Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsFriday, May 29, 2009
Politics / Media Because Screaming "Die, Bigot, Die!" Will Only Get You So Far...
Posted by David Schmader on Fri, May 29, 2009 at 12:37 PM
Here's Rob Tisinai's new video on rationally discussing marriage equality with those who oppose it.
Keep 'em coming, Rob.
1
Here's how you find out if this (or being rational in general) works:
What do you think of this video, Loveschild?
What do you think of this video, Loveschild?
10
Why is this guy not on TV again?
Also, via his blog: http://www.tofighthiv.org/goto/robtish
He's basically the perfect man?
Also, via his blog: http://www.tofighthiv.org/goto/robtish
He's basically the perfect man?
11
"Lesbian couple with a biological child"
Since when are two women capable to procreate between themselves without a man's input?
"we would have to write entirely new laws to deal with this entirely new institution and that's not true of same sex marriage"
Huh? spin much. This guy should be a DJ, engaging in pseudo psychological speech.
Since when are two women capable to procreate between themselves without a man's input?
"we would have to write entirely new laws to deal with this entirely new institution and that's not true of same sex marriage"
Huh? spin much. This guy should be a DJ, engaging in pseudo psychological speech.
12
He is bigoted against polygamists.
Those who deny fundamental human rights to others do not deserve them themselves...
Those who deny fundamental human rights to others do not deserve them themselves...
13
"Because Screaming "Die, Bigot, Die!" Will Only Get You So Far..."
Yes. It will get you into a fist fight.
Yes. It will get you into a fist fight.
14
You do know that a lesbian who bares a child is the biological mother of the child, right?
You do also know that unmarried and divorced women have children, and then get married to spouses who are not the children's biological parent, and vice versa, right?
Do you need new laws for that, or only when there's gay people involved? Have you heard of adoption? Is there a logical thought in your head?
Yet another fatal flaw in your hateful tirades that you will just ignore. I love that you are so flabbergasted that you can't even respond.
You do also know that unmarried and divorced women have children, and then get married to spouses who are not the children's biological parent, and vice versa, right?
Do you need new laws for that, or only when there's gay people involved? Have you heard of adoption? Is there a logical thought in your head?
Yet another fatal flaw in your hateful tirades that you will just ignore. I love that you are so flabbergasted that you can't even respond.
15
LOVESCHILD: "This guy should be a DJ, engaging in pseudo psychological speech."
What the fuck does that mean? Also, how do lesbians have non-biological children? You strike me as a very stupid and ignorant woman.
What the fuck does that mean? Also, how do lesbians have non-biological children? You strike me as a very stupid and ignorant woman.
16
Loveschild, if my husband is infertile and I use artificial insemination to get pregnant, would that child somehow be "less than" a child that was conceived naturally? I just don't understand why you keep harping on the fact that two women can't both be the biological parents of a child. Biology has nothing to do with how much parents love their adoptive children, their test tube babies, their sperm donor babies, or their "natural" babies. Just because two people cannot (or will not) procreate together does not mean that they shouldn't have the right to marry.
17
Oh Loveschild, does your ignorance know no bounds?
"Since when are two women capable to procreate between themselves without a man's input? "
The same way a heterosexual couple where the male is unable to produce needed sperm for implantation. Donation. Donation. Donation.
Try this on for size to your ignorant bigoted head:
Lesbian mother 1 will carry the child.
Lesbian mother 2 supplies egg to be implanted in mother 1.
Male donor gives sperm to fertalize.
Child therefore is created with biological material from 3 people.
Lesbian mother 1 and 2 then have a biological child.
HOW HARD IS THAT TO UNDERSTAND?
"Since when are two women capable to procreate between themselves without a man's input? "
The same way a heterosexual couple where the male is unable to produce needed sperm for implantation. Donation. Donation. Donation.
Try this on for size to your ignorant bigoted head:
Lesbian mother 1 will carry the child.
Lesbian mother 2 supplies egg to be implanted in mother 1.
Male donor gives sperm to fertalize.
Child therefore is created with biological material from 3 people.
Lesbian mother 1 and 2 then have a biological child.
HOW HARD IS THAT TO UNDERSTAND?
18
14
You do know that a lesbian who bares a child had to have a MAN provide the sperm, right?
Because a life of buttfucking may leave you ignorant of the birds and the bees.
You do know that a lesbian who bares a child had to have a MAN provide the sperm, right?
Because a life of buttfucking may leave you ignorant of the birds and the bees.
19
@11, to add to 14, male and female couple where the male is sterile do this all the time. It's called find a donor.
22
Loveschild @ 11,
My husbands birth mother is a lesbian. She was young closeted teen when he was born. And, my stepbrother-in-law and stepsister-in-law have a gay father, conceived when he was a closeted adult. One of my best friends has two young sons, and their father is gay. The common thread amongst these, all three were raised by strict religious denominations that condemned them as abominations. All, three tried to be something they weren't.
There are gays with biological children.
Don't start they are making the choice to be gay discussion, unless your willing to share with all of us your personal testimony on how you chose to be heterosexual.
My husbands birth mother is a lesbian. She was young closeted teen when he was born. And, my stepbrother-in-law and stepsister-in-law have a gay father, conceived when he was a closeted adult. One of my best friends has two young sons, and their father is gay. The common thread amongst these, all three were raised by strict religious denominations that condemned them as abominations. All, three tried to be something they weren't.
There are gays with biological children.
Don't start they are making the choice to be gay discussion, unless your willing to share with all of us your personal testimony on how you chose to be heterosexual.
24
kim, everyone IS heterosexual.
girls have girl parts, boys have boy parts.
so-called 'homosexuals' can reproduce (heterosexually) just fine, as your family demonstrates.
people choose to engage (or not engage) is various behaviors, but rest assured that we are ALL heterosexual beings.
girls have girl parts, boys have boy parts.
so-called 'homosexuals' can reproduce (heterosexually) just fine, as your family demonstrates.
people choose to engage (or not engage) is various behaviors, but rest assured that we are ALL heterosexual beings.
25
Well, strictly speaking a lesbian who bares a child may just have a thing for pre-pubescent exposure.
29
All better.
You know, I really would like Loveschild to explain how she can continue use an anti-gay marriage argument that deals with biological procreation, when so many straight couples who have the right to marry cannot or will not procreate. Go slowly, and use simple words, because apparently this argument is too complex for me to understand...
You know, I really would like Loveschild to explain how she can continue use an anti-gay marriage argument that deals with biological procreation, when so many straight couples who have the right to marry cannot or will not procreate. Go slowly, and use simple words, because apparently this argument is too complex for me to understand...
30
24, are you saying that you are aroused and attracted by the same sex, but you just choose to not act on it? What is holding you back from acting on your same sex attractions?
32
30
I reread the post, Rob, and none of that stuff you said was in there.
Are you really stupid or just an annoying prick?
I reread the post, Rob, and none of that stuff you said was in there.
Are you really stupid or just an annoying prick?
33
All great, esp. point one, which is to have a pro marriage message.
But really, people do not change their minds through logic and argument and debate.
People change their minds through emotion.
So, personal contact and warm and fuzzy ads, like one about the air force hero being fired, are how straight people change their minds about gay rights.
IMHO.
But really, people do not change their minds through logic and argument and debate.
People change their minds through emotion.
So, personal contact and warm and fuzzy ads, like one about the air force hero being fired, are how straight people change their minds about gay rights.
IMHO.
