Gay marriage is between a man and a woman

[john5746]

What about two women?

In general, I would be more comfortable with my child being taken care of by two women than two men. But, my knowledge of the specific people would override that.

 

I am half-joking, of course, I see what you're saying, but still, I think that the consideration is that in reality children with no homes exist, period. It is the situation. So since gay couples adopt if they want children (and many do..), I see no harm in it.

 

I agree, this is the most important point.

 

But I will repeat my previous point -- either you do something *for all* or *for none*. That's equality. The government atm says "all has rights *except* gays" and that's what's wrong here, in my opinion, more than whether or not gays should *want* to get married or if straights should "want" to get married, or if the government should or shouldn't compel people to get married.

 

Equality.

 

Equality AFTER you come to the conclusion of no harm as above. That is why I would not allow a brother and sister marriage or a 5 person marriage. The former has potential genetic problems(and weaken families, imo) and the latter just leads to confusion and too many lawyers, imo.

 

I do think that the gay community wants marriage for more than legal rights. They would like more acceptance from society and see it as a step in that direction. That is what scares the opposition the most - the appearance of accepting it on a moral basis.

[ecoli]

Equality AFTER you come to the conclusion of no harm as above. That is why I would not allow a brother and sister marriage or a 5 person marriage. The former has potential genetic problems(and weaken families, imo) and the latter just leads to confusion and too many lawyers, imo.

Though, interestingly, there's some evidence to suggest that, sometime in our past, humans were sexually promiscuous in this manner (and as we see in some religions, there are people who still choose to live this way). It also seems to be the case, that this was only common during times of resource shortage. By being promiscuous, females were able to obscure paternity, essentially forcing a larger pool of men contribute resources to what might be their children.

 

I'm not sure how that's relevant to this discussion, but this is still a science forum, after all.

[mooeypoo]

In general, I would be more comfortable with my child being taken care of by two women than two men. But, my knowledge of the specific people would override that.

Most men are

 

No offense intended, btw. I just find it interesting. I think there is a lot to do with education and social "norm" here.. heterosexual sex videos depict 2 women kissing and all.. and men like that. Two men are more taboo. I wonder if it's because women were (and are, to a degree) considered to be the "gentle" ones, so "taking care of one another" (ahem ahem) is 'sexy' while two men doing the same is "nasty".

 

Just a thought, tho.

 

Equality AFTER you come to the conclusion of no harm as above. That is why I would not allow a brother and sister marriage or a 5 person marriage. The former has potential genetic problems(and weaken families, imo) and the latter just leads to confusion and too many lawyers, imo.

Well, I would claim, then, that we need to define what harm you mean, then. Social harm or personal harm? I mean.. I see no harm to anyone if there is a 5-person marriage, if that works out to all sides (doesn't work forme, but.. if the peopel are happy, who am I to judge). Nor do I see the harm in a sister-brother marriage, other than the scientific outcome of it... *but* that leads us to the restriction on government and the role of education -- I personally don't think the govt has any place dictating anything in personal life as long as people do not HARM one another -- but education is necessary for a functional society.

 

So the govt shouldn't interfere if a 5-people-collective wish to marry, as long as there is no rape, child-molestation or anything else that *harms* others. There should always be education for rationality and science, and for what society broadly defines as morality - but that is the role of EDUCATION, not the government, since I believe as history proved, morality is oh-ever-a'changin'.

 

 

I do think that the gay community wants marriage for more than legal rights. They would like more acceptance from society and see it as a step in that direction. That is what scares the opposition the most - the appearance of accepting it on a moral basis.

 

As part of the gay community, I must agree, but not for the reasons you might think. The "Gay movement", in my opinion, sometimes does more harm than good to the goal of acceptance in society. The goal of any human being is to be treated as any other, regardless of individuals "accepting" or "agreeing" with his/her traits or habits. The way I see the problem (the way i defined it above multiple times, hence the problem of generalized human rights as opposed to specific-gay rights) is my own opinion, sadly not-shared by the "mainstream" gay movement.

