Homosexuality: A Survey

[kholoudsafir]

@ mangaluva, I see your point, but in my point of view I made it clear to compare families from both genders, who do not have significant problems. If you know people who came from single parents who have good lives, I know the opposite exists as well. I am not taking the exceptions here, I am talking in general, putting in my mind for every rule there is an exception. So in an ideal family, it is better to have both genders IMO.

@ stopwatch: May be I was not successful in making my point to you. I am only going to clarify and say I am not referring to normal changes in emotions or stress, I am talking about people who are 25+ or even in their 30s when they start making families. I have been through most of these changes my self and more still to come with time. These biological changes does not only put you in a "bad"mood and it does not last for one or two days.

I do not want you to feel that I want to ignore you, because I prefer not to go further in this discussion. But the only way for me to make you at least understand what I am talking about, is to leave you for time and experience to learn and see yourselves. This is not only for stopwatch. Also, I can see the enthusiasm in your young blood, so IMO only personal experience teaches. I was in your age once, i argued a lot and agreed a lot, but what you earn from life is tastier than what is given in a golden plate, ready for you.

I do not see myself more intelligent than any of you here, I just see myself more experienced in the matter of children, also because my peers in real life are those who have similar experiences from different backgrounds.

Also, I do not do or participate in any activity against the homosexuals rights of adoptions, these are only my personal thoughts.

[mangaluva]

I do not see myself more intelligent than any of you here, I just see myself more experienced in the matter of children, also because my peers in real life are those who have similar experiences from different backgrounds.

This is also where I'm coming from, but also because my mother's job is a type of child psychologist particular to hospitals. She has seen children from every background you can imagine, including children who do have two mommies or two daddies because the parent they stayed with after a divorce/breakup then took on a same-sex partner. She has seen children of single-parent families, "normal" families, raised by their siblings, raised by their grandparents, raised by their aunt and uncle, raised by adoptive parents. She has literally seen it all in the past thirty years, and she's told me a lot about what she does because I love listening to it. I find it fascinating.

I suppose half of my views on parenting are just parroting hers, but IMO hers certainly seem to work. And she's seen a lot of children who are better off with their two mommies or daddies than they were with their two opposite-gender parents. She has also seen the opposite.

I'm not saying that all gay couples are good parents. I'm not saying that all hetero couples are good parents. I'm not saying that all children are better off with gay parents. I'm not saying that all children are better off with hetero parents. This is not a case of "it's always better this way". No two families are the same. Unless they're siblings, the situation for no two children will be the same, and even then not always.

In some situations, a child will be better off with gay parents. In some, they'll be better off with a single parent. In some, they'll be better off with a traditional household.

But you can never say it's always better to be one way. It's different for everyone, and no one option can be said to be more valid than the others without properly examining the different factors in the unique situation.

[kholoudsafir]

This is also where I'm coming from, but also because my mother's job is a type of child psychologist particular to hospitals. She has seen children from every background you can imagine, including children who do have two mommies or two daddies because the parent they stayed with after a divorce/breakup then took on a same-sex partner. She has seen children of single-parent families, "normal" families, raised by their siblings, raised by their grandparents, raised by their aunt and uncle, raised by adoptive parents. She has literally seen it all in the past thirty years, and she's told me a lot about what she does because I love listening to it. I find it fascinating.

I suppose half of my views on parenting are just parroting hers, but IMO hers certainly seem to work. And she's seen a lot of children who are better off with their two mommies or daddies than they were with their two opposite-gender parents. She has also seen the opposite.

I'm not saying that all gay couples are good parents. I'm not saying that all hetero couples are good parents. I'm not saying that all children are better off with gay parents. I'm not saying that all children are better off with hetero parents. This is not a case of "it's always better this way". No two families are the same. Unless they're siblings, the situation for no two children will be the same, and even then not always.

In some situations, a child will be better off with gay parents. In some, they'll be better off with a single parent. In some, they'll be better off with a traditional household.

But you can never say it's always better to be one way. It's different for everyone, and no one option can be said to be more valid than the others without properly examining the different factors in the unique situation.

Fair enough 

[Suutashi]

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 

You do know that this same argument is used whenever a female politician tries to get elected?

[Callid]

Something I wondered about while reading this topic - is it important whether the legal recognition of a homosexual relationship is called "marriage"?
I noticed this particular point while researching about the situation in Germany (where we already have Registered Partnerships, which are equal in marriages in all regards except adoption and taxes), as there are three different positions (the percentages are current survey results):

• CDU/CSU (~35%): Keep things as they are, marriage is sacred ( )
• Pirates (~7%), FDP (~3%): Complete equality in all regards, (Pirates only: extend towards any number of participants of any gender)
• SPD (~28%), Greens (~14%), The Left (~8%): Merge RPs and marriage.

Now my question to you - what's your opinion on the "middle" position? Is it sufficient if the rights are equal, or is the term "marriage" of major importance?

[mangaluva]

I do have a gay friend who wants to have a long-term partner, he just doesn't want to call it "marriage" because he associates the term with the Christian church and he's had such horrendous dealings with them (I didn't know those "pray out the gay" places EXISTED in the UK). However, he does want them to have legal rights equal to a marriage. Not being too up on law, I think this has something to do with power of attorney, next of kin, etc.

I have a couple of other gay friends who do wants to get married. One wants to do it in drag for the lulz. Personally, I think they should at least be able to be registered as spouses with equal rights to married couples. They can call it marriage if they want.

[Edogawa4869]

Personally, I think they should at least be able to be registered as spouses with equal rights to heterosexual couples. They can call it marriage if they want.