34
17 "without a man's input"
The person in this video is disingenuously trying to imply that two women can have a biological child. You just prove my point, a male donor is needed to inseminate one egg, so it's still the biological input of one man and one woman, regardless if a surrogate is used to carry through the pregnancy. Biologically the child will have the input of one man and one woman, not two women. Gay couples (not gay individuals) cannot have "a biological child" as the man in this video tried to imply. It's disingenuous on his part to say such ridiculous things. I would respect his right to voice his opinions if he stated facts and not try to confuse people to gain acceptance. We have opposing views on this, fine but lets gain the understanding of other by telling the truth amongst other important things, like believing in making our case to the people and allowing them to side or reject us.
And if marriage needs to be redefined to accommodate same sex pairings why should he insist that multiple pairings such as in polygamy or polyandry should not be allowed? how would making way for same sex marriage not amount to the same making of new laws an accommodations as plural marriages would entail. If anything the opening to same sex marriages would have provided for the basis of legal wording and judicial rules that would make it a more easier and smoother transition for plural marriages to be welcomed into our legal system. So why should he deny what he seeks to those seeking plural marriages? Where's the consistency?
The person in this video is disingenuously trying to imply that two women can have a biological child. You just prove my point, a male donor is needed to inseminate one egg, so it's still the biological input of one man and one woman, regardless if a surrogate is used to carry through the pregnancy. Biologically the child will have the input of one man and one woman, not two women. Gay couples (not gay individuals) cannot have "a biological child" as the man in this video tried to imply. It's disingenuous on his part to say such ridiculous things. I would respect his right to voice his opinions if he stated facts and not try to confuse people to gain acceptance. We have opposing views on this, fine but lets gain the understanding of other by telling the truth amongst other important things, like believing in making our case to the people and allowing them to side or reject us.
And if marriage needs to be redefined to accommodate same sex pairings why should he insist that multiple pairings such as in polygamy or polyandry should not be allowed? how would making way for same sex marriage not amount to the same making of new laws an accommodations as plural marriages would entail. If anything the opening to same sex marriages would have provided for the basis of legal wording and judicial rules that would make it a more easier and smoother transition for plural marriages to be welcomed into our legal system. So why should he deny what he seeks to those seeking plural marriages? Where's the consistency?
36
@34 Loveschild.
Once again, your ignorance is astounding.
By your logic, if a single woman wants a child and gets an anonymous sperm donor, that child is not a biological creation of that woman.
For the love of all that anyone finds holy PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS.
Please use my example that I posted before:
If woman 1 carries the egg of her female partner (woman 2) with the sperm from a donor how is that child not the biological creation of the two women?
Once again, your ignorance is astounding.
By your logic, if a single woman wants a child and gets an anonymous sperm donor, that child is not a biological creation of that woman.
For the love of all that anyone finds holy PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS.
Please use my example that I posted before:
If woman 1 carries the egg of her female partner (woman 2) with the sperm from a donor how is that child not the biological creation of the two women?
39
Oh no, what if a woman had a fertilized egg implanted to get pregnant, and then... wait for it... had a transfusion??!! Would it mean that biologically, four people were involved in producing that baby?
That little pop you just heard was Loveschild's head imploding on its interior vacuum.
That little pop you just heard was Loveschild's head imploding on its interior vacuum.
40
Loveschild - have you considered that this guy may have used "biological child" as shorthand for "one parent is the biological child" (i.e., the child is not adopted), as opposed to trying to convince people that two lesbians can both be the biological parents? Especially given the context of how that phrase was used (bullet points about different families, not detailed explanations)?
Because, really, the point he's trying to make is that it doesn't matter whether two people can procreate. Or whether a child is the biological child of zero, one, or two people in a marriage. His point is that ranking the "acceptableness" of these different types of marriage / child combinations is absurd.
Anyways, all of your ranting on this issue is 100% off topic. Biological procreation has absolutely nothing to do with marriage in our society today.
Because, really, the point he's trying to make is that it doesn't matter whether two people can procreate. Or whether a child is the biological child of zero, one, or two people in a marriage. His point is that ranking the "acceptableness" of these different types of marriage / child combinations is absurd.
Anyways, all of your ranting on this issue is 100% off topic. Biological procreation has absolutely nothing to do with marriage in our society today.
41
22 I'm not saying they made a choice, I don't know if they did, I admit it. What I'm saying is that making confusing statements to justify an agenda is just as bad as seeking to impose an ideology through the courts when the people have already voiced their opinions through the democratic process put in place and allowed by our nation.
Two women cannot have kids by themselves, Two men cannot have kids by themselves. So there's no such thing as a "Lesbian couple with a biological child", what there are is a biological mother who happens to be cohabiting with another woman, a biological father who happens to be cohabiting with another man. The other partner can be helping raising the child and all but still they're not biologically related.
Two women cannot have kids by themselves, Two men cannot have kids by themselves. So there's no such thing as a "Lesbian couple with a biological child", what there are is a biological mother who happens to be cohabiting with another woman, a biological father who happens to be cohabiting with another man. The other partner can be helping raising the child and all but still they're not biologically related.
43
36 Woman 1 is a surrogate Akbar not the biological mother. How can you call me ignorant when you are the one who refuses to acknowledge that elementary fact.
Akbar, do you know that the same scenario which you have described has happen between a mother carrying through the inseminated egg of her daughter. It doesn't make the mother (grandmother of the kid) the mother of the child, she has no biological input whatsoever, she just served as a surrogate to carry through her daughters pregnancy.
Akbar, do you know that the same scenario which you have described has happen between a mother carrying through the inseminated egg of her daughter. It doesn't make the mother (grandmother of the kid) the mother of the child, she has no biological input whatsoever, she just served as a surrogate to carry through her daughters pregnancy.
44
@loveschild, so now you want to argue semantics?
sigh. if thats the best you have got... then you have already lost.
sigh. if thats the best you have got... then you have already lost.
45
Loveschild - "I would respect his right to voice his opinions if he stated facts and not try to confuse people to gain acceptance."
Please re-read that and perhaps meditate on it for a moment.
Please re-read that and perhaps meditate on it for a moment.
46
Candice @ 24,
If you are going to be hung up on the contents of peoples knickers as your definition of heterosexuality, then you are going to have to find a place for people who don't fit the official contents of knickers definition. You know people who have Klinefelter Syndrome or androgen insensitivity syndrom )androgen resistance syndrome).
I was talking about sexual orientation and romantic attraction. Care to share how you chose yours? I don't know why I am attracted to men, and I don't remember making a choice between being attracted to men or women. I am naturally attracted to men, just like my eyes are hazel, my hair is naturally blonde and I'm tall. I could choose to change my eye color with colored contacts, or dye my hair another color, but I wouldn't cease being a hazel eyed blonde. I could choose to wear flats to minimize my height, but I'd still be tall. I could choose to pretend I was attracted to women, but it wouldn't work, because I'm turned on by men (their appearance, their scent, the timber of their voices, everything). I don't remember deciding my eye color, my height, my hair color, or whom I find myself sexually attracted to. Do you?
If you are going to be hung up on the contents of peoples knickers as your definition of heterosexuality, then you are going to have to find a place for people who don't fit the official contents of knickers definition. You know people who have Klinefelter Syndrome or androgen insensitivity syndrom )androgen resistance syndrome).
I was talking about sexual orientation and romantic attraction. Care to share how you chose yours? I don't know why I am attracted to men, and I don't remember making a choice between being attracted to men or women. I am naturally attracted to men, just like my eyes are hazel, my hair is naturally blonde and I'm tall. I could choose to change my eye color with colored contacts, or dye my hair another color, but I wouldn't cease being a hazel eyed blonde. I could choose to wear flats to minimize my height, but I'd still be tall. I could choose to pretend I was attracted to women, but it wouldn't work, because I'm turned on by men (their appearance, their scent, the timber of their voices, everything). I don't remember deciding my eye color, my height, my hair color, or whom I find myself sexually attracted to. Do you?
