<p>i’m not particularly opposed to gay marriage and would always vote against it. I don’t want it in my neighborhood.</p>
<p>^If someone didn’t want Jews in their neighborhood, would it be okay to take away their right to practice their religion?</p>
<p>Except that religion is far more of a choice than sexual orientation…</p>
<p>^True, but for argument’s sake, it’s not like most people brought up a certain religion are going to question their faith and other religions enough to realize they actually believe another religion and therefore choose to convert-most don’t choose their religion. However, unfortunately plenty of people who want to be “different” choose to be gay (esp. in very liberal areas i.e. San Francisco) and give legit gay people a bad rep, you know? I’m not trying to argue with what you are saying, just sharing a random thought.</p>
<p>People don’t choose to be gay, any more than people choose to be heterosexual. My point with my previous post was that it’s not a choice at all… you don’t get to pick your orientation.</p>
<p>I didn’t mean that a person can choose to be legitimately gay, but some people who want to stand out and be “different” decide to be gay when they really aren’t…obviously you can’t pick your orientation, some just attempt to choose to because they think it’s some fad or whatnot…and I know several people including a cousin who <em>chose</em> to be gay/bi and within a month some of them said they really weren’t…that’s what I meant.</p>
<p>^Are these friends of yours women, by any chance CoffeeAddict? Because from my own personal experience a lot of straight girls pretend to be bi or whatever for the sake of appearing hotter to men, to make a statement or for another reason. However, I have never, ever seen a straight male do the same thing. Straight men tend to be too afraid of being thought of as gay due to the perceived sense of loss of masculinity. There is a clear double standard in our society about who can share affection and for whom. It’s much more accepted for women to be affectionate with eachother than it is for men to be.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem with this slippery slope argument is that it believes marriage in its current state (straight man + straight woman) as wholesome and pure, and that the threat of gay marriage would destroy said wholesomeness and purity.</p>
<p>Truth is that many marriages right now are shams. Some get married for green cards. Others get married for money. Shotgun weddings? Old billionaire meets Playboy Playmate? </p>
<p>My point is that trying to argue against gay marriage in order to keep apart potential undesirable pairings (such as brother + sister) seems to ignore the reality of marriage today. Gay marriage won’t ruin marriage because hell, it’s already ruined and it’s already been ruined. If America’s divorce rate was not 50% and marriage was regarded as something a little more than a contemporary contract, then maybe you’d have a point. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, because we should always ignore our consciences for the sake of pandering to society’s prejudices.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, because gay people have it so easy in our society. Who wouldn’t want to be them?</p>
<p>I don’t think there’s anything morally wrong with being gay. I’m not even sure I oppose gay marriage.</p>
<p>But I do oppose gay adoption (as well as single parent adoption). There are basic gender roles that each child should learn growing up. A child should experience how men and women function together and how each differ. A man-woman parent pair provides appropriate gender role models for a child. A gay couple can not and neither can a single parent. Not to mention the societal implications of having gay parents. While this may be cowtowing to society’s prejudices, children are notoriously unforgiving of differences (same reason kids shouldn’t wear Spiderman costumes to school).</p>
<p>Who decides what’s an “appropriate” gender role? Boys can’t learn how to cook and girls can’t work on cars? A kid with gay parents will learn that stuff just as well as a kid raised by heterosexuals.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So are you saying that unless there’s a father and mother present, a child will not learn the “correct” gender roles? What about single-parent families? Should we illegalize divorce?</p>
<p>Research has shown that the most well-adjusted individuals are those who are the most androgynous in their gender roles. Having gay parents would allow such androgyny to develop naturally as the child won’t pinpoint certain chores or behaviors to only be done by a certain gender. In fact, a young boy who learns from his gay (male) parents that it’s ok for a man to fix cars and mow the lawn and also cook and clean is going to have greater respect for himself and for the opposite gender. He won’t label anything as “women’s work” and treat women as second-class citizens as many people today sadly still do.</p>
<p>I say preferential tax treatment for gay couples must cease! Live together for a year and a day in connubial bliss (or some approximation thereof) and you are common law spouses and are taxed accordingly.</p>
<p>At Hippo, actually all but one are males who chose to be gay…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Biology. Natural selection and evolution. Why do you think men are much less picky about sexual partners?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes that’s what I’m saying. I said single parents shouldn’t be able to adopt children either. Single parent homes are not ideal. While they can provide a nurturing environment, a child should grow up learning how the two sexes function together and how they function separately. Only a man-woman can provide this environment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Research has shown”… Wow, now I’m convinced. Who put out this “research”: the Women’s Studies department at Brown? I’d say these individuals are the least adjusted and have difficulty fitting into peer groups that are largely unisex. I’ve known individuals like this and they’re surely not adjusted. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with males cooking or doing the laundry, just don’t deny that a gender dichotomy exists.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who thinks this garbage anymore? I think men and women are biologically different. But I don’t think women doctors and women physicists (i.e. Lisa Randall of Harvard) are incapable of doing “men’s work”.</p>
<p>If we want to go into evolutionary biology, the “traditional” child upbringing was by a group of 40-60 closely related individuals wandering across the African Savannah hunting game and finding edible plants with primitive tools. The two-parent nuclear family that traditionalists point to as ideal is just as “unnatural” as two parents of the same sex raising a child, or only two parents of any sex raising a child, for that matter. “It takes a village” should be taken literally.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Those were nomadic peoples. We’ve progressed as a culture and that situation simply isn’t feasible anymore. I’m also not sure that survival in that social environment is what we’re naturally programmed for. It’s irrelevant to my argument anyway.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You missed the point or you’re confusing the arguments. The two-parent nuclear family is best b/c it offers the most stability and exposure to appropriate gender roles. Single parent homes lack both these qualities and same-sex homes lack the latter.</p>
<p>And my point was, once culture has adapted to modern life, there isn’t an appropriate role for each gender. The men aren’t out hunting game and the women aren’t searching for edible berries. Neither gender has evolved to be better suited for office work vs. homemaking. </p>
<p>Two parents may offer more stability than one, but two parents of the same sex aren’t going to change the outcome of a kid that was born straight, just as straight parents can’t do much to make a gay kid straight. Sexual orientation isn’t a big game of “Red Rover.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s completely untrue. You think male and female social roles are identical??!!? That’s absurd. Our hunter-gatherer past has not washed away all that natural selection has programmed into us. Men are still less picky than women with regards to sexual partners, men are still more aggressive, women are still better at conflict resolution, men are still better at physical activities, etc. These all constitute what the traditional gender role is. Not to mention that the genders function together, so that relationship must be understood. How men and women fit together is an important lesson of adolescence.</p>
<p>No one is stating straight kids are going go gay. But they’ll be less understanding of what their appropriate role in society is. They’ll be less understanding how to deal with the opposite sex b/c they haven’t had intimate experience such as viewing a mature relationship amongst their hetero parents.</p>
<p>Then is it biology or upbringing? If the natural instinct is as strong as you say it is, then the situation in which a child is raised isn’t going to have as great an effect. Nature or nurture has to win out, but not both.</p>