Diaries
Everything
Who's Online?
FAQ / Help

Print Story Why Gay Marriage is Wrong
Diary
By GRiNGO (Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 12:06:32 AM EST) (all tags)
As much as I despise GWB and everything he stands for, I found myself agreeing with him today. Yes, you guessed it, its over the gay marriage debate. Poll inside.

Marriage Mar"riage, n. [OE. mariage, F. mariage. See Marry,
     v. t.]
     1. The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal
        union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife;
        wedlock; matrimony.

              Marriage is honorable in all.         --Heb. xiii.


What is the world coming to? Gay Marriages? The thought of allowing gay couples to raise children? Whatever next?

Now don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against gay people as such, but it IS a perversion of sorts. While some perversions should perhaps be tolerated and perhaps some even accepted I don't think they should be portrayed as normal for fucks sake. Not only that but it seems its almost becoming fashionable with all these fucking reality TV shows where there always seems to be at least one raging homosexual.

I mean what is marriage anyway? The legal uniion of man and wife, usually for the purposes of becoming a family. How can gay couples become a family? Perhaps if nature someday allows us to recreate with members of the same sex, then I'll be persuaded otherwise but for now gay couples should not be allowed to raise kids. Theres no way kids should be allowed to be brought up in the home of people who are openely perverts. There are two reasons for this:

  • The first is that these kids will see this as normal, and as time goes on more and more of them will in turn become gay themselves. That kid would see two men (or two women) getting intimate with each other a long time (years) before being aware of the same type of intimacy between a man and a woman, for gods sake they would probably think there was something strange with that.

  • Also, think of the hard times these poor kids would get at school. I mean they get it hard enough for wearing glasses or something but imagine the stick theyd get for this.

I mean come on, you aren't even allowed to smack your kids these days. If you do, they can be taken off you. Yet these people are pressing for the right to live and act as a family, and raise kids in an environment of open perversion? People get jailed for less.

So yes, I must say I agree with Bush for the first time in my life. I think gay marriage should be outlawed in the constitution of the US... before it finds its ugly way over here.

< It's just a bloody website. | BBC White season: 'Rivers of Blood' >
Login
Make a new account
Username:
Password:
Share this entry
Share on Facebook
Poll
Should gay marriage be allowed?
- No - ( Im straight ) 12%
- No - ( Im gay ) 0%
- Yes - ( Im straight ) 63%
- Yes - ( Im gay ) 0%
- I dont care 6%
- Burn in hell you homophobic bastard 15%
- Other 3%

Votes: 33
Results | Other Polls
Related Links
- GRiNGO's Diary
Comment Controls
View: Display: Sort:
Why Gay Marriage is Wrong | 71 comments (71 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
Link by R Mutt (5.00 / 4) #1 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 12:09:53 AM EST
Look what's next!



I now regret by creo (3.00 / 2) #2 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 12:16:19 AM EST
my rule that MT would only stay over at K5.

Your diary is just perfect material to work with.

Could you do me a favour and post it over there?

Cheers
Creo.

"I shall do what I believe to be right and honourable" - Guderian


MT by GRiNGO (3.00 / 3) #3 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 12:20:56 AM EST
What are you on about?

- - -
"I send you to Baghdad a long time. Do they care, buddy?" - Three Kings.

[ Parent ]

Sorry, I should have put in a by creo (3.50 / 2) #4 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 12:28:04 AM EST
linky

Refer to the K5 section.

Cheers
Creo.

"I shall do what I believe to be right and honourable" - Guderian
[ Parent ]

Why dont you... by GRiNGO (3.00 / 1) #16 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 01:06:55 AM EST
...post it over there yourself. I waive all copyright.

- - -
"I send you to Baghdad a long time. Do they care, buddy?" - Three Kings.

[ Parent ]

But then I would be by creo (4.00 / 3) #18 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 01:12:14 AM EST
trolling myself - and thats just too weird.

Maybe I could create an anti MT, who could then be trolled by the MT and then....

fuck it, I'll just go home and do something normal like surf porn, get horny and bone the wife.

Cheers
Creo.

"I shall do what I believe to be right and honourable" - Guderian
[ Parent ]

True enough by Rogerborg (5.33 / 6) #23 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 01:28:16 AM EST
Considering the number of men who've boned your wife, you'd be a statistical abberation if you didn't.

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
[ Parent ]

Fucking Brilliant Mr. Borg - dips lid (NT) by creo (4.50 / 2) #27 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 01:35:45 AM EST

"I shall do what I believe to be right and honourable" - Guderian
[ Parent ]

mm hm by tps12 (4.50 / 2) #5 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 12:28:50 AM EST
Gay marriage has nothing to do with gay couples adopting children (which is already perfectly legal and which you're also completely wrong about). And neither has anything to do with your supposed right to beat your children.