47
surrogate or not, she is still a child producing mother. Since you want to argue semantics, biology is involved in creating the child in side her so there is precendent to consider her a mother.
And I call you ignorant because you are just that. A ignorant racist bigot. Simple fact right there I have no problem accepting.
And I call you ignorant because you are just that. A ignorant racist bigot. Simple fact right there I have no problem accepting.
48
#41 - OK, so let's assume that your (completely backwards and wrong) idea about what constitutes a "biological" child is correct. What does that have to do with marriage equality?
49
@41: Just to get your lunacy straight, if a man has a daughter with his wife, the wife dies and the man remarries, is the daughter no longer his biological child?
Oh, and cohabiting? I know a lesbian couple who have a daughter who was conceived via IVF. She's a lesbian. No two ways about it. No penises were around her during the creation of that lovely little girl. She and her wife (yes, wife) are not "cohabiting" they are married, lesbian and have a child as biologically as the example above.
Your arguments need to make sense when you apply them to straight couples, too Loveschild. Otherwise your just proving your ignorance.
Oh, and cohabiting? I know a lesbian couple who have a daughter who was conceived via IVF. She's a lesbian. No two ways about it. No penises were around her during the creation of that lovely little girl. She and her wife (yes, wife) are not "cohabiting" they are married, lesbian and have a child as biologically as the example above.
Your arguments need to make sense when you apply them to straight couples, too Loveschild. Otherwise your just proving your ignorance.
50
I was going to stay out of this, but I must add this point:
The quality of parenting done by a couple has little to do with whether one or both parents are (knowingly or unknowingly) biologically related to the child.
Things like showing interest in the child, making time for the child, being patient with the child all do. A same sex couple that chooses to raise a child has gone through a little (more frequently a lot) of grief and effort to become parents--and thus more likely and knowingly prepared to commit to provide all of the above, and more.
In short: who cares if parents are related biologically to the child? It's *how* they're parenting that matters.
The quality of parenting done by a couple has little to do with whether one or both parents are (knowingly or unknowingly) biologically related to the child.
Things like showing interest in the child, making time for the child, being patient with the child all do. A same sex couple that chooses to raise a child has gone through a little (more frequently a lot) of grief and effort to become parents--and thus more likely and knowingly prepared to commit to provide all of the above, and more.
In short: who cares if parents are related biologically to the child? It's *how* they're parenting that matters.
51
Loveschild - Nobody is trying to convince anybody that a child can have DNA input from two women, or two men (since that seems to be how you're defining a "biological child"). We all know that's not possible (it may be in the future, but that's another discussion altogether). You are right, no one is trying to argue with you on that point.
What we're attempting to say to you is that fact is 100% completely and totally irrelevant to the discussion of gay marriage. That what all of these examples about adoption and artificial insemination and surrogates are trying to get across. Totally irrelevant.
If you care to offer a reason as to why two individuals who cannot contribute to a child's DNA should not be able to be married, by all means do so (but be sure to address the topic of infertile straight couples and post-menopausal women in your response).
What we're attempting to say to you is that fact is 100% completely and totally irrelevant to the discussion of gay marriage. That what all of these examples about adoption and artificial insemination and surrogates are trying to get across. Totally irrelevant.
If you care to offer a reason as to why two individuals who cannot contribute to a child's DNA should not be able to be married, by all means do so (but be sure to address the topic of infertile straight couples and post-menopausal women in your response).
52
I think Loveschild is just upset that after this fight is won, we won't fight for her right to get married.
Sorry, we just don't believe that people mentally incompetent of rendering consent shouldn't get married.
Sorry, we just don't believe that people mentally incompetent of rendering consent shouldn't get married.
53
And let's not forget... seniors who are waaay past the age of procreation can get married. Why is this allowed?
Having children is NOT a requisite of marriage.
Having children is NOT a requisite of marriage.
54
Julie, we all know that there are infertile straight couples, they're the exception not the rule though, and procreation rests on the shoulders of straight couples, that's how all of us come into existence into this world, whether naturally by the act of love making or through artificial insemination. And in many cases infertility can be reversible, it has been so since times of old (Abraham-Sarah) and with the medical advances in today's world even more true. I don't want to deny gays who wish to cohabit with each other any rights, I really don't, but wanting to reserve the societal concept of marriage needed to promote and to strengthen procreation so that future generations are as thriving and strong as that of ours is not denying rights to anyone. It's not bigotry, I'm not wishing death or harm on homosexuals, that would make me a sinner, I would be going against the teachings of our Lord if I did that. I believe all of us are children of God no matter what we do. But the correlation between procreation and the concept/institution we know as marriage is relevant to this issue. It's essential to it, and it cannot be allowed to be distorted.
55
#54 - "It's essential to it, and it cannot be allowed to be distorted."
By your own definition it is not essential to it. Gay Marriage is already legal in the USA. You have lost. Please go away.
By your own definition it is not essential to it. Gay Marriage is already legal in the USA. You have lost. Please go away.
56
Loveschild @ 34
I don't get what your asking her:
how would making way for same sex marriage not amount to the same making of new laws an accommodations as plural marriages would entail.
It is my understanding that there really aren't new laws involved in creating marriage equality. Sure, there is the forms that say its offically okay, and there are forms that state a correction and a change is being made, such as change the words of a state constitution. But, how is that different then say a state deciding to end exsisting "Blue Laws"? Yet, I am unaware of what accomodations your claiming is made. In Oregon in 2004, in California in 2008, and in Iowa in 2009, the official okay was quickly followed with the right to obtain marriage licences. There was minimal lag time. You make it sound like there is this arduous process of recreating everything, but there really isn't. The system is already designed to handle two individuals forming a new family through one union.
I don't get what your asking her:
how would making way for same sex marriage not amount to the same making of new laws an accommodations as plural marriages would entail.
It is my understanding that there really aren't new laws involved in creating marriage equality. Sure, there is the forms that say its offically okay, and there are forms that state a correction and a change is being made, such as change the words of a state constitution. But, how is that different then say a state deciding to end exsisting "Blue Laws"? Yet, I am unaware of what accomodations your claiming is made. In Oregon in 2004, in California in 2008, and in Iowa in 2009, the official okay was quickly followed with the right to obtain marriage licences. There was minimal lag time. You make it sound like there is this arduous process of recreating everything, but there really isn't. The system is already designed to handle two individuals forming a new family through one union.
57
Please explain why this is so important:
"but wanting to reserve the societal concept of marriage needed to promote and to strengthen procreation so that future generations are as thriving and strong as that of ours is not denying rights to anyone."
Why do you think marriage equality will damage procreation?
It seems procreation on this planet is doing just fine. In fact a single individual can decide to procreate, such as the Octomom, by purchasing sperm provided by an indvidual. There is no couple involved, because the individual seeking the sperm has no relationship with the individual donating the sperm. The sperm source and egg provider do not make a couple, they are two singles.
"but wanting to reserve the societal concept of marriage needed to promote and to strengthen procreation so that future generations are as thriving and strong as that of ours is not denying rights to anyone."
Why do you think marriage equality will damage procreation?
It seems procreation on this planet is doing just fine. In fact a single individual can decide to procreate, such as the Octomom, by purchasing sperm provided by an indvidual. There is no couple involved, because the individual seeking the sperm has no relationship with the individual donating the sperm. The sperm source and egg provider do not make a couple, they are two singles.
