Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests Gay marriages?

i think gay marriages should be allowed...i mean, why not? let them! here are some of the arguments refuting gay marriage, and my thoughts on them:
-marriage is a "holy" thing....and gays should not be allowed to be married  
ok, well atheists get married, should we not allow aitheists to get married? the church can do whatever the hell they want, but city hall marries people, regardless of their religious affiliation.

-being gay isnt natural, and gays should not be allowed to be married.
technically, this is true (im assuming you know that being gay PROBABLY has something to do with genes, and is NOT choice. i've come to this conclusion from talking to one of my gay friends at school.). anyways, being gay technically ISNT natural, i mean, the one of the purposes of our existence is to procreate, and gay men and women obviously cant do that. but that doesnt mean it is wrong...its just the way things are. also, its not like homosexuality is limited to humans- there have been many instances of homosexual animals as well.
consider mentally retarded people (not that gays and mentally retarded people have anything in common...but that they are both instances of something that is technically "unnatural"). mentally retarded people are obviously not TECHNICALLY natural, but that doesnt mean that just because a person is mentally retarted, we deny them the right to marry.
i dont know, those are just a few of my jumbled thoughts
just wanted to get you guys thinking

It has nothing to do with morals, religion, or personal opinion of any kind. You really think the government would go to this length to ban something as harmless as this? Its all about the money, there is something in the minds of our political leaders that is holding them from giving in. You never know what kinds of things people can do, for immigration purposes, people can be desperate enough to claim they are gay (not act upon it), and get married legally just to stay in the country. It could be for lowered healthcare for these supposed "couples" and so on. It offers a new way of cheating the government out of money, and that is whats on their minds at all times. We cant be blind enough to think its about personal opinions. Im not even going to get into the war in Iraq.

Here's my thinking on another (related) topic: adoption by homosexuals.

I do not doubt that there are many homosexual couples that could provide far superior environments for children than they currently have. But the real question is whether there is solid evidence to show this makes sense as a general idea.

Homosexuality is not unlike any other behavior in that it results from a complex interaction of genetic propensity and environmental experiences. (Incidentally, the same could be said of other traits like heterosexuality, frugality, aggressiveness, religiosity, and attraction to new technologies.) We may debate about the exact role of upbringing and socialization (nature versus nurture), but one would be a fool to completely discount one or the other.

As for gay parents, there is (to my knowledge) no body of research that tells us how adopted children turn out. This is because there are not that many children of gay parents. In the future, we may have more understanding of this. If research shows positive effects, then I say promote the policy nation-wide. But for the sake of children, let's take a �??wait and see�?� attitude.

Nonetheless, as a matter of common sense, I expect there are definite drawbacks to gay adoption. And these drawbacks have to do with gender socialization. Parents are a major source of socialization for children. Little girls (for example) benefit greatly from the presence of a feminine figure in the home. Moreover, little boys themselves benefit from having a mom (or female guardian) present. Ask any mother whether �??dad is unnecessary�?� and/or she [the mother] can completely substitute for the absence of a masculine role model. I think the answer is common sense. Little boys and girls need a mom and a dad. Ask a child, if you doubt that!

When my three year old is injured, he prefers to be held and comforted by his mother. She is softer, has a more soothing voice, and makes him feel a little more secure than I (as a man) do. Perhaps this has something to do with having been breast fed for one year. Who knows! Anyway, there are times in which little �??Sumi�?� really wants mom. Dad is a second best choice for him.

And then there are times when my little one really wants/needs the attention of dad. I remember him sitting on my lap a few weeks ago whilst I carved a wooden sword (out of firewood) and used sand paper to smooth it. He wanted to talk to ME about sword fighting and competition. His mother would have been a second choice.

When I come home from work late at night, both my boys run down stairs and excitedly announce, �??Daddy's home!�?� I�??m not just some �??parental unit,�?� neutered, without a gender. My children know about gender differences, celebrate, and embrace them. Little �??Sumi�?� (my three year old) sometimes feels my unshaved face and calls it �??porcupine hair.�?� He then feels his mother�??s face and is fascinated by the difference. He is not oppressed by sexism at all. Ask kids about this. Ask them if mom or dad is irrelevant.

In my life, I have encountered a number of little children who live in a single-parent household (usually mother only). It never ceases to amaze me how a little girl longs for a real dad in the family. This is not abnormal. It is very natural. Even a little girl longs for a masculine figure in her family. She wants dad to read her the story of the three little pigs, not just mommy. She wants to rough house with dad and misses him when he�??s away late at the office.

I think what we really forget in this debate is the precious little children. Little children want mom AND dad. And they want plenty of quality time from both parents. That makes them happy.

Second, there is the possibility that a gay couple would encourage or even intentionally socialize their child into a homosexual lifestyle. This is not desirable. Sex between males leads to well-known physical ailments, unlike sex between couples of the opposite sex. I realize that ANY sex is risky these days, but there are obvious distinctions here. The male species is not physically equipped to be the long-term recipient of sexual acts by other males. And that is why practicing homosexual males have higher rates of fistulotomies and colo-rectal cancer (two examples).

What goes on between two consenting adults is entirely their own business. However, as a society, we should be promoting healthy behavior. Generally speaking, heterosexual sex is less risky than homosexual sex. Therefore, I would oppose any policy that promoted (through socialization) a higher rate of homosexual behavior. And homosexual adoption just might do that. But again, I would wait to have this hunch confirmed in studies, before I made any firm conclusions.

And by the way, let me just make one thing clear. This is not an either/or deal. Many people fall somewhere between exclusive heterosexuality and homosexuality. As adults, it doesn�??t matter whether you�??re fond of latex, S&M, or silk stockings. However, when it comes to children, I think it does matter what sort of messages we send them and the sort of behavior we promote.

Sincerely,

Scott

very well said.