Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:SilverMK2 - First off, thanks for being intelligent and courteous even when we disagree. It is the sign of a true gentleman (or lady, if that be the case)

It is nice to discuss things with people who do not go off on a rant, I have to admit. And I am endowed with a Y chromosome

1 - Indeed

2 - However, this also works when teaching acceptance of religious views. I personally disagree with much that is taught by organised religion, however, I accept that it is advantageous for my children (and indeed myself when I was in school) to learn about different religions, some of their core beliefs, how they are like and dislike other religions, etc. Understanding breeds (if you will forgive the pun) acceptance, and acceptance brings peace, harmony and fluffy kittens

I personally am atheist, as are my parents, but I know about a number of religions and that knowledge helps displace the ignorance I would otherwise be acting from. I would be the first to admit that I don't know everything about any religion (or even a great deal about a single religion), however, I know enough to not be scared of what I do not understand.

I would argue that discussing pretty much any ethical or social standpoint in school is a good thing, as it allows the child to develop an understanding of things outside of their family background.

4 - Again, I can see what you are saying, however, I do not think that the argument you are using is apt in this case. An apple and an orange are easily identifiable as not the same thing. They are not even the same family of fruit. You need to trace the family tree back (argh! Puns everywhere!) quite away before you find a common ancestor.

I would suggest that what you are trying to do is take a granny cox apple and a red delicious and say that the red delicious is not an apple because it is not a granny cox.

I also feel that you have somewhat sidestepped the question - you have stated that they are "different", however, you have not explained why that is the case, and how that relates to homosexuals not being able to marry, being limited only to "civil union".

Really, this whole thing could be made easy by making marriage and civic union legally exactly the same thing.

Da Boss wrote:Really, this whole thing could be made easy by making marriage and civic union legally exactly the same thing.

Would you make any difference between the terms "marriage" and "civic union"? That seems to be a stumbling block for many people as far as I have observed.

I find it somewhat sad that many of the arguments against gay marriage seem quite similar to those once used against inter-racial marriage...in as much as these unions are " Unnatural" or that the children in/of these unions will somehow "suffer" as "outcast" due to their parents.

....IMO...intolerance is intolerance,and attempting to justify it by citing social/religious "norms" doesn't make it any less so.

SilverMK2 wrote:
I also feel that you have somewhat sidestepped the question - you have stated that they are "different", however, you have not explained why that is the case, and how that relates to homosexuals not being able to marry, being limited only to "civil union".

It was not intentional, I assure you.

Take me as a traditionalist. The first thing that pops into my mind when I hear 'marriage' (other than the clip from Princess Bride) is "Man and Wife".
I see my wife. I see my mom and dad who still go on romantic get aways. I think of my departed grandparents. I see the line of genealogy that my family has done.
Marriage means something special to me.

When I see a homosexual couple trying to get married, it looks like kids pretending. It just does not look like marriage as I see it. I know many will label me 'homophobe' because of that. So be it. But it just does not fit the centuries of marriage that I have seen and read (certificates).

If I side-stepped your question, perhaps I did not want to offend anyone. Sorry.

AS for why a difference. I would guess that adoption is a big part. I don't care that homosexuals get hospital visitation, tax write-offs, etc. I am just concerned for those who do not have agency or understanding. They have no real 'say' in going to an alternative lifestyle. That seems unfair. If a teen wants gay parents, let it happen, but not those who cannot choose for themselves.

FITZZ wrote: I find it somewhat sad that many of the arguments against gay marriage seem quite similar to those once used against inter-racial marriage...in as much as these unions are " Unnatural" or that the children in/of these unions will somehow "suffer" as "outcast" due to their parents.

....IMO...intolerance is intolerance,and attempting to justify it by citing social/religious "norms" doesn't make it any less so.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:NOTE: I did not say Gays are automatically bad parents! I am just concerned for the child's mental health and development.

All actual research on the subject says you are wrong to be concerned.

Marriage has nothing to do with children. If that was the case, infertile spouses-to-be could not be married either, nor could those who did not intend to have children.

