Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Same sex marriage
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 46 of 165 (47817)
07-29-2003 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by DC85
07-29-2003 1:34 AM


DC85 responds to me:
quote:
was that post really needed?
If I didn't think so, I wouldn't have made it. You made some fundamental statements regarding sexuality that seemed to be in error. I was pointing out not just that you were wrong but the specific reasons why so that you might learn.
This is a bulletin board system. When you make a post, you risk a lot of people responding, often saying the same thing. Get over it.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by DC85, posted 07-29-2003 1:34 AM DC85 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by DC85, posted 07-31-2003 1:02 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 47 of 165 (47902)
07-29-2003 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by nator
07-23-2003 6:41 PM


bizarre extrapolations
Schraf:
quote:
Um, where the heck did Scott say or even remotely imply anything close to the extreme viewpoint you just accused him of holding?
You invent things to rail against sometimes
Indeed - in FACT, my views are quite the opposite of what has been implied.
I SUPPORT "gay rights". I SUPPORT "civil unions." I SUPPORT anti-discrimination laws. I even SUPPORT the "right" of homosexuals adopting children, I just don't think that, at this point in out cultural history, it is (always) a good thing. NOT because, as I made clear, I have anything against gay people, but because I think that the children would be victims of harrassment - a harrassment quite unlike the harrassment that inter-racial adoptees receive, as racial harrassment is at least publicly frowned upon by most of America, while it seems a pretty good chunk of America sees no problem with outright discrimination against - if not the persecution of - homosexuals.
So I am in NO WAYT making gays out to be the bad guys. Indeed, I am 'making' the anti-gays out to be the bad guys - and yes, they are most likely the same 'white-supremicist' types that were mentioned.
As far as the 'social experiment', again, I did not write or even imply that gay couples would want to adopt BECAUSE they wanted to perform a social experiment, rather gay adoption ends up BEING a de facto social experiment.
Please do not read what is not written.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by nator, posted 07-23-2003 6:41 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by nator, posted 07-30-2003 12:19 AM derwood has not replied
 Message 51 by Rrhain, posted 07-30-2003 2:05 AM derwood has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 48 of 165 (47903)
07-29-2003 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by crashfrog
07-28-2003 2:34 AM


quote:
What's not to understand about gay people? Sexual preference is just that, a preference, like your favorite flavor of ice cream, for instance.
Right. And lots of folks - about 6 million - just felt like trying out Judaism in 1933.... Probably to piss off their parents and go against societal norms. Most likely caused by that devil music and atheism...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by crashfrog, posted 07-28-2003 2:34 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by crashfrog, posted 07-29-2003 4:04 PM derwood has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 49 of 165 (47921)
07-29-2003 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by derwood
07-29-2003 1:21 PM


I guess I wasn't really referring to potential genetic influences on homosexuality when I compared it to ice cream - to my knowledge, there's no genetic factor linked to ice cream preference.
I was just trying to make a point that, to other people, what sex you prefer should be no more noteworthy or significant than what flavor of ice cream you prefer. (If they're trying to date you, it may become a little more significant, but then, so would your ice cream flavor, I should think.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by derwood, posted 07-29-2003 1:21 PM derwood has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 50 of 165 (47946)
07-30-2003 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by derwood
07-29-2003 1:18 PM


Re: bizarre extrapolations
It sucks to have to defend yourself against something that you never even came close to doing or saying, doesn't it?
Some people just think what they want to think, regardless of what you actually say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by derwood, posted 07-29-2003 1:18 PM derwood has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 51 of 165 (47952)
07-30-2003 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by derwood
07-29-2003 1:18 PM


