Are Children A Part Of The Gay Marriage Conversation?

[Rikurzhen]

Rik, son, it doesn't matter, yeah?

This is like the end of DOMA, prop 8, DADT, and the beginning of marriage equality.

You can't stop it.

Once we find a cure or vaccine for homosexuality, the social reforms will be reversed. What parent will willingly choose to have a homosexual child when they can prevent it? Look at what has happened with the birth incidence of children born with Down's Syndrome.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sigh and deny,
Ask why and then lie,
Thy name be Rik,
And thy brain is sick.

Son, this is not going to stop, yeah?

Deny and cry all you want, but the process will continue.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Rik, son, it doesn't matter, yeah?

This is like the end of DOMA, prop 8, DADT, and the beginning of marriage equality.

You can't stop it.

Once we find a cure or vaccine for homosexuality, the social reforms will be reversed. What parent will willingly choose to have a homosexual child when they can prevent it? Look at what has happened with the birth incidence of children born with Down's Syndrome.

1. There is no cure or vaccine for Down's Syndrome. There is though prenatal screening for pregnant women.

2. On study shows that the number of diagnosed pregnancies of Down's Syndrome babies has increased by 71%

3. The number of Down's Syndrome babies born though has actually decreased. How? Because of the screening a high number of the babies are aborted.


Down s syndrome pregnancies have risen rapidly but overall births have not - Health news - NHS Choices


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

We seem to be getting sidetracked with the physical side of the "do children matter in the gay marriage debate" question. I was thinking more along the lines of first their psychological wellbeing; and then by extention, the wellbeing of society as a whole as this thing progresses generationally...

Because each adult generation is made up of yesterday's children. Sometimes people forget that...

 

[ShackledNation]

^^
Here we go again.

A couple does not have to raise children, have the intent of raising children, or even be capable having children to obtain a marriage license.

As to the well-being of children with gay parents--they do fine. Some studies even say slightly better.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Rik, son, it doesn't matter, yeah?

This is like the end of DOMA, prop 8, DADT, and the beginning of marriage equality.

You can't stop it.

Once we find a cure or vaccine for homosexuality, the social reforms will be reversed. What parent will willingly choose to have a homosexual child when they can prevent it? Look at what has happened with the birth incidence of children born with Down's Syndrome.

1. There is no cure or vaccine for Down's Syndrome. There is though prenatal screening for pregnant women.

2. On study shows that the number of diagnosed pregnancies of Down's Syndrome babies has increased by 71%

3. The number of Down's Syndrome babies born though has actually decreased. How? Because of the screening a high number of the babies are aborted.

The abortion rate for Down's children is about 90+%.

 

[bripat9643]

^^
Here we go again.

A couple does not have to raise children, have the intent of raising children, or even be capable having children to obtain a marriage license.

That's all true, but the welfare of children is the only reason the marriage contract exists. If it wasn't for the fact of reproduction, why bother with marriage at all?

As to the well-being of children with gay parents--they do fine. Some studies even say slightly better.

Those "studies" are all bogus. They're little more than propaganda.

 

[Physics Hunter]

We know what the two parent heterosexual home produces, and the havoc that the one parent home produces. Only God knows what homosexual "homes" might produce.

One thing that I am sure of is that the LGBT have no clue what Brave New World they are creating.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We know what the two parent heterosexual home produces, and the havoc that the one parent home produces. Only God knows what homosexual "homes" might produce.

One thing that I am sure of is that the LGBT have no clue what Brave New World they are creating.

This fails as a slippery slope fallacy.

We do know that children in homes with same-sex parents are as happy and as well-adjusted as children from other types of homes, that children need only love and attention to flourish regardless the number and gender of parents, and that you and others who exhibit fear, ignorance, and hate toward gay Americans are not at liberty to seek to codify that fear, ignorance, and hate.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Rik, son, it doesn't matter, yeah?

This is like the end of DOMA, prop 8, DADT, and the beginning of marriage equality.

