Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage

Status
Not open for further replies.
True but rare just has connotations that it's an aberration, so that's more how I read it than what was said.

My main point was more yes there is a biological factor of course, we're all born with predispositions and some genetic markers which are more likely to activate in our development. But that the species homosexuality is observed in (humans included, we are animals too if you strip everything away) have much stronger bonds with their mates and others of their species. That it's more than an instinctive impulse. Love is far from something black and white.
 
I'm sorry if it came out like this, not intended. But yes, a species which engages in homosexuality is quite often noted for the bonds it can form. Especially in humans, for whom the concept of love is different and has way more meaning than most animals.
 
crystal_pidgeot said:
For the first part, I was basically saying some parents might want to keep certain traits in the family (drawing, music,etc). This is no different than a parent forcing a child into music or beauty pageant, like others in life may choose a different path in life.

The second part, there is a gene associated with homosexuality. Its called the Xq28 gene. If one day our understanding of gene splicing and manipulation is at a safe level (like 95% safety rate), then the parents will have every right to have that gene removed or if it stays. The reason the gene stays around is because nature rather keep it.
Click to expand...

Again, why do you say that freedom is good in humans but then you give way too much power to parents to indeed act like masters of a forced child?
Keeping traits in the family? That's like monarchies applied to genes and science!! Also, what credit there is to a child that is good at what it does because it was build to be that way?
It gets worse when you apply this to that gene you've mentioned. Parents have every right to have the gene removed? There's sexual freedom!!
 
Leaf_Ranger said:
Again, why do you say that freedom is good in humans but then you give way too much power to parents to indeed act like masters of a forced child?
Keeping traits in the family? That's like monarchies applied to genes and science!! Also, what credit there is to a child that is good at what it does because it was build to be that way?
It gets worse when you apply this to that gene you've mentioned. Parents have every right to have the gene removed? There's sexual freedom!!
Click to expand...

Families keep a lot of things in the family, sometimes even forced to keep it going, like a family business. The child is more or less required to keep it going even if they dont want to. Children are well, I dont want to say forced but they often have to do things in early life. They dont have many options of school, places they live etc and all that stuff is decided. Traits can work this way as well and as for the gay gene, like I said before, the parents can have it removed if they want.
 
crystal_pidgeot said:
Traits can work this way as well and as for the gay gene, like I said before, the parents can have it removed if they want.
Click to expand...

While hypothetical, it still an unconscionable act.

That and human beings are more than just the sum of our parts, there's no accounting for taste on a genetic level.
 
Just because families keep a lot of things in the family doesn't mean parents should have a say in a child's genetic traits. Sure, I'm all for removing deformities or negative mutations, but there are already enough things forced on children. And even so, they can choose. There are many cases of children who never truly liked and quickly stopped caring about the family business, or the piano lessons they were sent, or the football training sessions they were supposed to do. They aren't "required" to do something; there are those children who will go with whatever their parents are saying, but you'll be surprised at how often parents don't get their way. And even if you force a child at an earlier age to do some things, your child can always later on throw all of that way when they grow up and start to think more freely. But deciding how they will look and act even before they are born is as much against freedom as slavery, because it's then that they truly have absolutely no choice. It's one thing to remove deformities and harmful mutations, but choosing sexual preferences and even talents and behavior?

We're wandering a bit too far from the topic at hand though.

@Blast Runner Could you please explain to us why you think the Supreme Court has made a wrong decision?
 
SCOTUS is meant to interpret existing laws and judge their constitutionality. Banning Gay Marriage is not constitutional. They haven't made any laws; they've simply said a state cannot deny a marriage between same sex couples. This shouldn't have had to been discussed, but, because it did they've made the only decision logically, morally, and rightfully possible. Like it, or realize you're a jerk and move elsewhere. #Lovewins
 
I get sick to my stomach knowing that there are people out there that would risk harming their child in an attempt to deter something entirely natural. Their job is to protect that child. My congratulations to Christian people who are not blinded by hate enough to read words in a book properly. #LoveWins
 
Ooh I talked with bb about this before and I did a bit of research into it. It turns out that the quote people always use (the one along the lines of "man shall not lie with man as he does woman") is actually in Leviticus, which is in the Old Testament. This is important because when Jesus came down to Earth, who is, let's not forget, God incarnate and thus his word is final, he actually disregarded the Old Testament, more specifically all of the random laws spread throughout there. This is why Christians ignore all of the things talked about in the links spread throughout this thread, like not shaving, going to church testicles or no testicles, and not eating bacon. This means that that quote in particular isn't even relevant any more.

