10 Reasons why Gay Marriage is Wrong!!

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

I'd put one either with family or close friends, since I know a few couples that wouldn't mind taking in another kid.

Well

One of my best friends is patrt of a lesbian couple with plans to get married. I wouldn't hesitate to have my son be with them

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

I agree, that your example happens more frequently, but you also have to ask yourself the proportions. If there are more gay people then straight people, then you would expect to see situations involving gay people occur much more frequently.

You have missed the point completely...

You used your example as a reason why "the kids should come first" and why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt.

You were also raising the pedophile strawman to trash gays again... especially when you claimed it was very plausable...

The point of my example was to show that again, your argument was meaningless...

Bad things can happen no matter what... It all depends on the parent's... whether gay or straight... so if you are going to use the what's best for the kids argument, you would have to allow gays to adopt... because in many cases, that's what is in the best interest of the children.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


So societal pressure forces women to have children against their will.

yes quite often

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Now, let me ask you, in an abortion who else would know of the abortion other then the mother? She is not required to tell anyone in order to get one.

Often family/ friends or the birth father may know .

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Why would the woman fear the abortion if she didn't also love her child? Isn't abortion supposed to be safe and legal?

It is both safe and legal. It is also a medical procedure . Among those that support the right to choose, it is often considered unpleasant and not desirable.

You seem to assume all pregnant women are pro-choice. Do you deny the large percentage of people that could never allow themselves to have an abortion?

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


As opposed to a woman who has to carry the child for nine months, and decides to keep the child? Both are additional and intentional steps.

Nope-- once you get pregnant, the carrying of the child happens automatically and the keeping of the child is the norm. You would actually have to take specific steps to get rid of the child.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Yet abuse happens.

yes . I don't think they have been ever been able to profile all the reasons for abuse. With unwanted children it often manifests itself in neglect.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

So if any idiot can get pregnant, why don't those same idiots get an abortion?

perhaps they have a religious or moral opposition to abortion. perhaps family or birth father presuures.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Wantedness does nothing to reduce the abuse, and many have said that just because the child is wanted, that it puts considerable pressure on the child to live up to the parent's expectations.

Do you have any cites or stats on this since it sounds like you pulled it out of your rectum.


I do not have any such stats but logically, a couple that goes to great effort to conceive or adopt a child incluidng great expense and inconvenience, would be less likely to forget to feed and bathe said child. They are more likely to have the necessary resources to provide properly for the child

On active physical abuse, who knows? there are likely sadists among all socioeconomic groups.

Emotional "abuse" ?? An unwanted child is more likely to feel neglected. A fervently desired child is more likely to have high expectations and demands palced upon him

[Arrian]

I only got through a couple pages of threads, Ben (I was sorting through stuff from ~1 year ago), and I only read through 2 "gay threads."

The second one prominently featured your strawman about how allowing gays to marry necessarily means that we must also allow polygamy. The slipperly slope.

Like I said, I only got through a couple of pages. I got tired of reading those threads, and then I got sucked into reading a different thread... I wasn't even to Feb. 2005 yet. Maybe I'll search some more, maybe I won't.

I'm not the only one who recalls your "homos = pedophiles" crap, though. Ming seems to recall it too...

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

Often family/ friends or the birth father may know .

Fair enough, but usually because the woman has chosen to let them know. If she wanted to, she could keep everything to herself and no one would be the wiser.

It is both safe and legal. It is also a medical procedure . Among those that support the right to choose, it is often considered unpleasant and not desirable.

You seem to assume all pregnant women are pro-choice. Do you deny the large percentage of people that could never allow themselves to have an abortion?

Why do you think I added that bit about the women who love their child? I agree there are a significant number of women who absolutely refuse to have an abortion. But they do not base their refusal on a 'fear of abortion'. They believe that they would be killing their own child, and that killing their child is wrong.

This is why it puzzles me that those who approve of abortion find it unpleasant and undesireable. If all you are aborting is a lump of tissue, why should abortion be different from cosmetic surgery?

Nope-- once you get pregnant, the carrying of the child happens automatically and the keeping of the child is the norm. You would actually have to take specific steps to get rid of the child.

True, but at the same time, you have to say, I am not going to do these steps, I am going to keep my child. The 9 months is a significant investment and I am surprised to hear you belittle the commitment implied by pregnancy. Do you think that a mom is going to forget all of this just after she has her child?

yes . I don't think they have been ever been able to profile all the reasons for abuse. With unwanted children it often manifests itself in neglect.

