The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Lol - most gay couples I know who are raising kids have kids who are quite aware of who their mother/father is - even if they do not live full time with him/her.

Generally, humans have a mother and a father. Sometimes either or both their parents live with a person of the same sex.

0 Replies

One more thing -- the gay/lesbian couple and their offspring do not exist in a vaccuum. Parents are not the only sources of gender role modeling. Many gay/lesbian parents I know are part of a close-knit community that includes people of the opposite sex.

Meanwhile, Instigate, you say in rather strong terms that exposure within the nuclear family to gender roles (both male and female) are important to a child's development. Have any reputable studies to back that up? (Note, not, "never ever having any interaction with people from both genders", but "within the nuclear family" -- a mother and a father.)

0 Replies

Instigate wrote:

A man cannot substitute for a womans influence, and a woman cannot substitute for a mans influence.

Why not? Is this just your gut instinct, or do you have evidence for it?

Instigate wrote:

To suggest that a homosexual couple raising children is normal or a right is abolutely wrong in my opinion. It might seem right to the couple, but what about the child?

(1) If we assume, for the sake of the discussion, that you are right and I am wrong, and that heterosexual couples are better than homosexual couples at raising children, would you say that raising children in an orphanage is better than raising them in a homosexual marriage -- which is often the actual alternative?

(2) If we assume, for the sake of the discussion, that I am right and you are wrong, what kind of evidence would it take to persuade you of it?

Instigate wrote:

How willl they be perceived? Dads name is Bob and Moms name is Larry?

Don't you think your logic is getting circular at this point? 'We don't like it when homosexuals adopt children because it's bad for the children. It's bad for children because we don't like it, and we'll let them feel it.' If this is not circular logic, where am I going wrong?

0 Replies

Having a bogeyman is good for any lobbying group's fund-raising - left, right, middle. "America is at risk of (fill in dire consequences) because (fill in name of wrong-thinking politician) threatens life as we know it. Please send us (fill in dollar amount) so we can fight for blah blah blah.

0 Replies

What seems really silly is most homosexuals were raised by heterosexuals...so the arguement doesn't seem to make any sense...but what do i know I'm queer :-)

0 Replies

willow...lol

0 Replies

I believe the word 'homophobia' is being cast about rathe loosely on this thread and in some parts of the national discourse as well. Strictly speaking, the word means fear or adversion to homosexuals. Very often in context it is used to describe anyone who opposes any element of the political agendas of homosexual advocacy groups for any stated reason (the implication being that their motives must involve some hidden form of intolerance. The latter aplication is patently false and misleadig.

I have no opinion as to the supposed exclisive origin of homosexual behavior, and I note the science on this matter is far from clear or complete. Is it nature or nurture?. I don't claim to know, but strongly siuspect there are elements of both in the rather broad range of behaviors that are labellrd as 'homosexual' - some likely highly determined by nature and others possibly be both upbringing and even choice. In this ares, subject only to matters of serious import in maintaining public health, and the general rights of people of all prefereces from being protected from excessive displays of unwanted sexual display of any type, I see no justificatiion for denying homosexuals or heterosexuals any rights in this area, and certainy none for focsing on homosexuals in particular.

In this context I see no reason to deny homosexuals civil sanctions, and legal protection for their unions. Their interest in this is untrinsically no different from that of heterosexuals.

However I do not believe this should come at the cost of dismantling or diluting the social and economic compensations and protections the state has wisely created to sustain and protect those who will produce and raise the children who will become ther next generation of our citizens.

These benefits and protections have eroded significantly in the last several decades with the precipitous decline in the quality of our public schools, revisions to the tax code, and the increasing intrusivenss of the state in regulating family matters, and undermining some aspects of parental authority. Why add more to this loss and why do so in a manner that, on its face, denys the merit of meaningful benefits to those who will produce and raise our next generation.

Finally, so many predictions of the liberal wise men, in particular Erlich's "Population Bomb" (of just 35 years ago) have proved themselves to be so utterly wrong, that we are correctly prudent to question them. The fact is we aree cnfronted with decreasing population and a decreasing inclination of our best-performing to produce and raise children. This should be an important consideration in the formation of an equitable policy that meets the real needs before us.

For all of these reasons, I favor allowing the states through their normal legislative processes to authorice formal cormal civil unions, commitment ceremonies, or whatever we wish to call them - except matrimony. THe laws regulating property ownership, divorce etc, should be sonstructed along the lines in use for divorce. However the direct and indirect economic benefits conferred on them should be available only to hrterosexual masrried couolrs,

0 Replies

In support of George OB's position may I also point out that the title of this thread "The anti-gay...is homophobic" is a tautology in that it implicitly assumes the very proposition allegedly presented for debate.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

However I do not believe this should come at the cost of dismantling or diluting the social and economic compensations and protections the state has wisely created to sustain and protect those who will produce and raise the children who will become ther next generation of our citizens.

But would that in fact be the cost paid for same-sex marriage? I am not much of an expert on American tax law at all, but my understanding is that it imposes a so-called 'marriage penalty' on couples without children. It is only when couples raise children that American tax laws reward them. I understand that conservatives want to remove that penalty but for now, it's there. Anyway, under the current design, same-sex marriages would be rewarded by the tax system to the extend that they adopt and raise children, and they would be punished to the extent that they don't. Which, if true, would strike me as fair.