As a side note, the fact that we have the gender-neutral term "spouse" to begin with means that marriage is obviously not tied entirely to gender.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:If I side-stepped your question, perhaps I did not want to offend anyone. Sorry.

No worries - I just wanted to know your thoughts behind your views.

From what you say your opposition to homosexual marriage is that it goes against "tradition", which is understandable. Everyone has a comfort zone based on their experience, culture etc. I know that I would find certain practices committed in some cultures abhorrent (edit: Perhaps abhorrent is too strong a term, but hey ) because they do not tie in with what I find acceptable.

Melissia wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:NOTE: I did not say Gays are automatically bad parents! I am just concerned for the child's mental health and development.

All actual research on the subject says you are wrong to be concerned.

Marriage has nothing to do with children. If that was the case, infertile spouses-to-be could not be married either, nor could those who did not intend to have children.

As a side note, the fact that we have the gender-neutral term "spouse" to begin with means that marriage is obviously not tied entirely to gender.

Have you really studied? Or did you just flip open a pro-gay marraige review?

Any mental health professional will tell you that a father and a mother is the best setting. If you ask about homosexual setting, they will vary on their response. Some are more progressive than other. But the best is always a mother and a father. That is in our biology.

Also, I had a thought about 'homophobia' (not fear of same or fear of man. You know what I mean)
What is it's origin? As a kid I never heard about homosexuals. When I first saw it I was physically affected. It made my stomach lurch. By definition phobias include revulsion. Is it possible that homophobia is an evolutionary product? Are those that are belittled as bigots actually predisposed to a strong revulsion to gays?

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

reds8n wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:.

Marriage means man and wife. There is no valid reason for that to change.

I think you'll find that a lot of people don't agree with your last point.

And I think you'll find that the vast majority of people who ever lived on this planet would agree.

Im a manly man with no openly gay friends and pretty much no interest in gay people at all, and I disagree massively.

I dont actually know anybody personally who WOULD agree with you.

Basically you have it arse first, most people disagree with you.

mattyrm wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

reds8n wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:.

Marriage means man and wife. There is no valid reason for that to change.

I think you'll find that a lot of people don't agree with your last point.

And I think you'll find that the vast majority of people who ever lived on this planet would agree.

Im a manly man with no openly gay friends and pretty much no interest in gay people at all, and I disagree massively.

I dont actually know anybody personally who WOULD agree with you.

Basically you have it arse first, most people disagree with you.

Okay. This quote is being misunderstood. Read history. Look up marriage in history. Look up historical views of homosexuality. Then come back.

Also, see California. Majority (but not vast) in a left leaning state.

I am not attacking your manliness. Just look at what I say and not what you think I am saying.

Also I apologized to Red S8n for the miscommunication that followed.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:
I also feel that you have somewhat sidestepped the question - you have stated that they are "different", however, you have not explained why that is the case, and how that relates to homosexuals not being able to marry, being limited only to "civil union".

It was not intentional, I assure you.

Take me as a traditionalist. The first thing that pops into my mind when I hear 'marriage' (other than the clip from Princess Bride) is "Man and Wife".
I see my wife. I see my mom and dad who still go on romantic get aways. I think of my departed grandparents. I see the line of genealogy that my family has done.
Marriage means something special to me.

When I see a homosexual couple trying to get married, it looks like kids pretending. It just does not look like marriage as I see it. I know many will label me 'homophobe' because of that. So be it. But it just does not fit the centuries of marriage that I have seen and read (certificates).

If I side-stepped your question, perhaps I did not want to offend anyone. Sorry.

AS for why a difference. I would guess that adoption is a big part. I don't care that homosexuals get hospital visitation, tax write-offs, etc. I am just concerned for those who do not have agency or understanding. They have no real 'say' in going to an alternative lifestyle. That seems unfair. If a teen wants gay parents, let it happen, but not those who cannot choose for themselves.

What about the increasingly large number of heterosexual couples who prefer to co-habit rather than marry? That's an alternative lifestyle. For that matter, using family planning is an alternative lifestyle in many people's minds.

