Oppose Gay Marriage and you are considered a Racist

[seanchai]

A thought that just occurred to me: single people can adopt, right? The consensus here seems to be that single parenting is detrimental to the child, something I don't necessarily disagree with. But if we allow that, why can't we allow gays to adopt?

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

A thought that just occurred to me: single people can adopt, right? The consensus here seems to be that single parenting is detrimental to the child, something I don't necessarily disagree with. But if we allow that, why can't we allow gays to adopt?

Now you're getting the entire picture. People complaining about SO many things that when you think about it are so hypocritical it isn't funny.

 

[whistler]

It seems the basic problem -- the reason why gay people are seen as the downfall of man by people other than religious fundamentalists -- is that they're associated in many people's minds with sexual perversion.

Those strange rumors at summer camp that you didn't quite understand, the weird impression that gay men seek children out of confusion, etc.

The difference among straight and gay people that I've noticed after meeting plenty of both, is that gay people tend to be more reclusive.

As a kid, that reclusiveness only amplifies the creepiness, rumors and the discomfort wih them.

I suppose it fits with the basic data on stereotypes. People with the strongest stereotypes have the least exposure to the people in question.

I've taught hundreds of kids of different backgrounds. The old idea rings true that the qualities we associate with a stereotype only describe a slight tendency of a group. The vast majority are simply "normal."

I would never in a million years seriously consider a notion like "blacks are lazy," "fags are child molesters," "southerners are inbreds," etc.

It's just false and counterproductive.

This whole gay marriage debate just smacks of stereotyping and fear of the unknown.

Gay people will not destroy marriage. There aren't enough of them. We straight people -- the overwhelming majority -- are doing a fine job ourselves.

BTW, not single gay person I've met CHOSE to be that way. Who the h3ll would CHOOSE to be gay? That's like choosing to have a two-inch thick carpet of back hair. Nobody wants to see it.

 

[Visceral]

It's the same "make yourself politically untouchable" tactic that groups of all kinds have been using for a long time: play the victim until people are afraid to say anything about you that's not shameless praise.

The group - any group, so long as they're a minority of the population - starts with legitimate grievances, but once they get those addressed, they make new demands, selling them as the next step to equality. They repeat this over and over again, with each new set of demands more unreasonable than before, and becoming more shrill all the time to maintain the sense of urgency despite their growing power (and to distract from the insanity of their demands).

Eventually the majority, now riddled with guilt for offenses both real and imagined, acquiesces: "OK, OK, I'll give you whatever you want, just be quiet before somebody hears you and thinks badly of me."

Everybody's doing the "persecuted minority" thing now - even rich people and the conservative Christians that run the US Government - and unfortunately, all it takes is time.

 

[whistler]

It's the same "make yourself politically untouchable" tactic that groups of all kinds have been using for a long time: play the victim until people are afraid to say anything about you that's not shameless praise.

The group - any group, so long as they're a minority of the population - starts with legitimate grievances, but once they get those addressed, they make new demands, selling them as the next step to equality. They repeat this over and over again, with each new set of demands more unreasonable than before, and becoming more shrill all the time to maintain the sense of urgency despite their growing power (and to distract from the insanity of their demands).

Eventually the majority, now riddled with guilt for offenses both real and imagined, acquiesces: "OK, OK, I'll give you whatever you want, just be quiet before somebody hears you and thinks badly of me."

Everybody's doing the "persecuted minority" thing now - even rich people and the conservative Christians that run the US Government - and unfortunately, all it takes is time.

Who's the "they" here? The whole group?

That being said, I think everyone knows exactly what you're talking about.

 

[Visceral]

Who's the "they" here? The whole group?

That being said, I think everyone knows exactly what you're talking about.

It doesn't matter who the group is. This technique works for any group; they just have to be a minority of the population and have suffered some injustice at some point in the past.

No, they don't even need to have suffered injustice, just something they can spin into one.

 

[whistler]

It doesn't matter who the group is. This technique works for any group; they just have to be a minority of the population and have suffered some injustice at some point in the past.

No, they don't even need to have suffered injustice, just something they can spin into one.

Um thanks. Actually, I was wondering if you're talking about everyone in whichever group it is.


I'm waiting for my turn to milk society. Too bad I'm a tall, educated, middle-class white man whose parents are still happily married.

It might be a while...

 

[Visceral]

Um thanks. Actually, I was wondering if you're talking about everyone in whichever group it is.

