10 Reasons why Gay Marriage is Wrong!!

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi




Why should society encourage actions that increase their costs without the intrinsic benefits?

Many people have children without marriage and many gay couple would have children through artificial means or adoption if extraneous barriers were not placed in their way.

If kids are the benefit of marriage (your assertion, not mine) lets let all the gay people get married and start adopting

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

.



That was what I was trying to clarify here. The specific issue of where is my father cannot be ignored. I've been rather charitable in having the issue delayed until school, but the reality is when the kids see other families they are going to wonder why they don't have a father. Now for couples that have adopted, they can say that you are adopted, here is your real mother and father.

Actually if the child is exposed to all sorts of families, he will see two mommies, two daddies, one of either, both and some mixed and mult-family situations. They will quickly figure out that there are all sorts of families

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

If I knew what gay adoptive parents planned to tell the kids, (if they conceived through insemination), I wouldn't be asking these questions.

Since they are all individuals, they will likely all handle it differently but eventually only the truth will do IMHO.

[Flubber]

Oh and children ask questions

My sister (heterosexual and married if that matters) has adopted two aboriginal children. Since they don't "look like" her, there will be questions. At ages 4 and 2 they accept that Mommy and daddy are Mommy and Daddy but that will change.

I don't know how she plans to handle this but she has definitely thought about it. Oh and she is in a group of people that adopted aboriginal children that get together on a regular basis for events (often with cultural themes).

Bottom line is that its her business how she handles it with her children

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

If you really want to know, I think gay marriage is a bum deal for the participants. We are not doing them favours by encouraging them to stay in relationships that are harmful to their physical well-being, when they have better alternatives.

Frankly thats not your choice to make. I might think that your bigoted and narrow minded ideas will be harmful to your mental health but that does not mean you cannot rermain free to maintain those ideas. IN each case as long as you do not infringe on the rights of others, you have freedom to pursue what you wish.

I don't see how gay relationships are that harmful to people's well being. That perplexes me. Lets start with Lesbians. With gay men I understand there can be damage to the rectum in certain sexual acts but that its usually minor, can also occurr in heterosexuals etc etc.

Also its not for you to judge what a "better alternative" is for another person

[MrFun]

BK, I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm arguing that sexual orientation is a religion -- you're just deliberately distorting my argument or you're being incredibly dense.


Here are some definitions of conscience:

con·science ( P ) Pronunciation Key (knshns)
n.

The awareness of a moral or ethical aspect to one's conduct together with the urge to prefer right over wrong: Let your conscience be your guide.
A source of moral or ethical judgment or pronouncement: a document that serves as the nation's conscience.
Conformity to one's own sense of right conduct: a person of unflagging conscience.
The part of the superego in psychoanalysis that judges the ethical nature of one's actions and thoughts and then transmits such determinations to the ego for consideration.


These most definitely apply to religion, but they can also apply to other aspects of the experience of living as a human being.

A gay man can choose to exercise his conscience by positively affirming part of who he is -- a gay man. The process of coming of the closet involves struggling with one's own conscience.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I can say that I have the right to eat pink pistachio ice cream, but that doesn't mean there exists such a right in the constitution.

Ok, so I must then ask you to clarify what you mean by a 'right to self-identification' since there is no such right recognised. You have to remember that rights do not emerge from a vacuum, if you sincerely believe in the concept of a natural right, then a society does not construct these rights. So which do you believe, Mr. Fun? Are rights a societal construct or are they natural and recognised by civil society?

Yeah -- you being able to eat pistachio ice cream is right up there in profound significance with equal citizenship rights and equal protection under the law. Come on BK!


The right to conscience is a natural right -- we are all entitled to our own conscience. It's a natural right more so than a civil right, because having a conscience is a fundamental aspect of living as a human being.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
If you really want to know, I think gay marriage is a bum deal for the participants. We are not doing them favours by encouraging them to stay in relationships that are harmful to their physical well-being, when they have better alternatives.

Again you raise the "harmful to thei physical being" argument again. People who practice safe sex are not doing any physical harm... and this applies to gays and heterosexual couples... so enough with that silly argument.

And you say better alternatives.... like what... being forced to try to love a member of the opposite sex just because you THINK that they have a choice?

Maybe the best alternative is for you to believe what you want, and they to believe what they want.. or it's just a matter of you trying to cram your views down other poeples throats.

If two people love each other.... how can that be a "bum" deal except in your own mind. Nobody is asking you to do it... They just want to make their own choices, that don't effect you in any fashion.

[Wittlich]

Originally posted by Ming


Again you raise the "harmful to thei physical being" argument again. People who practice safe sex are not doing any physical harm... and this applies to gays and heterosexual couples... so enough with that silly argument.

And you say better alternatives.... like what... being forced to try to love a member of the opposite sex just because you THINK that they have a choice?

