[K.ChosenOne]

(Original post by Nav_Mallhi)
It's not natural! Nature has designed a male and a female to be together, hence only a man and a woman can have children. Not men and men or women and women. Sorry gay people but I find this whole concept rather disgusting. However I know some really friendly gay men, they are really nice people, but I just can't seem to understand why they choose a man instead of a woman to be with *shivers*

I totally agree with this. I don't find the concept disgusting though as they don't really choose to be gay and it's like a norm that I see everyday. But yeah I do think its supposed to be men and women. Its just the tradition in me. If being gay was natural then they would be able to have children naturally.

(Original post by Carter78)
Because they're behind the Zeitgeist?

Honestly, the opponents of Gay marriage will look back on themselves in 20 years time and cringe in embarrassment. Remember, people used to make a passionate defense of racial segregation!

This is sooooo not the same thing!!! How can you compare the two!?


I respect all the people that negged because that's your opinion. And what I've written is mine. I have nothing else to say on the matter

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by Marsha2112)
It's a disgusting attitude, but sadly too many people have it. And they're like "oh, why would you choose someone of the same sex, ooh it's weird and wrong" - I don't like tattoos and wine but I don't cast it off as wrong! It ain't difficult to realise that people are different and can love whoever they want. If you're too small minded to understand or accept why/how someone could feel a certain way, then it doesn't make them wrong or inferior - it makes you small minded.

Also, more common arguments I hear: "Marriage is between a man and a woman" - only as defined by the Bible which no-one now follows anyway, or there'd be no sex before marriage and we'd all be going to church too.
"Marriage is for the creation of children" - don't see old or infertile couples being banned from marrying.

Well then I don't like you!

Kidding good post.
In addition to what you said about marriage defined by the Bible and for the creation of children - not it's original purpose anyway! Marriage existed before religion, and I've been lead to believe was about shared property and not children.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by K.ChosenOne)
I totally agree with this. I don't find the concept disgusting though as they don't really choose to be gay and it's like a norm that I see everyday. But yeah I do think its supposed to be men and women. Its just the tradition in me.

If only you'd been born in Ancient Greece.

And to the person that compared this to race, its sooooooo not the same thing!

How is it different? People are being denied rights based on something they have no control over for no justifiable reason - sounds the same.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by K.ChosenOne)
If being gay was natural then they would be able to have children naturally.

Do you know what else is natural? Eating your young. And curare. And cancer.
Natural =/= good. It's called the naturalistic fallacy and I urge you to look it up before you post again.

Also, lots of animal species show homosexual behaviours, so even if you could say that natural = good, you'd be arguing for homosexuality being good.
Not only that, homosexuals can have children naturally, just not with each other. Homosexuality doesn't cause infertility.

Edit: If you negged me, please quote me and explain why I'm wrong.

[blueray]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
Well there is a problem, because the 'people who don't understand' are not just ignorant and then don't do anything about it, a lot of the time they're actively arguing for the denial of certain rights for gay people.
And what difference does it make to you if there's a debate about homosexuality on the 'Debate and Current Affairs' section of the forum? Just stay out of it if you don't think it's an issue.

FYI I do think it's an issue, which is why I posted I think you misinterpreted my point.
I'm just saying "don't try to teach those who cannot be taught" eg you can't teach a goat to play call of duty can you?

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by blueray)
FYI I do think it's an issue, which is why I posted I think you misinterpreted my point.
I'm just saying "don't try to teach those who cannot be taught" eg you can't teach a goat to play call of duty can you?

Okay then, fair enough. I apologise for misunderstanding you.
I live in hope that at least some people can be taught. And as this thread wasn't started by a bigot (although it was inspired by one), I was hoping it'd be a little more sensible than the usual rubbish (my hopes are getting squashed as we speak).

[M'Ling]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
Well, he probably should have worded it differently but he didn't say that every homosexual would be a good parent, just that homosexuals who are parents and likely to have certain characteristics that will make them better parents.

I'd be inclined to disagree, then. Heterosexuals who are good parents and homosexuals who are good parents, I would argue, have similar qualities which are attained in separation from sexuality.

Similarly, homosexuals who are bad parents and heterosexuals who are bad parents gain bad attributes not from to whom they are attracted, but from reasons quite separate.

All I'm saying is yes, let homosexuals be parents (there is no argument against denying them this right), but we must be cautious to label a homosexual couple with a child superior to heterosexuals based on gayness alone; there must remain the categories of 'bad parent' and 'good parent', into which anybody of any sexual preference can fall.

