10 Reasons why Gay Marriage is Wrong!!

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


No, that's not really what is going on here. Look, seeker there are some things mothers do better with their own daughters then their fathers can do for their daughters, just because they are mothers. Same with the fathers and their sons. However, this argument also assumes there are certain innate differences between men and women. How can a mother expect to be a father to her own sons at the same time as being their mother?

The problem with this reasoning is that while "man" and "woman" are fixed biological categories, "mother" and "father" (if used to mean anything other that "egg supplier" and "sperm supplier") are social constructs. And societies are free to change social constructs.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Berzerker
In English? Sure, terms acquire different definitions but usually after some sort of consensus formed to support the change and usually the change is rather mundane.

Yes, in English. The word comes from the Latin 'nescius', which means "not knowing". It was basically used as an insult (as for an idiot). It underwent a gradual change into the compliment it is now.

[Berzerker]

weird, screwy euros

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't know where you're going with this but it's not going anywhere, since obviously millions of single parents or other non-nuclear families are out there raising children...

My point is the earlier point I made. There are certain things that a mother can do for her daughter that a father cannot. The same is true for a father and a son. If this is so, then why should we expect mothers and fathers to be exactly the same?

[Ben Kenobi]

Hey Bub, if that were true things would be a whole lot different everywhere on the surface of this planet, let me tell you! If we had the whole USA you'd be singin' hymns from the Book of Common Prayer my maple syrup swilling friend!

Considering that my family is Anglican in background I'd have to agree. Except for the fact that you would be one of those dirty colonial rebels.

[Ben Kenobi]

Is rape in harmony with this natural order? Seems to me homosexuality is in harmony with the natural order and does help to perpetuate the species by supplying child bearing couples with relatives who by virtue of having no children are free to help people with children. After all, many species survive because plenty of caretakers who dont procreate are available to help those who do procreate

This is the darwinian counter argument. First of all, couldn't one just as easily ascribe the appearance of celibacy to this helper phenomenon? Assuming that it is in fact true that this appears in nature, it is not necessary to ascribe this to homosexuality. Someone who chooses not to have sex could help out just as well as someone who is homosexual.

The second difficulty is it does nothing to deal with the natural desire argument. A gay man usually argues that his desires are natural, not just the fact that he chooses not to have children.

[Ben Kenobi]

The problem with this reasoning is that while "man" and "woman" are fixed biological categories, "mother" and "father" (if used to mean anything other that "egg supplier" and "sperm supplier") are social constructs. And societies are free to change social constructs.

This is precisely the argument I am challenging. I would argue that these differences between men and women are innate and not societal. You seem to agree with me here. Now, doesn't it make more sense to say that if gender differences are biological, that there would be differences between mothers and fathers would also be based on these same biological differences between men and women?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


My point is the earlier point I made. There are certain things that a mother can do for her daughter that a father cannot. The same is true for a father and a son. If this is so, then why should we expect mothers and fathers to be exactly the same?

They're not necessarily the same, but who cares? Grandparents can do things for kids that parents cannot; should we not allow people whose parents have diesd to have children? Brothers and sisters can do things for each other that children without siblings will never experience; should we mandate at least two children for households that want any children at all? Where does this end, exactly?

Beyond that, though, I actually think the number of things a mother can do that a father can't, or vice versa, is very, very small; it's smaller still if you're trying to find things unique to the mother-daughter or father-son relationship (and I speak here as the father of a teenage daughter).

In fact, I'd speculate that most Westerners, for most of human history, have been raised without a mother and/or a father. First, take into account the number of women who have historically died in childbirth. Next, take into account the long, long history of men having absolutely nothing to do with raising their children. Finally, for a certain class anyway (past and present), take into account the practice of handing the kids over to a nanny to be raised.

The Leave-It-To-Beaver view of children ebing raised by two involved parents is an historical anomoly and a far cry from actual, historical practices of childrearing. I think two involved parents is a fine idea -- its how we do things in our family -- but to call that the "traditional" family, as opponents of gay parenting and single-sex parenting often do, is just nonsense.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


This is precisely the argument I am challenging. I would argue that these differences between men and women are innate and not societal. You seem to agree with me here. Now, doesn't it make more sense to say that if gender differences are biological, that there would be differences between mothers and fathers would also be based on these same biological differences between men and women?

