10 Reasons why Gay Marriage is Wrong!!

[Ben Kenobi]

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?

That's a good point. The reason why mother and fathers are special is because every kid comes with them. Now one can say that the mother ends up alone because the father has deserted her, but who would go and say that this is, in general, the best decision for everyone?

Mothers and fathers should stay with their kids and help raise their kids together, we shouldn't be going around and telling fathers that they are worthless or even unnecessary to properly raise a child.

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).

That's an interesting perspective. I don't have a sister. There are many many things that I do not know about being a girl and growing up as a girl that my wife would know and understand, having gone through these things herself. I don't know if you have found that to be the case in raising your daughter, that there are some things she'd rather just talk about with her mom because she knows, she's been there.

I would also say the same for fathers and their sons. Fathers know how their own sons feel at certain stages in their life because they went through the same stages.

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.

Having been a father yourself, would you say that your own daughter would be better off if you were not there to help raise her? I disagree with your assessment that the majority of kids throughout history have been raised without either their mother or father. In fact, I would go so far to say that it has always been recognised as a tragedy when a child is deprived of either. Until now.

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.

Hardly. I don't think it is nonsense that children do better having a father and a mother, then with any other alternative arrangement.

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

I'd agree. Which makes much more sense to me then to say that this phenomenon refers to homosexuality. I don't see low libido as a trait one commonly associates with gay men.

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.

Where have I said homosexuality ought to be punished as a crime? That's not the issue here.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Hardly. I don't think it is nonsense that children do better having a father and a mother, then with any other alternative arrangement.

There are many bad parents out there. A traditional Father/Mother arrangement where the parents are bad is not in the best interest of the children. But we don't stop it from happening... there are no tests, no way to help the children until it's too late. I can think of many gay couples that would be far better parents than many traditional couples... but you don't want to give them a chance. You keep saying that it's best for the kids to have a father and mother. But in many cases, it would be better for the kids to have two loving parents... something many gay couples can provide far better than the traditional arrangement. Why shouldn't they be given the chance.

[Ben Kenobi]

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?

The same time I first found a woman that I slept with? Everyone makes a choice whether or not to act on their desires. Now if your question were when did I first have these desires for women, we could start from there.

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.

Entitled to free-conscience? Sure. You are entitled to practice whatever religion you prefer. You are entitled to speek freely. How have I made the argument to abrogate either of these rights?

Secondly, what right is there to 'self-identity?' I don't see that on the list where it says life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It seems to me a bogus right cobbled together, without basis in your constitution.

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.

Ah, so people have the individual right to be married? Look at all the other rights that you have. You can exercise them individually. You have the right to free speech. You have the right to free assembly, you have the right to freedom of conscience and religion. All of these rights can be exercised individually.

I do not see anywhere a right to be married.

Secondly, how are you discriminated against. You have exactly the same right as any other man in the united states. You can get married to any woman who also wants to get married to you. Flip this around to your issue regarding races. What you are saying now is that these rights are not symmetrical. Every man does not have the same right to marry every other woman. Black men have more of a right then white men to marry black women, and white men have more of a right then black men to marry white women.

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.

It is a choice. You make the decision to act upon your desires when you choose to sleep with someone.

[Ben Kenobi]

There are many bad parents out there. A traditional Father/Mother arrangement where the parents are bad is not in the best interest of the children. But we don't stop it from happening... there are no tests, no way to help the children until it's too late. I can think of many gay couples that would be far better parents than many traditional couples... but you don't want to give them a chance. You keep saying that it's best for the kids to have a father and mother. But in many cases, it would be better for the kids to have two loving parents... something many gay couples can provide far better than the traditional arrangement. Why shouldn't they be given the chance.

So you are arguing that there are some gay people who would make better parents then some mothers and fathers. No question.

However, what makes you think that the situation would always be better with gay parents? Are all of them going to be good?

My argument is that even the best gay parents are not going to be as good as the best mothers and fathers. If we believe that we should give the children the best opportunities, then I don't see why we should be arguing against them being taken care of by anyone other then their own mother and father.

Granted, in the case of abuse this will change. However, what would usually happen in this sitauation? Other family members would take care of the kids if possible.

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

Let's see. Biological mother. Biological father. Lesbian partner who contracts with the biological mother to look after her child, and her lesbian partner.

That's 4 people.

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

Okay, now let's make a different argument. It is generally the consensus of biologists that most men have a better spacial recognition then most women. What does this mean for female engineers? Or suppose the opposite. Why do we have so many female nurses? Is it just because of the socialisation, or do women perform better in general then most men?

I'm not saying that only women can be nurses or only men can be engineers. I am saying that in general there is a biological reason why there are more female nurses then male nurses and more male engineers then female ones.

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

So why then do we see so many more single mothers then fathers? If we accepted your assertion that there were no differences between men in women, we should expect to see as many single fathers as mothers.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi




However, what makes you think that the situation would always be better with gay parents? Are all of them going to be good?