Yes it does by GRiNGO (3.50 / 2) #11 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 12:48:40 AM EST
After marriage the next logical step is kids. It's all hooked into my same point, that gay families shouldn't be promoted as normality.

which you're also completely wrong about
Am I? How so? Do you have any thoughts on the matter or are you just going to dismiss my opinion as being wrong, offhand?

- - -
"I send you to Baghdad a long time. Do they care, buddy?" - Three Kings.

[ Parent ]

um by tps12 (5.40 / 5) #24 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 01:29:25 AM EST
I think a lot of intentionally childless married couples would object to your arbitrary definition of the "next logical step" after being married.

There is no evidence that children of homosexuals are more likely to be homosexuals themselves. If they are gay then they are probably more likely to be out of the closet, but I think most would agree that that's a good thing.

The entirety of your argument, such as it is, rests on your claim that homosexuality is "perversion," which in turn depends on its not being "normal." In other words, because most people are not gay, homosexuality must be inherently bad. I'm not buying it. By this definition, a gentleman who only dates blondes would also be a pervert, right? Or how about a woman who enjoys anal sex? Do we need laws to prevent these deviants from marrying or having children?

[ Parent ]

I just got married by MrPlough (5.00 / 3) #37 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 02:38:47 AM EST
 And neither of us want kids.

Are you calling me teh ghey?
No work.
[ Parent ]

Denying the antecedent a bit, aren't we? by Rogerborg (6.00 / 2) #50 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 04:47:30 AM EST
If we don't let them get married, will that stop them wanting to raise kids?

Brief recap:

Gay families with children shouldn't be promoted as normality because...

1 The kids will be taunted.
2 The human race will become extinct.

Do you have anything more to add to that?

You know, if I believed that being gay was just wrong, but I felt that for some reason I couldn't just come out and say that, I might pussyfoot around the issue and say that it's abnormal, it's perverted, it's improper, and that I was really just thinking of the welfare of the children.  When what I really meant was that I fucking hate gays and I can't bear the thought of any more of them being created and spreading their gayons around near me.

I'd like to think that I'd have the courage and integrity to just be honest and say that though, rather than working towards an argument where, you know, being gay isn't wrong per se, but promoting or becoming or turning anyone gay is.

Some of my best friends are gay, and there's no "but..." after that.  Maybe you just need to meet some more people to give you a broader perspective of what's "proper" and what's not.  I think we may finally have found someone who needs a hug more than me.

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
[ Parent ]

Logical steps by ucblockhead (3.00 / 0) #55 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 05:14:14 AM EST
Actually, one of the reasons a lot of gay couples want to get married is for the children that they are already raising.

It's perfectly legal for gay couples to adopt in many places, and it is perfectly legal for lesbians to get pregnant any way they choose in most.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]

Dude by Cold blood warm cockles (4.00 / 2) #6 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 12:29:06 AM EST
They have some shows now where they're ALL rampant queens. Worrying times we live in.



Now, don't get me wrong by Rogerborg (5.00 / 4) #7 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 12:35:35 AM EST
I have nothing against trolls as such, but it IS a compulsion of sorts.  While some compulsions should perhaps be tolerated and perhaps some even accepted I don't think they should be portrayed as normal for fucks sake. Not only that but it seems its almost becoming fashionable with all these fucking community blogs where there always seems to be at least one raging troll.

Say, do you think that if a normal kid was raised by trolls, that he'd become a troll?  Or is there a troll gene?  Is trolling nature or nurture?  Got any insights into that?

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.


zZz go back to k5 by GRiNGO (3.00 / 2) #8 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 12:41:05 AM EST
Unless you have a point to make. These are my genuine opinions - if you think I'm trolling, then just don't respond. I'm sure you can find something more entertaining to do with your time than blabber on about trolls instead of saying something relevant.

- - -
"I send you to Baghdad a long time. Do they care, buddy?" - Three Kings.

[ Parent ]

If I was trolling by Rogerborg (5.00 / 2) #17 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 01:09:31 AM EST
Then I'd have already won.  Fortunately, you started it, so I lost before I began and can Have A Nice Day without worrying too much about it.

You want me to demolish your position?  Fine, seeing as how you asked.

Your argument is against minorities, not against gay people.  s/gay people/Muslims and it works just as well, other than in the self-referential non-argument about what marriage is.

If you want a non-theoretical example, see s/gay people/Native Americans and the attempt to eradicate their perverse non-WASP lifestyle by placing their kids in nice normal schools and orphanariums.  For their own good, you understand.