This pretty much sums up my point of view.

[Vylash]

Gonna be honest, the whole "the definition of marriage is sacred" thing always bothered me, what it all boils down to is everyone's perceived definition of a word, I just can't see how allowing homosexuals to marry will "tarnish" the definition of marriage, and I don't see how anyone can justify banning a specific group of people from marrying just because of their own perceived definition of a word : V

[GinRei]

(where we already have Registered Partnerships, which are equal in marriages in all regards except adoption and taxes)

Then they aren't equal and all other argument is null.

[mangaluva]

Gonna be honest, the whole "the definition of marriage is sacred" thing always bothered me, what it all boils down to is everyone's perceived definition of a word, I just can't see how allowing homosexuals to marry will "tarnish" the definition of marriage, and I don't see how anyone can justify banning a specific group of people from marrying just because of their own perceived definition of a word : V

FIFY 

I have to add one of my favourite quotes from John Barrowman, about why he and his husband don't like living in America: "How very Christian. They hate me for falling in love."

[Dwalin]

I just read Jd’s post n.83 and would like to say something in defense of the Christian religion. I understand there are many horrible and evil things in the Old Testament, but that’s precisely why the New Testament was necessary. People were cruel at the times of the Old Testament, they wouldn’t understand anything about later concepts of morality if they were promoted right then. What was before the Old Testament was even worse. That’s why I and many others believe the coming of Jesus Christ was necessary, to change things for the better. It’s not his fault so many people haven’t understood anything and created such things as the crusades, witch hunts, persecutions of sexual or ethnic minorities etc. After all, if all people really listened to him, the world wouldn’t be such a bad place? It isn’t said homosexuals should go to hell, they can be good people just as heterosexuals.
You might say though I am not a real Christian if I disregard the Old Testament, I wouldn’t know what to answer to this, but anyway, what I would like to say to atheists or followers of other religions is that Christianity isn’t a bad thing by itself. It all depends on people who interpret it for their use.
I personally am very saddened by the conflicts between different religions and those between atheists and religious people.

[mangaluva]

No offence meant, Dwalin, but while that's very nice the conflict between the Old and New Testament isn't really relevant to the discussion, since Jd- already called for religion to be eschewed from the discussion.

[ProfParanoia]

Personally, I think they should at least be able to be registered as spouses with equal rights to heterosexual couples. They can call it marriage if they want.

This pretty much sums up my point of view.

Not calling it marriage seems like a way to shortchange them, "sure you can have your little union, but you'll never have a real marriage".

[sonoci]

Gonna be honest, the whole "the definition of marriage is sacred" thing always bothered me, what it all boils down to is everyone's perceived definition of a word, I just can't see how allowing homosexuals to marry will "tarnish" the definition of marriage, and I don't see how anyone can justify banning a specific group of people from marrying just because of their own perceived definition of a word : V

<333 

[Jd-]

I just read Jd’s post n.83 and would like to say something in defense of the Christian religion. I understand there are many horrible and evil things in the Old Testament, but that’s precisely why the New Testament was necessary. People were cruel at the times of the Old Testament, they wouldn’t understand anything about later concepts of morality if they were promoted right then. What was before the Old Testament was even worse. That’s why I and many others believe the coming of Jesus Christ was necessary, to change things for the better. It’s not his fault so many people haven’t understood anything and created such things as the crusades, witch hunts, persecutions of sexual or ethnic minorities etc. After all, if all people really listened to him, the world wouldn’t be such a bad place? It isn’t said homosexuals should go to hell, they can be good people just as heterosexuals.
You might say though I am not a real Christian if I disregard the Old Testament, I wouldn’t know what to answer to this, but anyway, what I would like to say to atheists or followers of other religions is that Christianity isn’t a bad thing by itself. It all depends on people who interpret it for their use.
I personally am very saddened by the conflicts between different religions and those between atheists and religious people.

No one needs to defend the Christian religion or any other religion in this discussion because religion itself is not in question here. You'll notice if you read my post in full that I did not tell anyone to drop their religion or in any way imply anything of the sort. Instead, I pointed out a great many other antiquated beliefs that they clearly no longer believe in and encouraged them to consider why they simply cannot consider homosexuality one more thing to disagree with the Bible on. I will defend your right to believe in any god you want, even if it's Ronald McDonald, until the day I die because I believe it is your right to do that as a free human being. It is when you begin pushing it on other people (by calling for the legal ban on gay marriage or in any way supporting that endeavor) that you'll hear from me.

There are a lot of remarks in your post that can be taken apart, but I'm not going to bother because there's just no reason. You have the right to believe in what you want to believe and do what you want when it is not causing harm to another, so why not extend that courtesy to others as well?

Now my question to you - what's your opinion on the "middle" position? Is it sufficient if the rights are equal, or is the term "marriage" of major importance?

If a distinction has to be made, then it is not equal. If you have any "except for", in any way, it's not equal. Even if that "except for" is: "Gay people can get married, except for the fact they can't call it marriage." There are a great many gay couples (like one Akonyl cited much earlier) that aren't willing to settle for less and as such don't take "domestic partnerships" or whatever politically-correct phrase has been settled on that week seriously. And I, for one, don't blame them. 100% legal equality is what's important, and until that is made a reality, this won't be over.

Gonna be honest, the whole "the definition of marriage is sacred" thing always bothered me, what it all boils down to is everyone's perceived definition of a word, I just can't see how allowing homosexuals to marry will "tarnish" the definition of marriage, and I don't see how anyone can justify banning a specific group of people from marrying just because of their own perceived definition of a word : V

You are a good son, my son.