S
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
J
JD1789
Guest
Would the first point not just strengthen the idea that a child is better off with its biological mother and biological father holding that both people are decent human beings? After all, they owe their existence to both a mother and a father. Could you further explain how the first point supports SSM? Are you talking about surrogacy and in vitro vertilization scenarios?Many children of SS couples who are not adopted and are the biological offspring of one of their SS parents would probably be deprived of existence if their gay parent had decided not to procreate at all. So surely existing is better for such a child than not existing at all. There are also many children who have a parent of both sexes where one or both of their parents are not good parents. So having both a mother and a father does not always insure a good experience for many children.
I think the fact that we assume that it is a negative thing when a child is deprived of good parents further suggests that there is a natural right. It seems we both support the idea that each child deserves good parents, but why not three good parents? Or four good parents? Where do we get our standards for this?
J
JD1789
Guest
Interesting opinion. Would you say that the state is interested in the common good of the individual with the loudest voice?The state is no longer interested in the common good of the people.
M
mommy_k
Guest
Because the word marriage is being used incorrectly. There were already laws in place for ss couples to protect property and so on. The law called it civil union. No need to change the verbage to marrige for these unions and compare it on equal terms to a tradtiional family unit.
There was no reason to change this and make a big political issue out of it. Everything was already covered.
There was no reason to change this and make a big political issue out of it. Everything was already covered.
M
marymary1975
Guest
I think you need some concept.clarification first. Same sex marriage has never been…or to my knowledge no one that I know.advocates for it to be “illegalized” which means been criminalized. What has been in the past “illegalized” was sodomy but that was overturned.by the courts, but attempting to het married to someone.of.your same sex has never been illegal and no one.advocates that. However, what it is indeed illegal and criminalized in practically the entire USA is polygamy and polyandry. That is what is actually illegal and it has been illegal since a long time. So.basically should I assume by going.to.your original idea is that polygamy should.be decriminalizedl ~ as there has never been such a thing as SSM being illegal?
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
Yes you were deprived as one parent was absent. It is not the ideal situation. I imagine you very much have a desire to have known and learned from the parent that was missing. You never felt deprived of the love of the mother or father that had died? I find that hard to believe. Sure you may have coped well, the surviving parent may have done an outstanding job, but you missed out on some things, I’m sure if you dig deep you will agree.I was raised by 1 parent following the death of the other. So should I say I was deprived of my right to experience a parent of each sex? And exactly who was it who deprived me? ( In full disclosure I never felt deprived)
Because that wasn’t the SCOTUS ruling?
Your situation was by tragedy.
The same sex marriage case is by design.
That’s a huge difference.
As for the idea that orphaned kids need caretakers. Sure they do. And they should be placed with people that would most easily fill the role of mother and father. This is why single people have a hard time adopting too.
If marriage is simply a social contract of commitment it should not be bound by sexuality at all. People should be able to marry their friend, parent, child, sibling, caretaker, neighbor, etc.
At that point marriage makes no sense and serves no real state purpose.
No.Interesting opinion. Would you say that the state is interested in the common good of the individual with the loudest voice?
I would say the state is concerned with pleasing their constituency.
Let’s not mistake pleasing someone else with an interest in their well being.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Having two good and loving parents, whether they are a mother and a father or two mothers or two fathers is what is important.Would the first point not just strengthen the idea that a child is better off with its biological mother and biological father holding that both people are decent human beings? After all, they owe their existence to both a mother and a father. Could you further explain how the first point supports SSM? Are you talking about surrogacy and in vitro vertilization scenarios?
I think the fact that we assume that it is a negative thing when a child is deprived of good parents further suggests that there is a natural right. It seems we both support the idea that each child deserves good parents, but why not three good parents? Or four good parents? Where do we get our standards for this?
T
Thorolfr
Guest
I’m not a supporter of polygamy, but from a religious standpoint, I don’t think there is anything wrong with it. After all, Abraham had two wives, as did Jacob and Elkanah, the father of Samuel. David and Solomon and Gideon all practiced polygamy.However, what it is indeed illegal and criminalized in practically the entire USA is polygamy and polyandry. That is what is actually illegal and it has been illegal since a long time.
