Homosexuality: A Survey

[ziraulo]

Geez, why does my thread grow when I'm offline? XD

@ Jd- :

May I know where you got the map? We haven't researched anything like that yet. ^^

Ontopic and offtopic simultaneously!

*sigh* Sometimes, I wish the case study wasn't formal so I could use a pic from my personal yaoi collection as a cover page.

And yes, this is both on and off-topic. XD But please don't turn this into a pairing thread.

[Jd-]

May I know where you got the map? We haven't researched anything like that yet. ^^

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_right ... _territory

[Conia]

Well sadly it doesn't look like anybody's mind was changed THE FIRST time all of these arguments went around. XD lol

It won't make a difference because everybody here is pretty much set in stone in their own opinion.

Almost every post in the thread has changed some of my thinking, so there you go, it isn't pointless anymore
*keeps catching up*

[nomemory]

Well sadly it doesn't look like anybody's mind was changed THE FIRST time all of these arguments went around. XD lol

It won't make a difference because everybody here is pretty much set in stone in their own opinion.

Almost every post in the thread has changed some of my thinking, so there you go, it isn't pointless anymore
*keeps catching up*

I would also lie to repeat my statement about how good it is to see both sides view on things. Even if your view won't change, you will understand and respect the other side more when you know what they are thinking and why.

[kholoudsafir]

I am impressed with the passion you have for your believes, thank you for the intellectual debate.

My point of view about not agreeing with homosexuals adopting children comes from the need of balance. I am talking here if we take a normal family from a man and a woman and a child, with no alcohol or drugs problem or what so ever, just normal family arguments. I know that two ladies/two men can't be the same, however, we can't ignore the biological changes that women or men go through, especially women.

Women usually are emotional, even if we are rational, we have certain times when we get emotional, so if two ladies had their period around the same time, not to mention the mental state a lady go through before that time, during and sometimes after, then it will feel like hell, since bringing up children is an emotionally exhausting task! Also, The older the woman gets, the more she changes biologically, if the other woman is going through the same change, it wont be ideal.


On the other hand, men are rational and even if they show love and emotions, they can't do it on the same level as women. You know that children are 24/7 job, IMO no matter how passionate a man can be, a man has a limit in showing emotions. I can't talk much about their biological change, I have no experience in that, but I know that men go through a time when they are stressed and not in a mood for emotions.


Just to clarify that I am not stating that two men/women are not able to raise children, I am just saying it is more difficult than a family with a father and a mother, which means not being able to give an ideal environment of balance in emotions and doing the duties the best possible way.

Also, I understand that there might exceptions, but this is just in general.

While you are going to start attacking this point, because of statistics, studies or examples from people around you, I want to point out that this opinion comes from my personal experience. I am no exception, my experience as a mother is not different from any other mother I know, even the ones who are different in religion or age.

In summary, I just think that because of the similarities in nature and the biological aspect, it would be difficult to provide a balanced family. 


To all my friends here, I hope we stay friends, remember this is only my personal opinion 

[c-square]

So many posts, too little time to read them all.

WHAT POSSIBLE REASON IS THERE TO LEGALLY PREVENT GAY PEOPLE FROM BEING MARRIED THAT IS NOT ROOTED IN RELIGIOUS BELIEF OR PROMOTING YOUR OWN SELF PREFERENCE?

Because a society is not ready for it yet.  If a government enacts a law (such as allowing gay marriage) that has too much societal pressure going against it, the next administration will simply reverse the law due to the populace's demands, and further will make it much, much harder for such a law to ever be passed in the future.  So, by changing the laws too early, it actually works against those who want change to occur.  Societal beliefs have to change before the laws can change, and for that reason it makes sense that gay marriage should not yet be legally allowed in various parts of the world.  Only when a change in law will be accepted by the majority of the people in a society, and tolerated by those who disagree, is it practical to make such a change.

[Stopwatch]

@kholoudsafir: I know that in some families the 'roles' (stuff like the strict parent or the on you go to talk to) are reversed; with more gender equality, men and women don't have to fit into those... well, stereotypes is probably the right word here. The fact is, those things are changing, men and women can both now be more free to how they truly are than women always being 'emotional' and men always being 'rational', though there's still a way to go IMO...
So, men and women can both have those emotional and rational personalities, right? So where's the problem?

[ziraulo]

May I know where you got the map? We haven't researched anything like that yet. ^^

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_right ... _territory

Thank you! ^^

I am impressed with the passion you have for your believes, thank you for the intellectual debate.

