Is the Gay Movement dumb for not making the family argument?

[Satya]

Most gay activists like to make the equal rights argument in regards to the same sex marriage, but I think the family argument is better. It goes as follows...

There are 8 to 10 million children of gay parents and same sex couples and the latest 25 years of research indicates that gay couples can raise children just as well as different sex couples. Furthermore there are tens of thousands of children in the foster care system who will never be adopted by a different sex couple and who would do better being raised by a married same sex couple than they would being raised by the state or by an individual parent. Two parent homes whether different sex or opposite sex, are the best at raising children, and the state has an interest in promoting them for the purpose of raising children. Even institutions like the American Pediatric Association have conclusively found that those children would benefit from same sex marriage.

So if you believe in general welfare, then I would assume you believe in the welfare of all those children, and thus you would choose to support same sex marriage.

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f_gay/f_gay.cfm

http://www.teach.virginia.edu/files..._children_of_lesbian_and_gay_parents_cdps.pdf

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349


Do you think the gay movement is dumb for not using this argument? If they were fighting for family equality instead of individual equality, then do you think it would improve their position in the eyes of society?

 

[NaeturVindur]

Devil's Advocate:
Gay people are evil/aberrations/defilements/ect

It is the agenda of every gay person to make more gay people.

Children are the most susceptible to such brainwashing.

Gay people raising children will tun their children gay

Allowing them to marry will make it easier for them to adopt children.

If we don't let them marry, they won't turn as many children gay.

Therefore we shouldn't let them marry.


Thats the only argument I can think of against what you said, so, yeah, it may make a great addition to the support of gay marriage.

 

[Shai Gar]

10% of every gay persons weekly income, for six months, should have enough money to challenge the law in australia, then in ireland, uk, and then take on the US, they might fall from momentum.

 

[Daeledin]

[quote=N

 

[88chaz88]

Why is it that when civil partnerships offer the same benefits as marriage that people are still fighting for gay marriage? The only reason I can think of is because of religion. If this is so, then why the fuck do you want to get married since your religious mumbo jumbo is clearly stating that it's a sin?

I wouldn't mind the term marriage being dropped and used for just religious ceremony, because as far as I'm concerned, if I get married, the church can stay the fuck away from it.

 

[Daeledin]

I could spend the next hour+ regaling you with reasons why 'separate but equal' is not enough and more reasons why it's worth fighting for equal treatment. But I have better things to do like go hiking.

It's all about what the legal definitions can be. Two different operators for the same item could be made to be very different from each other if certain people wanted them to be.

 

[Riven]

Do you think the gay movement is dumb for not using this argument? If they were fighting for family equality instead of individual equality, then do you think it would improve their position in the eyes of society?

To be honest, I don't know. It would improve the position for some but will add fire to the flamethrowers of others.

Why is it that when civil partnerships offer the same benefits as marriage that people are still fighting for gay marriage?

In most places I am aware of (in the United States) civil partnerships do not give all of the benefits of marriage.

 

[88chaz88]

I could spend the next hour+ regaling you with reasons why 'separate but equal' is not enough and more reasons why it's worth fighting for equal treatment. But I have better things to do like go hiking.

It's all about what the legal definitions can be. Two different operators for the same item could be made to be very different from each other if certain people wanted them to be.

Could you at least explain the last part though? Perhaps I'm being slow tonight but all I see is a bunch of words strung together.

 

[88chaz88]

In most places I am aware of (in the United States) civil partnerships do not give all of the benefits of marriage.

Do they not? Then this is what should be fought for in my opinion.

 

[Satya]

Why is it that when civil partnerships offer the same benefits as marriage that people are still fighting for gay marriage? The only reason I can think of is because of religion. If this is so, then why the fuck do you want to get married since your religious mumbo jumbo is clearly stating that it's a sin?

I wouldn't mind the term marriage being dropped and used for just religious ceremony, because as far as I'm concerned, if I get married, the church can stay the fuck away from it.

There are over a thousand federal rights that go to marriages but don't go to civil unions. If those rights were given to civil unions, then I wouldn't care what it was called.

 

[Satya]

Do they not? Then this is what should be fought for in my opinion.

How? Fighting for a single right at a time? It's just easier and makes more sense to fight or marriage.

 

[bamf]

There are over a thousand federal rights that go to marriages but don't go to civil unions. If those rights were given to civil unions, then I wouldn't care what it was called.

Same here, but until that happens, I say marriage for all.

 

[88chaz88]

How? Fighting for a single right at a time? It's just easier and makes more sense to fight or marriage.

I never said a single right at a time, just all rights, at once. Fighting for "marriage" is just going to be impossible for all the screaming nutjobs claiming you're against god.

 

[Shai Gar]

my idea is not worth it then?

 

[Satya]

I never said a single right at a time, just all rights, at once. Fighting for "marriage" is just going to be impossible for all the screaming nutjobs claiming you're against god.

What do you think we have been doing? We are trying to repeal DOMA in Congress. We are trying to bring the issue to the Supreme Court by challenging Prop 8. We are doing our best.

my idea is not worth it then?

I don't think you can tithe gay people.

 

[88chaz88]

What do you think we have been doing? We are trying to repeal DOMA in Congress. We are trying to bring the issue to the Supreme Court by challenging Prop 8. We are doing our best.

Very well, carry on then.

I wish you luck.

 

[Shai Gar]

Tithing is voluntary anyway...

No Gay Rights movement has tried it is all.
If they wanted it enough, I am sure they would put it in.
You can't just sit back and pray for it... That is what the Catholics want you to try, because it's useless. Fight how they fight, raise money through tithing, then spend it in lawsuits that scare and destroy your enemy, use media through bribery, financially back political interest groups, charities in africa that don't directly benefit you (for the PR, which does benefit you), and so on...
Jesus fucking Christ, do you morons need an ENTP Strategist to lead your campaigns or something? Pay me and I promise you Homosexual Right to Marriage before the end of the next presidential term.

 

[Satya]

I actually thought of creating a nonreligous international charity organization to compete against the Catholic Church. They hide behind the defense that they are doing good, but I think if I created an organization that did more good without the child molestation and giant buildings, jewels, etc. then people would be more inclined to donate to it and the Catholic Church could slowly die.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Should I...

Nope.





I want to avoid this:

 

[Shai Gar]

I could promise gay right to marriage before the next presidential term.
I just need to be paid and given absolute leadership.