[concubine]

People oppose it because they're bigoted morons, no different from those that supported the continuation of slavery, or opposed the enfranchisement of women.


It's as simple as that.


These people won't listen to reason, so **** them, and **** how they feel about the matter.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by M'Ling)
I'd be inclined to disagree, then. Heterosexuals who are good parents and homosexuals who are good parents, I would argue, have similar qualities which are attained in separation from sexuality.

Similarly, homosexuals who are bad parents and heterosexuals who are bad parents gain bad attributes not from to whom they are attracted, but from reasons quite separate.

All I'm saying is yes, let homosexuals be parents (there is no argument against denying them this right), but we must be cautious to label a homosexual couple with a child superior to heterosexuals based on gayness alone; there must remain the categories of 'bad parent' and 'good parent', into which anybody of any sexual preference can fall.

I don't think they're superior, I think they are as good as good heterosexual parents (distinction between me and the other person I guess).
Although there are attributes that you can have as a straight person or a gay person, I do think there are certain attributes that you're more likely to have being a gay parent - such as having to jump through hoops to get kids so therefore would be more dedicated. This doesn't just apply to gay parents, just that it's more likely to have happened to a gay couple with children (unless one of them just had sex with the opposite sex), and then this is also more likely to make them better parents. I think a higher percentage of homosexual parents (those who already have kids) are good parents (you can still get good and bad homosexual parents but if - made up - the rate of bad parents in the general population was 15%, it would be lower in homosexual parenting environments for example), and that's all I'm getting at.

[lucaf]

(Original post by K.ChosenOne)
I totally agree with this. I don't find the concept disgusting though as they don't really choose to be gay and it's like a norm that I see everyday. But yeah I do think its supposed to be men and women. Its just the tradition in me. If being gay was natural then they would be able to have children naturally.



This is sooooo not the same thing!!! How can you compare the two!?

homosexuality has been observed in many animal species, and people are born homosexual, so I have no idea how it can be unnatural. besides, how does something being unnatural make it wrong? should we stop using planes because if humans were supposed to fly we would have wings?

and yes, it is the same thing. denying people basic rights because of attributes they cannot control is wrong.

[rcummins1]

(Original post by Leicestergrad11)
Do you not think that this book should keep up with what's become socially acceptable since it was written?


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Well it should, but unfortunately some people believe this book to be the word of God. And I doubt they'd accept social change over the word of God.

[M'Ling]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
I don't think they're superior, I think they are as good as good heterosexual parents (distinction between me and the other person I guess).
Although there are attributes that you can have as a straight person or a gay person, I do think there are certain attributes that you're more likely to have being a gay parent - such as having to jump through hoops to get kids so therefore would be more dedicated. This doesn't just apply to gay parents, just that it's more likely to have happened to a gay couple with children (unless one of them just had sex with the opposite sex), and then this is also more likely to make them better parents. I think a higher percentage of homosexual parents (those who already have kids) are good parents (you can still get good and bad homosexual parents but if - made up - the rate of bad parents in the general population was 15%, it would be lower in homosexual parenting environments for example), and that's all I'm getting at.

High time someone said it. Yes, I see your point about homosexual parents having to do more to 'earn' their children, but I would like us to remember that this scale of 'good' and 'bad' is abstract; there is no reliable way to measure how well someone parents. I do think the majority of gay couples would make fine parents, but the same is true of non-gay couples.

Whether or not the rate of 'bad parents' (probably only measurable through the relative lives of their children when grown up) is lower in homosexual people is speculation. If, in the future, there comes out a statistic with a significantly different value of 'good' parents being more likely in homosexual couples, I shall submit to your claim.

Until then, however, I think we should assume both gay and straight parents have the same capacity to become good parents, which means, chiefly, allowing gay people both to marry and to enter the adoption process.

[lucaf]

(Original post by rcummins1)
Well it should, but unfortunately some people believe this book to be the word of God. And I doubt they'd accept social change over the word of God.

actually they seem fine with social change when it suits them, they just pick and choose when they should move with the times. bible bans eating shellfish, it was another era. bible allows slavery, values were different then. bible condemns homosexuality, it is the unchangeable word of god.

[lucaf]

(Original post by M'Ling)
High time someone said it. Yes, I see your point about homosexual parents having to do more to 'earn' their children, but I would like us to remember that this scale of 'good' and 'bad' is abstract; there is no reliable way to measure how well someone parents. I do think the majority of gay couples would make fine parents, but the same is true of non-gay couples.