NO-- but on average I would bet on them being as good or better than heterosexual parents for the very simple reason that there cannot be unplanned or accidental children.

In theory every child to a gay couple would be planned and desired.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi




Let's see. Biological mother. Biological father. Lesbian partner who contracts with the biological mother to look after her child, and her lesbian partner.

That's 4 people.

Thats no different than any adoption . .

But the more likely case is

Unknown sperm donor

Two women in a committed relationship


Thats TWO people and is just the same as any hetero couple that seek fertility help.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Okay, now let's make a different argument. It is generally the consensus of biologists that most men have a better spacial recognition then most women. What does this mean for female engineers? Or suppose the opposite. Why do we have so many female nurses? Is it just because of the socialisation, or do women perform better in general then most men?

I'm not saying that only women can be nurses or only men can be engineers. I am saying that in general there is a biological reason why there are more female nurses then male nurses and more male engineers then female ones.



So why then do we see so many more single mothers then fathers? If we accepted your assertion that there were no differences between men in women, we should expect to see as many single fathers as mothers.

I would never say that there is no difference between men and women.


But lets take your optimum situation and assume that a loving involved parent of each sex is optimum. In our world lots of people don't have that. There are single parents, abusive parents, uninvolved parents. We do not require perfection of parents so why would youi require it of homosexual parents.

Oh and I'd bet that a lesbian couple that parented boys could be very aware of the need for male role models and in many cases would seek them out. A brother/cousin/ uncle could serve as a much better role model than an actual father if said father were a drug addicted sleaze

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I'm not saying that only women can be nurses or only men can be engineers. I am saying that in general there is a biological reason why there are more female nurses then male nurses and more male engineers then female ones.

Wow. My insane-rationalization meter just exploded.

[Leifmk]

Originally posted by Flubber


Thats no different than any adoption . .

But the more likely case is

Unknown sperm donor

Two women in a committed relationship


Thats TWO people and is just the same as any hetero couple that seek fertility help.

Not to mention the other, more traditional DIY option:

Two women in a relationship

One male friend (gay or straight, whatever)

One turkey baster

[Ben Kenobi]

NO-- but on average I would bet on them being as good or better than heterosexual parents for the very simple reason that there cannot be unplanned or accidental children.

In theory every child to a gay couple would be planned and desired.

Alright. Every child is a wanted child. Why should we see unwanted children and child abuse in this day in age when we have abortion? Instead, we have seen child abuse increase.

I would argue that just because you want the child initially, doesn't mean that you are going to want the child when they grow older and aren't so cute anymore. How else can you explain child abuse in the age of abortion where every child born is supposed to be wanted?

[Ben Kenobi]

But lets take your optimum situation and assume that a loving involved parent of each sex is optimum. In our world lots of people don't have that. There are single parents, abusive parents, uninvolved parents. We do not require perfection of parents so why would youi require it of homosexual parents.

I am arguing from the ideal in both cases. If the ideal situation with a mother and a father raising their own children is superior to the ideal situation with two gay people taking care of a child, then it makes sense to go on from that and say that we are not giving the child the best choice by giving him two parents of the same sex when he can have his own mother and father.

This is why the argument that men and women are different is so important. If in fact they are different then a father can do different things for his children then his mother can. The two can complement each other. Even the best gay parents cannot provide this.

Oh and I'd bet that a lesbian couple that parented boys could be very aware of the need for male role models and in many cases would seek them out. A brother/cousin/ uncle could serve as a much better role model than an actual father if said father were a drug addicted sleaze

Again apples and oranges. How many times have I used a drug addicted lesbian to argue against gay marriage?

And what is to stop that same drug addicted father from finding an uncle to serve in his stead?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So you are arguing that there are some gay people who would make better parents then some mothers and fathers. No question.

However, what makes you think that the situation would always be better with gay parents? Are all of them going to be good?

No... but your argument is that it's BEST for a traditional male/female family... which I won't argue... However, in many cases the kids aren't so lucky. What I'm saying is that it's BEST for the kids to have two loving parents, and in many cases, that might mean a gay couple. You won't even give them a chance... They should have the RIGHT to prove it! You wish to give them no chance, even though the children might be better off.

My argument is that even the best gay parents are not going to be as good as the best mothers and fathers. If we believe that we should give the children the best opportunities, then I don't see why we should be arguing against them being taken care of by anyone other then their own mother and father.

The BEST opportunities may be a gay couple. You speak in terms of a perfect world... take a hard look, and you will see the perfect world is only a small percentage.

Granted, in the case of abuse this will change. However, what would usually happen in this sitauation? Other family members would take care of the kids if possible.

And what if it isn't possible? Or what if the other family members are single parents? Two loving parents are better than one. So a gay couple would be better than a single parent, which is OK by the law... but you want to keep gay people from adopting.

You keep saying what is the BEST for the children... but you continue to deny them a chance for what's best for them...

Some kids don't have the chance for your definition of what's best... so we shouldn't offer them second best?