 

I actually think this decision to take the institution "head on" on the matter of specifically-gay issues instead of "we are humans too" type of debate is detrimental to the fight, but I am not a movement leader, nor do I aspire to be one.

 

Ironically, btw, a large part of that movement has problems considering me one of them, since I'm bisexual. Bisexuals and Transgendered have their own problems within the "community". But I don't care much, I never considered myself "part of the community", I don't see the need to classify myself as based on my sexual orientation.

 

I do believe, though, that if I meet a woman I fall in love with, I want to have the *same* rights under the law as if you would meet a woman you fall in love with. Be it kids, buying a house, having my green-card (no, Im not looking just for that.. ha , joint funds and workplace-benefits.

 

I will give a very brief example from my old workplace -- I was sent by the government of Israel (as a deal with the US government) to do airline security. I got work+study visa and some pretty good status, so I can work in New York. I have a good friend who is married - his wife recieved a limited-work visa, so she could be with him, naturally.

I have another workmate who is a lesbian. She is actually in Israel considered married, I believe, but that's besides the point -- her partner is illegal here. She is on the status of a "tourist visa" (no more, they returned back when they saw it wasn't possible to fight this) -- but that is simply unfair.

 

If you want to argue the validity of *any* marriage, that is a very interesting debate, but it's an ENTIRELY different subject. If a country sets laws for its citizens, then *all* citizens need to be included, not just who the government is prefering.

 

Switch "gays" with "blacks", or with "women". It was the same 'fight' historically, and for the same reasons. The only huge difference imho, is that blacks and women fought to show they *are* humans, hence they are equal, and the gay movement seems to be fighting to allow gays X and Y because being gay is okay.

 

... I .. hope that was clear, I am not sure if I managed to deliver my points entirely

[john5746]

Most men are

 

No offense intended, btw. I just find it interesting. I think there is a lot to do with education and social "norm" here.. heterosexual sex videos depict 2 women kissing and all.. and men like that. Two men are more taboo. I wonder if it's because women were (and are, to a degree) considered to be the "gentle" ones, so "taking care of one another" (ahem ahem) is 'sexy' while two men doing the same is "nasty".

 

Just a thought, tho.

 

Well, I would like to think my thoughts were more in line with my experiences as a single guy and all the single guys I knew - not very nurturing. Dads are nurturing, but I think women do better.

 

However, I do find male-male sex to be disgusting, no doubt. I don't want anything going in my rear, maybe its a dominance issue. So, this may play a part in my opinion as well, but I try to remain open minded, not let it intefere with my relations to gay men.

 

If you don't mind the question, as a bisexual woman, do you find certain couplings more interesting to watch, or the thought of them more interesting?

 

 

... I .. hope that was clear, I am not sure if I managed to deliver my points entirely

 

Good job as usual, we agree in spirit - you are just more liberal and brave than I.

[Sayonara]

However, I do find male-male sex to be disgusting, no doubt. I don't want anything going in my rear, maybe its a dominance issue. So, this may play a part in my opinion as well, but I try to remain open minded, not let it intefere with my relations to gay men.

I think this is a common reaction amongst straight men, and it is quite unhelpful because it seems to colour and restrict a lot of people's reactions to LGBT issues (not that I think that is happening with you; you seem to be fairly level headed about the whole affair).

 

Personally I find it quite bizarre, because nothing that two men do in bed together is substantially different from the things that mixed couples can and will do in bed together. Also, we don't tend to go around defining and judging any other group based on our assumptions about one particular sexual act that isn't even exclusively performed by that group. It is really really odd.

[john5746]

I agree, it is an unhelpful emotional response and one that like my sexual orientation, I don't remember choosing. It is something I must be aware of and use my intellect to overcome, because it is not logical at all.

 

Part of it may be that when I am watching a sexual act, I am placing myself in that situation. So that I am thinking, I don't want to do that. Not I don't want them to do that. Regardless, when I see a gay couple on the street, I don't feel anything about it. They are like any other couple to me.