Re: bizarre extrapolations
SLPx writes:
quote:
As far as the 'social experiment', again, I did not write or even imply that gay couples would want to adopt BECAUSE they wanted to perform a social experiment, rather gay adoption ends up BEING a de facto social experiment.
My apologies for misinterpreting you, but it hinged on a couple parts of your statement:
I know that I would not want to [b][i]use[/b][/i] children in some sort of [b][i]social experiment[/b][/i], [b][i]in the name of 'rights.'[/b][/i]
"Use" children? Who is "using" children? That would be the people who are adopting the children and the agencies that place them in adoption, right? And what is the point behind saying "use children" if not to question the motives of those people who are trying to adopt them and the people who are trying to place them?
In short, it suggests that you are saying that the people who are trying to adopt and the people who are trying to place the children have some sort of ulterior motive for doing so above and beyond the desire to provide a loving home for a child who has no parents. That is very different, in my mind, from an attitude that the motives of the parents and the placement agencies are pure but that there is going to be a problem from the surrounding society.
"In the name of 'rights'"? We're back to that question of impugning the integrity of the people involved in adopting the child. Who possibly thinks that the reason that a child should be adopted is simply because it is his right to do so? What does that mean, "in the name of 'rights'"? What is the point of saying this if not to suggest that there is an ulterior motive among those wishing to adopt and those looking to place children above and beyond the desire to provide a loving home for a child who has no parents? It shows, in my mind, an attitude very different from someone trying to say that the motives behind the adoption are pure but that there is a social stigma in the surrounding community.
This is only compounded by the phrase, "social experiment," because that is precisely the phrase used by those who oppose adoption by gay parents. Despite the fact that thousands upon thousands of children have been raised by gay parents already, those that seek to discriminate against those who aren't straight seem to feel that the motive behind gay parents wishing to adopt is an active attempt to destroy society, bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha! and all that.
For example, they forget that there are gay women. While a man needs a woman to bear a child, a woman only needs a man's sperm and then she can take care of the rest. In our society, if a couple has a child, she is overwhelmingly more likely to be awarded custody than he is (partly socilogical logistics, partly sexism). Thus, there are many gay women who are the sole custodial parent of children. If they then find a partner, it only makes sense that the new partner might want to adopt the children of her partner. Similarly for those women who become pregant from artificial insemination. At that point, the bearer of the child has custody but the partner needs to adopt the child.
The point is that these children are growing up in homes headed by gay people anyway and have been for decades. So where is this "social experiment" that is taking place? It belies an attitude that gay people raising children is a new thing. You may think that it is a "social experiment" for gays to raise children, but I have to wonder how many years have to pass where gays have been raising children before the experiment comes to an end.
And when you look at the statements of people who use the phrase "social experiment," you find that they impugn the integrity of those who are trying to adopt. They are so certain that heterosexuality is the only thing that can possibly cause a good outcome, so certain that gays want to "recruit," so certain that to let a gay person anywhere near a child is going to cause irreparable damage (at the very least turn the child gay if not molestation of the child), that they use this phrase, "social experiment," as a code term in order to scare people away from placing a child in a loving home. This same term, "social experiment," is used to deny gays from serving in the military.
That is why I responded the way I did. Your personal opinion may be that the problem lies in the society surrounding the child rather than the parents and adoption agencies, but that one statement pretty much said the exact opposite. It contained two phrases that I can't manage to interpret any other way and another that used the exact phrasing of those who wish to keep children out of loving homes.
Again, I am sorry for misinterpreting you, but what you said was an almost word-for-word statement from the homophobes who were fighting against same-sex marriage in Hawaii...we can't allow same-sex marriage because it would lead to children being adopted by gay couples and we cannot allow gays to "use children in some sort of social experiment, in the name of 'rights.'" It is almost a word-for-word statement from the homophobes in Florida who fought against adoption by gays.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by derwood, posted 07-29-2003 1:18 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by derwood, posted 07-30-2003 3:09 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 52 of 165 (48002)
07-30-2003 9:01 AM


I am not against gay marriage, but I think Male-Female couples should be given preference when it comes to adoption. I also think children should be placed with parents of the same ethnic grouping where possible.
Why? Well, not because gays will pervert these poor innocent children, nor because they might be paedophiles (you'd be amazed at the number of ignorant bigots who say 'homosexuals/pedophiles'). But because I think there's resonable evidence that having a mother and father is the best environment for a child to be raised in. Gay couples should still be given preference over single parents though, two parents better than one.
Am an ignorant bigot now (damnit, I hate when that happens).

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 07-30-2003 10:17 AM Dr Jack has replied
 Message 55 by Rrhain, posted 07-30-2003 12:07 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 53 of 165 (48018)
07-30-2003 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Dr Jack
07-30-2003 9:01 AM


But because I think there's resonable evidence that having a mother and father is the best environment for a child to be raised in.
You think there's evidence? Or there isevidence?
There's a big difference, I hope you know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Dr Jack, posted 07-30-2003 9:01 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Dr Jack, posted 07-30-2003 11:05 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 54 of 165 (48023)
07-30-2003 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by crashfrog
07-30-2003 10:17 AM


I think there's evidence, but I'm insufficently knowledgable about the subject to give a definite answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 07-30-2003 10:17 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by nator, posted 07-31-2003 8:52 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 55 of 165 (48037)
07-30-2003 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Dr Jack
07-30-2003 9:01 AM