59
@54 - I'm afraid, as per usual, your argument has just imploded on itself. And no, it's not because of your atrocious grammar (which is, in my opinion, a sin). The problem with your argument is that you admit to accepting infertile, straight, married couples (even as just the "exception"), but you continue to deny the term marriage to homosexuals on the grounds that they cannot reproduce. I'm afraid that reason dictates you cannot have it both ways. Either gay people can get married (and have kids or not), or my aunt and uncle (who have been married for 27 years, love each other deeply, and are not able to have children) need to be divorced immediately.
It's been argued before, and I'll argue it again. Gay people are not trying to"re-define" marriage. Straight people have already done that. The moment it became an institution for two people who love each other and want to make a life together (rather than its "traditional" definition of being a property agreement, often with several wives), it became an institution into which gay people have just as much a right to enter as straights. That is what marriage is, Loveschild. It is a way for two people who are in love to commit to one-another. Of course, it is other things as well, but that is the primary definition.
I want to get married one day (to a man), but I cannot say for certain that I want to have children. And that's fine, because children are no longer the point of marriage. As I said, it's love. And love is something to which everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, has a right.
If marriage is just a label, why are you so hell-bent on "protecting" it?
It's been argued before, and I'll argue it again. Gay people are not trying to"re-define" marriage. Straight people have already done that. The moment it became an institution for two people who love each other and want to make a life together (rather than its "traditional" definition of being a property agreement, often with several wives), it became an institution into which gay people have just as much a right to enter as straights. That is what marriage is, Loveschild. It is a way for two people who are in love to commit to one-another. Of course, it is other things as well, but that is the primary definition.
I want to get married one day (to a man), but I cannot say for certain that I want to have children. And that's fine, because children are no longer the point of marriage. As I said, it's love. And love is something to which everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, has a right.
If marriage is just a label, why are you so hell-bent on "protecting" it?
60
@ 50
The research does show that children raised by gays and lesbians grow up to be happy, healthy and well adjusted.
Patterson, C. J. (1992). Children of lesbian and gay parents. Child Development, 63, 1025 -1042.
Reviews research on the personal and social development of children of gay or lesbian parents (CGLP). Beginning with estimates of the numbers of such children, sociocultural, theoretical, and legal reasons for attention to their development are then outlined. In this context, studies on sexual identity, personal development, and social relationships among these children are reviewed. Evidence does not show that the development of CGLP is compromised significantly relative to that among children of heterosexual parents in comparable situations. (PsycINFO Database Record. Copyright © 2002 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.)
Perrin, E. C., & the Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health. (2002). Technical report: Coparent or second-parent adoption by same-sex parents. Pediatrics, 109, 341-344.
A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with one or two gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children's optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes. (PsycINFO Database Record. Copyright © 2002 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.)
Patterson, C. J. (2000). Family relationships of lesbians and gay men. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1052- 1069.
Presents an overview of research on the family lives of lesbians and gay men. It is noted that the family lives of lesbian and gay people have been a source of controversy during the past decade. Despite prejudice and discrimination, lesbians and gay men have often succeeded in creating and sustaining family relationships. Research on same-gender couple relationships, parent-child relationships, and other family relationships are reviewed here. In general, the picture of lesbian and gay relationships emerging from this body of work is one of positive adjustment, even in the face of stressful conditions. Research is also beginning to address questions about individual differences among the family relationships of lesbians and gay men. It is concluded that future work in this area has the potential to affect lesbian and gay lives, influence developmental and family theory, and inform public policies. (PsycINFO Database Record. Copyright © 2002 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.)
Here is more.
A review of 21 studies...
Stacey, Judith, and Timothy J. Biblarz. 2001. "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" American Sociological Review 66(2): 159-183.
Pdf here: http://www.soc.iastate.edu/soc522a/PDF%2…
More... ...Less
More...
The research does show that children raised by gays and lesbians grow up to be happy, healthy and well adjusted.
Patterson, C. J. (1992). Children of lesbian and gay parents. Child Development, 63, 1025 -1042.
Reviews research on the personal and social development of children of gay or lesbian parents (CGLP). Beginning with estimates of the numbers of such children, sociocultural, theoretical, and legal reasons for attention to their development are then outlined. In this context, studies on sexual identity, personal development, and social relationships among these children are reviewed. Evidence does not show that the development of CGLP is compromised significantly relative to that among children of heterosexual parents in comparable situations. (PsycINFO Database Record. Copyright © 2002 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.)
Perrin, E. C., & the Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health. (2002). Technical report: Coparent or second-parent adoption by same-sex parents. Pediatrics, 109, 341-344.
A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with one or two gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children's optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes. (PsycINFO Database Record. Copyright © 2002 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.)
Patterson, C. J. (2000). Family relationships of lesbians and gay men. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1052- 1069.
Presents an overview of research on the family lives of lesbians and gay men. It is noted that the family lives of lesbian and gay people have been a source of controversy during the past decade. Despite prejudice and discrimination, lesbians and gay men have often succeeded in creating and sustaining family relationships. Research on same-gender couple relationships, parent-child relationships, and other family relationships are reviewed here. In general, the picture of lesbian and gay relationships emerging from this body of work is one of positive adjustment, even in the face of stressful conditions. Research is also beginning to address questions about individual differences among the family relationships of lesbians and gay men. It is concluded that future work in this area has the potential to affect lesbian and gay lives, influence developmental and family theory, and inform public policies. (PsycINFO Database Record. Copyright © 2002 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.)
Here is more.
A review of 21 studies...
Stacey, Judith, and Timothy J. Biblarz. 2001. "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" American Sociological Review 66(2): 159-183.
Pdf here: http://www.soc.iastate.edu/soc522a/PDF%2…
More... ...Less
61
I really believe we need to stop antiquating the civil rights struggle of the blacks with that of the gays.
I think they are two seperate issues that barely tread on each other. To say that they are very similar is to be historically obtuse.
I think they are two seperate issues that barely tread on each other. To say that they are very similar is to be historically obtuse.
62
Loveschild – this part of your post: “we all know that there are infertile straight couples, they're the exception not the rule though” made me wonder how many straight couples marry who are infertile or who do not want to have children… You are basically acknowledging the problem with your argument, but saying that since there aren’t very many of those infertile couples, it doesn’t really matter.
So I went looking for some data to see how many there were:
- Couples who marry past the age of child-bearing - 5% of marriages involve women over the age of 50 (generally avg. age of menopause).
- Couples who are infertile – According to the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth by the CDC, infertility affects about 12% of the reproductive-age population. This is not directly additive to the 5% number (since it’s not 12% of all marriages), and some of these couples may end up having children with DNA from both the parents (through IVF). So, let’s just estimate that this is about 10% of all marriages.
-Couples who choose not to have children - I ran out of steam here. I found a number from 1990 that said 4.3% of couples considered themselves voluntarily childless. Not the greatest, but let’s call it an even 5% (given that the trend has been for this number to increase over time).
So, my back-of-the-envelope calculation says that in about 1 in 5 or 6 straight marriages, couples are unable or unwilling to produce a biological child. That seems like an awfully big number to be the “exception”, especially since that's a much larger percent of marriages than gay marriages would be (why can't we just add gay marriages to your "exception"?). Plus, as Jocelyn states, if procreation matters, it matters, there’s no “well it only matters for gay people but not for old people or infertile people.”
More...
So I went looking for some data to see how many there were:
- Couples who marry past the age of child-bearing - 5% of marriages involve women over the age of 50 (generally avg. age of menopause).
- Couples who are infertile – According to the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth by the CDC, infertility affects about 12% of the reproductive-age population. This is not directly additive to the 5% number (since it’s not 12% of all marriages), and some of these couples may end up having children with DNA from both the parents (through IVF). So, let’s just estimate that this is about 10% of all marriages.
