Webbo Posted 29 February 2012 Posted 29 February 2012 Has there been a reasoned argument that doesn't mention God yet? Yes, try reading the thread.
Saxondale Posted 29 February 2012 Posted 29 February 2012 I understand the deviancy, I just don't agree that it is right to label it as sexual deviancy, anal sex, oral sex, dutch rudders, are acts of sexual deviancy but don't think it is right to label someone a sexual deviant because they are gay. Why? We're all sexually deviant in some way or another?
21st Century Fox Posted 29 February 2012 Posted 29 February 2012 Yes, try reading the thread. I did I didn't really see a reasoned argument against gay marriage only an argument against same sex adoption that was pretty thin.
Webbo Posted 29 February 2012 Posted 29 February 2012 I did I didn't really see a reasoned argument against gay marriage only an argument against same sex adoption that was pretty thin. Fair enough, I forgot that this thread was about marriage in the first place.
Captain... Posted 29 February 2012 Posted 29 February 2012 Why? We're all sexually deviant in some way or another? Yes, that is my point, so why did you say that homosexuality was sexual deviancy as a reason for them not to adopt?
Saxondale Posted 29 February 2012 Posted 29 February 2012 Yes, that is my point, so why did you say that homosexuality was sexual deviancy as a reason for them not to adopt? The only point I was making was that a child will have a skewed view on what is 'normal' relationship-wise. If I child turns out gay in later life the that's fine, but I think that a child should ideally be brought up in an environment with as normal as possible family and gender roles so that they can discover their gender and sexuality in a traditional family context. There is a school of thought that you are born asexual and simply choose one path or another. But I will always assert that heterosexuality is the default and homosexuality is a deviation from the natural norm - not that there's anything wrong with that.
21st Century Fox Posted 29 February 2012 Posted 29 February 2012 http://soundcloud.com/adam-8-1/patton-oswalt-the-best
Guest MattP Posted 29 February 2012 Posted 29 February 2012 Yes of course, if they want to be as miserable as the rest of us why not? Same way hetrosexuals should be allowed a civil partnership that doesnt involve a religious aspect. Never have or will agree with Gay adoption mind, evolution is the most beautilful concept ever to have been developed and it totally flies in the face of that, we should always try to give a child a father figure and and mother, sure we will have abnormalities where this isn't possible but it still should be the desire for every upbringing to have those two influences on your life. I don't take the argument that just because we have loads of single mothers and Jeremy Kyle fodder as a reason for it either, it's not something to actually aspire too.
Guest MattP Posted 29 February 2012 Posted 29 February 2012 I always had it in my head that the world was crying out for suitable adopters? Surely there are more kids in the system than there are people clamouring to adopt one? It's a myth that has always been out there as fact for some reason, no idea why. I've known a couple who have been trying to adopt for years with no luck.
Saxondale Posted 29 February 2012 Posted 29 February 2012 It's a myth that has always been out there as fact for some reason, no idea why. I've known a couple who have been trying to adopt for years with no luck. I think they're crying out for foster parents, which is a different kettle of fish.
AyewJoking Posted 29 February 2012 Posted 29 February 2012 Its a non-question really. People are allowed to be gay so it wouldnt make much sense taking away their rights to live equal lives to those that arent gay.
Saxondale Posted 29 February 2012 Posted 29 February 2012 Its a non-question really. People are allowed to be gay so it wouldnt make much sense taking away their rights to live equal lives to those that arent gay. That's a non-argument because people have to meet strict assessment criteria for adoption anyway. So that does that mean anybody not accepted for any reason is being denied equal rights? No, they just don't meet the criteria for whatever reason.
21st Century Fox Posted 29 February 2012 Posted 29 February 2012 That's a non-argument because people have to meet strict assessment criteria for adoption anyway. So that does that mean anybody not accepted for any reason is being denied equal rights? No, they just don't meet the criteria for whatever reason. I think he was referring to gay marriage, not adoption.
Saxondale Posted 29 February 2012 Posted 29 February 2012 I think he was referring to gay marriage, not adoption. Ah fair play. This thread has drifted a bit! In that case, I agree!
Finnegan Posted 29 February 2012 Posted 29 February 2012 It's a myth that has always been out there as fact for some reason, no idea why. I've known a couple who have been trying to adopt for years with no luck. They're trying to adopt a baby? As opposed to a child?
