Is the Gay Marriage Debate Missing the Point?
Erik Zimerman
2012/07/03 02:58:39
|
|
|||||
|
8 votes
|
|
47% | |||
|
4 votes
|
|
24% | |||
|
5 votes
|
|
29% | |||
Being Gay is already LEGAL in the Western World. Besides that, being gay is not the same as being part of a race or ethnicity as it is is a lifestyle choice that by definition includes a moral choice. What is all this hoopla about equal rights?
The media has spun this out of control whereby opponents of gay marriage bills are forced to defend "being gay should be illegal" positions. The truth is that being gay and gay marriage is legal in all states. The left and activist gay community is after a government seal of approval over their lifestyle choice that will legally end the fact that their lifestyle choice, though legal, is not the accepted social norm, and not the ideal way to raise a family.
Read More
The media has spun this out of control whereby opponents of gay marriage bills are forced to defend "being gay should be illegal" positions. The truth is that being gay and gay marriage is legal in all states. The left and activist gay community is after a government seal of approval over their lifestyle choice that will legally end the fact that their lifestyle choice, though legal, is not the accepted social norm, and not the ideal way to raise a family.
Read More
Read More: http://www.the-lighthouse.net/mindless-hysteria-ov...
Your premise that being homosexual is a "lifestyle choice that by definition includes a moral choice" is a falacy being presented by the anti-homosexual religious and politcial opponents and it is a FALSE premise.
Of course it is a lifestyle choice, just as being a heterosexual is. And of course it is a moral choice, everything we do is foremost a choice of weather we want to do it or not, and secondly if we should do it eve though we want to (a moral choice). How is it not a lifestyle choice or a moral choice?
A human is at their core being either heterosexual or homosexual OR in some cases a person can be malable in their sexuality and be comfortable engaging in a relationship with both males and females - bi-sexual. In the case of those who are homosexual or heterosexual there really is no choice. In the case of the bi-sexual it is fully a choice of comfort and/or preference at the moment or for whatever period of time a person so choses.
The difference is the "core being" vs "lifestyle" amounts to a "hard wired" condition of the brain in both homosexuality and heterosexuality vs the choices of occupations, entertainment, associations, sports, particapation v observation, line dancing, bowling etc.
I'm sure you've heard the title of the TV Program, "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" in which they show the extremes of the enjoyments of their lifestyle.
http://www.the-lighthouse.net...
You have no understanding of what the US Constitution grants / protects. Your understanding of the concept of "civil marriage" is totally flawed since it is far in the past that its roots are written within one of the most well known and compete series of laws know as the Law Code of Hammurabi circa 1750BCE which predates the earliest known Biblical writings by over 500 years, AND from which almost word for word much of the Levitical Law Code derives its basic source.
Your misunderstanding of the civil law codes under which we live and your premise that "marriage" is a religious concept is fully and completely false.
I don't believe this. There was this kid in my school who seemed to be gay in grammar school and indeed, he did turn out to be gay as an adult. That tells me he was gay from before birth.
If you are straight, was there ever a question? Probably not! Could you convert? Probably not. I know I couldn't.
People want to control other people's lives. They want them to adhere to their standards even if it takes force. There are many examples of this. Someone who is gay just can't do that. They can force themselves into acceptable roles but they are likely to be an unhappy person and are likely to eventually revert to who they really are. In the process, they are likely to make someone else unhappy too. For instance, if a gay person marries a straight person, it is likely to be a rocky union, end in betrayals and divorce.
Believe it or not, someone who wants to rape people actually has a very strong natural urge to do so... they aren't just sitting around bored with nothing to do. Same with theft, and even murder. There is usually a huge amount of rage and of emotion and passion which overcomes the natural barriers to these acts (morality, consequences like prison?).
I am not comparing any of these acts to each other, but simply pointing out that in some sense, every activity man takes part of is "natural" in some way or else it would not exist. But just because there will be an urge to do something, and "unhappiness" if we don't do it is not in itself justification for an act. Morality tends to prohibit all sorts of acts which cause pleasure and enjoyment to those that would pursue it.
Is there a certain number of people who would be attracted to the same sex regardless of the culture and environment they grow up in? Maybe, but that is not very relevant. It certainly grows and grows if it is accepted ...
Believe it or not, someone who wants to rape people actually has a very strong natural urge to do so... they aren't just sitting around bored with nothing to do. Same with theft, and even murder. There is usually a huge amount of rage and of emotion and passion which overcomes the natural barriers to these acts (morality, consequences like prison?).
I am not comparing any of these acts to each other, but simply pointing out that in some sense, every activity man takes part of is "natural" in some way or else it would not exist. But just because there will be an urge to do something, and "unhappiness" if we don't do it is not in itself justification for an act. Morality tends to prohibit all sorts of acts which cause pleasure and enjoyment to those that would pursue it.