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
[ Parent ]

Hmmmm by GRiNGO (2.50 / 2) #25 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 01:32:40 AM EST
I am not arguing against minorities. I'm not saying that being brought up in a minority household (eg muslims in a white society) is wrong.

I'm simply saying that being gay isn't normal, and while it might be accepted or tolerated it should not be promoted as normal or fashionable to young, impressionable kids. Its just simply wrong to bring a kid up in that environment.

If everyone was muslim/native american or whatever example you want to quote - there would be no effect on the ability of the human race to persist. But if everyone was gay....


- - -
"I send you to Baghdad a long time. Do they care, buddy?" - Three Kings.

[ Parent ]

"being gay isn't normal" by Rogerborg (5.52 / 17) #35 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 02:23:48 AM EST
Neither is being a Muslim.  It's statistically unusual.  Whether it's wrong or not is a different matter.

What precisely is wrong with raising children in a gay household?  The only original argument that I can see you made was that they are more likely to turn out gay, and that's wrong.

But why is that wrong?  Because, you see, you said that you've got nothing against gay people as such.  So, what's the problem?  You just don't want any more of them?  Or is being gay actually wrong?  Or is it just wrong to become gay?  Is there some inflection point where the wrongness happens?  Does a child go from straight and right to gay and wrong overnight?

But, see, now you've gone and made an actual argument, i.e. the survival of the species.  That opens a whole new front.

We'll ignore the slippery slope, and allow a world where everyone is gay.  Further, we'll extend that to monogamous gay relationships and remove bisexuality, to save you the trouble of specifying that.  So, what follows?  There would be no recreational homosexual sex.  I'll grant you that.

We'd have no more children, right?

So, if all gay people don't want children, then what exactly are you objecting to in your original argument?  We don't need to protect kids from being raising by them if they don't want any.  

If they do want children, what's stopping them using turkey basters or good old fashioned procreational sex?  You know, just like they already do?

If you can argue out all of the above without resorting to saying that being gay is just wrong, then you win a gold star.

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
[ Parent ]

You are teh gay? by Dr H0ffm4n (6.00 / 1) #44 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 03:47:12 AM EST


[ Parent ]

I am not teh gay by Rogerborg (6.00 / 2) #49 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 04:29:59 AM EST
But I sometimes play one online.

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
[ Parent ]

Oh Dear Oh Dear by GRiNGO (4.00 / 1) #46 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 03:52:50 AM EST
"Neither is being a Muslim.  It's statistically unusual."
Really? I thought Islam was the worlds second largest religion, with something like 1.3 billion Muslims.

"What precisely is wrong with raising children in a gay household?"
As I've already said, for one the poor kid would be subject to hellish taunts. Once the kid gets to school, that which he believes to have been normal will be picked upon relentlessly, making him feel very uncomfortable with the world around him. Would you like to have been raised by two gay men? Or perhaps you were? Also, it promotes homosexuality as a normal proper thing, which, of course, it isn't.

"But why is that wrong?"
Are you saying being gay is right? This is certainly the impression that I imagine kids would get from being raised in such an environment.

As for the rest of your argument, do you think that even deserves an answer?

- - -
"I send you to Baghdad a long time. Do they care, buddy?" - Three Kings.

[ Parent ]

heh by infinitera (4.83 / 6) #47 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 04:12:48 AM EST
You seem to have this belief that heterosexual families are all rosy and healthy, and provide good role models. Nobody's perfect, certainly not because they become parents. ;) Now, sure, the kids in a homosexual family would be somewhat ostracized; but so would kids from an immigrant family, or kids from an impoverish family, etc. This form of argument is perfect for claiming that only white middle class upbringings are normative, and that everything else is cruel. Do you really want to do that?

As for homosexuality being abnormal, on what basis it is so? Have you got the hotline to God open, and enough pull to make it law?

if you weren't such a self-righteous asshole, I wouldn't be so rude to you - nathan
[ Parent ]

Fair enough by Rogerborg (5.66 / 6) #48 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 04:22:07 AM EST
On the first point anyway.  I meant, but didn't say, unusual within the cultures that we're discussing.  I should have stuck to Native Americans, it's a better example anyway.

>>"What precisely is wrong with raising children in a gay household?"
>As I've already said, for one the poor kid would be subject to hellish taunts.

Argumentum ad baculum by proxy, nice.  This hellish tauting would be in contrast to the nice polite taunting that kids already endure for being rich, poor, fat, skinny, short, tall, spotty, Muslim Native American, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, clever, dumb, nerdy, advocates of an unpopular religion or political system or the wrong sports team or musician, or for that matter being taunted after being raised straight but out and gay by choice?  Seems to me like the taunting is a separate problem which can be addressed (or not) in isolation.