Also during my research I found out two more interesting things:
1) The Bible has two gay couples in it -- Ruth x Naomi and David x Jonathan. I don't know a huge lot about them, but Ruth has her own chapters in The Bible somewhere, and David was a king. This proves that Christianity was always at the very least tolerant of gays, but I would go as far to say they advocate it...

2) There is a story in The Bible of Jesus meeting a roman soldier. This roman soldier was actually really nice, modest etc., and he talked to Jesus about one of his servants, saying that he was sick. Jesus questioned why the roman soldier cared for this servant -- after all, romans saw servants as disposable at the time. The soldier explained that he was in a relationship with this servant. Jesus then healed the servant and actually commended the roman for following his faith and beliefs despite it going against his "honour" as a roman soldier. Jesus literally praised a guy for being gay (and for approaching Jesus about his servant being sick). God, the whole point of Christianity, wants gays to follow their urges. If Christians want to be like Jesus, hating on gays is going against their faith. It's kinda funny, really.

I just found it interesting, so I thought I'd post it. n~n
 
Yeah, I mentioned that Christianity doesn't follow the Old Testament a few pages back. There are those that are fanatic enough to not give a damn about it and take everything the whole Bible says literally, but those who are willing aren't gonna get stuck with the savage laws of the old Jewish kingdom.
 
I think I mentioned it before, but it was never about the religion of any god, but about the hatred of man. "My religion says so" is just a lie people tell themselves to justify their own hatred and lust for power and above all, superiority.
 
crystal_pidgeot said:
Also don't forget that christians still quote the old testament. Example of this are the 10 commandments. Even the New testament and jesus still used scripture from the old testament.

http://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/NTChart.htm
http://www.redletterchristians.org/when-jesus-quoted-the-ot-and-why-it-matters/

Saying that Jesus came to do away with the old law is and has always been a very poor defense because christians still live by the old law, along side the new, just cherry picked.
Click to expand...
Jesus didn't disregard the whole old testament and I never claimed that he did. He picked some of the stupider and more random rules that it set out and did away with those. The 10 commandments, for example, were still very much a belief of Jesus'.
 
Celever said:
Jesus didn't disregard the whole old testament and I never claimed that he did. He picked some of the stupider and more random rules that it set out and did away with those. The 10 commandments, for example, were still very much a belief of Jesus'.
Click to expand...

Most christians who say Jesus came to abolish the law of the old testament and that its not supposed to followed. Was just posting that Jesus did in fact quote and use law from the old testament. Remember that the 10 commandments was God's law, which Jesus supposed got rid of.

I don't like cherry picking so I rather there be some consistency.
 
Equinox said:
My question to you though, is what makes a straight couple better?
Click to expand...
Celever said:
But what makes a straight couple better for the child? That was the original question and you haven't given an answer.
Click to expand...

Sorry for late response folks, I can already see the thread has evolved to something else now but this is my last question maybe two. Lets just say there is no difference. But with that in mind, If you can give a baby someone to call Mother and Father would you instead give them two Mothers or two Fathers? Now I want you to look from a neutral point when answering this question.

Also I just wanted to know the answer to a second question. How does the child call each of their two Mother or fathers? I would like to know the answer to this not to make any point to support any of my points, just wanted to know this.
crystal_pidgeot said:
Why prevent a couple from adopting a child because you rather adopt to a straight couple?
Click to expand...

Same here, with the job point you made, I wouldn't look at if they are straight or not just best person for it.

Although science is good, with science there will always be risks even if minimal or even smaller than that. You just need to look at the paper that comes within your medicine packaging or on it. There is always side effects listed even with some of the more widely used medicines, some of these are age old medicine. It most likely won't happen but it could happen, and that is why they have to list it there.

The answer to your question quoted above, is followed up with my question to the others above not the second one. The thing about the study, Like I said in reply to an earlier comment, if you can tell me someone you know, who has been raised by two father or two mothers with no drawbacks include outside factors because they or their parents are gay, then it's okay with me. Then my only point is the question I posed at the top again.