Is there a certain number of people who would be attracted to the same sex regardless of the culture and environment they grow up in? Maybe, but that is not very relevant. It certainly grows and grows if it is accepted by society and diminishes if it is not accepted by society. Take Orthodox Jews for example, the rate of homosexuality among them is many times smaller than the secular society at large. Are there genetics different in this respect? They also tend to be very "happy" as studies have shown.
Certainly culture is a giant factor here. For example, modern youth/college society holds that girls engaging in sexual acts together is attractive, and so there is quite a lot of it. The women's natural and genetic need to "make out" with another girl is of little relevance.
In any event, what I am arguing is that society cannot be refused to pass judgement because people have "no choice". This line of reasoning could extend to all things society judges. We are all a part of our genetics and environment, and in some philosophical way have "no choice" about anything that we do. But in day to day life, and under the law, this is irrelevant.
Also, I believe that there are 3 derivatives of homosexuality: inherent, early-influenced, and choice.
To anybody that has any predication to not want to see public displays of affection, it's your problem. That's no different than someone using free speech in a way that you disagree with. You have options other than telling someone they can't do something, and it being your problem, it's on you to absolve yourself from it (i.e. DON'T LOOK!)
Why is a two sex-two parent house hold the best way to raise a child? And isn't a two parent same-sex household better than a 1 or no parent household?
I suppose if you don't eat you won't be tall, regardless of your genes, you'll be dead at infant height.
A two parent same sex household is definitely not better than a 1 parent household, though that isn't the comparison I made, I made it between two 2 parent household (straight and same sex). As for "no parent household"... hmm you mean a child by himself in a house? Is there no money for food? For rent/mortgage so he is eventually evicted? What do you mean by the no parent household?
And yes, a same-sex household would be better than a 1 parent household. I was raised in the latter, and while I am incredibly proud of my mother for her ability to do so, that doesn't change the fact that there were many things I missed out on, and that my brother missed out on, and that my mother had to do, that we should not have. In a 2 parent same-sex household, there is at least two income providers, or one income provider and a stay at home parent.
Moreover, there are many psychological studies on same-sex and heterosexual households, and it is clear that there is no disadvantage between the two.
The following study, by the American Academy of Foal and Adolescent Psychology, shows that it is better than a 1 parent household, and the same as a 2 parent household, and has no effect on sexuality, gender roles or gender identity.
http://www.aacap.org/gallerie...foals_with_lesbian_gay_bisexu...
income itself is a measure by itself and has some correlation but not complete to how many parents are in a household. A single parent can make 10 times more than two parents, and vice versa. If you want to judge the income of a household to determine suitability for a child to be adopted (which is important I agree), then you simply measure income, not the number of parents.
I think the entire reason a two parent household is usually hailed as so important is because there is a father and a mother, and the values of family, not because there are simply two individuals. A single parent with enough income can hire a nanny/tutor that is superior in raising a child to what he himself or herself is. In fact you can hire multiple people or claim that then a 3 parent or 4 parent household is even better than a 2 parent house hold.
It is not a mere numbers game of income and "free time" of a parent to attend to their children (though both of these are important). There are priceless values and lessons which only a mother and a only a father respectivel...
income itself is a measure by itself and has some correlation but not complete to how many parents are in a household. A single parent can make 10 times more than two parents, and vice versa. If you want to judge the income of a household to determine suitability for a child to be adopted (which is important I agree), then you simply measure income, not the number of parents.
I think the entire reason a two parent household is usually hailed as so important is because there is a father and a mother, and the values of family, not because there are simply two individuals. A single parent with enough income can hire a nanny/tutor that is superior in raising a child to what he himself or herself is. In fact you can hire multiple people or claim that then a 3 parent or 4 parent household is even better than a 2 parent house hold.
It is not a mere numbers game of income and "free time" of a parent to attend to their children (though both of these are important). There are priceless values and lessons which only a mother and a only a father respectively can convey to their children.
I have not yet taken a look at your study you quote, but I assume it does not measure the things I am speaking about. Same sex households tend to be more affluent than average households, and this in itself will affect a lot of other statistics (like rates of criminality, etc).. so to compare them fairly you have to adjust for all the other socioeconomic variables. However, those are not the things I believe are wrong with a 2 parent same sex household... not that the child is more likely to be gay himself, not that he is more likely to end up poor or a criminal.
A two parent household is hailed as important because both parents being present (regardless of sex) cuts the stress of raising a foal by at least half.
It measured every single thing you brought up, and found all of them to be identical between parent styles.