>Also, it promotes homosexuality as a normal proper thing, which, of course, it isn't.

You're mixing terms again.  Normal is statistical.  Proper is a value judgement.  They are not the same argument.  I won't dispute the former, because I've already explained that "not normal" is an anti-minority argument, not an anti-gay one per se.  "Proper" is simple assertion, and begging the question again.  You've yet to explain why being gay is not "proper", or why that would be so bad anyway.

>>"But why is that wrong?"
>Are you saying being gay is right?

Are you saying that everything is either right or wrong?  Even if we define right and wrong in pragmatic terms as behaviour to be discouraged / behaviour to be encouraged, I can see a middle ground of none of our business.  I'd put gay dads in there.  If you insist on duality, then I'm happy to say that being gay is right (which I'll define as the absence of wrongness), because you've yet to make or support the argument that it's wrong.

And yes, I think that the rest of my argument deserves an answer.  You asked the question in the first place.

Let's recap your arguments as I now understand them.

  • Homosexuality isn't proper, because it just isn't.
  • Raising a child in a gay household is wrong because the child will be taunted (but implicitely, none of the other factors that can lead to taunting that I listed are grounds for separating child from parent).
  • If we allow any children to be raised in gay households, the human race will become extinct.

Fair enough?

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
[ Parent ]

Let me summarise by GRiNGO (3.00 / 0) #58 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 06:58:06 AM EST

  • Firstly, I dont hate gays. I dont hate anyone just because they are different than me in one way or another, or because they belong to any race, creed, religion, school of thought... whatever. Why would I be afraid to come out and say it, its not like theres a bunch of them on here that I'm afraid are going to track me down and give me one up the arse or something.

  • Homosexuality isn't wrong, per se, but it shouldnt be encouraged as normal.

  • Raising kids in a gay family situation is wrong, for all the reasons that I've already stated.

Now, I know you're going to do your usual stunt here and try and refute my opinions by somehow relating them to one of the categories on that URL you gave me earlier. But you're forgetting something, they are opinions and as such they can't be wrong. The reason I posted the diary was to see how other people felt about the subject. I wasn't going to try and change peoples opinions I just wanted to hear them.

Never realised it would upset everyone enough for them to resort to dishing out 1's and calling me names. How pathetic. These people need to get out more - and I'm not referring to you, you actually had some interesting things to say - yes that means you garlic.

- - -
"I send you to Baghdad a long time. Do they care, buddy?" - Three Kings.

[ Parent ]

um.. by infinitera (4.33 / 3) #60 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 07:09:44 AM EST
Homosexuality isn't wrong, per se, but it shouldnt be encouraged as normal.

Why not?

Also, your reasons for not wanting children raised by gay families are non-starters, except as they depend on the above statement of abnormality. So again, why? Kids don't grow up gay because their parents are gay. That's just a fact. They do usually grow up disagreeing with you about the abnormality of homosexuality, however. You still haven't answered that question, except to state that it is your opinion - that homosexuality is abnormal.

if you weren't such a self-righteous asshole, I wouldn't be so rude to you - nathan
[ Parent ]

Can I draw your attention by Rogerborg (3.00 / 0) #61 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 08:00:50 AM EST
To the title of your diary: "Why Gay Marriage is Wrong".

There's an implicit promise there that you're going to explain or argue that as a proposition.  What you've done, again and again, is just to assert it.  Your arguments flow from it, not lead to it.  It's wrong, therefore it shouldn't be encouraged.  Kids raised by gay parents will be taunted because it's wrong.

Let's cut to that last scene.

  • Mean kid: Ha ha, your parents are teh gay.
  • Kid with gay parents: So?
  • Mean kid: Uhhhhh....

What's the next line?  Can you help him out?

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
[ Parent ]

What's the difference? by garlic (3.00 / 1) #62 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 08:45:29 AM EST
So, what's the obvious difference between a troll diary, and a diary by someone who really believes what they write? Nothing.

Is there a difference in how we should treat a troll diary, and one by someone who really believes what they write? no.


[ Parent ]

sincerity.. by infinitera (4.33 / 3) #64 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 09:35:09 AM EST
And a desire to communicate rather than rile up for amusement's sake.

if you weren't such a self-righteous asshole, I wouldn't be so rude to you - nathan
[ Parent ]

nope. by garlic (3.50 / 2) #65 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 09:52:46 AM EST
You can't tell a good troll from a sincere post. And there's no real communication in a troll or a diary like this one, or Mark's diary about why we should no longer use bits in programming. The poster continues to say the same thing over and over again, never really changing their tune.


