Let's relax and calmly discuss homophobic people...

Yeah, so it's been mentioned already, but I think it should be emphasized a bit that the whole 'People are equal if they can all marry others of the opposite gender' thing is is a matter of phrasing. We could say, for example, that all people are equal if they all have the right to practise Islam (and only Islam), or that everyone has free speech as long as they tout the superiority of their government, or that you can have your car in any colour you like as long as it's black, or that you can marry the person you love as long as they're a different gender, and phrase these either as above or like 'All religions but Islam are excluded', 'People can only tout the superiority of their government', 'You can only have a black car', or 'You can only marry someone of the opposite gender'; but that doesn't change anything. The issue seems to be the arbitrariness or the injustice of what's excluded (except for the car one, obviously).

 

Re:

I agree with you. In general, I find that most arguments on the internet boil down to people who fundamentally disagree, but all they end up doing is fighting over semantics instead of anything of substance.

I'm doing this off the top of my head so it might be missing something, but the real points I personally find relevant to gay marriage would be something like this:

1) Do you believe that homosexuality is fundamentally "wrong?"

2) Do you believe everyone (regardless of "rightness") should have access to the same civil rights as far as legal, government-recognized issues go?

Point #1 is the heart of the issue, and point #2 is what I feel logically follows it. Discussions of equality of access to marriage ignoring sexual preference and the like only serve to argue semantics and basically ignores how the real world works.

There are greater, over-arching issues directly related to this fundamental issue (like should marriages even be recognized at all by the government with things like tax breaks and the like in the first place?), but are secondary to the core discussion.

I feel like if people peel back the rhetoric and bullshit you can ask yourself a few simple questions about most issues and go from there. For example, I feel a touchy issue like abortion can also be narrowed down to a couple of points: where/when do you believe "life" starts, and is stopping a process that left alone will eventually end in life "wrong?"

Obviously the answers aren't simple or people wouldn't disagree on them, and my statements above aren't really meant as absolutes or anything, just something to think about.

 

You guys are good. I like you guys. You keep cool heads.

So we agree that arguing "equality" is really just arguing semantics over the word. Perhaps "analogous freedoms" is a more suitable platform.

I did, which is why I deliberately did not draw attention to the statistics that did not support what I was claiming. That's what statistics are for! On the other hand, that is also the nice thing about facts: they are immutable and should not be denied once presented. I could likewise probably abuse some statistics to refute the claim that homosexual parents do no (extra) psychological harm to their children when compared to heterosexual parents.

Right, we cannot let people do what they want to because it is what they want to do. It is important to understand the potential harm to others (such as to children's psyches) before allowing people to satisfy their whims.

Philes, I don't know whether or not governments should regulate marriage, but I see why their interest would be vested.

I like to believe that this is why homosexuality was invented, but more on that never.

Yes, I read you. I presented this in this way to show that nobody is being forced to be anywhere but why they would have incentives to avoid or remain in certain places. A gay couple is certainly free to go to a state where their marriage is not recognized, but by design the residents would hope they wouldn't want to. Likewise, homophobes are free to go to a state where gay marriage is recognized, but we would expect they would avoid the exposure altogether.

The jig is up! I have been taking what I feel is the less defensible position, hoping for a good and reasonable argument for the support of gay marriage. Thank you. You and Jojobobo have been very patient and kept cool heads and I appreciate that.

 

Re: You guys are good. I like you guys. You keep cool head

This has the same issue, because the analogy between freedoms is arbitrary. Saying, as I mention above, that everybody has the right to practise Practice x and only Practice x (Islam, freedom of speech within strict confines, whatever) draws analogous freedoms between people from a certain perspective (viz., everybody can do x), but it could equally be said, from a different perspective, that these freedoms are not analogous, because they amount to saying that you are excluded from any practice other than x and therefore the freedoms, rights, and opportunities enjoyed by some people (those of the Islamic faith who can practise their religion, those who support the government and can be vocal about it, those who are heterosexual and can marry the person they love, etc.) are not enjoyed by others (Christians, those who question or wish to reform governmental policies, homosexuals, etc.).