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
Many children raised in such situations disagree with your opinion. Here is one such story.Having two good and loving parents, whether they are a mother and a father or two mothers or two fathers is what is important.
thefederalist.com/2015/03/17/dear-gay-community-your-kids-are-hurting/
W
Wretched_One_1
Guest
You couldn’t be MORE wrong! Exposing children to DEPRAVITY is not positive. It would be better for the child to have one NORMAL parent.Having two good and loving parents, whether they are a mother and a father or two mothers or two fathers is what is important.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
“One such story” does not equal “many children” and doesn’t tell us very much. How many children are you talking about when you say “many children”? Are you talking about 1% or 5% or 20% or 50% or 75% of children raised by same-sex couples are unhappy?Many children raised in such situations disagree with your opinion. Here is one such story.
thefederalist.com/2015/03/17/dear-gay-community-your-kids-are-hurting/
M
marymary1975
Guest
From a religious standpoint, at least from Catholicism, polygamy is wrong as Jesus specifically defined.marriage as one man and one woman (and right on that passage he explained the whole OT issue) so for Catholicism it is wrong.I’m not a supporter of polygamy, but from a religious standpoint, I don’t think there is anything wrong with it. After all, Abraham had two wives, as did Jacob and Elkanah, the father of Samuel. David and Solomon and Gideon all practiced polygamy.
From a legal standpoint, the whole.thing is.contradictory and if you ask my personal.opinion a complete hypocresy. Supposedly the Court says marriage is a right and SSM was passed under equality but we are putting in jail for polygamy when it is a.fundamental right? From a strict legal standpoint it is discrimination at its best and if anyone is going to argue the case of the illegalization of any type of.marriage it should be as to polys.and bigamy.
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
How many are you talking about when you say “all that matters is two loving parents regardless of their sex” (paraphrased).“One such story” does not equal “many children” and doesn’t tell us very much. How many children are you talking about when you say “many children”? Are you talking about 1% or 5% or 20% or 50% or 75% of children raised by same-sex couples are unhappy?
It sounds to me that you are making a statement of supposed fact that 100% of cases is true.
I presented evidence to the contrary. There were also several who spoke to the Supreme Court and wrote amicus briefs. If there are enough that there are outspoken advocates against this, I would say it’s a large enough number to render your statement an unjustified opinion based on false narrative.
M
marymary1975
Guest
I don’t agree with that. Wouldn’t it be an ideal situation situation for a child to have both his or her biological parents as loving, good.and committed parents? A child.raised by his/her good committed and loving biological parents is going to be much more stable.emotionally and better than a child raised by two mothers and two fathers. From.the start a child with two mothers or two father is going to have to deal.with a myriad.of.emotional issues that a child of two good biological parents will never have to deal, so right from.there the child from.that couple will.be in.a better situation.Having two good and loving parents, whether they are a mother and a father or two mothers or two fathers is what is important.
J
JD1789
Guest
What reason do you have to believe this? I always find this belief to intriguing, but have yet to see good evidence to support it.Having two good and loving parents, whether they are a mother and a father or two mothers or two fathers is what is important.
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
Here are several studies you can read. But in my experience the false narratives people hold too are so strongly held that even if an army of children told their story to them that they would not change their opinions.“One such story” does not equal “many children” and doesn’t tell us very much. How many children are you talking about when you say “many children”? Are you talking about 1% or 5% or 20% or 50% or 75% of children raised by same-sex couples are unhappy?
frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research
cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/adults-raised-gay-couples-speak-out-against-gay-marriage-federal-court
washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/8/gay-couples-children-oppose-same-sex-marriage-tell/?page=all
ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Viewpoints&zid=a9764475de34e422c34761f9631ce865&action=2&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010014234&userGroupName=viva2_tcc&jsid=d04
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
I know heterosexual couples of childbearing age who are naturally unable to produce a child.SS couples are naturally sterile. Heterosexual couples are not naturally sterile.
How can teaching a child sinful behavior is a virtue be considered alright?Having two good and loving parents, whether they are a mother and a father or two mothers or two fathers is what is important.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.