Gay Marriage Debate...

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

If you think that two men (or women) can provide the same thing to a growing child that a man and a woman can, then explain why! This is the primary issue at heart and keeps getting sidestepped over and over again.

Ok, I will...and I think it's pretty simple. I was raised by a mother and father. I think I turned out pretty well. Not once were the genitalia of either of my parents involved in my upbringing. I was raised by two loving, supportive, encouraging people who demonstrated how to treat other people through the example of their love for each other. I don't see where gender or sexual organs had anything to do with that.

[Keith 0]

Quote

No, it's not clear! You haven't once attempted to explain why two men (with masculine biological toolsets) or two women (with feminine biologicial toolsets), can provide the upbringing that a child needs.

You haven't once explained why same sex couples can't raise children. You haven't given me anything to really argue against. You haven't proven any point. Your analogies and explanations just keep pointing to the fact that you don't get it. You clearly have a cemented belief system based on what I don't know. Give me a point to argue with and I'd be happy to enter a debate with you. Until then, I'm taking pot shots in the dark.

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[Vallerina 2]

Quote

yet you did not even reply to the core of what I said.

You're saying that heterosexual couples are better. That is your opinion, and you don't provide much fact to prove it.

There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning

[The111 1]

Quote

Ok...you ignored my follow up question, so here's another. Scenario, followed by solustions..

A teenage, homeless, prostitute gets pregnant. What is the best option:

A) Let her raise the kid on the street
B) Have her dump the kid on her single mother living in the projects who raised such an upstanding citizen.
C) Let a professional, well off, emotionally stable, gay couple adopt the child
D) Put the kid in a crowded orphanage
E) Put the kid in a crowded foster home
F) Encourage the girl to have an abortion.
G) Other? But make it a realistic, existing, option.

I did reply to your followups but I'm guessing you just didn't see them yet.

I agree that in this situation (C) is the best.

But I still don't think gay parents are always the best option available to a child without a home, i.e. I'm not convinced the options you presented me with are representative of the real world. And I still think this is irrelevant to the core of the argument.

And for someone who accuses me of ignoring a question, you have, just like many others done two things.

1) Pointed out several things that are wrong with society and made gay parenthood look like the answer.
2) Ignored my question, the core of my arguments. Can a homosexual couple (with one set of gender toolsets) provide the same quality upbringing to a child that a heterosexual couple (with both sets of gender toolsets) can?

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[Nightingale 0]

you're assuming that men have one set of tools and women have another.

I don't think this is the case. I think that different parental styles/tools are dependent on the person rather than the gender.

For example: I know when most girls want to talk about sex or relationships, they talk to their moms. Personally, I talk to my dad. My mom's a prude when it comes to such things, and when I just want advice or just to vent a little, I talk to my dad, and usually get some very good advice. Mom would judge me. Dad listens. In many families, it is the other way around. Mom would listen and sympathize, while Dad would go grab a shotgun. Not that my Dad hasn't WANTED to go grab a shotgun on occasion.

I would agree with you that two parents are best, simply because EACH PARENT brings different tools into the mix, whether they're same sex or different. Because personalities differ, each parent is going to have a different kind of connection with their child, whether biological or adopted.

[wmw999 2,452]

Quote

No, it's not clear! You haven't once attempted to explain why two men (with masculine biological toolsets) or two women (with feminine biologicial toolsets), can provide the upbringing that a child needs

OK, I'll try. I've been involved in raising a child, with a man (and divorced from him, but still cooperative). I'm female, if it's not obvious. My son thinks he's pretty happy; he's in college, doing well; he's polite and kind. One data point, but it gives me something besides fear and superstition to base my analysis of what's required to raise a child.

Raising a child requires consistency, kindness, firmness, and flexibility. It requires the ability to listen, and to adjust your schedule to those of another unselfishly and unresentfully. Did I mention flexibility? It also requires the ability to be supportive and to be a good example. It's important to model good interpersonal behavior -- the ability to negotiate and work with and enjoy each other, and not just be objects around the children. It requires a lot of other things, too, but those are pretty high on the important list.

Some people think that women are better able to provide kindness and supportiveness. Some people think that men are able to provide firmness. Well, maybe there are more of each gender better able to provide those. However, if so, the range is so wide as to be meaningless. Really. Just ask any kid who had a tough mom, or a dad who was the one they really looked up to and confided in.

