Cubano, if the ONLY issue was "is the kid going to be love" I wouldn't care. But it is certainly not the only issue.
In my college psychology course, we got to review some old black and white films of experiments involving gay males. These types of experiments are no longer legal Basically, several decades ago when these films were made, being gay was a TERRIBLE thing. Gays were all in the closet, and even more importantly, DID NOT WANT TO BE GAY. They thought it was a mental disease and would seek out professional help and BEG psychologists to help change them. So psychologists tried lots of stuff, some of which was pretty damn extreme. The most interesting experiments were the shock therapy ones. Gay men would be put in a mini theatre and have electrodes attached to their...ahem... manlihood... and then shown pictures of naked/semi-naked attractive men. Anytime an erection was detected, they had the crap shocked out of them. They would also show them hot women, and they would not be shocked. The psychologists were sure that this kind of severe negative feedback coupled with the pseudo positive feedback would certainly change these guys just like pavlovs dog. Every attempt to change these guys's behavior failed. Today, it seems quite obvious. Some dude could strap me into a chair and attach a stun gun to my pecker, then flash pictures of Victoria Secret models up on the wall all day long, and the only thing it would produce is one burnt hot dog Sexuality is a grey scale. From extreme heterosexual, to bisexual to all out gay. This is not a black and white issue. Even if you consider it some kind of defect, your a freaking idiot for hating people like this for the same reason you would be a freaking idiot for hating a retarded person with a "defect". peace axeman
It does suggest a certain receptiveness to what is being said, similar to whether you would debate race relations with blacks or niggers. If you have no data, then, yes, so far this has been about nothing but attitudes and beliefs. Your point was to make a comparison to single-parent families. Mine was that single-parent families are not equivalent to families headed by gay couples. As to whether or not we want to have the kinds of kids who are likely to be raised by gay couples (whatever that means) in our society, why not? Better children raised by loving gay parents than children raised by straight parents who couldn't care less. Still looking forward to the data you have to support these assertions.
I wouldn't call Alfonso an idiot. He believes what he believes. There are also plenty of people who think the retarded shouldn't be allowed to marry and breed. There are also those who believe that straight couples should not be allowed to take fertility drugs and unleash litters that they can't take care of. Then there are the women who take drugs during pregnancy. Attitudes, opinions, beliefs. Lots to go around.
db, they had "data", oodles of it. None of which I found rationally compelling. That makes it -- the debates I had with the gays -- more than "just attitudes", it makes it a bona fide attempt to convince another rational agent of the truth of your proposition. Just accept that these debates I had with them -- which I offered as a reason for thinking I 'know something' about the topic, as per your request -- and let's move on. My point was not to make a comparison to single parent families, not directly anyway. Go back and read what I wrote before you try and refute it. (The single parent thing only came up when I cited lack of a mother figure). And single parent families aren't equivalent -- and you didn't find me saying they are either -- but that they share an important characteristic -- lack of a mother figure. And which assertions are you still awaiting data for? The kinds of kids that gay couples are likely to raise? Obviously there's no "data" for that. Why not evaluate my assertions and offer better ones if you think they're somehow deficient. If you want "data" on homosexuality as a development, well, I would've thought that's as clear as the sun; or do you mean you've never heard of formerly straight men turning homosexual upon "discovering" that they "really" were gay? Or the opposite -- gay men going straight? In fact, it is I who awaits the data that shows, or even STRONGLY suggests, that these developments were "bound to happen" that they "couldn't be helped" -- an assertion that is repeated so often people just accept it as fact.
db said One has to do with the frequency of gays in society. This implies that one's group must cross some threshold of frequency in order to marry. If, for example, the percentage of Latvians in America is less than some percentage, should they be refused permission to marry? I do not really want to get gay people all pissed off with me because I think they are people too and I have no reason to discriminate against them in many areas. But, the onus is on them to change my mind on some issues where I draw the line. And when it comes to how society is structured and organized. I cant concede the status quo to every person who wants to change it to benefit their world. So yes at times the majority should rule and have the right to choose how to structure itself with regard to most issues. Now you want to equate sexual acts or attitudes with national origin. That is your argument to make not mine. I clearly see the difference. Of couse this argument takes us to questions raised by Rousseau and Locke and then Jefferson and our constitution and the Supreme Courts interpretation of it. But, frankly I see no reason at the moment to say yea I want gays to be able to marry. Marriage has been and should be (at least in my opinion and many others) a union between a man and a women. If gays want more grants to their sexual choices or orientations from the government and others let them argue for new classifications and not confuse and attack the concept of marriage.