[ Parent ]

Wrong by spiralx (6.00 / 1) #72 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 11:51:23 PM EST
You can't tell a good troll from a sincere post.

Actually, you can't tell a bad troll from a sincere post. A good troll should always have some kind of giveaway that marks it as a troll to the clueful... success is measured in how over the top it can be while still attracting biters.


[ Parent ]

Not trolls, you insensitive clod! by ENOENT (4.50 / 2) #36 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 02:34:46 AM EST
Troll-Americans!

(Even for those trolls who live elsewhere.)

Life is just one damned thing after another.
Love is just two damned things after each other.


[ Parent ]

Write-in vote: by komet (5.00 / 4) #9 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 12:47:43 AM EST
no, neither heterosexual nor homosexual marriage should be allowed. Legislature should stay the hell out of people's personal relationships.

--
<ni> komet: You are functionally illiterate as regards trashy erotica.


Evidence by Herring (5.20 / 5) #10 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 12:47:56 AM EST
As documented by Edgar Rice Burrows, the young Lord Greystoke was brought up by apes. Did he then go on to become an ape? No.

Personally, I would have no problem if my son turned out to be gay. I am useless at interior decorating and somebody really needs to do it.

Deep Blue/In ’97 I voted for you/As Sports Personality of the Year


Strange point by GRiNGO (3.50 / 2) #12 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 12:52:37 AM EST
Is it physically possible for someone to become an ape? No.

I have heard storied of kids being brought up by animals for a number of eyars, the result being that they do in fact run around on all fours and grunt or whatever.

Im not saying that people shouldnt become gay or what gays should be burnt at the stake, just that gayness should be promoted as normal or fashionable. I dont think this is an unreasonable idea, do you?

- - -
"I send you to Baghdad a long time. Do they care, buddy?" - Three Kings.

[ Parent ]

Even more relevantly by DesiredUsername (4.50 / 2) #14 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 01:03:22 AM EST
Every single gay person in the world was born to heterosexual parents.

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
[ Parent ]

Incorrect by creo (4.66 / 3) #15 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 01:06:42 AM EST
I was going to say that every gay person was born to a parent who engaged in a heterosexual act, but even that could be incorrect.

Ever heard of a turky baster? They are good for more than baking ya know :-)

Cheers
Creo.

"I shall do what I believe to be right and honourable" - Guderian
[ Parent ]

Well by DesiredUsername (3.00 / 1) #21 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 01:17:28 AM EST
By "parents" I meant "genetic donors". Obviously not every gay person was raised in a straight household. Though I bet the majority were.

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
[ Parent ]

Im not sure I see your point by GRiNGO (3.00 / 0) #22 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 01:25:22 AM EST
But I'm sure you do have one, unlike most of the other comments here.

Are you saying that, althought being raised in a straight household, that X amount of people turned out to be gay? Well, sure...that happens, but most people raised in this matter did not turn out to be gay.

If we reverse this, and allow kids to be brought up in a gay household then, of course, some will turn out to be straight. But most will be gay.

You can apply the same argument to many other nurture/enviroment related issues, such as religion, beliefs, etc.

- - -
"I send you to Baghdad a long time. Do they care, buddy?" - Three Kings.

[ Parent ]

I didn't have a point by DesiredUsername (3.00 / 1) #31 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 02:03:30 AM EST
I was just supplying a better example than "Tarzan".

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
[ Parent ]

You're a dolt by ad hoc (4.66 / 6) #34 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 02:17:10 AM EST
If we reverse this, and allow kids to be brought up in a gay household then, of course, some will turn out to be straight. But most will be gay.

The evidence shows exactly the opposite. The difference between kids raised in those two types of households is exactly nil. Except those raised in straight households are much more likely to be more parochial and more likely to quote "statistics" out of the asses.

FYI, kids are being brought up in gay households all over the country. Even in Texas.

Do a little research before spouting off and showing just what a know-nothing doof you are.
--
"ad hoc is totally right" -- Rogerborg
[ Parent ]

That's a crock of shit by ucblockhead (6.00 / 1) #54 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 05:11:55 AM EST
Lots of kids are being brought up in gay families. Look at the pictures of the wedding line in SF. Note all the baby carriages.