Firstly, it all turns on what you call 'equal' or 'analogous' in these situations; and secondly, equality isn't necessarily the main issue, because if they passed a law tomorrow which involved an hour of mandatory torture each day, it wouldn't be right simply because it was the same for everyone.

 

Whether or not a couple can raise children should have nothing to do with whether or not they can marry. 1.6 percent of the US identifies as "not straight." 73% of homosexual households don't want children, and in total; there are currently 31,390,000 million people in this country who don't want children (assuming everyone in the US is an adult - which is patently false). 88.32% of that group is straight, and coincidentally that same number can get married no matter where they are in the country. Barring reproductive capability within the couples, there's no functional difference between the straight group and the gay one. So why shouldn't the gay couples be allowed marriage? Due to fear and the general lack of evidence on whether or not gay parents damage children?

Because it came right after something if mine you quoted, I read this and laughed to myself. Then I realized Philes had posted in this thread and you were addressing one of his points.

I also laughed here.

I've found that getting flustered rarely serves my interests. Besides, whether or not I agree with someone's opinion has nothing to do with whether or not I can talk to them like an adult.

 

I assure you, I was confused as well.

 

Good talk, bros

To me, this is a misuse of the word "freedom" because of the inclusion of the text highlighted above. This describes a restriction rather than a freedom. I realize that I am being a bitch about semantics but from my perspective, freedoms do not need to be described. It is an unspoken rule that people are free to do anything. It isn't until these freedoms are described that they are limited and thus become restrictions. Maybe we can just drop the "analogous" modifier in favor of something more appropriate.

Pretty much. If it can be proved that being reared by homosexual parents adversely affects children's development, then that would strengthen the case against gay marriage.

Now that you two have been formally introduced...
Your data tied into a comment Philes made about government's involvement in marriage. As a citizen, I am not convinced that a government needs to be involved at all. Considering the statistics you presented, if I were a government I would certainly encourage the institution.

Whatever your motivation, I appreciate it.

 

Re: Good talk, bros

I think this argument walks a dangerous line, as it almost suggests that gay people are likely to be with the appropriate evidence mentally or emotionally deficient in some way that prevents them from appropriately raising children. I guess you could say that if they lack the biological imperative to themselves to physically produce offspring then they also lack the parental instincts too - but just because you would think these things are tied doesn't mean to necessarily say they are practically (though to play devil's advocate to my own argument, most gay couples I know don't want kids - or at least currently).

The only real danger I see to children being raised by couples is being bullied at school for their family situation being different to the norm, which granted can mess children up but I don't really think the blame lies at the parents' door here - there's only so much a parent can do to prevent and intervene with bullying and they can't singularly change the broader prejudices of society.

 

Re: Good talk, bros

Yes, I think that's the point: the restriction on marriage deprives gay people of the freedom to marry the people they love and want to spend their lives with. Phrasing it otherwise doesn't make it any more just.

Also, it seems to me that the whole argument around whether homosexuals do or don't make good parents is specious. This seems to have to do with the right to adopt, rather than to marry, because not every two people that marry will want to have children, and the idea that this is the whole point of marriage is just an antiquated notion that isn't necessarily universally relevant nowadays.

 

Re: Good talk, bros

I'd agree with this snippet of a statement I neutered to fit with my personal agenda. It always felt to me that barring gay couples from adopting was a lot more about controlling them/quashing beliefs than any actual belief that a child raised this way would be a terrible human being.*

*Unless the person expressing this viewpoint is a Southern Baptist, whom would be strongly convinced a homosexual even just living in the neighborhood is going to ruin everything.

 

Re: Good talk, bros

Sure, if the point of marriage today was specifically to have or adopt children.

• Some things people might say against a pair of same sex parents;
• It normalizes gayness
• Men aren't naturally nurturing like women
• Women aren't natural providers like men

Those are really only problems if you don't like that there are gay people who want to raise children, and if you're unaware of studies held by the;

• American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• American Psychiatric Association
• American Psychological Association
• American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy
• American Psychoanalytic Association
• National Association of Social Workers
• Child Welfare League of America
• North American Council on Adoptable Children
• Canadian Psychological Association

These agencies and their studies have reached a consensus that children fare no better or worse with gay parents when compared with straight ones.