Mr Jack writes:
quote:
But because I think there's resonable evidence that having a mother and father is the best environment for a child to be raised in.
As I stated previously, I highly recommend you look over the transcript of the Hawaii case regarding same-sex marriage (Baehr v. Miike). One of the arguments the attorney general put forward in the State's case to prevent same-sex marriage was that it would lead to gay adoption.
The State's own witnesses couldn't come up with a reason for thinking that heterosexual couples make better parents than gay couples. For example, one of their witnesses was a Dr. Thomas Merrill who testified as follows:
Q. Now, doctor, do you think the
children, regardless of whether they have a
mother and a father, male-female parents,
single parents, adoptive parents, gay and
lesbian parents, same gender parents, should
have the same opportunity in society to reach
their optimum development, each child?
A. Yes, I do.
Now, you have said that the issue is that you think that straight parents are better but aren't sure. What are you planning to do to become more sure? Might you consider withholding judgement until such time as you become more sure?
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Dr Jack, posted 07-30-2003 9:01 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 56 of 165 (48043)
07-30-2003 12:30 PM


What are you planning to do to become more sure? Might you consider withholding judgement until such time as you become more sure?
I plan on doing nothing to become more sure, other than the usual general gathering of information that is part of my life. I do not consider rendering an opinion on a discussion board 'judgement'. My opinions have no bearing of any kind on the progression of whether or not gays are allowed to marry (which I already support), or adopt (which I support, but with the reservation that hetero couples should be prefered), nor are they likely to in the near future. Should they ever be relevant then, yes, I would thoroughly research the issue.
My opinion is based on what I know about child development, most of which comes from following a Introduction to Psychology course at university. Children from single parent families generally do less well than parents from two parent families and exhibit more behavioural problems. They do this even if the child is raised in the home of the mother, and effectively raised by the mother's mother, the mother and, in some cases, extended family. However, research in America has found that by introducing strong male role models into the social and school lives of children raised by single parents in deprived areas of Los Angeles it is possible to significantly reduce these problems.
I therefor conclude that children, probably, require both male and female parent figures in their lives in order to have the best possible development. Would you agree this is a reasonable conclusion from that evidence?

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Rrhain, posted 07-30-2003 12:57 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 57 of 165 (48048)
07-30-2003 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Dr Jack
07-30-2003 12:30 PM


Mr Jack responds to me:
quote:
I therefor conclude that children, probably, require both male and female parent figures in their lives in order to have the best possible development. Would you agree this is a reasonable conclusion from that evidence?
Hard to say...I know of much different evidence that shows that children raised by gay parents show no difference in outcome compared to children raised by straight parents (for example, the Bay Area Family Study and the Contemporary Family Study).
So the problem is not so much the conclusion but the premises on which it is based. There is no reason to prefer opposite-sex couples over same-sex couples. The children of gay parents show no higher rates of drug use, delinquency, truancy, etc., no lower rates of graduation, college attendance, etc.
The overwhelming predictor of outcome in a family is not the sex of the parents but how well they get along. Parents who love each other make better parents than those who don't.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Dr Jack, posted 07-30-2003 12:30 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 58 of 165 (48056)
07-30-2003 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Rrhain
07-30-2003 2:05 AM


Re: bizarre extrapolations
Whatever...
I thought the overall context should have made things clear.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Rrhain, posted 07-30-2003 2:05 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 379 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 59 of 165 (48113)
07-31-2003 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Rrhain
07-29-2003 2:26 AM


you just reapeted what someone else already said! no point what so ever. END please
[This message has been edited by DC85, 07-31-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Rrhain, posted 07-29-2003 2:26 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 379 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 60 of 165 (48114)
07-31-2003 1:14 AM


something good has been brought up in this topic. it would Be Extremely hard for a child in that type of Environment not Because the parents are Gay and can't make a happy home its Because of Other children! Right now in the USA it seems to be the Biggest Insult to Call someone Gay. its really a Big deal. to have a Kid in a family like that? to me thats really NO. Personally I am not against because the Child can be Happy in the Home. But outside of that I wouldn't think so. I know it was torture being fat in school... and right now thats noting compared to Homosexuality. it would to me be wrong to put a child there in that. Until that changes .......

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Dan Carroll, posted 07-31-2003 2:33 AM DC85 has not replied
 Message 65 by Mammuthus, posted 07-31-2003 8:06 AM DC85 has not replied
 Message 66 by Rrhain, posted 07-31-2003 8:21 AM DC85 has not replied
 Message 70 by nator, posted 07-31-2003 9:05 AM DC85 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024