I agree, abuse happens regardless of wantedness. It's not just the unwanted children that are abused, otherwise we ought to see abuse decline after abortion has been legalised. Instead, we see quite the opposite.

Wantedness does nothing to reduce the abuse, and many have said that just because the child is wanted, that it puts considerable pressure on the child to live up to the parent's expectations.

Do you have any cites or stats on this since it sounds like you pulled it out of your rectum.

Experts agree that during the past 25 years the rate of child abuse has increased dramatically. Between 1976 and 1987 alone, there was a 330% increase in reported cases of child abuse. While a portion of this increase is due to better reporting, experts agree that these figures reflect a real trend toward ever higher rates of abuse.

1. Ney, P. Fung, T., Wickett, A.R., "Relationship Between Induced Abortion and Child Abuse and Neglect: Four Studies," Pre- and Perinatal Psychology Journal 8(1):43-63 Fall 1993; Benedict, M., White, R., and Cornely, P., "Maternal Perinatal Risk Factors and Child Abuse" Child Abuse and Neglect 9:217-224 (1985); Lewis, E., "Two Hidden Predisposing Factors in Child Abuse," Child Abuse and Neglect 3:327-330 (1979); Ney, P., "Relationship Between Abortion and Child Abuse," Canadian J. Psychiatry 24:610-620(1979).

I do not have any such stats but logically, a couple that goes to great effort to conceive or adopt a child incluidng great expense and inconvenience, would be less likely to forget to feed and bathe said child. They are more likely to have the necessary resources to provide properly for the child

The are also more likely to be disappointed by the child if the child does not live up to their expectations.

Emotional "abuse" ?? An unwanted child is more likely to feel neglected. A fervently desired child is more likely to have high expectations and demands palced upon him

And what happens when the child falls short of these desires?

[Ben Kenobi]

The second one prominently featured your strawman about how allowing gays to marry necessarily means that we must also allow polygamy. The slipperly slope.

I hoped you also read my reasoning behind that argument, which btw is being proven quite true up in Canada. We are seeing folks push for polygamy right behind gay marriage.

[Kidlicious]

Since the thread has turned to abortion I heard a pro-choice advocate on the radio talking about population control. She said that we need to give women more freedom to have abortions to control population. I thought that was a particularly stupid thing to say since the only way to really control population growth is to prevent women from having babies. How can you argue for giving women the right to have abortions, but argue at the same time that they should not be allowed to have big families.

Just thought I'd throw that in here.

[Ben Kenobi]

You used your example as a reason why "the kids should come first" and why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt.

Yes, as a plausible outcome from your scenario ming. If you can lay out scenarios with an outcome favourable to you, why shouldn't it be possible that those same scenarios have much different outcomes then the one you list?

You were also raising the pedophile strawman to trash gays again... especially when you claimed it was very plausable...

I said both were plausible. I refrained from saying that either was a more plausible outcome.

Bad things can happen no matter what... It all depends on the parent's... whether gay or straight... so if you are going to use the what's best for the kids argument, you would have to allow gays to adopt... because in many cases, that's what is in the best interest of the children.

Exactly, you have already admitted that the best thing for kids is to be raised by their own mothers and fathers. So, if we follow your reasoning that if our sole concern is the welfare of the kids, we should not put them into environments where they have a greater risk of these bad outcomes. You can argue what you want about it being the second-best option, but I don't know how many single moms would say that they were worse then two gay men...

[Arrian]

Oh, I read that all right. It's still a bull**** strawman. Why? Because one can easily accept gay marriage and reject polygamy. You, however, like to present it as "if we let the gays marry, we will have polygamy too, and, and, and..."

No. Reasonable people can decide that gay marriage is a-ok, and polygamy is a no-go. That's why it's a bull**** strawman argument.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Actually, the REAL slipperly slope is this:

If people use their own reason & intellect and determine that gay marriage is fine, in violation of the moral code pushed on society by the religionistas, then it is yet another explicit rejection of the moral authority of said religionistas. Horrifying, isn't it?

Imagine! A society that decides how it should order itself, rather than relying on religious texts of dubious authority and various interpretations thereof. OH NO, WE CAN'T HAVE THAT!!!