I can't believe homosexual couples will be able to propagandize their children into becoming homosexual. Heterosexual couples haven't managed to propagandize their children into becoming heterosexual.

Isn't it the right of parents to bring up their children how they like?

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Have you really studied?

Yes. The overwhelming majority of the studies say that homosexual parents typically raise well-adjusted kids, with the primary difference between kids raised by homosexuals and those raised by heterosexuals is that they are more likely (not by a large amount) to reject traditional gender roles (girls raised by lesbian parents have a higher chance of pursuing sports, for example, or desiring jobs traditionally held by men). Children raised by homosexual parents are no more likely to identify as homosexual, either. The irrational fear that homosexual parents will "convert" or "recruit" children has always been just that-- irrational.

Perhaps it's based on the fact that many heterosexuals try to "convert" or "recruit" homosexuals.

Often violently.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the Child Welfare League of America, the North American Council on Adoptable Children, and Canadian Psychological Association all support homosexuals raising children, and it's rare that you see sociological work that so consistently supports a consensus like there is in the subject of homosexual parents being able to raise well-adjusted children.

In fact, it's generally agreed that it is the quality of family processes that contribute to the child's well-being rather than its structure-- quality of parenting, psychosocial wellbeing of parents, quality and satisfaction with relationships in the family, cooperation and harmony between the parents, etc.

What is it's origin? As a kid I never heard about homosexuals. When I first saw it I was physically affected. It made my stomach lurch. By definition phobias include revulsion. Is it possible that homophobia is an evolutionary product? Are those that are belittled as bigots actually predisposed to a strong revulsion to gays?

It's always possible, but it's unlikely. Phobias are rarely genetic AFAIK, usually they're built up through life's experiences. For example my phobia of bees, wasps, and other flying insects with stingers (and my hatred of my older sister) is based off of childhood trauma, it's certainly not genetic-- while my father, who is allergic to bees/wasps, has no phobia even though it would make more sense for him to have it given his biology. The cause of phobias is not always as blatantly obvious as this.

Oh ok mate... makes more sense.

Surely thats a bad argument though isnt it? I mean, we move forward all the time, look at what we have learned in the last 50 years!

Of course people thought homosexuality was some sort of evil, they also thought it could make plagues or hurricanes.

Its 2011 mate, dont you think we SHOULD be changing things? Im not gay, I have no interest in gay people or what they get up to, but the fact of the matter is, something is really wrong with us forcing our opinions onto other people. I think gay people have just as much right to be as miserable as the rest of us.

I feel like we just had this conversation.

For the first time in the US more people are for gay marriage than against. To find the link find the last thread. It was, like, 3 weeks ago so shouldn't be that hard.

Tradition says that an Irishman is the same as an African and not white. Tradition says women shouldn't be educated. At one point tradition said Christians needed to be fed to lions and that Jews drank the blood of babies. At one point in time the majority of people of those times would tell you that is how it is, always was, and always will be.

Oh, and here's the official position of the American Psychological Association and American Pediatric Association:

Although it is sometimes asserted in policy debates that heterosexual couples are inherently better parents than same-sex couples, or that the children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children raised by heterosexual parents, those assertions find no support in the scientific research literature. When comparing the outcomes of different forms of parenting, it is critically important to make appropriate comparisons. For example, differences resulting from the number of parents in a household cannot be attributed to the parents’ gender or sexual orientation. Research in households with heterosexual parents generally indicates that – all else being equal – children do better with two parenting figures rather than just one. The specific research studies typically cited in this regard do not address parents’ sexual orientation, however, and therefore do not permit any conclusions to be drawn about the consequences of having heterosexual versus nonheterosexual parents, or two parents who are of the same versus different genders. Indeed, the scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been remarkably consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are every bit as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents. Amici emphasize that the abilities of gay and lesbian persons as parents and the positive outcomes for their children are not areas where credible scientific researchers disagree. Statements by the leading associations of experts in this area reflect professional consensus that children raised by lesbian or gay parents do not differ in any important respects from those raised by heterosexual parents. No credible empirical research suggests otherwise. Allowing same-sex couples to legally marry will not have any detrimental effect on children raised in heterosexual households, but it will benefit children being raised by same-sex couples.