-Couples who choose not to have children - I ran out of steam here. I found a number from 1990 that said 4.3% of couples considered themselves voluntarily childless. Not the greatest, but let’s call it an even 5% (given that the trend has been for this number to increase over time).
So, my back-of-the-envelope calculation says that in about 1 in 5 or 6 straight marriages, couples are unable or unwilling to produce a biological child. That seems like an awfully big number to be the “exception”, especially since that's a much larger percent of marriages than gay marriages would be (why can't we just add gay marriages to your "exception"?). Plus, as Jocelyn states, if procreation matters, it matters, there’s no “well it only matters for gay people but not for old people or infertile people.”
63
LC, it's simple.
The argument that a man and a woman are needed to procreate has nothing to do with marriage.
If it did, then it logically must extend to all straight couples who can't or won't procreate.
Period.
The argument that a man and a woman are needed to procreate has nothing to do with marriage.
If it did, then it logically must extend to all straight couples who can't or won't procreate.
Period.
64
Loveschild, procreation has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage... outside of the fantasy world inside your head.
Lots of unmarried people procreate, without getting married.
Lots of people get married, and either can't have children or choose not to have children.
If your main argument against marriage equality is that gay couples can't have a child that is biologically both of theirs, then we have a problem. That means nobody outside of marriage should be allowed to have children. That means anyone who gets married, but does not produce children, should have their marriages dissolved. That means infertile people should not be allowed to get married. That means women over 45 should not be allowed to get married (past child-bearing age).
Now who wants to redefine marriage?
Lots of unmarried people procreate, without getting married.
Lots of people get married, and either can't have children or choose not to have children.
If your main argument against marriage equality is that gay couples can't have a child that is biologically both of theirs, then we have a problem. That means nobody outside of marriage should be allowed to have children. That means anyone who gets married, but does not produce children, should have their marriages dissolved. That means infertile people should not be allowed to get married. That means women over 45 should not be allowed to get married (past child-bearing age).
Now who wants to redefine marriage?
65
LC, you are walking advertisement for gay marriage equality rights. Your opuses clealy show why all the opposition to gay rights has no leg to stand on. If you didn't exist, you'd have to be invented.
@64, good point. what in the world does procreation have to do with the marriage rights?And from practical standpoint: do you see a shortage of people around, LC? Do you know that every major city has thousands of children in the system that nobody wants to adopt?
You never answered why do you want to deny the kids that gay parents can potentially adopt, a chance to have a loving family? You are indeed a bigot. And please, don’t mention the Lords name, for you are filled with the most unchristian feeling imaginable- bitter hate towards other human beings
@64, good point. what in the world does procreation have to do with the marriage rights?And from practical standpoint: do you see a shortage of people around, LC? Do you know that every major city has thousands of children in the system that nobody wants to adopt?
You never answered why do you want to deny the kids that gay parents can potentially adopt, a chance to have a loving family? You are indeed a bigot. And please, don’t mention the Lords name, for you are filled with the most unchristian feeling imaginable- bitter hate towards other human beings
66
But you see Julie and Reverse Plarity, even those straight couples who are unable to have progeny of their own contribute by being role models, just like our grandparents (older couples) do, they are able to provide insights to younger people in areas of courtship, the household and all other areas that are needed for a healthy fruitful relationship between a man and a woman. They are healthy examples for those who are in age to procreate. They're are not outside of the realm of the behavior of heterosexuality which makes possible the birth of us humans. So if their pairings are in accordance with the role of heterosexuality then they're part of the same institution that those who can have children (heterosexuals also) belong to.
67
@ 61 - "Antiquating"? That's precious.
Civil rights is civil rights, sweet-tits. Yes, each individual group's struggle/experience is a little different, but they ultimately share many more commonalities than they do differences, whether it be civil rights for African Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, and, yes, even Gay Americans. The common denominator in ALL civil rights stuggles is a majority group arrogating to itself the right to discriminate against a particular minority for reasons rooted in prejudice and bigotry.
Like Nina Simone said - "You don't have to live next to me, just give me my equality". So put that in your pipe and smoke it~
Civil rights is civil rights, sweet-tits. Yes, each individual group's struggle/experience is a little different, but they ultimately share many more commonalities than they do differences, whether it be civil rights for African Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, and, yes, even Gay Americans. The common denominator in ALL civil rights stuggles is a majority group arrogating to itself the right to discriminate against a particular minority for reasons rooted in prejudice and bigotry.
Like Nina Simone said - "You don't have to live next to me, just give me my equality". So put that in your pipe and smoke it~
68
But you see Julie, even those straight couples who are unable to have progeny of their own contribute by being role models, just like our grandparents (older couples) do, they are able to provide insights to younger people in areas of courtship, the household and all other areas that are needed for a healthy fruitful relationship between a man and a woman. They are healthy examples for those who are in age to procreate. They're are not outside of the realm of the behavior of heterosexuality which makes possible the birth of us humans. So if their pairings are in accordance with the role of heterosexuality then they're part of the same institution that those who can have children (heterosexuals also) belong to.
69
@68: Heterosexual pairings, not couples, create children. That's all. That is the only input necessary. Family structure, "role models" and all that are irrelevant to procreation. You're purposely forcing issues together again.
Bastards, children born of duty, purpose-born children (like those of royalty), children born to extract welfare, children born to mothers who need something to cling to, children born as a mistake, and many more-- they are not bound to your concept of childbirth and heterosexual couplings being essential. They might be ideal to you, but in no way is a straight couple bearing a child and raising it in a traditional MF atomic family structure essential.
A kid needs support, shelter and a good role model on how to interact with people. Biologically speaking, they can figure out where they want to go with themselves sexually and in regards to procreation themselves.
Bastards, children born of duty, purpose-born children (like those of royalty), children born to extract welfare, children born to mothers who need something to cling to, children born as a mistake, and many more-- they are not bound to your concept of childbirth and heterosexual couplings being essential. They might be ideal to you, but in no way is a straight couple bearing a child and raising it in a traditional MF atomic family structure essential.
A kid needs support, shelter and a good role model on how to interact with people. Biologically speaking, they can figure out where they want to go with themselves sexually and in regards to procreation themselves.
71
Um, for those of you who say two lesbians can't both be the biological parents of a child, click HERE. Or HERE. If you dare!!!
Fundie Losers! Your entire argument that gays can't have a real marriage because they can't produce a biological child in the very near future will go up in smoke! Bwaah Haa Haa Haaaaa!!!
Fundie Losers! Your entire argument that gays can't have a real marriage because they can't produce a biological child in the very near future will go up in smoke! Bwaah Haa Haa Haaaaa!!!
72
@ 61, here are several parallels between Civil Rights and Gay Rights.
* Both groups of people are discriminated against based on a condition of birth. (Don't believe homosexuality is not a choice? Then share with us your story of how you came to choose being straight.)
* Both groups have had Biblical passages invoked to justify the denial of equal rights. (Curse of Ham anyone?)
* Both groups have a long history of their members being targeted for violence simply because of who they are, without any other provocation. (Although usually some excuse, usually related to sex, is invoked [and often made up] to justify the attack.)
I can draw more parallels if you like, but these are significant and undeniable as it is. Though you're welcome to try to deny them, and good luck as no one has ever been able to do so without ignoring the enormous piles of evidence that back them up.
* Both groups of people are discriminated against based on a condition of birth. (Don't believe homosexuality is not a choice? Then share with us your story of how you came to choose being straight.)
