You statement parallels the old fund it or ban it line of thinking. There are many cases where there is personal choice where the government should neither ban nor promote an activity. This is one of those areas.
Technically speaking it is plausible for two lesbians to rais a child with a male figure actively involved. That is if the are both married to the same man in a more ancient marital arrangement.
They currently have the right to form same gender unions. But they want to be recognized as married so they can tap into various bennefits that are afforded to married couples. They also want the government to endorse their life style and to push society to lower its collective morals to the point where they are considered normal.
The predominant opinion among gays is one that insists on the title. This has been discussed on other threads recently on CAF
– the fact that it is really not about equal access to couple “privileges,” (which many people who oppose the **title **nevertheless support), but about requiring recognition as morally normative on an equal plane with a heterosexual lifestyle. Having seen, read, heard the issues unfold over the last several years, I have to agree wtih the CAF posters who conclude that the insistence on “marriage” is in fact an attempt to seek public and religious legitimacy for sexual behavior.…and let’s pretend heterosexual couples don’t seek public and religious legitimacy for sexual behaviour…The predominant opinion among gays is one that insists on the title. This has been discussed on other threads recently on CAF
Whats the difference? What is your reasoning behind “Children need one parent with a penis and one parent without a penis?” Cos that’s what it comes down to in the end.
What stops them from getting that “fatherly” advice from a lesbian parent who provides a “father” figure? What is it about the fact that her physical body is female that prevents her from giving advice normally associated with males?
This has been bought up countless times. It’s the case of “Equal, but different” which has already been declared unlawful… I can’t remember the case behind it but there was a high profile legal battle behind it I seem to remember…
Woah woah there batman, society does not need to lower it’s morals in order to accept homosexualality. In fact if anything it needs to strengthen its morals - i.e. the moral of treating everyone equally. You may consider homosexuality immoral but that’s your personal view based on teachings from some outdated and quite frankly unreliable source. Don’t force those views on the rest of us, thank you. A forward-thinking person can see that homosexuality causes harm to nobody, therefore what’s wrong with it?
If not immoral would you consider homosexuality a sexual orientation dependent on heterosexuality therefore not of the same dignity?
Could you re-phrase that? Not sure I understand where you’re coming from…
Well no. I’m not saying that any particular people “must or must not” do something. I am saying a particular group of people “may do this if they wish”. Can you see the difference?
Can you define these “dynamics” and this “environemnt that forms us”, cos I am a little confused as how homosexuality might harm them.
No kidding you’re confused. And the quality of reasoning is just one of many areas in which you are confused. A second major department of confusion is biology. Biology matters, just as other aspects of nature, micro and macro, matter. Biology impacts society, and refusal to acknowledge the forces of nature, whether biological, climatological, or anything else, is a refusal to understand how formed we are by our biology, and why that’s important… Societies which do not respect biology do so at their own (and our) peril, which is why some of us also vehemently oppose irresponsible experimentation with various aspects of biology, such as genetics and more.
No, all I have had so far is explanations of why “social gender” is important. Not “Biological sex”. Let me repeat again: Biological sex and social gender are not one and the same thing and I am living proof that social gender is not hardwired to biological sex.
“Intersexed” and “Transgender” are invented. Because of the way the human develops in the womb, there are no true hermaphrodites in the human species. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Here’s what you don’t understand, Ashley. You are the exception, not the rule.
by John Heard
Thank you, CWBetts.
I am living proof that there is such thing as transexual people. As for intersex, what about people with XXY and XYY chromosomes? Hermaphrodies DO exist. People with abiguous genetalia DO exist.
Correction: I am the exception that proves that there is no rule. There is no connection that states that all people born with a penis are socially male and all people born without a penis are socially female. I was born with the former but I am socially female. (I have had surgery to bring my physical genetalia in line with how I feel mentally)
According to Wikipedia, true hermaphrodites don’t exist. In other words, you are either mostly male or mostly female. You choose to live as a female, yet you are calling for gay marriage. Does that mean that you are legally a male? I mean, what is preventing you from marrying a man if **you **want to?