One researcher went so far as to say,

I pointed out earlier that about 27% of gay couples actually want/have children. The rest either don't or are undecided. To keep 3/4's of a population from getting married because the remainder of the population might raise children improperly is one of the strangest arguments I've ever heard, and like wayne says here;

I even said in my previous post how 10% of the US doesn't want to have children. Most of those people are straight, but they can still get married in spite of all the children they'll never raise.

The wording you used in your post stuck in my head for a bit -

And what I'm left with is that we already showed in this thread; how people can prove anything they want to with the right study, whether or not that study's conclusion matches up with what they're saying.

Whether or not holes are poked later only serves to bolster the agreeing side, and I've mentioned before on this forum how finding people who agree with your opinions gets you high on dopamine. In any argument, both parties aren't just impassioned groups who want what they know is right - they're also junkies who want their next fix.

 

This reads like a contradiction. Could you please elaborate?

From what credible sources I've been able to read from, the current research on the effects of same sex parenting doesn't amount to any substantial differences on account of generally inconclusive findings and limited case studies. Unfortunately, even then, I could still sense some bias behind some of the reports (be it for or against the concept). Being a homosexual myself, and still fairly young, I'm still pending the idea of having a family of my own in the future, so the valid findings of this literature certainly matter to me. However, any outstanding critiques I've personally encountered in regards to homosexuality as a whole have often been baseless and insipid in their origins, without any thorough consideration for previous research on the matter beyond their own convictions alone. It stings to hear some of these diatribes, and there have been times in the past when I've had to hold back tears in that regard.

Going along the lines of what's been said previously by Jojobobo, what seems to be the problem in personal denial is the widespread view that homosexuality is a sexual indulgence as opposed to a given lifestyle. When you think of heterosexuality, one's inclined to think of it as the norm on account of its reproductive value. As homosexuality lacks this quality directly (without surrogacy or adoption), it receives an indisputably cruel portrayal as being the terminus of a long and important family history; therefore, to be an open homosexual is to be indiscreet and nonproductive in your sexual behaviour, without any regard for the values of family or its continuation, let alone the species. That some people may feel threatened by homosexuals, too, is also a very real concept. Take the hypothetical situation of a man's girlfriend developing an unrequited attraction to a homosexual friend; that person could then be considered by the man to be a threat to his relationship, or to put it more vulgarly, a cock blocker. The same would also apply if a woman's boyfriend felt an attraction to his lesbian friend.

 

Oh you did not just quote Penny Wong.

 

Re:

I treat gay people the same way I treat everyone else. Their sexual preference doesn't make them somehow less human, though I find the associated behavior morally reprehensible.

 

Re: Re:

I like the number 10 better than 9 and find your stance morally reprehensible. Who cares? It's bizarre how people put so much importance on their trivial opinions.

 

Re: Re:

Well, I'm pretty sure no one cares about ^this opinion, and I certainly find it trivial.

Anyway, in my trivial opinion, it doesn't matter what I think about homosexuality; it matters what God thinks about it, and I put a great deal of importance on His opinions.

 

Woah! Totally didn't see that coming; now I'm all turned around! Shit... I can't even... Wait, which one of us is even the one basing their thoughts on their own understanding of, and opinions on, a text from a culture (probably a mix-mash of them) which existed thousands of years ago, interpreted and reinterpreted, translated and retranslated, over and over, that may or may not be partly metaphorical or fictional?

 

So few people put much thought into what Juno or Anubis think, nowadays.

 

Well, when it comes to gods, I'm only a casual worshipper of Bacchus, and he doesn't seem concerned about where do ya drip your pen, but rather wether you're drunk enough or not while doing so.

Also, naked dancing with goat people.

 

I'm not too sure. Orpheus (the first pederast) took only male lovers and he was torn apart by the maenads (servants of Dionysus/Bacchus).

But yeah, buttfucking predates Christ so it should be alright.