I'm waiting for my turn to milk society. Too bad I'm a tall, educated, middle-class white man whose parents are still happily married.

It might be a while...

I realized that's what you were talking about.

I say it's the group's second and third generations of leading figures - shrill, unreasonable, and publicity-seeking (with equally shrill and unreasonble followers who repeat their every word like parrots) - not the originals who were actually fighting against some real threat or disadvantage. They're easy to spot, as if you think hard about what they're saying they want, you realize that they don't want to stop the oppression, but instead want to displace the majority to become oppressors themselves.

It's the perhaps inevitable leap from equal rights for blacks to preferential treatment for blacks, from "making room in the rules for exceptions" feminists to "turning the exception into the rule" feminazis, from "We just want to be left alone" gays to demanding to be mainstreamed gays.

It's whatever you can't argue against without playing right into their hands by advocating imposing limits on them.

 

[whistler]

I realized that's what you were talking about.

I say it's the group's second and third generations of leading figures - shrill, unreasonable, and publicity-seeking (with equally shrill and unreasonble followers who repeat their every word like parrots) - not the originals who were actually fighting against some real threat or disadvantage. They're easy to spot, as if you think hard about what they're saying they want, you realize that they don't want to stop the oppression, but instead want to displace the majority to become oppressors themselves.

It's the perhaps inevitable leap from equal rights for blacks to preferential treatment for blacks, from "making room in the rules for exceptions" feminists to "turning the exception into the rule" feminazis, from "We just want to be left alone" gays to demanding to be mainstreamed gays.

It's whatever you can't argue against without playing right into their hands by advocating imposing limits on them.

There are a lot of sheep in this world and (in)justice makes a good rallying cry.

We're a bunch of fvckin tribes man.

 

[Shiftkey]

I'm not sure about "another problem" incurring from gay marraige. What new problems? Abuse, neglect, incense, molestation, etc. are old problems reflected within gay AND straight communities.

No, nothing that bad. Basically the child wouldn't have a complete frame of reference on how to build a family, and the child wouldn't get to see the different dynamics a man and woman bring to a family.

no. but somebody has, and there is evidence that jumping off a cliff is a bad idea. I would like to see some kind of proof that gays raising children hurts them and is bad for society.

I don't want to subject children to an experiment that could permanently handicap them when we have something that works.

Have you ever raised children? All they need is nurturing and education on how to become productive adults. ANYONE can provide this to them if they are capable; men, women, old, young, culturally different of even not their biological parents, it doesn't matter. It's inept adults that cause the problem, no matter their sexual preference.

Exactly, they need education. Children cannot be educated on how a straight family works if they are not raised in one. Children without a father figure cannot see how father figures are supposed to act. Children without mother figures cannot see how mother figures are supposed to act. Inept adults are another problem that has no bearing on how well gay couples can raise children. I don't think sexual preference is a problem, it's the lack of both a mother and father figure.

A thought that just occurred to me: single people can adopt, right? The consensus here seems to be that single parenting is detrimental to the child, something I don't necessarily disagree with. But if we allow that, why can't we allow gays to adopt?

In at least some states, single people can adopt. I don't think all states allow it. If it were up to me, single people wouldn't be allowed to adopt either because it's a similar (and potentially worse) problem. I agree that it's hypocritical to allow single parents to adopt and not gay parents.

But one problem shouldn't be the reason for allowing another problem.

 

[diplomatic_lies]

Well if you guys want to think about children as an extension of society, then poor people should stop having kids. Only rich, successful people should.

 

[OfficeSpace]

I could care less if gays get married... As long as they don't go raising kids and bothering me, I don't give a ****. I think they live a sick lifestyle, and that it is usually the result of being molested as a child...

I strongly disagree with kids being raised by gay people! It's not the way nature intended it to be!

 

[Porky]

I don't want to subject children to an experiment that could permanently handicap them when we have something that works.

there is a lot of evidence that being raised by gay parents doesn't harm children in the least, in terms of attitude, gender confusion, whatever. a lot of studies have been done by a lot of respectable social and psychological organizations. look it up.

you have no basis for your argument. the sooner you admit that you don't want gay people to have kids because you're prejudiced against them and their lifestyle, the better off we'll all be. I'm not judging you, but don't try to tell me that you care about the children when you have nothing to back your arguments up other than your beliefs.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

...Exactly, they need education. Children cannot be educated on how a straight family works if they are not raised in one. Children without a father figure cannot see how father figures are supposed to act. Children without mother figures cannot see how mother figures are supposed to act. Inept adults are another problem that has no bearing on how well gay couples can raise children. I don't think sexual preference is a problem, it's the lack of both a mother and father figure....
But one problem shouldn't be the reason for allowing another problem.