Some people think that only men can be an example for boys, and that only women can provide an example for girls. Well, if you honestly believe that, you need to work far harder to prevent divorce, because it's a problem to a much larger number of children than the homosexual couples who are raising a child not of their mutual gender.

You can serve a far larger number of children by picking parents (regardless of gender) for their abilities to provide the specific skills needed to parent, and by ensuring that they have the resources they need to get the skills they think they need help with.

And none of those skills are exclusive to, or even overwhelmingly preponderant in, either men or women.

That's why I think that marriage between one man and one woman is not necessarily related to the ability to raise kids. However, deciding to make and work on a commitment with another person does show (generally -- there's always Brittany after all ) that you're wanting to take the first step toward fitting your life and responsibility in with another person. After the first, it can get easier to fit more in, or you might simply want to be married, and not do it just for the kids.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Treejumps 0]

I'm sure I will regret even bothering with this but....

"Furthermore, since fewer gay couples have children, that further reduces medical expenses on the national level"

Gay couples cannot have children, period. As nature has seen fit to prevent this, I believe that the law should also prevent this.

Rudy Guilliani was just on Fox news the other night and summed it pretty well. "Marriage is for a man and a women. Gay people can live together, have a civil union, or whatever, but cannot marry. There is no discrimation there." Man and women marry, same sex couples have civil unions. I feel that is fair and that the vocal minority should not get to change an entire society so that they can feel better about themselves.

[The111 1]

Quote

If you explained what you feel that a couple made up of a (presumably) straight male and a (presumably) straight female have or can offer to a child that a gay couple couldn't, I missed it.

I did. More than once. But I'll do it again. Since several people are claiming to have missed it. Maybe it's so simple you didn't realize it was my point.

Men and women are different. I realize that this is a sweeping generalization, but it's true. Obviously, all men are not identical. Likewise, all women are not identical. But in general men and women have different physical, mental, and emotional qualities. I think that a properly matched man and woman can provide the widest range of "parent qualities", and thus the best upbringing, to a child who needs a broad perspective.

In case you missed it, that's it!

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[GrumpySmurf 0]

Given that the straight folk don't seem to do all that well with marriage, why not let the non-straight folk get a shot at it - can't possibly do any worse. And given all the messed up kids in the world that are a result of straight parents, why not let the non-striahgt folk have a shot at that too - perhaps they could adopt a few of these kids and possibly turn thier lives around - giving the kids the attention thier former parents either couldn't or didn't want to give.

They all go on about destroying the 'Insitution of Marriage' - that was already destroyed long ago by us hetero folk.

[Jayruss 0]

Quote

But I still don't think gay parents are always the best option available to a child without a home, i.e.

You're absolutely right gay parents are not ALWAYS the best answer. There are alcoholic gay parents, and gays can beat their children too. It's just one answer.

Quote

I'm not convinced the options you presented me with are representative of the real world. And I still think this is irrelevant to the core of the argument.

Though the options presented by PhillyKev are not a representation of all pregnant women, I think they are more evident that you are assuming. These are problems faced by many pregnant women.

Quote

1) Pointed out several things that are wrong with society and made gay parenthood look like the answer.

HELLO, I'm answering you. I haven't seen anyone correlating gay parenting to the solution of societies ills. It's ONE option; it's not foolproof either.

Quote

2) Ignored my question, the core of my arguments. Can a homosexual couple (with one set of gender toolsets) provide the same quality upbringing to a child that a heterosexual couple (with both sets of gender toolsets) can?

You need to define "quality". I really think my definition of a child that has been brought up in a "quality" home is different than yours. See I'd feel that my child was raised right if he accepted gay parenting. Yet, I assume, you would feel that your child was brought up right if he/she was against gay parenting.

I really believe that problem here is that you feel children should be raised that way you see fit.

__________________________________________________
"Beware how you take away hope from another human being."
-Oliver Wendell Holmes

[Nightingale 0]

by saying that because nature has biologically prevented two people from having children, and therefore they shouldn't be married, you are also excluding all the hetero folks with fertility issues, my own parents included!

[The111 1]

Emphasis added...

Quote

I was raised by a mother and father. I think I turned out pretty well. Not once were the genitalia of either of my parents involved in my upbringing. I don't see where gender or sexual organs had anything to do with that.

Gender had plenty to do with it. Otherwise you wouldn't have even mentioned "mother" and "father". They're two of the most basic words in our language, probably the first two you learned.