* Both groups have had Biblical passages invoked to justify the denial of equal rights. (Curse of Ham anyone?)
* Both groups have a long history of their members being targeted for violence simply because of who they are, without any other provocation. (Although usually some excuse, usually related to sex, is invoked [and often made up] to justify the attack.)
I can draw more parallels if you like, but these are significant and undeniable as it is. Though you're welcome to try to deny them, and good luck as no one has ever been able to do so without ignoring the enormous piles of evidence that back them up.
73
@ LC, everything you say about straight married couples who can't reproduce applies equally to a gay married couple. EVERYTHING.
74
Okay, so it's not at all about procreation, you admit it Loveschild. It's about straight couples modeling "proper" relationship behaviors. So, you're never going to bring up the procreation argument again, right?
It actually sounds to me like, instead of the procreation argument, now you've moved on to the "young people need role models in order to learn how to be straight and/or how to have children" argument. Which is almost a bad (but not quite). If what you really want is for young people to have good role models in how to have good relationships and be good parents, then you should be arguing against people who are bad role models getting married. You think gay people are bad role models and shouldn't marry? Fine. But you also have to include straight people who model inappropriate behaviors (e.g., criminals can't be married, neither can spousal or child abusers, etc.).
But you don't really want that either. You just don't want gay people to be able to marry and you're desperately grasping at straws to come up with any reason why they shouldn't be allowed to.
It actually sounds to me like, instead of the procreation argument, now you've moved on to the "young people need role models in order to learn how to be straight and/or how to have children" argument. Which is almost a bad (but not quite). If what you really want is for young people to have good role models in how to have good relationships and be good parents, then you should be arguing against people who are bad role models getting married. You think gay people are bad role models and shouldn't marry? Fine. But you also have to include straight people who model inappropriate behaviors (e.g., criminals can't be married, neither can spousal or child abusers, etc.).
But you don't really want that either. You just don't want gay people to be able to marry and you're desperately grasping at straws to come up with any reason why they shouldn't be allowed to.
76
Baconcat @1, rational arguments aren't going to work against those whose attitudes are polarized against same sex marriage. Exhibit A: Loveschild's responses, and the dialogues that ensue on this thread. Exhibit B: That the same talking points get regurgitated again and again in the media, without any development.
I learned this, myself, by trying to hammer it out with the folks over at NOM, who were far more interested in parsing my arguments for phrases to which they could take offense, or arguing semantics, such as what we see above regarding how a Lesbian couple can children; it doesn't matter how it can happen, what matters is that it does happen and that those families are being treated as second class families in this country, a nation that prizes the concept of equality for all.
Considering most het individuals will marry, divorce and remarry, often with childbirth in the process, children in families led by hets often include participants other than those biologically related. So talking about intact bloodlines is bickering over bullshit minutiae that functions as nothing else than a distraction from the real issues.
Loveschild is lost. She cannot be swayed in this regard, or in any regard concerning gays, because her issues with them are not on the table for discussion, whether it's because she's a literalist bible fearing soul, or because she got diddled by a bulldyke as a tot, or because she doesn't want to share the thunder of her racial oppression with other oppressed groups, such as gays. Whatever her damage, she will not accept gay issues are human rights issues, because she will not accept that gays are worthy of human regard.
I learned this, myself, by trying to hammer it out with the folks over at NOM, who were far more interested in parsing my arguments for phrases to which they could take offense, or arguing semantics, such as what we see above regarding how a Lesbian couple can children; it doesn't matter how it can happen, what matters is that it does happen and that those families are being treated as second class families in this country, a nation that prizes the concept of equality for all.
Considering most het individuals will marry, divorce and remarry, often with childbirth in the process, children in families led by hets often include participants other than those biologically related. So talking about intact bloodlines is bickering over bullshit minutiae that functions as nothing else than a distraction from the real issues.
Loveschild is lost. She cannot be swayed in this regard, or in any regard concerning gays, because her issues with them are not on the table for discussion, whether it's because she's a literalist bible fearing soul, or because she got diddled by a bulldyke as a tot, or because she doesn't want to share the thunder of her racial oppression with other oppressed groups, such as gays. Whatever her damage, she will not accept gay issues are human rights issues, because she will not accept that gays are worthy of human regard.
77
I am horrified by the distinction Loveschild draws around biological parent/child relationships. My father-in-law has two adopted children and one biological child, and he is adamant that they are all equally his children. The suggestion that his adopted children are somehow less his children is repugnant to all adoptive parents. In your eagerness to devalue gay and lesbian parents, you devalue all parents.
78
I never want to see the word "Loveschild" again.
EVER!
You people are wasting your breath (or the skin on your fingers). And it's fucking tiresome.
EVER!
You people are wasting your breath (or the skin on your fingers). And it's fucking tiresome.
79
Uriel-238 @76:
Whether this is a factor in LC's mindset or not it is good that you brought up this point:
or because she doesn't want to share the thunder of her racial oppression with other oppressed groups, such as gays
This has been a barrier to cross-group organizing among disenfranchised groups. There are some members of each community that feel that the struggles and sufferings of their group are more valid than those of others. As a result they discount the experience of the group or groups that are not their own, and in some cases actively work against it.
These few malcontents then spread there words of division within their communities and create mistrust, misunderstanding, and in some cases fear or intense prejudice toward this other/'rival' minority group (this can be split along religious, social, cultural, racial, gender, ethnic, or other lines). The result being that instead of building bridges and creating partnerships for networking and cooperating to fight for the common rights of all - rifts and chasms are created and barriers to communication and collaboration are established.
It helps for people to look into their own backgrounds and realize that at some point they or their family members would have been considered to be the minority group that was discriminated against. It wasn't that long ago that Jews were excluded from various schools, professions, and neighborhoods. Nor was it that long ago that Irish, Italian, and Catholics were excluded from job searches and neighborhoods. And today we take it for granted that women have the same rights as men in our society - a far cry from when the church elders were arguing that women didn't have souls.
We weren't all considered equal and granted that equality by our peers 'just because' - in all cases various groups have had to demand to be seen and treated as the equals that they are. Today we don't think twice about many of the identities that we and our peers have in our background that only a few decades ago could have meant exclusion, segregation, and most certainly a lack of social interaction among the very people we work, study, and live with and among.
LGBT individuals have every right to live as LGBT couples and to form family units of their choosing - the same as any other couple, and that includes having the rights, protections, and security that marriage brings.
To except anything less than full equality is to deny what equality is and means for us all.
More...
Whether this is a factor in LC's mindset or not it is good that you brought up this point:
or because she doesn't want to share the thunder of her racial oppression with other oppressed groups, such as gays
This has been a barrier to cross-group organizing among disenfranchised groups. There are some members of each community that feel that the struggles and sufferings of their group are more valid than those of others. As a result they discount the experience of the group or groups that are not their own, and in some cases actively work against it.
These few malcontents then spread there words of division within their communities and create mistrust, misunderstanding, and in some cases fear or intense prejudice toward this other/'rival' minority group (this can be split along religious, social, cultural, racial, gender, ethnic, or other lines). The result being that instead of building bridges and creating partnerships for networking and cooperating to fight for the common rights of all - rifts and chasms are created and barriers to communication and collaboration are established.
It helps for people to look into their own backgrounds and realize that at some point they or their family members would have been considered to be the minority group that was discriminated against. It wasn't that long ago that Jews were excluded from various schools, professions, and neighborhoods. Nor was it that long ago that Irish, Italian, and Catholics were excluded from job searches and neighborhoods. And today we take it for granted that women have the same rights as men in our society - a far cry from when the church elders were arguing that women didn't have souls.