[mooeypoo]

Yeah, it's a common reaction among men, usually, and religious women, which makes me wonder if it's a social/educational thing. My parents are very *very* open minded, and yet I too, before "coming out" had a LOT of trouble seeing two same-sex people (both sexes, btw) kiss and/or touch. I had no problem with the concept, it just made me feel uncomfortable.

 

I think it has a lot to do with the social environment we're brought up in, but that's another issue.

 

I must say, though, that I personally find a LOT of difference between "hardcore sex clips" (oh shuttup of course I watch these, I'm a woman, not a corpse) and the more "tender/affectionate" touch/kiss situations. I feel uncomfortable watching same-sex couples in a hardcore obviously-directed-and-looks-fake sex clip. On the other hand, I don't feel too comfortable with the heterosexual scenes of the same nature either. Something with the fake'ness of the entire thing is just making me feel very uncomfortable about the entire thing. So regarding your question, john, about what I am comfortable watching - I don't mind, it depends on my "mood" so-to-speak (and if .. I.. have a partner for the night.. ahem) and as long as they are not these uber-fake sex movies that are just bad because they're unreal.

 

In general, I am more comfortable watching 2 women than I am 2 men. But I am not uncomfortable to a level of looking away. Unless they're ugly...

 

 

And I "blame" social upbringing on that too.. there's a lot to be said about the way we view two women vs. two men in society in general. I have a gay friend and we have long talks about the seeming-fact that women are a bit "better off" coming out of the closet as opposed to men.

 

There's this "expectation" from men to be "macho" even if they're not... I think.

 

In any case, as weird as it was, I hope that answered your question.

 

~moo

 

p.s: I think it's very brave of you to admit to your emotional "instinct", a lot of people don't admit to them and that sometimes causes more of a problem than the reaction itself. It's like with racism and 'xenoism' (is that the right word?) *xenophobia* (thanks, yourdadonapogos), imho, we sometimes have natural/upbringing/social-programmed automatic responses, but what makes us better people individually and socially is the ability to "catch ourselves" and try to unprogram our subconsciousness. Don't feel bad about it, it's natural, just keep being aware of it.

 

btw, getting back to the main point of the OP, here's an excerpt from the Times that just says it all:

 

In striking down the ban, the court said, "In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual's sexual orientation -- like a person's race or gender -- does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-CA-GayMarriage.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

 

Great summary by the judges. It's not about the marriage itself, it's about equality under the law.

 

~moo

[john5746]

In general, I am more comfortable watching 2 women than I am 2 men. But I am not uncomfortable to a level of looking away. Unless they're ugly...

 

LOL, yes ugly people are not fun to watch. Thanks, for the answer. That has been my experience with women - they prefer watching women as well.

 

p.s: I think it's very brave of you to admit to your emotional "instinct

 

bah, it's a forum. Actually, where I lived most of my life, it might have been more brave to say I was ok with gays and was an atheist.

 

Great summary by the judges. It's not about the marriage itself, it's about equality under the law.

 

Yep, but I still think a child should have two parents if possible. more than that is confusing. Call me old fashioned.

[iNow]

What if they are bad parents?

 

This idea of "count" and this idea of "gender" seems to ignore the idea of "quality" and the idea of "ability."

 

Two bad parents, are, in fact, worse than one good one. It's not the number of parents which matters, it's the leadership, guidance, and protection that person or persons provide to the developing child.

 

 

I'd rather have one good parent than two shitty ones. Unfortunately, we don't get to choose our parents.

[PhDP]

...just a semi-irrelevant note. Of course I support gay marriages, I think I've already 'defended' homosexuals on a certain number of occasions. But adoption is not a right. The kids should be given to the best possible parents, and any justifiable discriminations is perfectly normal. That being said (and it's why this note is pretty irrelevant), we have all the reasons in the world to believe that homosexuals are as apt as heterosexuals when it comes to children. It's simply not true that kids need a dad and a mom, they need people to satisfy their needs.