I'll let you folks continue with the thread although its gone towards other topics from some of my and @crystal_pidgeot point. I'll still follow it. I only used the quotes here so you get an alert when I write the comment, otherwise it just would've been with '@ followed by your name'. I would like to repeat again the regret with my first comment on the thread.
 
HA559 said:
Sorry for late response folks, I can already see the thread has evolved to something else now but this is my last question maybe two. Lets just say there is no difference. But with that in mind, If you can give a baby someone to call Mother and Father would you instead give them two Mothers or two Fathers? Now I want you to look from a neutral point when answering this question.

Also I just wanted to know the answer to a second question. How does the child call each of their two Mother or fathers? I would like to know the answer to this not to make any point to support any of my points, just wanted to know this.
Click to expand...
I would give the baby whatever couple was most ready to raise a child. Gender wouldn't sway my position at all.

What do you mean? You can pluralise "mummy" and "daddy" you know.
 
@ HA559

I am being neutral about this. When a child goes into the system, its normally because of two reason, The first one is abuse from the parents (hetero in just about all cases) or second, the parents did not want them anymore (still hetero). Another likely reason would be the parents are unfit to be parent. I bring this up to show male and female parents aren't always the best for the child, even though its what people consider normal. I feel you should know a lot of children in America grow up without any parent figures at all and a lot of children in the system dont ever adopt out and grow to adulthood without being in a nice home.

What I say is from the perspective of the child. I'm not sure if you watched the first Despicable Me movie but the 3 sisters wanted to be adopted to a "nice" home. Most children in the adoption agency want to be adopted (something most of us here never endured). They already feel as if they aren't wanted and as they grow older, this just reaffirms their feelings and start to question why they aren't wanted or may even blame themselves for the situation they are in, even though they did nothing wrong.

Now place yourself in that child shoes when you found out you weren't adopted because they did not want to adopt you to a homosexual couple, that you were denied a home (a decent or good home, with all the paperwork approved) because the couple was gay. How would you feel here? Most heterosexual couples can have their own children, so they dont adopt.

As for your next point, we use science because its proven to work. There are downsides, yes but the benefits are almost always worth the risk. Nothing in life is risk free, natural or not. We do studies to try to destroy and misinformation, superstition or bias against something since the research is normally based on real people or factors because educating people is the best way to stop this. If people don't want to accept this, after seeing the research (peer reviewed) then that person is being dishonest and is not worth talking to.
 
HA559 said:
Sorry for late response folks, I can already see the thread has evolved to something else now but this is my last question maybe two. Lets just say there is no difference. But with that in mind, If you can give a baby someone to call Mother and Father would you instead give them two Mothers or two Fathers? Now I want you to look from a neutral point when answering this question.

Also I just wanted to know the answer to a second question. How does the child call each of their two Mother or fathers? I would like to know the answer to this not to make any point to support any of my points, just wanted to know this.
Click to expand...

The first question isn't asked from a neutral point of view, so it can't be answered that way at all. Its bias is already present in the question itself, turning it into "why would you give a baby to a gay couple if you have straight couples to choose from?", which is already your stated position.

What you are arguing for is a hierarchy; that in an adoption, a straight couple is more entitled to the a child than a gay couple of equal conditions (bar their heterosexual status) because that's the way it is, or at least, I haven't heard any other argument beyond "if you know a child who was raised by gays and turned out alright, tell me", which I believe I already addressed before, and if that wasn't strong enough for you, I'm sure there are plenty of children of gay couples who are perfectly pleasant (and even straight).

The thing is, that was the same argument that was used to advocate for "only straight" marriage, which has been ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court. So, the root of your position, assuming you don't consider the question from a (valid, but not applicable here) religious standpoint, was brought down by the court's ruling; the same argument that "equality applies to marriage and not respecting that equality is against the constitution" also applies to adoption in this case.

As for the second, it would be their names when referring to them to third parties, or simply "mom" and "mom"; it's not complicated, really, and semantics should never be cause enough to shape your views.
What was the purpose of the question, then? to establish that calling gay parents is slightly more inconvenient than calling straight parents? yes it is. As you said, no case for or against anything can be made from this.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top