0 Replies

okay, let's say we stereotype gay couples...there is the bulldyke/fem for lesbians and bottom/top for guys...so one is inherently "male" and the other "female"...so the arguement about having both sexes represented is knocked out of the water...of course I am queer..i could be wrong...:-)

0 Replies

Georgebob1's long post can be summed up in one sentence:

"All pigs are created equal but some are more equal than others"

BTW Matrimony is a sacrament, no one is proposing the government be involved in that. Government should get out of the marriage business altogether, it confuses too many people who can't make the distinction between the civil action and the religious rite. Everyone should be civilly joined by the government then if they want, they can get maried in a church.

0 Replies

Quote:

I am not much of an expert on American tax law at all, but my understanding is that it imposes a so-called 'marriage penalty' on couples without children.

While I believe they originally passed said law to discourage frivolous or political/economic marriages, I believe said law has been repealed.

Not sure tho.

Cycloptichonrn

0 Replies

The Tax Code is so complex, I think it depends on one's income level.

0 Replies

Harper wrote:

Georgebob1's long post can be summed up in one sentence:

"All pigs are created equal but some are more equal than others"

BTW Matrimony is a sacrament, no one is proposing the government be involved in that. Government should get out of the marriage business altogether, it confuses too many people who can't make the distinction between the civil action and the religious rite. Everyone should be civilly joined by the government then if they want, they can get maried in a church.

If it is OK with the church in question it is certainly OK with me..

Beyond that, Harper has just ignored the argument I made with respect to the proper right and interest of the state in protecting and aiding those who would priduce and rear the next generation of citizens in the contry, particularly at a time when female fertility is trrending below the equilibrium lrvrl.

0 Replies

willow_tl wrote:

okay, let's say we stereotype gay couples...there is the bulldyke/fem for lesbians and bottom/top for guys...so one is inherently "male" and the other "female"...so the arguement about having both sexes represented is knocked out of the water...of course I am queer..i could be wrong...:-)

Thank god the 'Bears', those hairy, fat, hard drinkin', sports-talkin' homos are still an invisible minority. Laughing

In george's defense, he does seem to be talking on a strictly legislative level regarding the issue of gay marriage, and is not making it personal, but typically, putting the issues of the country ahead of issues of morality, or democracy. That is one way to look at the situation, and he is welcome to his opinion, as all conservatives are. My real problem with conservatives however, is that by definition, they often fail to be visionary, and recognize the possibility that progressive legislation may even benefit them in the end, no pun intended.

Once the GOP decides to cut the apron-strings from the religious right and actually act like real leaders, maybe we'll see some of this 'Bush as a uniter' thing he keeps railing on about.

0 Replies

HofT wrote:

In support of George OB's position may I also point out that the title of this thread "The anti-gay...is homophobic" is a tautology in that it implicitly assumes the very proposition allegedly presented for debate.

Oh, pshaw. The sentence is not logically different from "The Interracial-marriage movement IS racist".

0 Replies

Nah - that would depend on whether the movement was pro- or anti- interracial marriage.

Don't argue with me, Blatham, I got nukes!

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/lgb_ani.gif

0 Replies

cavfancier wrote:

willow_tl wrote:
okay, let's say we stereotype gay couples...there is the bulldyke/fem for lesbians and bottom/top for guys...so one is inherently "male" and the other "female"...so the arguement about having both sexes represented is knocked out of the water...of course I am queer..i could be wrong...:-)

Thank god the 'Bears', those hairy, fat, hard drinkin', sports-talkin' homos are still an invisible minority.

In george's defense, he does seem to be talking on a strictly legislative level regarding the issue of gay marriage, and is not making it personal, but typically, putting the issues of the country ahead of issues of morality, or democracy. That is one way to look at the situation, and he is welcome to his opinion, as all conservatives are. My real problem with conservatives however, is that by definition, they often fail to be visionary, and recognize the possibility that progressive legislation may even benefit them in the end, no pun intended.

Once the GOP decides to cut the apron-strings from the religious right and actually act like real leaders, maybe we'll see some of this 'Bush as a uniter' thing he keeps railing on about.

Let's leave the Bears out of this.......you can't pick your family....

0 Replies

BPB, I had no idea your family worked in the NFL.

0 Replies

cavfancier wrote:

My real problem with conservatives however, is that by definition, they often fail to be visionary, and recognize the possibility that progressive legislation may even benefit them in the end, no pun intended.

Once the GOP decides to cut the apron-strings from the religious right and actually act like real leaders, maybe we'll see some of this 'Bush as a uniter' thing he keeps railing on about.

Don't see whart either of these comments has to do with the question here. I'm not too sure what "being visionary" has to do with any of this, but I do believe the views I presented are compatable with the various "visions" the contending parties bring to this issue. I have merely looked to find where the conflicting views could be resolved without injury to either contending party, and attempted to retain as much if the visionary principles of our political system as I could in outlining a solution. The label "progressive legislation" is as misleading as is the term "homophobia" as both are used here - merely meaningless words, thrown like rocks at the "opposition".

Moreover. you implicitly assert that the GOP is led by the "religious right"; that this prevents them from becoming "real leaders"; and that abandoning his positions on this matter is required if he is to become a "real uniter". All of these are perjorative and arguable inferences, not related to the topic of this thread, and which beg the very question we are discussing.

0 Replies

The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know