Charl91 Posted 29 February 2012 Posted 29 February 2012 No. If you had a respectable mixed couple and a respectable gay couple, i'm afraid the mixed couple should get priority in my view. Giving a child a mother & father / male & female role model should be very high on the list of any set of criteria. ^ This. Firstly, I am for gay marriage. There's no reason not to - marriage is more of a legal process then a religious one anyway, and I don't see why anyone should be denied that right. That being said, I agree with whoever said earlier (I'm too lazy to check back) that it should only be with the individual churches/priests consent. If some priests/churches really do believe that gay marriage is sinful, then I think it would be wrong to force them to go against their religion to marry them (even if I think it is rubbish myself). I'm sure that the majority of places would accept gay marriage in time, and the ones who don't lose out financially, so everyone could be a winner. As for adoption, I'm not against gay adoption (I would prefer a capable gay couple over a non-capable heterosexual couple) but I do agree that a heterosexual couple should get priority, for two reasons. Firstly, as has been said, I think in an ideal world, a child should have a mother/father figure, as you do tend to learn different things from them. Secondly, I have slightly more sympathy for a couple who can't have a child due to medical reasons, then I do for a homosexual couple who can't have children. Biologically, the homosexual person could have kids if he had to (albeit not with their partner), but chooses not to, just as I could sleep with a man; I probably wouldn't enjoy it, but I could if I had to. Maybe gay people and lesbians should come to an agreement to help each other have kids!
Captain... Posted 29 February 2012 Posted 29 February 2012 Never have or will agree with Gay adoption mind, evolution is the most beautilful concept ever to have been developed and it totally flies in the face of that, we should always try to give a child a father figure and and mother, sure we will have abnormalities where this isn't possible but it still should be the desire for every upbringing to have those two influences on your life. I am not sure what evolution has to do with it, evolution is survival of the fittest, we have been flying in the face of evolution for years by allowing our weakest and stupidest to pollute the earth and consume shared resources. Evolution is all down to genetics, nature over nurture, so by believing that the sexuality of adopted parents will have any bearing on the childs gentic make-up and our faltering evolutionary path then you are going against the most beautiful concept.
Guest MattP Posted 29 February 2012 Posted 29 February 2012 They're trying to adopt a baby? As opposed to a child? Child under 24 months I think it is, not sure about what the criteria is on ages.
Charl91 Posted 29 February 2012 Posted 29 February 2012 Thinking about it, more people should be gay. Would stop our over-crowding problem.
Guest MattP Posted 29 February 2012 Posted 29 February 2012 I am not sure what evolution has to do with it, evolution is survival of the fittest, we have been flying in the face of evolution for years by allowing our weakest and stupidest to pollute the earth and consume shared resources. Evolution is all down to genetics, nature over nurture, so by believing that the sexuality of adopted parents will have any bearing on the childs gentic make-up and our faltering evolutionary path then you are going against the most beautiful concept. Absolutely, I have no idea why we effectively pay and support the weakest and stupidest in society to not only survive but to breed more, then again, I'm a totally heartless bastard.
21st Century Fox Posted 29 February 2012 Posted 29 February 2012 Thinking about it, more people should be gay. Would stop our over-crowding problem. It would counter the church and the evils of contraception anyway.
Haydos Posted 29 February 2012 Posted 29 February 2012 By that logic God never intended on us flying, hence why we don't have wings, so I don't think using God is a fair reason to be begrudge me and others the right to marriage. At the same time, why did he 'make us' so that some of our brains would be attracted to the same sex. Bit of a dick move on his part.
Captain... Posted 29 February 2012 Posted 29 February 2012 At the same time, why did he 'make us' so that some of our brains would be attracted to the same sex. Bit of a dick move on his part. ...and then put the male G-spot up his botty. He was just asking for trouble.
FuriousFox46 Posted 29 February 2012 Author Posted 29 February 2012 This is an issue I feel strongly about and if anyone disagrees with same-sex marriage, I just wanted to counteract all of the potential arguments against it. 1. "Being gay is not natural." Homosexuality is common behaviour in over 450 different species. Homophobia is only found in one, which is natural? Also, by this logic. You should not be accessing the internet through a mobile, laptop or any other means because that too is 'unnatural'. 2. "Allowing gay marriage will make other people gay" That's funny, 95% of my friends are straight and it has had zero effect on me. 3. "Heterosexual couples are the traditional definition of marriage." and traditionally, Blacks and women did not have equal rights either, should it still be the case? 4. "Straight marriage will lose it's meaning." Yes, the sanctity of Kim Kardashian's 72 day marriage will be destroyed. 5. "Marriage is the place for children." Because elderly and infertile couples are denied the right to marry too, aren't they? 6. "Gay parents will raise gay children." The same way, straight parents raise straight children. 7. "It goes against God." So is wearing more than one type of fabric. I respect your right to be a theist, but who are you to impose the wills of your leader on me? We live in a democracy and I refuse to abide by the rules of a book written at a time people thought the world was flat. 8. "It will lead to gay adoption and children NEED both male and female parents to succeed." Because single parents always do such an awful job by themselves? Why are two loving parents not enough? I find it difficult to ascertain why somebody's genitals affects their skills as a parent and/or role model.
FuriousFox46 Posted 29 February 2012 Author Posted 29 February 2012 On a lighter note, watch these. I find them hilarious. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UzLf9rWCBA&feature=related Anti-gay marriage advert http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnsG008ntYY Spoof
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.