I had a good high school friend who had a gay mother. He apparently did get his sexuality from her as he only wanted to fuck women.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]

This is verifiably wrong by jacob (6.00 / 2) #66 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 11:17:36 AM EST
See:

Lesbian & Gay Parenting: Questions & Answers

The Gay Parent: Challenging the Myths

American Psychological Association: Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality

What Science Knows About Homosexual Parents and Their Kids

And if you've got access to a research library, look up:

Bailey, J. Michael. Sexual Orientation of Adult Sons of Gay Fathers. Developmental Psychology. 1995, Vol. 31, No. 1, 124-129

Golombok, Susan. Do Parents Influence the Sexual Orientation of Their Children?  Findings From a Longitudinal Study of Lesbian Families. Developmental Psychology. 1996, Vol. 32, No. 1, 3-11

That's what I found on the subject in about 15 minutes.

--

[ Parent ]

Aaah by creo (4.00 / 2) #26 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 01:33:51 AM EST
I see - your point about the straight households is well taken.

It would be interesting to know the percentage of people who consider themselves gay were raised in so called straight families to the percentage that were raised in so called gay families.

If you know what I mean.

This will of course change over the coming decades as it becomes more common for same sex family units.

I have often wondered what determines someones sexual orientation. I know of gay people who grew up in the most normally "straight" households who are rampaging queens, yet the only openly gay couple that I know that has been responsible for bringing up a child have a happily married daughter.

My own view is that a parent is a parent is a parent. The child of a same sex couple will probably treat it as more "normal" than the child of a hetero couple. Just because Johnny is brought up by a pair of men does not mean that when Johnny turns 14 he is going to try and whack one up Freddies bunghole. Actually what I probably mean is that he is not statistically more likely to whack one up Freddies bunghole.

I suppose this puts me in the sexual orientation == genetics based camp.

One thing that being more open about homosexual relationships will do is initially "increase" the number of homosexual realtionships. this is simply because more people will live as they feel, instead of living a lie.

well, I dribbled on a lot more than expected there...

Cheers
Creo.

"I shall do what I believe to be right and honourable" - Guderian
[ Parent ]

not necessarily genetics by tps12 (4.00 / 1) #28 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 01:54:56 AM EST
There's some theories that events in the womb affect sexuality as well.

[ Parent ]

I don't suppose the womb is a very eventful place by GoStone (5.00 / 3) #38 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 02:41:09 AM EST
perhaps babies go gay out of boredom.


[ Parent ]

Being a friend of Dorothy is nurture, not nature by Rogerborg (3.00 / 1) #32 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 02:03:54 AM EST
Gay gene not found, quite some time ago.  Jokes about it being the pink one may now cease.

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
[ Parent ]

Genetic donors by ad hoc (6.00 / 1) #33 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 02:07:51 AM EST
That's not strictly correct either (e.g. Melissa Ethridge). But it's closer to truth than not. However in those cases where a lesbian gives birth to a baby fathered by a gay man (by whatever "donation" method) is no more likely to be gay that a child born from any other, erm, combination...
--
"ad hoc is totally right" -- Rogerborg
[ Parent ]

Melissa Ethridge by DesiredUsername (3.00 / 0) #39 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 02:45:53 AM EST
What did she do, cloning?

I don't think that gay man + lesbian = heterosexual child proves anything. Even if it was genetically determined (and I don't know what the current thinking on that is) would it necessarily be the same genes for men and women?

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
[ Parent ]

Maybe I lost the train of flames by ad hoc (3.00 / 0) #40 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 02:56:46 AM EST
At some point, there was a statement about all gays being spawned from hetero parents. The reply to that was "is not". The reply to that was "is too". Then there was something about "genetic material" from hetero people. Anyway, my point was Melissa Etheridge (lesbian mother) and David Crosby (straight drug addled father) who supplied the genetic material (via a "clean room" I hope).

Anyway, I'm lost and confused. I resign.
--
"ad hoc is totally right" -- Rogerborg
[ Parent ]

Oh right by DesiredUsername (3.00 / 0) #41 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 03:06:16 AM EST
WTF was I thinking? I probably wasn't.

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
[ Parent ]

don't back down so quickly by tps12 (5.50 / 2) #56 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 06:03:42 AM EST
He still hasn't addressed the Melissa Etheridge clone army which even now grows stronger by the day.

[ Parent ]

Lesbians don't get raped? [n/t] by Rogerborg (3.00 / 1) #30 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 02:01:02 AM EST


-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
[ Parent ]

No, they don't by Herring (3.00 / 0) #67 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 07:32:01 PM EST
It's fucking hard to rape a woman in dungarees. Go for the little tarts in short skirts - then if you're caught, you can always, quite rightly, claim they were asking for it.

Deep Blue/In ’97 I voted for you/As Sports Personality of the Year
[ Parent ]

You're thinking of feminists, not lesbians by Rogerborg (3.00 / 0) #68 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 08:13:08 PM EST
Sure, all feminists are fat ugly bull dykes, but not all lesbians are feminists.  For example, there's, uh, that chick from Brookside.  Who, now that I think about it, is fictional.