Hmmm, considering the divorce rate here in the states I wouldn't boast that children would be better off learning from the stereotypical American father or mother. Just because a couple is married and has children in no way constitutes their ability to parent.

It's the stereotypical gender roles that society attempts to force upon everyone which degrades the family. It's as bad as saying that guys should always pay for dates. There's no empirical evidence that proves that the old world way is better, it's just carried on by moralistic zealots who don't want to consider that there may be successful methods which don't align with their own beliefs.

 

[whistler]

I'll say it again, arguing that preventing gay marriage is a move to protect children is just a baseless cover story for people ignorant of gay people. Show me someone who claims this and has a view of gay people that matches statistical reality. I have yet to hear of, let alone find, such a person.

Lest anyone think sexual abuse of children is a problem spiraling out of control... just the opposite is true. Sexual abuse of children has declined dramatically over the past decade or so.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-08-24-sex-crimes-cover_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA

If you don't care for the source, read the data and the sources for the data in the article.

Objective data and critical thinking. They do the brain (and the world) good.

 

[Bible_Belt]

Allowing gay marriage amounts to your tax dollars paying homos to fvck each other in the a55. Getting married allows many tax breaks; it makes you eligible w/o your parents' income for student loans if you are under 23; your non-citizen spouse can get a green card and work. There are countless financial benefits to marriage.

All of that crap about "loving relationship" sounds fine, except two guys can't get the money w/o at least telling the gov't that they have sex. What is the difference between a gay couple and two straight guys who are lifelong friends and roommates? The only difference is the gay sex. It's impossible to prove or know who does what with whom in their bedroom, so if gay marriage is allowed, every pair of straight roommates should get "married" so that they get all of the financial benefits of marriage.

 

[whistler]

... so if gay marriage is allowed, every pair of straight roommates should get "married" so that they get all of the financial benefits of marriage.

You're seriously making that argument?

 

[Bible_Belt]

Why not? How do you prove who has sex with whom? If you think no one would lie, I'd argue that getting married can translate into tens of thousands of dollars, a college degree, and citizenship. People will lie on a form to get these benefits, because there is no way to prove the fraud.

 

[Shiftkey]

there is a lot of evidence that being raised by gay parents doesn't harm children in the least, in terms of attitude, gender confusion, whatever. a lot of studies have been done by a lot of respectable social and psychological organizations. look it up.

you have no basis for your argument. the sooner you admit that you don't want gay people to have kids because you're prejudiced against them and their lifestyle, the better off we'll all be. I'm not judging you, but don't try to tell me that you care about the children when you have nothing to back your arguments up other than your beliefs.

I must admit I didn't know studies have already been done. But I'm still skeptical. Here's one study:

http://www.fiu.edu/~girardc/3120gay.htm

"Difficulties in Studying this Population.

· Studies of this population have generally had small number of subjects.

· Difficult to disentangle effect of divorce & having gay parent on child-outcome

· Consider that 1/3 of families in National Study of Gay and Lesbian Parents had children from heterosexual marriages (Johnson, p. 120)

· Related to this: Lesbian couples more likely than Gay men to add to their families; that is, have kids as lesbian couple in addition to children from previous heterosexual relationship, forming blended families (Johnson, p. 121)."

This tells me that the children still had opposite sex parents (kinda like the show Friends and Ross's kid).

Understand that this is not about prejeduce, and that throwing personal insults is not appropriate on this forum (and can start flame wars which will get this thread locked). I have no problem with gay lifestyles, my only problem is with the lack of a father or mother figure when raising children.

 

[whistler]

Why not? How do you prove who has sex with whom? If you think no one would lie, I'd argue that getting married can translate into tens of thousands of dollars, a college degree, and citizenship. People will lie on a form to get these benefits, because there is no way to prove the fraud.

I suppose straight people must be doing that all of the time. It would explain a lot of the divorces.

Though knowing that most people can't even manage to stay out of credit card debt, I doubt they actually have the forsight.

Do you know any straight guys who would get married to their male roommate for the tax-breaks?

I think that would sort of hurt their chances with women... "Why don't you come upstairs... my husband is out of town."