Incidently, I see no particular reason why the biological parents of a child are better equipped to raise it than a gay couple (who obviously either adopted or, if lesbian, went with artificial insemination). The kid might have to put up with some more jokes from his/her classmates, but hey, I'm sure some ******* made fun of Derek Jeter's parentage at some point. There used to be quite a few people who actually believed that interracial marriages were bad. In hindsight, the concept is absurd on its face. But at the time, these folks had... "tradition" on their side, and probably had all manner of religious justifications as well.

And nowadays, we have people arguing gays shouldn't marry and be parents. Hmm.

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh, I read that all right. It's still a bull**** strawman. Why? Because one can easily accept gay marriage and reject polygamy. You, however, like to present it as "if we let the gays marry, we will have polygamy too, and, and, and..."

Ok, we've had one attempt at that already here in the thread with NYE citing tax difficulties associated with polygamy.

Now, the trouble with your argument is that I see the same arguments employed by gay people being employed by those who want polygamy. They argue that if marriage is merely a legal contract with two persons without regard to conjugality, then why should it be limited to two people? Are we not doing wrong by preventing people from marrying 3 people if they all love each other and are all involved in a committed relationship?

[Arrian]

Ok, we've had one attempt at that already here in the thread with NYE citing tax difficulties associated with polygamy.

So what? It can be rejected, as easily as gay marriage can be accepted.

Now, the trouble with your argument is that I see the same arguments employed by gay people being employed by those who want polygamy.

The trouble with your arguments is that I see the same arguments have often been used by bigots and reactionary fanatics for centuries. That was kinda fun.

Just because they use similar arguments does not suddenly make the arguments of gays seeking equal marriage rights (from the State) invalid.

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

If people use their own reason & intellect and determine that gay marriage is fine, in violation of the moral code pushed on society by the religionistas, then it is yet another explicit rejection of the moral authority of said religionistas. Horrifying, isn't it?

Yes, absolutely horrifying. The religionistas pushed their own religious code on society by saying that marriage is between one man and one woman.

The concept predates Christianity, and is by no means exclusive to Christianity. So, it doesn't make sense to say that the motivation is primarily religious. If different religions ascribe to the same teaching, even though they disagree on others, it forces you to ask yourself why would these different groups all agree on this one point?

Imagine! A society that decides how it should order itself, rather than relying on religious texts of dubious authority and various interpretations thereof. OH NO, WE CAN'T HAVE THAT!!!

All societies need something to order themselves around. So far the only one I can see in this thread is absolute personal autonomy. I am unsure whether a society can function if one believes in absolute personal autonomy as the primary good.

Incidently, I see no particular reason why the biological parents of a child are better equipped to raise it than a gay couple (who obviously either adopted or, if lesbian, went with artificial insemination). The kid might have to put up with some more jokes from his/her classmates, but hey, I'm sure some ******* made fun of Derek Jeter's parentage at some point. There used to be quite a few people who actually believed that interracial marriages were bad. In hindsight, the concept is absurd on its face. But at the time, these folks had... "tradition" on their side, and probably had all manner of religious justifications as well.

What do you say when the daughter asks, where is my father? The teacher taught us today that when a man and a woman come together they make babies.

[Ben Kenobi]

The trouble with your arguments is that I see the same arguments have often been used by bigots and reactionary fanatics for centuries. That was kinda fun.

So gay people are bigots?

Just because they use similar arguments does not suddenly make the arguments of gays seeking equal marriage rights (from the State) invalid.

No, but my question is how do you argue against those particular arguments employed by those who want polygamy and at the same time, accept them from gay people?

Same arguments, why is one right, and the other wrong?

[Arrian]

I didn't specify a particular religion, Ben. Further, in the context of the current debate, the overwhelming majority of those in opposition to gay marriage oppose it on religious grounds, or "traditional" grounds (which is simply another way of saying Christianity).

What do you say when the daughter asks, where is my father? The teacher taught us today that when a man and a woman come together they make babies.

Is that the best you can do?!

The parents will answer that question easily, Ben. If the kid was adopted, they will explain what adoption means. To the extent the child has difficulty with the idea that their "real" parents gave them up, that is no different from children adopted by heterosexuals having the same reaction. To the extent that it was artificial insemination that did the trick, mommies ( ) can explain that too. How hard is that, really? Any harder than explaining why the teacher just gave a lesson about the Theory of Evolution and the child coming homing and asking "Mommy, why do we think the Earth is 6000yrs old and that people are all from Adam and Eve?"

-Arrian