Gay Marriage debate time! (Split by Birdseye)

[Bold Deceiver]

So, my questions to you:

Are we on the same page now? Were we always on the same page (because what you quoted doesn't at all flow from the questions you then asked: you completely changed the context)? Do you still want me to answer your questions?

Hostile response, Goob. Sorry to have misunderstood your response to Chip; I see it has you out of sorts. Hey, you don't have to answer any hard questions. But since you offered, yes -- I'd like you answer the question. Especially since you've intimated you "disagree".

BD

[Gooberman]

Please donâ??t take it as hostile at all. I wrote that because I was genuinely not at all certain. Iâ??m way to sleep deprived at the moment to expend any extra energy on hostility . However, I did read your first response as hostile so maybe some leaked in subconsciously. <3

To answer: if I had my choice, and everything else was considered equal, I would choose the heterosexual couple.

Logically, it is the better choice because it gives the kid better exposure to male and female adults.

â?¦but to continue on. If everything else was considered equal, not only do I want them to be heterosexual, I want them to be white. And if everything else was considered equal, I would prefer an American with German-Irish roots. If everything else was equal, I would go with someone that could curl their tongue and wiggle their nostrils as well.

However, I would never argue that someone shouldnâ??t be allowed to adopt and raise a child outside of his or her race (I would argue that it is not ideal). I guess I view adoption candidates more along a point system. Heterosexuality: +10, Match Race: +5, A couple as opposed to a single: +10, Nice people: +50, Able to support child: +100, Will love child like their own, +500, etc.

In the end, should I have an untimely death, I care most about my kids having someone that loves them and provides a good life for them. If that happens, I will be happy.

[Bold Deceiver]

However, I would never argue that someone shouldnâ??t be allowed to adopt and raise a child outside of his or her race (I would argue that it is not ideal). I guess I view adoption candidates more along a point system. Heterosexuality: +10 . . .

Good answer. But something's missing, from my perspective -- and maybe it helps define where we're coming from on this. You focus on the sexuality of the parents. To me, one's sexuality is far less important than the fact that a law permitting homosexual marriage necessarily deprives the child of either a mother, or a father.

To me, that's a problem that runs off the point scale, because the core reason to have marriage as a state-sanctioned institution in the first place is provide the best, most stable environment for society's children. Society's children will one day become society.

I don't think this is true of you, but many people assume that if a conservative opposes gay marriage, he or she has taken a moral position with respect to whether homosexuality is right or wrong. I think true conservatism would hold that one's sexuality is simply none of the government's business, in almost every aspect -- but this.

Thanks for your thorough response.

BD

[Gooberman]

Sorry for delayed response/bump, was out of town.

To me, one's sexuality is far less important than the fact that a law permitting homosexual marriage necessarily deprives the child of either a mother, or a father.

From the pro-gay marriage side, this is the only anti-gay marriage argument that I feel has real weight to it. However, while this is a valid reason for opposition, I don't think it accounts for the size of the gay marriage resistance we see.

Iâ??m also not sure that I really believe that for conservatives, a child having a mother and a father runs off the point scale. In a heterosexual couple, if one spouse dies, or one leaves, we donâ??t uproot the child from the remaining parent, and plant that child with a new couple that can provide a father and mother. No conservatives would argue for this, because what really is off the point scale is simply love. We all agree that it is more important for a child to have his own parentâ??s love, then simply just having a father and mother.

Also, I believe that right now legally a single woman can go into a fertility clinic and undergo artificial insemination and have a child. So we already permit legally, actions to be completed that would insure a new child not have a father. I know conservatives arn't a fan of this, but the size of the opposition is minuscule compared to the gay marraige debate.

The upbringing of children is definitely important, and valid, but I donâ??t think it really accommodates for the size of the anti-gay marriage wave. â??Guns, God, and Gays,â?? are the hot topics for any modern American election. Guns - directly affect conservatives individually. God - directly affects conservatives individually. But I still suspect you can get more conservatives to come out and vote on the gay issue then any other.

I have heard a lot of reasons that account for this Tsunami of conservative opposition. But I still feel that most of whatâ??s running in the current is just good oldâ?? fashion bigotry, fear, unfamiliarity, or the desire for religious law.

One could even argue that allowing married gays to adopt is a separate issue from allowing gays to just marry. However, even I would predict liberal judges having an â??equalityâ?? orgasm with that one once they are married.

[will_kill]

wow! I swore I would never post on these boards again....but after reading this thread I have to remark. No disrespect for anything written above intended here, however, IMHO this thread is proof that we[humans]are destined to destroy ourselves.