Melissia wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Have you really studied?

Yes. The overwhelming majority of the studies say that homosexual parents typically raise well-adjusted kids, with the primary difference between kids raised by homosexuals and those raised by heterosexuals is that they are more likely (not by a large amount) to reject traditional gender roles (girls raised by lesbian parents have a higher chance of pursuing sports, for example, or desiring jobs traditionally held by men). Children raised by homosexual parents are no more likely to identify as homosexual, either. The irrational fear that homosexual parents will "convert" or "recruit" children has always been just that-- irrational.

Perhaps it's based on the fact that many heterosexuals try to "convert" or "recruit" homosexuals.

Often violently.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the Child Welfare League of America, the North American Council on Adoptable Children, and Canadian Psychological Association all support homosexuals raising children, and it's rare that you see sociological work that so consistently supports a consensus like there is in the subject of homosexual parents being able to raise well-adjusted children.

In fact, it's generally agreed that it is the quality of family processes that contribute to the child's well-being rather than its structure-- quality of parenting, psychosocial wellbeing of parents, quality and satisfaction with relationships in the family, cooperation and harmony between the parents, etc.

What is it's origin? As a kid I never heard about homosexuals. When I first saw it I was physically affected. It made my stomach lurch. By definition phobias include revulsion. Is it possible that homophobia is an evolutionary product? Are those that are belittled as bigots actually predisposed to a strong revulsion to gays?

It's always possible, but it's unlikely. Phobias are rarely genetic AFAIK, usually they're built up through life's experiences. For example my phobia of bees, wasps, and other flying insects with stingers (and my hatred of my older sister) is based off of childhood trauma, it's certainly not genetic-- while my father, who is allergic to bees/wasps, has no phobia even though it would make more sense for him to have it given his biology. The cause of phobias is not always as blatantly obvious as this.

To take it a step further, research also tends to indicate that of all household types those headed by two women will:

-Generally have the lowest chance of physical or sexual abuse.
-Generally have the lowest chance of neglect.
-Generally have improved academic performance compared to children in other household types.
-Generally have fewer social & emotional problems - bar bullying.

I feel that adoption should look at homosexual couples with the same eye that they would co-habitating unmarried individuals. They may be a good match.

Again, I did not say that homosexuals are inherently bad parents. It has been quoted and discussed above. I am saying that adoptions should be looking for a man and woman where possible, as the child (usually) is unable to decide where it wants to go.

In other words, the child should not be forced into a situation that it may not like. I am basing this on my personal experience and conversations with more than one friend who was adopted. And on my experiences with homosexuality.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:In other words, the child should not be forced into a situation that it may not like.

Well if children get to make a decision then nightly baths are vegetables are right out as well.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:the child should not be forced into a situation that it may not like.

My nephew doesn't like being put into a situation where he's not being given candy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:I am saying that adoptions should be looking for a man and woman where possible

The overwhelming majority of North American psychological and sociological researchers firmly disagree with you. What matters isn't the gender of the parents, but the quality of the parenting.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:I feel that adoption should look at homosexual couples with the same eye that they would co-habitating unmarried individuals. They may be a good match.

Provide a rational evidence-based reason for this.

In other words, the child should not be forced into a situation that it may not like.

Someone may or may not like any number of circumstances. There is no evidence to indicate that a household headed by heterosexuals results in happier, safer, healthier or more successful kids. In fact some evidence shows the opposite is true to certain extent. Children raised by lesbians may tend to be happier, safer, healthier and more successful.

I am basing this on my personal experience and conversations with more than one friend who was adopted. And on my experiences with homosexuality.

Wholly irrelevant in the face of staggering scientific evidence to the contrary. Personal anecdotes aren't valid evidence.

Chongara,

Any source that I quote is biased. Just like any you would quote. Above we discussed the APA. Go back 25 years and Homosexuality was a disease. Now it leads in the fight for gay marriage. Why? How does an institution for treating mental health get involved in the politics of marriage. Why does it actively campaign, which is an action beyond its charter?