[mooeypoo]

Yep, but I still think a child should have two parents if possible. more than that is confusing. Call me old fashioned.

 

Alright, you're old fashioned.

 

 

 

Seriously, though -- I think that as long as a child receives love and care from his family, and is being educated to be openminded and comfortable with who he is, there is no difference between a same-sex parenting or the 'heterosexual' parenting.

 

I mean, there are many "regular" families out there that are utterly screwed up, do not give love to the child and mess their lives up. Gay parents usually *want* the child (either adopting or insemination) - I am not saying that gay parents are better parents, I am just saying I won't be surprised if percentagewise there would be more gay parents who care for their kids than hetero parents that do, for the simple reason that hetero couples might have a baby without *absolutely* wanting it, while gay parents, by the act of adopting, have more "odds" of wanting the child.

 

I.. hope I was clear here, and I'm not trying to say I *know* this for a fact, because I don't, I'm just raising an opinion, so don't misquote me as saying gay parents are better than hetero parents. I'm simply trying to say I don't see a diference as long as the child is raised happy, secure, loved and cared for.

 

[edit]... I think iNow summarized what I was trying to say better than me.

 

...just a semi-irrelevant note. Of course I support gay marriages, I think I've already 'defended' homosexuals on a certain number of occasions. But adoption is not a right. The kids should be given to the best possible parents, and any justifiable discriminations is perfectly normal. That being said (and it's why this note is pretty irrelevant), we have all the reasons in the world to believe that homosexuals are as apt as heterosexuals when it comes to children. It's simply not true that kids need a dad and a mom, they need people to satisfy their needs.

I completely agree, the only issue is which discrimination is justifiable and which isn't.

 

I think that since we do have case studies of children who were born and/or raised to gay couples, we *can* examine if it is harmful or not.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I'd rather have one good parent than two shitty ones. Unfortunately, we don't get to choose our parents.

I vote we institute a baseball-style draft to select parents.

[PhDP]

About raising children;

 

From a purely theoretical POV, it's safe to say that homosexuality is not a problem. Empirical evidences seem to go in the same direction. I read an article about this some time ago. There were few differences between kids raised by heterosexuals v. kids raised by homosexuals parents, except one thing, kids raised by homosexuals were more tolerant and less aggressive (i.e: gutless Democrat cowards).

 

I could try to find the reference if someone is interested, I know I found it by looking for info about a vaccine (probably the MMR vaccine).

 

Anyway, my semi-relevant point was only that adopting is not a right, but even if it's not I see no rationale to refuse this to homosexuals.

[iNow]

Anyway, my semi-relevant point was only that adopting is not a right, but even if it's not I see no rationale to refuse this to homosexuals.

 

More importantly, to refuse it to the parentless children.

 

It seems to place some arbitrary priority based on a biased morality against "two dads" or "two moms" as opposed to the more appropriate measure of morality... namely, one which instead refers to the importance of "a kid having loving and able parents" of any gender.

 

 

 

 

I vote we institute a baseball-style draft to select parents.

 

I hear that Barry Bonds has recently become available. Is anyone in the market for a father with an enormous and abnormally large head?

[tvp45]

More importantly, to refuse it to the parentless children.

 

It seems to place some arbitrary priority based on a biased morality against "two dads" or "two moms" as opposed to the more appropriate measure of morality... namely, one which instead refers to the importance of "a kid having loving and able parents" of any gender.

 

 

Your point is spot on. Several hundred children in Pennsylvania (where I live) age out of the foster care system each year without ever finding a home. Workers in the field estimate that about a third move to homelessness or prison within a year. Most of these children wouldn't give a rat's patootie if their family were made up of trans-gendered Martians - they just want to belong somewhere.

[bascule]

According to this article

 

What article? Did you link an article? If so, I didn't see it.

 

in California, they do.

 

What about federal tax benefits for married couples?