of both of the traditional mother/father. A child of a single father has only male influence. A child of two fathers has only male influence. While the exact influence may be a bit different, they are close enough to make predictions based on the existing single-parent families.

 

On a side not: I do agree that same-sex couples do interfere with the much needed male/female role modles of the child.

 

Concession accepted. Lack of one of the mother/father roles is a lack of mother/father role, no matter what the cause of that lack is.

 

And just to make it clear, I do not believe there is a needed male/female influence. That's a primitive and pointless assumption based on traditional morals, which I disagree with. Lack of one or the other may produce a child that doesn't fit society's definition of "correct", but society is wrong for having that definition to begin with.

 

 

But I don't think any body should be forced to be married. When you said:

By that standard, every single parent should be forced to marry to avoid harming the child

You assumed that the problem of male/female role modle difficenty has to be solved. I simply say that the problem exists, not that we need to solve it.

 

If a problem does not need to be solved then it is not a problem. You can't have it both ways. If the lack of "proper" mother/father influence is a reason to ban homosexual marriage, then it is a reason to ban single-parent families.

[Nevermore]

Which I answered. There are none.

 

Which is not a proveable statment. You can't possably know that there are no bad side effects till many more children are raised with same-sex parents. There simplly is a lack of sufficent data to make your claim. Though I'm sure your genrally right.

=============

And you'll find countless different personalities, so any conclusions you base on them will be relevant only to that specific pair.

 

Well duh. The effects on the child will vary from parential group from parential group. But I'm willing to bet that there will be some broad characterists exibhited by the majority of these children.

============

And implies that these are things that could be considered a problem.

 

No, not when the next paragraph says it clearly that I did not mean these were bad traits.

 

And I didn't "word lawyer it into somethign else" I clearly stated:

Not that tomboyish females are bad, or that homosexual males are either, I'm just randomly pointing out traits that may accour.

============

Single homosexuals do not show negative traits at a higher than average percentage of population. Therefore it is unlikely that putting two together would suddenly make them appear. Negative traits can not be passed on to children if they do not exist to begin with.

 

I'm not saying that homosexuals have any bad traits that rub off on the children. I'm saying that for all the couple is, they aint the opposite gender. And they are what they are: A gay couple. The child would have to endure the lack of one gender role model (whether or not they suffer from it is based on the situation), and that their parents are not the normal. Now however much it may not matter to people, it does matter emotionaly to the child. People by nature want to fit in.

===========

As you yourself even concede, any problems would come from the lack of both of the traditional mother/father. A child of a single father has only male influence. A child of two fathers has only male influence. While the exact influence may be a bit different, they are close enough to make predictions based on the existing single-parent families.

 

While I'm sure there would be a few simularitys I think that the diffrences would be too great to having any value study them both for the same topic.

 

After all single parent children have only 1 person to turn to and only 1 person watching out for them. While two parents (regardless of genders and sexualitys) have 2 people to turn to (and the child may have one parent for the personal stuff, and one parent is the "buddy" parent), and 2 people looking out for them (so if one parent lacks great intrest in the child's life there is the secound chance, while in single parent situations if the parent shows lack of seriuse commitment then the child has nothing left in that area).

===========

That's a primitive and pointless assumption based on traditional morals, which I disagree with. Lack of one or the other may produce a child that doesn't fit society's definition of "correct", but society is wrong for having that definition to begin with

 

As for the male/female influence: It's not so much the influence of the parent but the phycological need to be able to say "This is my mom, and this is my dad. I will act like this one, and search for some one simular to this one." After all that's what goes on, (all of this is genral) males learn behavior from their fathers and their mothers become that which is the basis of the female triats that the child then seeks in a mate.

===========

If a problem does not need to be solved then it is not a problem. You can't have it both ways. If the lack of "proper" mother/father influence is a reason to ban homosexual marriage, then it is a reason to ban single-parent families.

 

Wrong, problems exist that are better off left unsolved. Take for instance the fact my mouse doesn't work to well. While I could get a job to get money to buy a new one, it is better for me not to get a job so I should work around this problem.

 

On the topic of lacking mother/father modles: The problem could be solved by forcing marrages but many would see this as unethical (need I mention the peeople being forced into it) and unconstitutional. Forcing marrages would creat more problems then it would solve. So the problem maybe better off left alone to be solved by the individual.

[valdir]

Hey Peregrine, chill out, its an internet message board. No need to get all worked up about something like gay marriage.

 

And I think narrow-minded people like you are one of the nastiest things humanity has created.

 

Yeah, too bad that was flaming.

 

-val

[Peregrine]

Too bad I just repeated your own words with a different target. If you think that's flaming and that you have a right to complain, you shouldn't do it yourself.

[Breton Thief Oriana]

Hes a mod. Flaming doesn't really exist with a mod.

 

Why would anyone have ANY logical, sensible reason to restrict the rights of others? It is stupid.

[Ancalagon]

Why would anyone have ANY logical, sensible reason to restrict the rights of others? It is stupid.

 

*Takes a deep breath

 

Well in a perfect world...

 

I don't think you need my answer, the condition of the U.S and it's history speak for themselves...

 

Also, as long as there is Man, there will be the restriciton of rights. It's a human convention (or faculty) and therefore as long as Man exists, then so shall this.

 

It's just the way the world, unfortuneatly, works...

[Nevermore]

Why would anyone have ANY logical, sensible reason to restrict the rights of others? It is stupid.

 

Constitutional rights, or rights as in "anything they want" rights?

 

of the former: That's why we have amendments and legal stuff. :angry: I hate legal stuff so bad :ranting:

 

Of the latter: I have a right to kill anyone I want, wich counters the right to live of others, it's self defeating.