The APA recently had to retract a statement that pedophilia was also part of the normal operating human sexual experience.

All the organizations that take a side on this issue are "infiltrated" one way or the other. Opinions drive policy.

And this whole thread is based off a personal anecdote that you no doubt praised when you saw it.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote: I feel that adoption should look at homosexual couples with the same eye that they would co-habitating unmarried individuals. They may be a good match.

So you would lump married/civil unioned homosexuals with unmarried heterosexuals and imply that both are inferior to heterosexual married couples (if they weren't different then there would be no need to separate them in regards to child rearing). This is why I'd just prefer either gay marriage or the adoption of civil unions and the abolishment of marriage as a legal construct.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Again, I did not say that homosexuals are inherently bad parents. It has been quoted and discussed above. I am saying that adoptions should be looking for a man and woman where possible, as the child (usually) is unable to decide where it wants to go.

Why assume that the child wouldn't want to be with homosexuals? What's your opinion on artificial insemination for lesbian couples or whatever the term is for the male opposite (renting a uterus?)?

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:In other words, the child should not be forced into a situation that it may not like. I am basing this on my personal experience and conversations with more than one friend who was adopted. And on my experiences with homosexuality.

You would disallow homosexual couples to adopt because of your feelings.

[quote=Melissia

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:I am saying that adoptions should be looking for a man and woman where possible

The overwhelming majority of North American psychological and sociological researchers firmly disagree with you. What matters isn't the gender of the parents, but the quality of the parenting.

This whole concept of only two people raising a kid is a bit inane anyway. It takes an autonomous collective to raise a child.

Actually I think you're just saying it's flawed because you disagree with it.

The majority of studies looked at homosexual parents compared to heterosexual parents, because that is the issue at hand. Claiming that they were flawed because they didn't look at something which was not part of the debate to begin with no other justification for said claim with is rather silly.

I'm not basing my conclusions off of feelings. I'm basing mine off of FACT.

Give equal rights to civil unions in every way save allowing adoption agencies the right to take the union type into account.

I am not saying burn the gays at the stake. I am not saying (again) that gays are bad parents

If gays aren't bad parents there is no rational reason to give heterosexual households preference.
If you give heterosexual households preference with no rational basis you are discriminating.

These two statements can't coexist if you're trying to maintain a rational position.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:I feel that adoption should look at homosexual couples with the same eye that they would co-habitating unmarried individuals. They may be a good match.

Again, I did not say that homosexuals are inherently bad parents. It has been quoted and discussed above. I am saying that adoptions should be looking for a man and woman where possible, as the child (usually) is unable to decide where it wants to go.

In other words, the child should not be forced into a situation that it may not like. I am basing this on my personal experience and conversations with more than one friend who was adopted. And on my experiences with homosexuality.

That would seem to be a view born of the existing widespread prejudice against homosexuals, in the sense that it recognises that a child of homosexual parents may well be teased at school, for example.

The problem with allowing this to be a determinant of action is that the bad behaviour (the teasing) is liable to be perpetuated.

Homosexuality is a deviation of humankind. It is not normal.

I don't know why it exists. No one does. Science has no answer.
Is it evolution trying to take them out of the gene pool?
Is it just a misfire of the mind?
Is it genetic?
is it learned?

We don't know.

But we know it is not the norm.
People can do whatever they want. They can be gay as grandma's hatband.
But you can never legislate acceptance.

Blue eyes aren't the "norm*"
Being 6'+ isn't the "norm"
Liking the sound of nails on a chalkboard isn't the "Norm".
Being a genius isn't the "norm"
Being lactose tolerant isn't the "Norm"
Speaking French isn't the "Norm"

So what?


*assuming "Norm" here is being used to mean 'most common'. Rather than 'proper'. If being used to mean 'most common' it doesn't really have much value, as these examples illustrate. If being used to mean 'proper' rational evidence is needed to prove how it is harmful to the self or others.