Thoughts on gay rights?

[jafs]

The argument is completely unconvincing.

First, many, many straight parents are neglectful or abusive - the statistics on that are horrifying.  So, the notion that a straight family is the best rests on some sort of idealization of that which is often not the reality.  And, of course, many straight people have bad habits, like overuse of alcohol, gambling addiction, smoking, etc.

Then, the idea that we should judge whether or not to allow gay and lesbian people equal rights in society by asking "What if everybody were gay" is rather absurd.  Everybody isn't gay - about 4% of the US population is gay/lesbian, last time I looked.  And, clearly, since we need to reproduce for the species to continue, there's a strong natural force at work that would disallow too many gay people, in order to preserve the species.  And, arguments based on the need to reproduce would disallow infertile straight couples, straight couples that don't want to have children, and straight couples past childbearing age.  My wife and I don't have children, and we're in our 50's - should we be allowed to marry?

Having a "good" role model of both genders might be important, but gay or lesbian families can easily have close friends who can fill that role, and just having a man and a woman gives no guarantee that their modeling of gender behaviors will be good or desirable.

Who would make a better foster/adoptive couple?  A straight couple who can barely bake ends meet financially, smoke and drink too much, fight a lot, and are neglectful/abusive of the children, or a gay/lesbian couple who are financially ok, don't smoke, drink in moderation (an occasional glass of wine), rarely fight, and are loving parents?

[Mountaineer]

I'm reminded of the book Conversations with God here, which I'm sure is controversial within Christian circles for being so open and forgiving, but one of the things that was discussed was the notion that one can determine how helpful vs harmful a behavior is by asking the question, "what if everyone did that?"  So this works in a lot of scenarios.  What if everyone recycled and reused instead of being wasteful?  That would be good.  What if everyone married and had 2.1 children?  That would be good and fine for sustaining life (assuming we had a population that we wanted to preserve- actually a limit of two kids would probably do some third world countries some good).  What if everyone became gay?  Umm, humanity would end pretty soon and the kids raised by opposite gender parents wouldn't have the right role models.

IMO, asking "what if everyone did that" is not very useful for determining whether a behavior is helpful or harmful.  The only thing it is useful for is determining if it is indeed helpful or harmful if everyone did it.

For example:

"What if everyone had a full time job and worked 40 hours per week?"

This would be awful.  Infants and children would be subjected to conditions that were likely unsafe for them and beyond their capability.  The same for the elderly.  By your rule, I would be forced to include that having a full time job working 40 hours per week is a bad thing.

That depends on how one defines job.  I prefer the term vocation.  An infants vocation is to learn to love its parents, assure its needs are met so it can flourish and grow up (e.g. cry when hungry, crappy, hurting, etc.).  An elderly person's vocation is to nurture grandchildren, be a great role model, help their kids as appropriate, and the like.  My vocations include: father, husband, grandfather, great-grandfather, neighbor, church leader, congregational member, etc.  In other words, peoples' "jobs" are far more than working 40 hours a week for a pay check.  My opinion. 

... M

[rhymenocerous]

As 30 Rock has taught us...

[img width=400]http://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ld87h ... 1_1280.jpg[/img]

[Libertarian666]

IMO, asking "what if everyone did that" is not very useful for determining whether a behavior is helpful or harmful.  The only thing it is useful for is determining if it is indeed helpful or harmful if everyone did it.

For example:

"What if everyone had a full time job and worked 40 hours per week?"

This would be awful.  Infants and children would be subjected to conditions that were likely unsafe for them and beyond their capability.  The same for the elderly.  By your rule, I would be forced to include that having a full time job working 40 hours per week is a bad thing.

That depends on how one defines job.  I prefer the term vocation.  An infants vocation is to learn to love its parents, assure its needs are met so it can flourish and grow up (e.g. cry when hungry, crappy, hurting, etc.).  An elderly person's vocation is to nurture grandchildren, be a great role model, help their kids as appropriate, and the like.  My vocations include: father, husband, grandfather, great-grandfather, neighbor, church leader, congregational member, etc.  In other words, peoples' "jobs" are far more than working 40 hours a week for a pay check.  My opinion. 

FWIW, I definitely agree with you. 

However, your refining *my* question is consistent with my broader point, which is that using a single criteria ("what if everyone did that") to assess the suitability of a broad range of options doesn't really help.

Of course the obvious next question is "What if everyone used a single criterion to assess the suitability of a broad range of options?".