We weren't all considered equal and granted that equality by our peers 'just because' - in all cases various groups have had to demand to be seen and treated as the equals that they are. Today we don't think twice about many of the identities that we and our peers have in our background that only a few decades ago could have meant exclusion, segregation, and most certainly a lack of social interaction among the very people we work, study, and live with and among.
LGBT individuals have every right to live as LGBT couples and to form family units of their choosing - the same as any other couple, and that includes having the rights, protections, and security that marriage brings.
To except anything less than full equality is to deny what equality is and means for us all.
80
54,
You need to invest in a dictionary. Your statement: I don't want to deny gays who wish to cohabit with each other any rights, I really don't, but wanting to reserve the societal concept of marriage needed to promote and to strengthen procreation so that future generations are as thriving and strong as that of ours is not denying rights to anyone. It's not bigotry, I'm not wishing death or harm on homosexuals, that would make me a sinner, I would be going against the teachings of our Lord if I did that.
big·ot (bĭg'ət)
n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Apparently not wanting to wish death or harm on an individual is not part of the definiton. Yet, seeing your sexual orientation as superior and therefore a reason you justify special treatment does fit the definition.
Perhaps prejudiced is a better definition for your statement?
prej⋅u⋅dice diced, -dic⋅ing.
–noun
1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2.any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
3.unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
4.such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending.
5.damage or injury; detriment: a law that operated to the prejudice of the majority.
You need to invest in a dictionary. Your statement: I don't want to deny gays who wish to cohabit with each other any rights, I really don't, but wanting to reserve the societal concept of marriage needed to promote and to strengthen procreation so that future generations are as thriving and strong as that of ours is not denying rights to anyone. It's not bigotry, I'm not wishing death or harm on homosexuals, that would make me a sinner, I would be going against the teachings of our Lord if I did that.
big·ot (bĭg'ət)
n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Apparently not wanting to wish death or harm on an individual is not part of the definiton. Yet, seeing your sexual orientation as superior and therefore a reason you justify special treatment does fit the definition.
Perhaps prejudiced is a better definition for your statement?
prej⋅u⋅dice diced, -dic⋅ing.
–noun
1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2.any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
3.unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
4.such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending.
5.damage or injury; detriment: a law that operated to the prejudice of the majority.
81
For the record, Polygamy != Bestiality and Pedophilia. Kind of sick of everyone throwing people who don't believe in a dual-relationship system under the bus just to defend themselves from the stupid claims from the far right.
I skipped straight down to the comment box, so I'm sorry if this has been brought up before, but it's kind of bullshit. Gay marriage should be legal. And honestly, let a man marry three other guys if they are all in love. Or two men and two women. Or those guys in Utah do it if they want. Just make sure they aren't being abusive assholes or child-rapists, which are the scary anecdotes that fall outside of an otherwise equally harmless system.
P.S. I realized while editing that some people wouldn't get that != means does not equal. Sorry. The More You Know....
I skipped straight down to the comment box, so I'm sorry if this has been brought up before, but it's kind of bullshit. Gay marriage should be legal. And honestly, let a man marry three other guys if they are all in love. Or two men and two women. Or those guys in Utah do it if they want. Just make sure they aren't being abusive assholes or child-rapists, which are the scary anecdotes that fall outside of an otherwise equally harmless system.
P.S. I realized while editing that some people wouldn't get that != means does not equal. Sorry. The More You Know....
82
HEY DOOFUSES:
"Loveschild" is Maggie Gallagher, aka
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maggie_Gall… aka
http://www.marriagedebate.com/
and so, like, clearly has a huge agenda, and is not just some other plebian here to have an honest discussion with you. i dunno but isn't this the trolliest troll of them all?
"Loveschild" is Maggie Gallagher, aka
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maggie_Gall… aka
http://www.marriagedebate.com/
and so, like, clearly has a huge agenda, and is not just some other plebian here to have an honest discussion with you. i dunno but isn't this the trolliest troll of them all?
83
#82 - Maggie Gallagher is smarter then Loveschild...at least Maggie can write out a post that makes some sort of sense and doesn't contain multiple grammatical errors. Our dear LC is just an ignorant troll with a sub-ebonic grasp of the English language.
84
@82
I realize Gallagher has an editor, but LC is so incoherent, I can’t believe she’s a writer of any sort. I’d rather edit bathroom scrawl than try to tease sense out of LC’s babbling.
This being said, I don’t really care about LC’s secret identity, even if she’s Super-Duper-Anti-Gay-Anti-Hero when she takes off her glasses and stops sputtering.
I realize Gallagher has an editor, but LC is so incoherent, I can’t believe she’s a writer of any sort. I’d rather edit bathroom scrawl than try to tease sense out of LC’s babbling.
This being said, I don’t really care about LC’s secret identity, even if she’s Super-Duper-Anti-Gay-Anti-Hero when she takes off her glasses and stops sputtering.
85
BombasticMO @81, I, for one agree with you, that people should be able to decide for themselves the size and shape of their family units, hence polygamy should be something we should strive to legalize, so long as participants in such an arrangement are adult, informed and consenting.
I would also say the time is far from ripe for it, given that we've yet to truly normalize women in our society, and some states still allow children to marry (with either parental consent or established pregnancy) at very young ages. It's through these technicalities that the fundamentalist Mormon parishes engage in child predation legally, or at least without state prosecution.
In contemporary times, polygamy only appears in the form of polygyny (many wives, in contrast to polyandry or a more gender balanced polyfidelity), with extremely rare exceptions such as the Church of All Worlds (CAW), and in most cases of polygyny, gender roles are enforced and women are treated as second class citizens, and are restricted from the level of education or information to which men have access.
But child rearing is most effectively done in groups larger than the post-industrial nuclear family, and more diverse than a mere extended family. I believe this was the point of the It takes a village movement, so it might be of great benefit to society when we can finally declare aggregate bands as legally recognized families, not simply married couples.
But, I doubt it will happen in my lifetime.
Incidentally, "<>" is more recognized as "not equal to". Or "≠" in unicode.
I would also say the time is far from ripe for it, given that we've yet to truly normalize women in our society, and some states still allow children to marry (with either parental consent or established pregnancy) at very young ages. It's through these technicalities that the fundamentalist Mormon parishes engage in child predation legally, or at least without state prosecution.
In contemporary times, polygamy only appears in the form of polygyny (many wives, in contrast to polyandry or a more gender balanced polyfidelity), with extremely rare exceptions such as the Church of All Worlds (CAW), and in most cases of polygyny, gender roles are enforced and women are treated as second class citizens, and are restricted from the level of education or information to which men have access.
But child rearing is most effectively done in groups larger than the post-industrial nuclear family, and more diverse than a mere extended family. I believe this was the point of the It takes a village movement, so it might be of great benefit to society when we can finally declare aggregate bands as legally recognized families, not simply married couples.
But, I doubt it will happen in my lifetime.
Incidentally, "<>" is more recognized as "not equal to". Or "≠" in unicode.
86
Loveschild is trying to suggest that a non-procreative heterosexual married couple serve a purpose as role models to promote marriage and commitment.
I'll agree here, they do fulfill that social role. However, the larger benefit from their marriage is given from each to the other, in the form of loving support. It's my great aunt, taking care of her ailing husband, and her husband, watching out for her. They are, after all, excellent role models of what a marriage should be, with great love for each other. They are a family, they do what families do: take care of each other.
Marriage is about the creation of family ties, about making strangers into kin.
And, loveschild, gay couples can and have done the same for each other, and for the families they marry into. With or without children, they model to the children around them commitment, love, and respect. These children of course, will some day grow up to be straight and gay, men and women, and will someday model their own relationships on those of the adults around them, gay and straight.