I retract my original comment.

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
[ Parent ]

Hmm ... Anna Freil in hot GoG action ... [n/t] by Herring (3.00 / 0) #69 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 08:23:19 PM EST


Deep Blue/In ’97 I voted for you/As Sports Personality of the Year
[ Parent ]

Yeah, 3's got her pimping their products now by Rogerborg (3.00 / 0) #70 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 08:25:25 PM EST
Nekkid, for some reason.  Actually, we know the reason, but I'd sure like to hear the advertiso-blurb behind it.  It probably symbolises dolphins or unicorns on rainbows or something.

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
[ Parent ]

Not true... by ucblockhead (3.00 / 0) #53 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 05:08:56 AM EST
It was very common in the sixties for "good girls" to marry immediately because "that's how it is done" and only figure out that they were gay after engaging in lots of heterosexual sex and popping a few kids out. The mother of one of my closest high school friends was like this, as is the SO of a woman I've known since college.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]

Since I don't have to be polite by jacob (5.66 / 3) #13 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 12:58:45 AM EST
at this hour of the morning, I will refrain from pointing out that your argument is perfectly circular and one of those stances that you'd never take except as a way of rationalizing something you believe for no logical reason at all, and instead just call you insulting names. Retard.

--



Perfectly circular huh? by GRiNGO (1.80 / 5) #20 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 01:16:02 AM EST
Well thats good, at least I won't get stuck in a fucking corner now, will I?

You're just another one of these annoying idiots who likes to pretend that they're better than the rest of us, by criticising someone and/or they're opinion but without actually conveying their own viewpoint on a subject.

If you're going to get on like that, may I suggest that a better place for you to be, at this hour of the morning, might be yahoo chat. I think they have a bunch of teen rooms where you'd fit right in. Check it out:

http://chat.yahoo.com

You'll have to register a Yahoo ID first though. Can you handle that?

- - -
"I send you to Baghdad a long time. Do they care, buddy?" - Three Kings.

[ Parent ]

Heh, you're funny by Rogerborg (5.60 / 5) #29 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 01:58:49 AM EST
"Gay Marriages? The thought of allowing gay couples to raise children?"

See:
Diversion [the issues are not related].
Strawman [raise one issue, attack another].
Many questions [two issues, one poll].

"I don't have anything against gay people as such, but it IS a perversion of sorts."

See:
Subjectivism [it is because you say it is].
Shifting the burden of proof [it IS so shifting it]
Emotive language / argument from intimidation [because only immoral people support perversion, right?].

"I mean what is marriage anyway? The legal uniion of man and wife, usually for the purposes of becoming a family."

See:
Appeal to tradition [always has been, always will be].
Begging the question/circular argument [starting from a presupposition that denies any alternative].

You can find more here if you're interested in debate.  Unless you want to avoid sanctioning the devil, that is.

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
[ Parent ]

a rebuttal by jacob (6.00 / 2) #43 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 03:45:12 AM EST
yuo == teh dum!

More seriously.

Your arguments specifically are based on the common theme that since gay marriage is not allowed and has not been allowed, it therefore follows that it should not be allowed. This is one very common anti-gay marriage argument that has the disadvantage of being nonsense. Even the more popular "Jesus told me so" is a better argument since at least it doesn't rely on itself for justification. The other popular argument, that heterosexual marriage is the cornerstone of society, is a strawman argument; nobody says it's not, but heterosexual marriage is irrelevant to homosexual marriage. Nobody wants to stop you or me from having heterosexual relationships, and the evidence does not suggest that if homosexual marriage were legal the we'd all stop doing chicks.

Of course there is no reason to change the status quo, though, if there aren't any additional positive reasons to allow gay marriage. There are many:

  1. Allowing gay people to marry gives them a way to make permanent commitments to each other, something that they cannot have today. Yes, they can have commitment ceremonies and so on, but a real marriage is the commitment gold standard. The homosexual community, particularly the gay male community, suffers greatly because of this (in my opinion). If society tells you it's illegal for you to commit your love for another person, it's easy to see why you might decide not to suffer to do it anyway. If there's no relationship milestone to achieve (silly peoples' arguments to the contrary, gay people can't just cross their eyes and turn straight on command), what's the alternative but to live in the vacuous unlovingly sexual world of casual encounters forever?
  2. Marriage confers many legal advantages that it is cruel not to confer to committed loving people regardless of their gender. A 70-year-old gay man cannot enjoy the family visitation privilege to see his dying partner of 50 years in the hospital simply because he is gay. That callousness is as cruel as a society's policies can muster to free citizens. It is difficult for me to see it as anything other than bigoted hatred.
  3. Allowing gay marriage would put a stop to the unfortunate legal practice of homosexuals of opposite sex legally marrying each other so they can enjoy various benefits unrelated to their love lives. It's currently the only way for homosexuals to enjoy some of the legal benefits of marriage; current law actively encourages loveless sham marriages for homosexuals.