Genitalia probably had very little to do with it. But in case you haven't noticed, genitalia aren't the only difference between men and women. Believe it or not, men are different than women on many levels. That does not mean all men are identical or all women are identical. But they're two entire different animals, designed to complement each other.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[Keith 0]

Quote

I feel that is fair and that the vocal minority should not get to change an entire society so that they can feel better about themselves.

It's pretty arogant for anybody to think I need someone else to make me feel better about who I am. I can validate me very well on my own.

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[Treejumps 0]

Well said!

[Jayruss 0]

Quote

Gay couples cannot have children, period. As nature has seen fit to prevent this, I believe that the law should also prevent this.

Nature has also prevented paraplegics from walking, should we outlaw wheel chairs?

__________________________________________________
"Beware how you take away hope from another human being."
-Oliver Wendell Holmes

[The111 1]

Quote

I really believe that problem here is that you feel children should be raised that way you see fit.

Everybody feels that way. It's not a problem. We just see different ways as "fit".

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[The111 1]

Quote

You haven't once explained why same sex couples can't raise children. You haven't given me anything to really argue against.

Please see my recent replies to bytch and kev. I think same sex couples *can* raise children, but I don't think they can provide the same broad perspective to those children that a well matched husband and wife can.

Quote

Your analogies and explanations just keep pointing to the fact that you don't get it.

You mean, the fact that I disagree with you. Tolerance goes both ways... we are both expressing opinions which we beleive to be right, but I'm not calling you wrong or saying you "don't get it".

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[skybytch 273]

Quote

But in general men and women have different physical, mental, and emotional qualities.

Please list those qualities, and which gender they belong to, and why a person of the opposite gender couldn't have those qualities. I can't argue with "in general" on this one.

And a side point - I was raised by a man and a woman, a married couple. My son was raised by a single woman with no contact with his sperm donor. I think he's turned out far better than I did. That's not meant to disrespect my parents at all... more to show that how a child turns out isn't all about how many or what combination of genders his/her parent(s) are.

[Nightingale 0]

I know my aunt went WAY out of her way to make sure her sons had good male role models growing up, after her divorce (husband paid child support, but wanted nothing at all to do with his three kids). She even moved from Virginia back to California so her sons would have their uncles to hang out with. All three turned out great, and are very close to their uncles too.

No reason why a gay couple couldn't work with friends and family to provide opposite sex role models as well.

[wmw999 2,452]

I'm wondering if you can address the points I raised in my post; they tried quite hard to address what you were asking.

It's a long-ass post I realize, but there's a lot that goes into being a parent besides gender.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Gender had plenty to do with it. Otherwise you wouldn't have even mentioned "mother" and "father".

I used that terminology for your benefit since you are the one espousing the importance. I have no doubt that if I were raised by a gay couple who treated each other, and me, the same way, that I would be the same person.

[The111 1]

Wendy, I understand that some men take on roles for their children that are traditionally taken on by the mother, and vice versa. I understand that some husband/wife matches offer horrible care to their children. I understand that homosexual couples can give children a better upbringing than many children raised in "traditional" families today are receiving.

But my position stands that a well matched husband and wife can provide a perspective and upbringing that no homosexual couple can.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[Keith 0]

Quote

I did. More than once. But I'll do it again. Since several people are claiming to have missed it. Maybe it's so simple you didn't realize it was my point.

Men and women are different. I realize that this is a sweeping generalization, but it's true. Obviously, all men are not identical. Likewise, all women are not identical. But in general men and women have different physical, mental, and emotional qualities. I think that a properly matched man and woman can provide the widest range of "parent qualities", and thus the best upbringing, to a child who needs a broad perspective.

In case you missed it, that's it!

There you made my point. You haven't said a thing. Just because you put words to paper doesn't mean they have any meaning. It simply means you put words together. Try putting them together so they mean something. You seem to think you have some moral, ethical, or intilectual high ground and "we" have to prove something to you. Essentially you're saying boogers are green and I have to prove they aren't. Well I say you prove they are. So far your best supporting argument is that boogers come from a nose therefore they're green, and boogers that don't come from a nose can't possibly ever be green. Convice me that's true.

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[Nightingale 0]

how many homosexual couples have you observed personally?

I'd just like to know where you're getting your opinion from.

[wmw999 2,452]

Then will you be working harder to make sure that only well-matched couples get married? It's a much greater problem for the future of the children than the occasional gay couple.

And if you're just going to take a position and not defend it, well, why are you still here? You've had your say.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)