They're not going to be made gay by Michael and Jon. But they might just be made devoted husbands and wives. :)
I'll agree here, they do fulfill that social role. However, the larger benefit from their marriage is given from each to the other, in the form of loving support. It's my great aunt, taking care of her ailing husband, and her husband, watching out for her. They are, after all, excellent role models of what a marriage should be, with great love for each other. They are a family, they do what families do: take care of each other.
Marriage is about the creation of family ties, about making strangers into kin.
And, loveschild, gay couples can and have done the same for each other, and for the families they marry into. With or without children, they model to the children around them commitment, love, and respect. These children of course, will some day grow up to be straight and gay, men and women, and will someday model their own relationships on those of the adults around them, gay and straight.
They're not going to be made gay by Michael and Jon. But they might just be made devoted husbands and wives. :)
87
Two men or two women cannot have a biological child. One of them can, but not both. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it cannot happen. Also, being gay, is a choice no matter how you want to look at it.
88
87,
If it is a choice, then please enlighten the rest of us on how you personally choose who you are sexually attracted to.
I'm truly interested. I haven't found a person yet who can answer my questions. How they chose their sexual orientation? How they choose who they become sexually attracted to? How they make their mind and body comply with their chosen arousal target? How they make themselves sustain their arousal for their chosen target over days, weeks, months, and years?
If it is a choice, then please enlighten the rest of us on how you personally choose who you are sexually attracted to.
I'm truly interested. I haven't found a person yet who can answer my questions. How they chose their sexual orientation? How they choose who they become sexually attracted to? How they make their mind and body comply with their chosen arousal target? How they make themselves sustain their arousal for their chosen target over days, weeks, months, and years?
89
I do not have to, I was like everyone else born heterosexual. i chose to stay that way, some people chose to be homosexual. Funny the argument you would use about how you cannot help who you are attracted too is the same thing that rapists and pedophiles use. I guess they were just born that way.
90
89,
You don't have to or you can't? I'm betting you can't explain it? My money is on you "can't explain how you choose to stay that way"? Care to prove me wrong?
You don't have to or you can't? I'm betting you can't explain it? My money is on you "can't explain how you choose to stay that way"? Care to prove me wrong?
91
Funny how you chose to focus on that part of what I said. Lets see I have an aunt who was straight, then gay, married to a man,then gay now I think she is straight again. Can you expain that one? And yes I do CHOSE to remain a heterosexual just like you chose to be homosexual.
92
91,
No, I can't explain you aunt. Perhaps, she is bisexual and finds herself sexually attracted to both genders. You're the one who claims you can CHOOSE. So, I'm asking you how you go about choosing. Because you said, "And yes I do CHOSE to remain a heterosexual just like you chose to be homosexual."
FYI I'm heterosexual, married with 2 kids. I have no idea why I'm sexually attracted to my husband. I don't ever remember having a choice in the matter. I just know over time, as I reached maturity, I developed romantic feelings for a young man. Since, then I've always been attracted to men, my husband to be exact.
You're the one who said you choose to remain heterosexual. Does that mean your attracted to women, too? If so, how do you refrain from feeling that attraction or stifle those romantic feelings?
You're the first person I've ever heard say they choose to remain a heterosexual. Everyone else can't answer why they find themselves attracted to those they find attractive? It seems like a mystery to the rest of us. You on the other hand, claim some insight to choosing. Which, is why I'm asking.
No, I can't explain you aunt. Perhaps, she is bisexual and finds herself sexually attracted to both genders. You're the one who claims you can CHOOSE. So, I'm asking you how you go about choosing. Because you said, "And yes I do CHOSE to remain a heterosexual just like you chose to be homosexual."
FYI I'm heterosexual, married with 2 kids. I have no idea why I'm sexually attracted to my husband. I don't ever remember having a choice in the matter. I just know over time, as I reached maturity, I developed romantic feelings for a young man. Since, then I've always been attracted to men, my husband to be exact.
You're the one who said you choose to remain heterosexual. Does that mean your attracted to women, too? If so, how do you refrain from feeling that attraction or stifle those romantic feelings?
You're the first person I've ever heard say they choose to remain a heterosexual. Everyone else can't answer why they find themselves attracted to those they find attractive? It seems like a mystery to the rest of us. You on the other hand, claim some insight to choosing. Which, is why I'm asking.
93
I said we are all born hetero, some chose to remain that way some chose to become homo. No I am not attracted to women. I am attracted to my fiancé, and only to him. See the thing is I can state EXACTLY why I am attracted to him. He is kind, honest, careing, his eyes light up when he sees me, he tells me several times a day how much he loves me and can't wait to spend his life with me, he loves kids(has 2 from first marriage), he has an ass to die for, and gives me everything I need(in and out of the bedroom). that is why I love him and am attracted to him. Funny you can't explain why you are sexually attracted to your husband, most women can. hmmmmm
94
Please,
Try reading what I actually wrote. I didn't say I didn't know why I was attracted to my husband as an individual, I said I didn't know why I was attracted to males.
Bottom line, is your responses indicate that you can't answer. And instead of answering that you don't know why you are attracted to males, or why you choose to remain attracted to males, your defensive. If you can't answer for yourself, than you have no right to say others are making a choice.
As to your we are all born hetero, shows you to be focused on the gentalia. News for you, not all people have external genitalia that matches their internal sex organs, Klinefelter Syndrome or androgen insensitivity syndrom )androgen resistance syndrome). So, we aren't all born heteros. Thus, that answers fails, too.
Don't go biblical on me either. Premarital sex is forbidden in the Bible, and you're guilty of it. Only those who are without fault can throw stones. You aren't living up to all of God's commands, and you know it. I'm not judging you either, I'm just saying you have no right to judge others. Don't act hypocritcal, when people tell you that their sexual orientation isn't a choice for them, have the personal integrity to accept their word for it. Afterall, you can't even explain why you find yourself sexually attracted to males, or why you choose to remain sexually attracted to males.
Congratulations on your engagement. Best wishes to you both. I hope you have a long and happy life together.
Try reading what I actually wrote. I didn't say I didn't know why I was attracted to my husband as an individual, I said I didn't know why I was attracted to males.
Bottom line, is your responses indicate that you can't answer. And instead of answering that you don't know why you are attracted to males, or why you choose to remain attracted to males, your defensive. If you can't answer for yourself, than you have no right to say others are making a choice.
As to your we are all born hetero, shows you to be focused on the gentalia. News for you, not all people have external genitalia that matches their internal sex organs, Klinefelter Syndrome or androgen insensitivity syndrom )androgen resistance syndrome). So, we aren't all born heteros. Thus, that answers fails, too.
Don't go biblical on me either. Premarital sex is forbidden in the Bible, and you're guilty of it. Only those who are without fault can throw stones. You aren't living up to all of God's commands, and you know it. I'm not judging you either, I'm just saying you have no right to judge others. Don't act hypocritcal, when people tell you that their sexual orientation isn't a choice for them, have the personal integrity to accept their word for it. Afterall, you can't even explain why you find yourself sexually attracted to males, or why you choose to remain sexually attracted to males.
Congratulations on your engagement. Best wishes to you both. I hope you have a long and happy life together.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
Dear Huffington Post... by Dan Savage
-
The Rick Santorum Rally in Tacoma Probably Could Have Gone Better by Paul Constant
-
Because Guns Make Us More Safer by Goldy
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
-
Prospecting Science by Charles Mudede
-
Google Briefly Acknowledges the Existence of Gay Couples—and Princess/Frog Couples—on Valentine's Day by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (94) RSS