You can't stop it.

Once we find a cure or vaccine for homosexuality, the social reforms will be reversed. What parent will willingly choose to have a homosexual child when they can prevent it? Look at what has happened with the birth incidence of children born with Down's Syndrome.

This is unsurprisingly ignorant and hateful.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Rik, son, it doesn't matter, yeah?

This is like the end of DOMA, prop 8, DADT, and the beginning of marriage equality.

You can't stop it.

Once we find a cure or vaccine for homosexuality, the social reforms will be reversed. What parent will willingly choose to have a homosexual child when they can prevent it? Look at what has happened with the birth incidence of children born with Down's Syndrome.

This is unsurprisingly ignorant and hateful.

It's not ignorant. I doubt you've had any college-level biology or genetics classes so you're certainly not qualified to speak on the issue. As for hateful, it's not hateful at all. I simply believe, using Down's Syndrome abortion data, that most liberal parents will choose to abort babies who are determined to be homosexual. That's not saying anything about homosexuals, it's an assessment of liberals - I don't believe that they live true to their stated beliefs. The only way we'll find out which of us is correct is to wait and see how liberals react.

 

[bripat9643]

We know what the two parent heterosexual home produces, and the havoc that the one parent home produces. Only God knows what homosexual "homes" might produce.

One thing that I am sure of is that the LGBT have no clue what Brave New World they are creating.

This fails as a slippery slope fallacy.

We do know that children in homes with same-sex parents are as happy and as well-adjusted as children from other types of homes, that children need only love and attention to flourish regardless the number and gender of parents, and that you and others who exhibit fear, ignorance, and hate toward gay Americans are not at liberty to seek to codify that fear, ignorance, and hate.

Wrong, we don't know that. Sociologist used to believe that paying mothers to have children wasn't detrimental to society. We now know that it's one of the most destructive things government can do to society. The jury is still out on gay parenting, but simple logic runs against it.

Also, there is no such thing as the "slippery slope fallacy." There's something called the "slippery slope argument," but it's not a fallacy. It's valid logic, though not always true.

 

[Plasmaball]

We know what the two parent heterosexual home produces, and the havoc that the one parent home produces. Only God knows what homosexual "homes" might produce.

One thing that I am sure of is that the LGBT have no clue what Brave New World they are creating.

We already know what will happen. The children turn out fine.
Not our problem if you choose to ignore it for the sake of your made up fantasy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The false derivative of "we don't know what will happen" was applied, I am sure, to women voting and blacks having civil liberties enforced.

 

[JakeStarkey]

" I simply believe, using Down's Syndrome abortion data, that most liberal parents will choose to abort babies who are determined to be homosexual. " And once parents have a test for far right reactionary syndrome, much of the problems in American can be remediated before they can occur.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Slippery Slope Fallacy 9
(STFU bripat)
Explanation
Slippery slope arguments falsely assume that one thing must lead to another. They begin by suggesting that if we do one thing then that will lead to another, and before we know it we’ll be doing something that we don’t want to do. They conclude that we therefore shouldn’t do the first thing. The problem with these arguments is that it is possible to do the first thing that they mention without going on to do the other things; restraint is possible.

Logical Fallacies Slippery Slope Fallacy

 

[ricechickie]

Then you need to talk to some people who feel that their lives were destroyed by, in effect, becoming "unpeople."

Earlier in this thread I appealed to analogy - a pregnant mother decides to have a surgeon amputate one of the limbs on her fetus. The baby will not know a life that is different. Some children will grow up and be completely fine with having only one leg. Other children will be severely impacted by their disability. The parent has no way of knowing how the child will be impacted but they're gambling, like with Russian Roulette, that their child will be completely fine being born with only one leg.

This gamble takes place because the parent is placing their own desire to have a child above the welfare, and the human rights, of the child. That child's human rights are not owned by the parent and can't be bargained away by the parent, no more that a parent has the right to sell their child into slavery.