Whether or not the rate of 'bad parents' (probably only measurable through the relative lives of their children when grown up) is lower in homosexual people is speculation. If, in the future, there comes out a statistic with a significantly different value of 'good' parents being more likely in homosexual couples, I shall submit to your claim.

Until then, however, I think we should assume both gay and straight parents have the same capacity to become good parents, which means, chiefly, allowing gay people both to marry and to enter the adoption process.

I think she means that if you were to average the parenting ability of all homosexual parents and heterosexual parents, homosexuals would come on top because nearly all homosexuals with kids would have had to plan and want them, while heterosexuals average would be brought down by people who had kids by accident and never wanted them. but that is only for the general population, homosexual parents would not have that advantage over heterosexual couples applying for adoption since they will have wanted and planned them just as much

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by M'Ling)
High time someone said it. Yes, I see your point about homosexual parents having to do more to 'earn' their children, but I would like us to remember that this scale of 'good' and 'bad' is abstract; there is no reliable way to measure how well someone parents. I do think the majority of gay couples would make fine parents, but the same is true of non-gay couples.

Whether or not the rate of 'bad parents' (probably only measurable through the relative lives of their children when grown up) is lower in homosexual people is speculation. If, in the future, there comes out a statistic with a significantly different value of 'good' parents being more likely in homosexual couples, I shall submit to your claim.

Until then, however, I think we should assume both gay and straight parents have the same capacity to become good parents, which means, chiefly, allowing gay people both to marry and to enter the adoption process.

Like someone else above this response has pointed out, I think that the potential 'best parent' can be achieved by anyone, gay or straight. But in general of the gay and straight parents that already exist, because of the likelihood that gay parents would not have had children accidentally and therefore avoid the perils of teen pregnancy etc. that the standard of parenting among gay people who already have children is slightly higher because of the lack of bad parents. Each individual parent is not better because they're gay, and I by no means think that all gay people would be good parents (in fact I know a few who would make terrible parents).
But, yes, gay people and straight people should be treated exactly the same in regards to marriage and adoption. If it happens that more gay people are screened as good parents and therefore a larger percentage of adopters are gay because they're just deemed to be good parents, then so be it. The same could be true the other way.

[concubine]

People need to stop bringing up the fact that homosexuality is observed in other species.

NEWS FLASH: humans are not other species. Homosexuality in humans is evident throughout basically all of recorded history, and there's no reason to believe it wasn't practiced before were got around to inventing things like writing.

I'd argue that the major source of disapproval in the world today is (surprise, surprise) the Abrahmic religions, and the dominant position they have (sadly) occupied regarding moral issues.

And you know what? **** those religions.

[Carter78]

(Original post by K.ChosenOne)

This is sooooo not the same thing!!! How can you compare the two!?

It's exactly the same thing. You are denying equal rights to homosexuals because of their sexuality. The Southern states of the USA denied African-Americans equal rights because of their race.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I read somewhere in one of your posts that you're black?

If that's the case, then with the greatest amount of respect you should no better that society should not tolerate ignorance and discrimination to certain minority groups.

[Carter78]

(Original post by K.ChosenOne)
But yeah I do think its supposed to be men and women. Its just the tradition in me.

Just like the other traditional concepts of marriage including obedience of the wife, property rights being reserved for the husband and the legality of rape within marriage?

Just because it's tradition, that doesn't make it right. It's so obvious I almost wasn't bothered enough to say it.

[pshewitt1]

I struggle to see the importance of Marriage though? it brings nothing apart from stately benefits which should have been removed anyway? on top of this marriage is mainly a religious bonding, should the person performing the marriage have a choice rather than the government which is independent of these institutions? the people comparing this to racial abuse really need to get a grip though, you cannot compare what gays are going through now to what the blacks went through before...

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by pshewitt1)
I struggle to see the importance of Marriage though? it brings nothing apart from stately benefits which should have been removed anyway? on top of this marriage is mainly a religious bonding, should the person performing the marriage have a choice rather than the government which is independent of these institutions? the people comparing this to racial abuse really need to get a grip though, you cannot compare what gays are going through now to what the blacks went through before...

I understand that some people think that marriage isn't important, but also some people do think it's important, and why should they be denied the opportunity to get married?

Marriage is not mainly a religious bonding. You can have a religious marriage or a non-religious marriage. This argument would apply that atheists and say they can't get married. Nobody is trying to force churches to marry gay couples if they don't want to - but why shouldn't they be able to get a civil marriage.
Also, marriage pre-dates religion.

And why is it not comparable? They're being denied rights because of something that they have no control over for no justifiable reason.