My point of view about not agreeing with homosexuals adopting children comes from the need of balance. I am talking here if we take a normal family from a man and a woman and a child, with no alcohol or drugs problem or what so ever, just normal family arguments. I know that two ladies/two men can't be the same, however, we can't ignore the biological changes that women or men go through, especially women.

Women usually are emotional, even if we are rational, we have certain times when we get emotional, so if two ladies had their period around the same time, not to mention the mental state a lady go through before that time, during and sometimes after, then it will feel like hell, since bringing up children is an emotionally exhausting task! Also, The older the woman gets, the more she changes biologically, if the other woman is going through the same change, it wont be ideal.


On the other hand, men are rational and even if they show love and emotions, they can't do it on the same level as women. You know that children are 24/7 job, IMO no matter how passionate a man can be, a man has a limit in showing emotions. I can't talk much about their biological change, I have no experience in that, but I know that men go through a time when they are stressed and not in a mood for emotions.


Just to clarify that I am not stating that two men/women are not able to raise children, I am just saying it is more difficult than a family with a father and a mother, which means not being able to give an ideal environment of balance in emotions and doing the duties the best possible way.

Also, I understand that there might exceptions, but this is just in general.

While you are going to start attacking this point, because of statistics, studies or examples from people around you, I want to point out that this opinion comes from my personal experience. I am no exception, my experience as a mother is not different from any other mother I know, even the ones who are different in religion or age.

In summary, I just think that because of the similarities in nature and the biological aspect, it would be difficult to provide a balanced family. 


To all my friends here, I hope we stay friends, remember this is only my personal opinion 

Don't worry, we're still friends. ^^

I can relate to your opinion on the women's side. Periods are just hell. It really is very exhausting for a woman to deal with, but hey, if a woman (regardless of sexual orientation) decides to have kids, I'm pretty sure that she's thought long and hard about that situation before she decided. Same goes for the men. After all, raising kids is a difficult task, no matter what your situation is.

[kholoudsafir]

@ stowatch: I can see what you are saying and I agree with you! But, Look down I did not say always.

Women usually are emotional, even if we are rational, we have certain times when we get emotional, so if two ladies had their period around the same time, not to mention the mental state a lady go through before that time, during and sometimes after, then it will feel like hell, since bringing up children is an emotionally exhausting task! Also, The older the woman gets, the more she changes biologically, if the other woman is going through the same change, it wont be ideal.

Also, my problem is not about being emotional or rational, because women can be rational as men can be emotional, but this is variable and changes, so it is about the biological changes that influences our emotions and thinking  :)




@ Ziraulo:  :)  I know that people think hard before having/adopting children, but in reality as much as it is one of the most beautiful things, it is harder than anyone can think of.  

[Stopwatch]

On the other hand, men are rational and even if they show love and emotions, they can't do it on the same level as women. You know that children are 24/7 job, IMO no matter how passionate a man can be, a man has a limit in showing emotions. I can't talk much about their biological change, I have no experience in that, but I know that men go through a time when they are stressed and not in a mood for emotions.

*cough*
Sorta wondering where you get the 'not in a mood for emotions' from, if someone is stressed it generally makes them irritable, right? Besides, most people are stressed at some point or another, male or female so it's not just something exclusive to males like you seem to suggest.
And if women can be rational and men can be emotional, which you admitted, then biological stuff doesn't have to factor in here, because the fact is they can be. If it's variable and changes, then that just means that women can be on either end of the rational/emotional scale and so can men, are you saying that having two parents, male and female who are both very emotional shouldn't be allowed?
(I'm not good at explaining things so sorry if this ends up being misunderstood because I've not put it properly )

[mangaluva]

I have to disagree with the need for two opposite-gender parents. I do have a mother and a father who get along well and I love them dearly. I also have several friends who come from single-parent households. One hasn't coped well because her mother is a bitch and her father is a selfish bastard- they'd have been no better for her together than they are apart. There's no way to win in that situation. One is very well-adjusted because his father is a good guy who has raised his kids well, on his own, without ever picking up another girlfriend. Another is also doing infinitely better in a single-parent household with her mother than either of them ever did with their father around.

The latter two cases are both families that work perfectly well without two parents. Indeed, they work better than some two-parent households I know where the parents hate each other, or the kids, or both, but stay together anyway because of the twisted notion of needing to be in the "right kind" of family.

It's not about whether you have a man and a woman in a household. It's about whether you have two parents in a household. Some people are just not parents, even if they get married and have kids. And some people can be fantastic parents all on their own.

