Are Americans too religious?

[dontno]

<p>

Then is it biology or upbringing?

</p>

<p>Touche, good point. It’s both. Biology predetermines the appropriate gender roles, but our upbringing allows us to adhere to them. Male children won’t all of sudden turn female if they have gay parents, but they may not adopt some behaviors even though they’re biologically predisposed. Society sometimes impedes and it sometimes encourages our natural states. In this case, gay adoption impedes and nuclear family encourages.</p>

[OperaDad]

<p>

@hippo724

There are two things wrong with your incest comparison. First, brother/sister, father/daughter uncle/niece, etc all pose a greater risk of birth defects in children, if they so choose to have any. If anything is dangerous for children, it’s not gay marriage, its incestuous marriage.

</p>

<p>The argument than an “enlightened” society should allow gay marriage is not any different from an “enlightened” scientific advances that can tell you if you have a genetic problem that would be an issue for biological kids. What if the couple agrees not to have biological kids (or was incapable)? Assuming you allow for gay marriage, why shouldn’t that incestuous couple be allowed to marry?</p>

<p>

Second, by banning incestuous marriages, you’re basically telling people that there are a select few people out there who they can’t marry. By telling gay people they can’t marry, you’re telling them that they can’t marry anyone with whom they are capable of falling in love.

</p>

<p>So what? One is more heavy handed than the other. If restrictions are lifted for one group (gay) then there is no reason (from a heavy handed perspective, not biological) not to lift if for all groups.</p>

<p>

Allowing polygamy back into this country would undo the countless efforts of millions of people across generations to achieve equal rights for women.

</p>

<p>What if a woman wants to be married to two or more men? What if two bisexual women and two bisexual men want to be married to each other? Even if it is one man and more than one woman, you are imposing your social values on others. If individuals want a polygamous marriage, why should you be allowed to dictate whether they can or cannot? That is no different from the current society imposing their social values on not recognizing gay marriage. </p>

<p>

A polygamous man can still get married and be reasonably satisfied in his marriage (and be sexually attracted to his wife). The only way for a gay person to be happy in his marriage and feel fulfilled (sexually and in other ways) is to marry a person of the same sex.

</p>

<p>Your question presumes that a couple needs “marriage” in order to be fulfilled. No one is preventing any two (or more) people being with each other. In fact, even incestuous couples can have relations. The issue is religious and legal recognition, and certain automatic contractual spousal rights. Nothing prevents non-traditional couples from contracting those automatic rights.</p>

[StellaNova]

<p>

The two-parent nuclear family is best b/c it offers the most stability and exposure to appropriate gender roles.

</p>

<p>Why should children have to adhere to traditional gender roles? My parents both were raised by two opposite-sex parents, and now, my dad keeps a flower garden, and my mom watches more football than Oprah. Is there anything wrong with that?</p>

<p>

If restrictions are lifted for one group (gay) then there is no reason (from a heavy handed perspective, not biological) not to lift if for all groups.

</p>

<p>Some decades ago, restrictions were lifted for one group (mixed race couples), yet we managed not to lift restrictions for anyone else. I don’t see why we can’t do the same for gays.</p>

[Son_of_Opie]

<p>Awareness of our biological tendencies doesn’t mean that we need be slaves to them.</p>

[Hippo724]

<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.

</p>

<p>What’s your basis for your point of view, or did you pull it out of your ass? </p>

<p>[Androgyny[/url</a>]</p>

<p>[url=<a href=“http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2294/is_n1-2_v38/ai_20816290/]Relations”>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2294/is_n1-2_v38/ai_20816290/]Relations</a> of masculinity and femininity with personality dimensions of the five-factor model | Sex Roles: A Journal of Research | Find Articles at BNET](<a href=“Androgyny - Masculine, Feminine, Masculinity, and Persons - JRank Articles”>Androgyny - Masculine, Feminine, Masculinity, and Persons - JRank Articles)</p>

<p>And an excerpt from wikipedia: *According to Sandra Bem, androgynous men and women are more flexible and more mentally healthy than either masculine or feminine individuals; undifferentiated individuals are less competent. [4] To some degree, though, context influences which gender role is most adaptive. In close relationships, a feminine or androgynous gender role may be more desirable because of the expressive nature of close relationships. However, a masculine or androgynous gender role may be more desirable in academic and work settings because of their demands for action and assertiveness.</p>

<p>One study found that masculine and androgynous individuals had higher expectations for being able to control the outcomes of their academic efforts than feminine or undifferentiated individuals. [5]*</p>

<p>CLEARLY, it has been widely accepted as pretty much fact that androgynous individuals are better adjusted, have higher self esteem and live overall healthier lives. </p>

<p>

exposure to appropriate gender roles.

</p>

<p>Who decides what’s an appropriate role? You contradict yourself often. This statement is rife with the connotation that there are certain things only boys are allowed to do and things only girls are allowed to do. However, in other posts, you have said that it’s perfectly fine for a boy to cook or clean, etc which have traditionally been viewed as part of a woman’s gender role.</p>

[OperaDad]

<p>

@stellanova

Some decades ago, restrictions were lifted for one group (mixed race couples), yet we managed not to lift restrictions for anyone else. I don’t see why we can’t do the same for gays.

</p>

<p>You have just offended a lot of people and opened yourself up for criticism. Trying to compare race to gender preference (being Black is the same as being Gay).</p>

[Son_of_Opie]

<p>But that’s the point. Sexual orientation is not a choice. Someone doesn’t get to choose gay or straight.</p>

[whoswithwhatnow]

<p>^^this irks me the most of the whole issue; so many try to cling to the idea that someone is choosing to be gay… yet the only people that get to make any type of decision are the religious bigots that choose not to accept them.</p>

[StellaNova]

<p>

You have just offended a lot of people and opened yourself up for criticism. Trying to compare race to gender preference (being Black is the same as being Gay).

</p>

<p>Yeah, and your posts haven’t offended anybody.</p>

<p>No, I’m not saying being black is the same as being gay. I’m just pointing out that it is possible to remove some restrictions on our definition of marriage without opening the floodgates to incest and bestiality.</p>

[colboy]

<p>Two fathers or two mothers can do just as well as one father and one mother. I don’t get why these gender roles you say are so important. Why can’t men clean and cook and women go to work? Isn’t this the 21st century? I thought people would get over the idea of “gender roles.”</p>

<p>Look at this video: [YouTube</a> - Kinderen voor Kinderen song - Two Fathers](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qf0puHJ-KM]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qf0puHJ-KM)
It’s a kid show that shows a kid singing about gay adoption. We need more of this stuff in the US.</p>