That seems extreme and absurd. Identity crisis doesn't create "unpeople."

It almost sounds like you are arguing that abortion is preferable to any deviation from what would be the ideal physical and environmental life.

 

[ricechickie]

The richness here is found in being raised by and knowing personally, the mother and father who conceived you. That's what the big deal about those switched babies is all about, that's why the Argentine Stolen Babies episode is so traumatic to many:

BUENOS AIRES—A determined group of women working to find babies stolen from dissidents during a 1970s Argentine dictatorship were celebrating after the head of their organization found her long-lost grandson.

"I didn't want to die without hugging him," Estela Barnes de Carlotto, who is 83 and leads the Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo, said on Tuesday.

Local media reported that Ms. de Carlotto hadn't been reunited with her grandson as of Wednesday afternoon. She said there wasn't a need to rush. Still, she was clearly excited about having achieved her objective: to find the grandson Ms. De Carlotto always believed had been alive.

A 36-year-old man who had gone by the name Ignacio Hurban had been stolen from Ms. de Carlotto's daughter, who had been pregnant when kidnapped in 1977 by the military junta then ruling Argentina. Born the next year, the boy she had named Guido had been given to a childless couple that raised him in the farm belt outside Buenos Aires.

In June, curious about his family history, Mr. Hurban approached the Grandmothers' group and provided a blood test that later confirmed he was the son of Laura Carlotto and her partner, Walmire Montoya.

"Our hope is to find more," said Alan Iud, the lawyer who heads the Grandmothers legal team, in an interview on Wednesday. He said families of 312 victims of that brutal 1970s regime have donated blood samples to a genetics bank, hoping one day to find the missing children of loved ones.

"The empty portraits that are waiting for him will have his picture," Ms. De Carlotto said of her grandson. "He is a good boy who sought me out."​

This is the second time that you've portrayed the feelings of parents who lost their babies, to show how traumatized those children must be growing up without biological parents.

 

[beagle9]

^^ similar to the argument against interracial marriage.

People didn't want their children to see that kind of race-mixing being flaunted.

I don't know if anyone told you, there is no right to not be offended.

^^ similar to the argument against interracial marriage.

People didn't want their children to see that kind of race-mixing being flaunted.

I don't know if anyone told you, there is no right to not be offended.

Marriage between a man and woman regardless of their color is not the same thing as gay marriage at all, as it (marriage between a man and a woman) is sanctioned by God as was exampled in the case with Moses when Miriam and Antioch (I think) spoke against Moses marriage, and God punished them for speaking against Moses in this way . Nice try in mixing the issues though..

This is a correction for Ricechickie - It wasn't Antioch, but instead it was Arron & Miriam who spake against Moses and his new wife.... Here is where it is located in the Bible - Numbers 12 - Chapter 1-16. Now listen up, there is No where in the word where God sanctions or approves of gay marriage, either it be with a man lying with another man as he would with a woman or a woman with another woman as she would with a man in which would not be a part of being married of course at all, otherwise as it would be between a man and a woman. At least not in the ways in which some are thinking today about two men being involved or two women being involved with each other or in marriage, because it is SIN according to God.

You see folks this is what they do, so always do your homework on these libs, because they will distort and use everything they can to try and justify their positions in life.

 

[ricechickie]

Marriage between a man and woman regardless of their color is not the same thing as gay marriage at all, as it (marriage between a man and a woman) is sanctioned by God as was exampled in the case with Moses when Miriam and Antioch (I think) spoke against Moses marriage, and God punished them for speaking against Moses in this way . Nice try though..

Marriage may have begun as a religious construct, but it is now also a civil construct, separate from religion, sanctioned by government.

Maybe that's the problem. Maybe we should do away with the government-given perks of marriage, and simply let it be a private ceremony. Anyone can marry anyone, and the law won't touch it.

Otherwise, it's discriminatory to prevent gay people from marrying the person of their choice, just like anti-miscegenation laws were discriminatory to prevent the same thing.