Posts: 21362
-
Karma: 5,145
"what i would mean, when it comes to your normality in not harming other people, would be to see if the children can indeed grow up to have a "normal" life, and are not harmed by same sex marriage, in any way emotionaly or physicaly. what i would mean is, so far, gay marriage and unions have not had any better success than todays hetero couples, they are even worse in the numbers (i lost my link to these numbers) then hetero couples, which are already at around 30 to 40% of marriages that end in divorce (which scars kids emotionnaly, thats a given, and therefore not a "normal" thing to do accroding to you). the gay couples that married in SF are at i think it was 60% divorced within the next 6 months after their marriage. and when it comes to staying together for the kids, seeing as they are not able to be the lawful parents from the start, that will not likely ba able to happen, as only one of the the 2 is directly a parent in most of the cases. this does not promote unity."
Okay, firstly, some source material, please. Secondly, are you actually arguing here that we should use general statistics to determine specific cases? If 95% of gay marriages ended in divorce that certainly wouldn't mean that a specific one will, and to assume based on a statistic that that single case will fail is presumptuous. It's similar to saying "75% of the black people we've hired for this position in the past haven't done a good job, so let's not hire one this time no matter how qualified he might be". Not only that, but as I'm sure you'll agree, those statistics are inflated by circumstance; in the first few months after gay marriage was allowed in these places many homosexual couples were doing it simply because they wanted to exercise the right to and not because it was the right thing for them. That only makes sense, and as the institution becomes recognized and accepted as the norm, as I'm sure it will, the statistics will normalize. Basing any argument on this topic on statistics is misleading at this point simply owing to the fact that a fair sample is impossible to draw right now. At any rate, here's another question regarding statistics: if the heterosexual divorce rate rose noticeably above that of gay marriage's, should we abolish heterosexual marriage too?
" as for people who are impotent, this is different, i believe: they would have been able to have kids, or could have had kids if, as opposed to never being able to. also, when it comes to pleasure in sex, as i said, i believe that God created sex to be so pleasurable to enforce the bond between the couple, and so that happens with hetero and i guess gay couples (no experience). but in a hetero couple, this pleasure can go so far as to wield kids and progeniture, a gift to ecah parent. this cannot happen in a gay couple, so all there is is pleasure keeping the bond together, in which case it is highly selfish. and JD said that pleasure is a justifiable means to call something normal. i maintain that finding something pleaurable does not make it normal. to kill a person and have pleasure in it cannot be deemed normal."
Where did I say that? My entire argument there was intended to show that if you want to call homosexuality abnormal, there's no way to do so without calling heterosexuality abnormal. As for you're "woulda shoulda coulda" line of reasoning which is a common and weak cop-out attempt to avoid the impotence argument, it makes no difference if in a perfect world they might have been able to have children, the fact is, they can't, and many were born this way and never could. No argument related to procreation can apply to homosexuals without applying to this group of heterosexuals, and the distinction you've attempted to make is, ultimately, imaginary. As for your reasoning on the pleasure aspect, that's utterly nonsensical. Either it produces children or it doesn't. If you're telling me it's entirely selfish not to, then that must apply to both denominations equally or it's an unfair comparison. All of this "It keeps the bond together so it's selfish" thing sounds entirely laughable to me... all meaningful relationships, gay or straight, are about unselfishness and sacrifice for your partner, and to imply the opposite where gays are concerned would be insulting if it weren't so ridiculous; they're capable of loving each other just as much as we are. Meanwhile, many heterosexual couples are in relationships all the time which have NO intention of producing children, and in fact, many have MARRIAGES which are the same way. No one looks down on these people for that, and they had a CHOICE in the matter... and are apparently choosing to be "selfish" as you put it. Gay people can't even help it and you're going after them? For shame.
" as for parenting, im talking about theideal case: 2 poeple who love each other have a baby together in the natural way (egg+sperm of parents), this means man and wife together, have a kid. i did not say its a must, but it is important to have balance. you cannot say to me that having divorced parents is very good for the kid, even if the increasing majority is and make do. but you cannot say it is a good thing. i beleive that it is not very good to deny a kid a mother, or a father, seeing as he/she came from one. when there is no more need for male or femal gametes to make a kid, thats a different matter."
Your link is completely arbitrary. Just because someone is "made up" of parts from both sexes does not mean two members of the same gender cannot make good parents. Adopted children never have anything genetically in common with their parents anyway. Gametes? What the hell are you on about? Any two parents who love their child meet the most basic requirements for providing that child a good home. That is what is most important, not the chromosomes in the parents' bodies. And on a case by case basis divorce MIGHT be good for the kid! You have no idea and cannot apply generalized statements to individual cases as a means of infringing upon peoples' rights. There are going to be gay marriages out there where the child won't prosper, and there are going to be a hell of a lot more hetero ones where the same will occur... as far as I'm concerned there are a lot of straight people who have kids who aren't equipped to raise them, but society does nothing to stop these people. If you're going to make a distinction between one group and another on a legal level that distinction must be based on a relevant, basic difference that applies to all, and there simply are none to be had. It doesn't matter if many gay marriages end in divorce because in every case, this one might not. And the worst part is that you're not even making a serious argument, just a veil for intolerance; you know damn well that even if the statistic was "80% of interracial marriages end in divorce", or "74% of asian marriages end in divorce", you wouldn't be telling us that those groups shouldn't marry. The same goes for your proposed study of "the adverse effects of growing up in a gay-marriage household". That sentence is ludicrous, what may be true in one, or most situations will not be true for all and using such data (which I absolutely guarantee will be tainted, I have no faith in anyone who could think such a study useful) is as presumptuous and morally unforgivable as denying you the right to a child because someone did a study which found that many skiers don't make good parents. The point is that it's because these people are gay that you're making the argument, not because these people are prone to divorce or etc. So please, don't bullshit, don't beat around the bush... if you feel the absolute need to be a bigot, at least don't try to hide behind statistics.
Jackbach:
" It's not immoral to be gay and it's not abnormal (What's normal anyways? A standard the majority decides upon and upholds, so something being abnormal isn't automatically negative. I know you're aware of this.). But universal, exclusive homosexual sex sure doesn't make sense from a procreation perspective...which is a necessary part of sustaining life."
Riiiiiiight... that's true... but I don't see what you're trying to argue here. It's okay by you, and it's normal, but it's not big in the procreation column? Because I can think of a lot of things that I myself do that don't do much for the propogation of the species... what can I say, it's just not always the first thing on my mind. Am I at fault for that? Because if you're not saying being gay is immoral or abnormal, then I don't see what your criticism of homosexuality IS. I mean you've basically put it on the same level as sex with birth control. If we all did that the population would die out too... right? But it's neither immoral or abnormal unless you ask the Catholics. I see what you're saying, but I don't see where you're trying to go with it. I suppose it's possible you aren't even arguing with me, just quoting my posts and typing for a while... ?