[Bold Deceiver]

Iâ??m also not sure that I really believe that for conservatives, a child having a mother and a father runs off the point scale. In a heterosexual couple, if one spouse dies, or one leaves, we donâ??t uproot the child from the remaining parent, and plant that child with a new couple that can provide a father and mother. No conservatives would argue for this, because what really is off the point scale is simply love.

These things are true. Your examples about the death or departure of one parent, leaving the child alone with the other parent, demonstrate Things That Are Bad For Children. But we shouldn't codify bad things into law, or support acknowledged similarly bad scenarios by analogy.

With gay marriage, we're talking about setting normative standards, through law. You are advocating a law which, by its very definition, deprives the child of either a father, or a mother. I won't support that, and conservatives won't support that. I'm surprised anyone supports it, but I also recognize we live in the "free to be you and me" generation -- I was raised in it. That kind of thinking avoids the question of what is in the best interests of the child. That phrase, by the way, is the standard for Texas and California family law courts generally, and I think it's a good one.

We all agree that it is more important for a child to have his own parentâ??s love, [than] simply just having a father and mother.

I'm not sure what you mean by that, so I'll reserve the right to disagree.

Also, I believe that right now legally a single woman can go into a fertility clinic and undergo artificial insemination and have a child. So we already permit legally, actions to be completed that would insure a new child not have a father. I know conservatives arn't a fan of this, but the size of the opposition is minuscule compared to the gay marraige debate.

On its face, a persuasive point, but your conclusion is wrong. You conclude that because a single woman has a child by artificial insemination, she will never have a husband. I beg to differ.

A single homosexual, however, will never have a "partner" of the opposite sex.

I have heard a lot of reasons that account for this Tsunami of conservative opposition. But I still feel that most of whatâ??s running in the current is just good oldâ?? fashion bigotry, fear, unfamiliarity, or the desire for religious law.

You should look inside yourself, Gooberman, to discovery why you unfairly conclude that a "tsunami of conservative opposition" constitutes bigotry. If there's a true tsunami of contrary thought, I think you should consider "getting the [mind]set" before leaping to conclusions. That's a terrifically insulting thing to say, only truly serves to ratchet up hostility, and yet I am astonished at how frequently liberals tend to resort to that kind of attack. I know you well enough to know you're a good soul, and you are obviously not accusing anyone here. But I would offer a bit of (unsolicited advice): consider becoming more circumspect with that kind of talk.

Thanks as always for your thoughts.

BD

[Bold Deceiver]

wow! I swore I would never post on these boards again....but after reading this thread I have to remark. No disrespect for anything written above intended here, however, IMHO this thread is proof that we[humans]are destined to destroy ourselves.

Good to see you posting, will_kill. I'm not sure what position you're advocating, but the best way to counter a thought you disagree with, is with speech itself. The DBB is gracious enough to provide an excellent forum for that, and it's filled with bright minds and excellent writers. Become one of them. Speak your mind.


BD

[Gooberman]

You are advocating a law which, by its very definition, deprives the child of either a father, or a mother. I won't support that, and conservatives won't support that. I'm surprised anyone supports it, but I also recognize we live in the "free to be you and me" generation -- I was raised in it. That kind of thinking avoids the question of what is in the best interests of the child. That phrase, by the way, is the standard for Texas and California family law courts generally, and I think it's a good one.

This is still a good point. In fact all I can do is go back to, for me personally, this is on par with making sure white kids go with white parents. Ideal, but not a necessity. So long as the child is loved and provided for, Iâ??m content. With that said, I think if conservatives used this reason for their main opposition, they would achieve a lot more traction then with the: â??traditionâ?

[[RIP]Gallows]

Having lived with a lesbian couple, I can tell you that the nature of a homosexual relationship is UNLIKE any heterosexual relationship I've seen.

I do not support marriage rights to be given. I do think they should be able to share insurance and things of that nature with a civil union, but I fall short of granting them full privilage of marriage.

I have no problem treating gays and lesbians with the respect and rights they deserve as a human, but dont count on me saying that what they do is okay. And don't count on me giving them the rights of a united man and woman when one of them is not the opposite gender.

I know several homosexuals and none of them have a normal relationship. Most of them are corrupted with pain and frustration more than most hetero relationships. That being said, I don't see why we should allow these people to marry. They'll just muck up the courts with more divorces.

Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out.

[will_kill]

Having lived with a lesbian couple, I can tell you that the nature of a homosexual relationship is UNLIKE any heterosexual relationship I've seen....Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out.

(edited for the sake of brevity)

very well put Gallows...I agree whole-heartedly.