[Michellebell]

I'm reminded of the book Conversations with God here, which I'm sure is controversial within Christian circles for being so open and forgiving, but one of the things that was discussed was the notion that one can determine how helpful vs harmful a behavior is by asking the question, "what if everyone did that?"  So this works in a lot of scenarios.  What if everyone recycled and reused instead of being wasteful?  That would be good.  What if everyone married and had 2.1 children?  That would be good and fine for sustaining life (assuming we had a population that we wanted to preserve- actually a limit of two kids would probably do some third world countries some good).  What if everyone became gay?  Umm, humanity would end pretty soon and the kids raised by opposite gender parents wouldn't have the right role models.

IMO, asking "what if everyone did that" is not very useful for determining whether a behavior is helpful or harmful.  The only thing it is useful for is determining if it is indeed helpful or harmful if everyone did it.

For example:

"What if everyone had a full time job and worked 40 hours per week?"

This would be awful.  Infants and children would be subjected to conditions that were likely unsafe for them and beyond their capability.  The same for the elderly.  By your rule, I would be forced to include that having a full time job working 40 hours per week is a bad thing.

That depends on how one defines job.  I prefer the term vocation.  An infants vocation is to learn to love its parents, assure its needs are met so it can flourish and grow up (e.g. cry when hungry, crappy, hurting, etc.).  An elderly person's vocation is to nurture grandchildren, be a great role model, help their kids as appropriate, and the like.  My vocations include: father, husband, grandfather, great-grandfather, neighbor, church leader, congregational member, etc.  In other words, peoples' "jobs" are far more than working 40 hours a week for a pay check.  My opinion. 

... M

By everyone, I mean the majority of adults.  I'm not talking about children, who don't behave sexually yet and can't have kids.  Anyway I know my point is moot as I'm not worried about everyone becoming gay, although it does seem like it's becoming a lot more common to me these days.  I know I'm amongst a minority here but I think a lot of them choose it for themselves and could go either way.  A lot of gay people have biological kids so obviously they're straight enough to have heterosexual sex.  I wonder if the gay percentages will increase because of the whole gay agenda.

Also I have to say I'm a bit surprised several people here believe that gay parents are just as good as straight parents.  Do you think divorced parents or cohabiting parents are as good too?  As long as they love their kids?  I think married heterosexual parents provide the most stable environment for kids, as long as you compare equally competent individuals.

[jafs]

If you're not worried about everybody becoming gay, then the whole argument that we have to deny them equal rights because the species needs to procreate evaporates.

I assume I'm one of those people that surprise you - my answer is that the sexual preference and/or marital state of a couple are not the deciding factors in whether or not they're good parents.  There are plenty of straight married couples who are lousy parents, and a number of other varieties of couples who are good parents.

And, stability isn't desirable if other parts of the situation are bad, for example, with an abusive household.  In that case, I would imagine that the kids would be better off if the parents divorced, and they weren't in the abusive situation anymore.

It's only by idealizing the straight nuclear family that one can make it look, well, ideal.  If we look at the reality, it's far from ideal.

[Mountaineer]

IMO, asking "what if everyone did that" is not very useful for determining whether a behavior is helpful or harmful.  The only thing it is useful for is determining if it is indeed helpful or harmful if everyone did it.

For example:

"What if everyone had a full time job and worked 40 hours per week?"

This would be awful.  Infants and children would be subjected to conditions that were likely unsafe for them and beyond their capability.  The same for the elderly.  By your rule, I would be forced to include that having a full time job working 40 hours per week is a bad thing.

That depends on how one defines job.  I prefer the term vocation.  An infants vocation is to learn to love its parents, assure its needs are met so it can flourish and grow up (e.g. cry when hungry, crappy, hurting, etc.).  An elderly person's vocation is to nurture grandchildren, be a great role model, help their kids as appropriate, and the like.  My vocations include: father, husband, grandfather, great-grandfather, neighbor, church leader, congregational member, etc.  In other words, peoples' "jobs" are far more than working 40 hours a week for a pay check.  My opinion. 

... M

By everyone, I mean the majority of adults.  I'm not talking about children, who don't behave sexually yet and can't have kids.  Anyway I know my point is moot as I'm not worried about everyone becoming gay, although it does seem like it's becoming a lot more common to me these days.  I know I'm amongst a minority here but I think a lot of them choose it for themselves and could go either way.  A lot of gay people have biological kids so obviously they're straight enough to have heterosexual sex.  I wonder if the gay percentages will increase because of the whole gay agenda.

Also I have to say I'm a bit surprised several people here believe that gay parents are just as good as straight parents.  Do you think divorced parents or cohabiting parents are as good too?  As long as they love their kids?  I think married heterosexual parents provide the most stable environment for kids, as long as you compare equally competent individuals.

1. No, not based on common sense and my experience with my grandkids (I have a divorced daughter and a granddaughter that cohabited and had a child); I have seen the pain, anger, confusion, hurt, and self-doubts that result among all parties concerned.  I just pray they eventually come out of it alright and do not pass it along in their marriages or to their children.

2. Agree.

... M