Are there differences between male and female doctors? Between male and female computer programmers? Between male and female lawyers? Yes, probably. Is that related to sex? Yes, probably. Is it related to biology rather than socialization into a gender role? I'd say no; I think socialization into gender roles plays a far greater role than biology than lived behavior.

But the real point is, does it matter? If you needed two doctors, would you make sure to get one of each sex? What about two lawyers? A pair of accountants accountant? Of course you wouldn't. You'd get the two best people for the job, regardless of sex. The same can be said of two parents.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
Whaleboy, actually, it is hard to legalize homosexual marriage and not eventually legalizing polygamy.

After all, if 2 women love a man, and the man loves them, and they dont mind sharing, and the three-somes are lots of fun, and they are consenting adults, then, why not?

Tax codes.

Spousal benefits.

Divorce and division of property.

Power of Attourney and power over life affecting decision making.

Inheritence.

Most of all, effects on children of being the spawn of the least wanted wife, or the spurned husband (which also involve 3 and 5 above).

Family assumes a lot more than the impulses of the adults involved.

Now, so Ben can still think of me as a mutant step-child of a conservative and an imp, none of the above speaks against gay marriage, but all of it applies against polygamy and polyandry.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

A gay man usually argues that his desires are natural, not just the fact that he chooses not to have children.

I believe that sexual orientation is not a choice -- when did you wake up one morning and decided that you are straight? The same day you decided to have mocha instead of coffee?

But, let's hypothetically accept the notion that sexual orientation is a choice. Even given this notion that it is a choice, it still does not justify discriminating against gays as we are all entitled to the right of free conscience and self-identity.

Religion is a choice, but it does not justify discriminating against members of different religions. Two straight people of two different races can choose to marry but that would not justify discriminating against them just because it's a choice.

So trying to propagandize that sexual orientation is a choice so that in turn, you can justify discrimination and oppression of gays is without foundation anyway.

[Agathon]

Ben is secretly gay.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

Hyperlamarckianism for the win!

Sikander applauds with a pair of hands grown specifically just for this purpose.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Seeker
"Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children. "

I've heard the same stuff on all kinds of issues from nuclear family byproducts...about single-parents, etc.

I've never really understood the concept of a 'role-model' anyway and never have. Are there any real people so pathetic as to create themselves in slavish imitation of another? Are kids raised in total isolation?

Children are aided in their development by early and regular contact with people of both genders. It isn't so much a modeling thing (which is more important for same gender relationships) but simply to familiarize them with the sort of people they'll need to have relationships with in the future. At a minimum they should learn that people of either gender can be trustworthy and some of the differences in communication styles.

[Berzerker]

First of all, couldn't one just as easily ascribe the appearance of celibacy to this helper phenomenon? Assuming that it is in fact true that this appears in nature, it is not necessary to ascribe this to homosexuality. Someone who chooses not to have sex could help out just as well as someone who is homosexual.

The second difficulty is it does nothing to deal with the natural desire argument. A gay man usually argues that his desires are natural, not just the fact that he chooses not to have children.

1) What is being ascribed to homosexuality? As for celibacy, perhaps it is an indirect by-product of the helper phenomenon. Hard to tell given that human celibacy seems to be a choice made by people after acquiring an "orientation" and usually a choice made in conjunction with a religious belief, albeit a choice made easier by people with a low sex drive. So I'd say low libido may be an evolutionary trait falling under the helper phenomenon, but not necessarily celibacy.

2) If evolution seeks to ensure the propagation of the species, and this is achieved in part by the helper phenomenon, then how could the desire to procreate or not be described as anything other than natural? Actually, I dont think much of arguments about what is or is not "natural". Crimes against nature was the bogus invention of people who had no good reason to deprive others of freedom, they couldn't find a victim so they invented one.