Essentially, current rules regulating homosexuals are based on the principle that I'm uncomfortable dealing with people who want to live in ways I don't, so if I just don't acknowledge they exist they'll go away. It makes it easier for some straight people to sleep at night but has devastating, completely unnecessary effects on gay people and gay culture. Like we did in the late '60's with interracial marriage, our culture needs to acknowledge now that the government has no right to tell two adults that they cannot be in love.

--

[ Parent ]

Write in by The New Age of Peace and Enlightenment (4.00 / 2) #19 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 01:12:25 AM EST
We have already commented on this subject.
The way to bring about the new age of peace and enlightenment is to assume that it has already started.


several good and argumentative threads.. by infinitera (5.00 / 2) #42 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 03:10:51 AM EST
Can be found in an old k5 diary.

if you weren't such a self-righteous asshole, I wouldn't be so rude to you - nathan


in specific by infinitera (4.50 / 4) #45 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 03:48:16 AM EST


if you weren't such a self-righteous asshole, I wouldn't be so rude to you - nathan
[ Parent ]

You? A self-righteous bigot? by MohammedNiyalSayeed (3.00 / 0) #57 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 06:39:33 AM EST

Who'd a thunk it?

Now, remember, click the "spellcheck text" box before you submit your reply. Then have a coworker read it over a couple of times, just to make sure. You don't want to come across looking like the angry retard you did in our last exchange.

eg: "winging"


-
You can build the most elegant fountain in the world, but eventually a winged rat will be using it as a drinking bowl.


How sad by GRiNGO (3.00 / 0) #59 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 07:02:17 AM EST
To try and make yourself out to be right by pointing out stupid spelling mistakes and grammer errors in the other persons post. I think quickly, I type quickly - I've no need to re-read my post for spelling mistakes because if you can't understand it then you're the retard.

- - -
"I send you to Baghdad a long time. Do they care, buddy?" - Three Kings.

[ Parent ]

Very good! Very good! by MohammedNiyalSayeed (3.00 / 0) #63 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 09:28:11 AM EST

I see you did as I suggested!

Still, the content is "no, I'm not retarded, YOU'RE retarded", which comes across as insipid, thusly, we add "insipid" to the list of adjectives which describe you. So, what do we have so far? Self-righteous, bigoted, homophobic, retarded, insipid... Hrmm, what am I leaving out? Oh yeah; WRONG.

Congratulations on being all of those things. You still want to go? I've been doing this since you were a glimmer in some drunken RUC-man's third eye, as he hoped to get that barmaid just drunk enough that Saturday night.

In ten out of ten ad hominem battles, I shall lay you to waste. You might want to learn when to give up.


-
You can build the most elegant fountain in the world, but eventually a winged rat will be using it as a drinking bowl.
[ Parent ]

Even Beethoven has his critics. by GRiNGO (3.00 / 0) #71 Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 11:11:26 PM EST
See if you can name three of them. Thats right, ya can't.

Ad hominem battles? RUC Mens eyes? You must really get a thrill out of this eh? Battles?. Ohhhhhhh.

Why don't you go fuck yourself with the rough end of a pineapple?

- - -
"I send you to Baghdad a long time. Do they care, buddy?" - Three Kings.

[ Parent ]

Dude, if that's the best you can do... by MohammedNiyalSayeed (3.00 / 0) #73 Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 01:38:27 AM EST

I'm not even gonna bother.

I will, however, add on to my original wish that you get lung cancer from vehicular emissions as follows; I also hope that, upon your death bed, you come to terms with your own repressed homosexuality. What that uncle did to you when you were three isn't your fault. And it's ok that you liked it. Embrace yourself, because no one else is going to. I mean, except me, of course. Because I LOVE YOU, GRiNGO! LOVE LOVE LOVE! Next batter to the plate, please...


-
You can build the most elegant fountain in the world, but eventually a winged rat will be using it as a drinking bowl.
[ Parent ]

Why Gay Marriage is Wrong | 71 comments (71 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback

Powered by Scoop  
 
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments and Stories are owned by the Poster and Licensed to "Hulver's site". See our Copyright page for more information.
faq | help | accounts