Maybe the best alternative is for you to believe what you want, and they to believe what they want.. or it's just a matter of you trying to cram your views down other poeples throats.

If two people love each other.... how can that be a "bum" deal except in your own mind. Nobody is asking you to do it... They just want to make their own choices, that don't effect you in any fashion.

Here, here Ming! Well stated.

[ShootingStar]

I wish all marriages were gay..UMMM Happy that is. LOL okay really bad joke.

Tee hee

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ming

Again you raise the "harmful to thei physical being" argument again. People who practice safe sex are not doing any physical harm...

Only if you have a pretty "vanilla" sex life.... like me... sob...

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ming

Again you raise the "harmful to thei physical being" argument again. People who practice safe sex are not doing any physical harm... and this applies to gays and heterosexual couples... so enough with that silly argument.

Go him one better, Ming: of those under discussion here, the demographic group least likely to suffer from AIDS or STDS of any sort is...lesbians.

Couple that with Ben's observation that women are more committed to child-rearing than men, as evidenced by the far greater numbers of single mothers than single fathers.

Couple that with his observation that fathers have a far greater tendency to abandon their children, and that boys learn how to behave from their fathers.

Clearly, by Ben's own logic, if we want relationships in which (1) the adult partners don't do each other physical harm; (2) the adult partners evidence maximum commitment to child-rearing, and (3) the children don't risk exposure to negative role-models...well, there's really only one solution.

Ben Kenobi, advocate of lesbian parenting. Who'd have thunk it?

[Spiffor]

@ Rufus

[Berzerker]

Ben

That's my point. If they aren't associated with each other, why cite the helper phenomenon as evidence of both?

Consider worker and warrior bees, one cares for the young within the hive while the other defends the hive from attack. Two duties that appear unrelated, but two duties that help propagate the species even though neither procreates. Homosexuality and low libido result in more unattached adults who are less likely to procreate, if at all. Is there an evolutionary advantage to this "strategy"? Wouldn't evolution give us all strong heterosexual sex drives so we all can procreate until the cows come home? Well, no... evolution has seen fit to leave certain percentages of the population "free" to help propagate the species in other ways not involving procreation.

It would seem to me that if we see two alternative explanations for the same thing we observe, and neither one is said to be similar to the other, that they would not arise from the same cause.

What 2 alternative explanations? I cited one explanation, evolution has rewarded species that have plenty of unattached adults to help raise the young of other members of the species. The fact homosexuality and low libido appear unrelated does not mean both dont result in more available adults for child rearing.

I don't disagree with this. However I fail to see where the supposed natural desires of a man for a man contribute anything to this helper phenomenon.

If there are homosexual men who dont father children, those men are still available to help raise the children of others. The same is true regardless of the reason an adult does not procreate, be it low libido or some other reason.

That's why I outlined the fundamental assumption as all animals have the natural desire to propagate their kind. I agree, an argument like this is not the basis upon which a society should enact laws, which is why I have refrained from saying that everyone who engages in these activities ought to be arrested.

However, when the question is what is best for a society, then that is quite another matter altogether. Then one can make arguments according to nature.

But animals (and us) do not have a natural desire to propagate the species, some species limit procreation to a select few while others have the majority procreating. You're confusing species with the individual members of species who may have different "duties". How many bees procreate? Not many, most of the bees are destined to gather resources, care for the young or provide defense for the hive. Bees are a very good example of the helper phenomenon...

That is why I did not start with the assumption that whatever the majority believes and practices is natural.

Okay, define "natural".

I can't disagree with you. However, if we first accept the principle that it is natural for an animal to propagate their kind then that raises serious questions as to the means in which people acquire these emotional attachments.

But we cannot accept that principle, the species propagates the species while individual members of the species serve more specialised roles that may not include procreation. The overall effect of combining all these specialised roles propagates the species, but that does not mean every member of the species procreates. Worker bees dont procreate, are they un-natural?

Darn, you did catch that. At least someone reads what I was writing.

But in general terms you're correct. Rights belong to individuals, not groups. Even assembly is an individual right, it just happens to be exercised in conjunction with others exercising the same right.

You are correct that a fundamental aspect of individual liberty is the freedom of assembly, and that we cannot be deprived of our right to make contacts and cooperate with each other.

However, nowhere does it say that freedom of assembly must be expressed in marriage. For sure, if someone were to arrest gay men from having sex with each other, that would be a violation of assembly.

Assembly was about petitioning gov't for redress or to make grievances known to those who govern and was a result of monarchs suppressing critics and the unruly masses pissed off at the King and his court. The right to marry stems from our individual liberty, the right to make contracts.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ming

If two people love each other.... how can that be a "bum" deal except in your own mind. Nobody is asking you to do it... They just want to make their own choices, that don't effect you in any fashion.

I just can't believe you're a Republican.