One of my mother's friends recently divorced her husband and adopted a little Indonesian girl. The little girl adores her mother and is growing up perfectly happy and well-adjusted in a single-parent household, even with a parent 45 years older than her.

Through all of this, I see no reason for gay couples not to be able to raise a perfectly happy and healthy household. Their genders don't matter. Whether or not they are parents does.

[Stopwatch]

I have to disagree with the need for two opposite-gender parents. I do have a mother and a father who get along well and I love them dearly. I also have several friends who come from single-parent households. One hasn't coped well because her mother is a bitch and her father is a selfish bastard- they'd have been no better for her together than they are apart. There's no way to win in that situation. One is very well-adjusted because his father is a good guy who has raised his kids well, on his own, without ever picking up another girlfriend. Another is also doing infinitely better in a single-parent household with her mother than either of them ever did with their father around.

The latter two cases are both families that work perfectly well without two parents. Indeed, they work better than some two-parent households I know where the parents hate each other, or the kids, or both, but stay together anyway because of the twisted notion of needing to be in the "right kind" of family.

It's not about whether you have a man and a woman in a household. It's about whether you have two parents in a household. Some people are just not parents, even if they get married and have kids. And some people can be fantastic parents all on their own.

One of my mother's friends recently divorced her husband and adopted a little Indonesian girl. The little girl adores her mother and is growing up perfectly happy and well-adjusted in a single-parent household, even with a parent 45 years older than her.

Through all of this, I see no reason for gay couples not to be able to raise a perfectly happy and healthy household. Their genders don't matter. Whether or not they are parents does.

^+1

[Jd-]

Because a society is not ready for it yet.  If a government enacts a law (such as allowing gay marriage) that has too much societal pressure going against it, the next administration will simply reverse the law due to the populace's demands, and further will make it much, much harder for such a law to ever be passed in the future.  So, by changing the laws too early, it actually works against those who want change to occur.  Societal beliefs have to change before the laws can change, and for that reason it makes sense that gay marriage should not yet be legally allowed in various parts of the world.  Only when a change in law will be accepted by the majority of the people in a society, and tolerated by those who disagree, is it practical to make such a change.

That's a skewed interpretation, to be honest, and simply not effective. Foremost, in the question, it doesn't specify a timeframe. It doesn't say that it needs to be done today. If we knew that legalizing gay marriage were the right thing to do (and it is), then we could (to simply counter your logic here) simply begin working toward it by including it in equal rights and non-discrimination education courses to promote equality for all, including gay rights just as we include the rights of people of other races and religions. As such, I don't see this as a valid point whatsoever and instead just seems to be a "timeout" in the progress of legalizing gay rights instead of what I asked for: A reason for them to not be legalized (aka, a reason for them to always be banned, forever). I still have not seen that reason.

Even with all that in mind: The point of the movement is to demonstrate that religion and one's own personal preference has NO place in determining what's legally acceptable and what isn't. All we need is a reason that it isn't acceptable and never will be. Once people realize that homosexuals deserve every single right that straight people have and that what they are doing is unquestionable discrimination and segregation, the job will be done. The entire point of any movement is to promote education on the matter, and that is exactly what is being done here. The FACT of the matter is that when you take away religion and personal preference (neither of which have any bearing whatsoever on whether or not it should be ultimately legalized), there is no reason for gay marriage to continue to be outlawed.

[Cheesus]

My answer can be decided upon this picture

[ProfParanoia]

Because a society is not ready for it yet.  If a government enacts a law (such as allowing gay marriage) that has too much societal pressure going against it, the next administration will simply reverse the law due to the populace's demands, and further will make it much, much harder for such a law to ever be passed in the future.  So, by changing the laws too early, it actually works against those who want change to occur.  Societal beliefs have to change before the laws can change, and for that reason it makes sense that gay marriage should not yet be legally allowed in various parts of the world.  Only when a change in law will be accepted by the majority of the people in a society, and tolerated by those who disagree, is it practical to make such a change.

~Truman/FDR's reforms on Social Security were continued and boosted by Eisenhower.

~Lincoln's plans for Civil Rights and reformation post war were continued and boosted by Andrew Johnson.

~Lyndon's Civil Rights movements being overseen by the Nixon administration.

Huge social changes that were continued by the next administration even though the represented the other side.

The stuff you're talking about is not the next government being harsher, it's actually a case of companies and organizations being harsher. Like the wages they'd force on Af-Americans or the KKK. The only time when a gov would immediately change a law or practice is when it was particularly racist like the support to the KKK from Wilson or the Japanese "Concentration Camps" during WW2 (actually in both cases being undone by people on the same side).