Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Effects of Gay Marriage

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

However, these children with disrupted family lives are the ones most in need of a stable home with good role models.

I do not understand how a sexual preference carries the inherent value of good or bad role models. There is an astonishingly large (nay, enormous) number of heterosexual couples whose parents are incredibly bad role models.

It seems to me that sexuality has nothing to do with it, each case should be evaluated on the individual level. Whether Daddy likes men isn't as important as whether daddy is a man of principle and moral rectitude or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I do not understand how a sexual preference carries the inherent value of good or bad role models. There is an astonishingly large (nay, enormous) number of heterosexual couples whose parents are incredibly bad role models.

It seems to me that sexuality has nothing to do with it, each case should be evaluated on the individual level. Whether Daddy likes men isn't as important as whether daddy is a man of principle and moral rectitude or not.

I didn't say gays can't be good role models, but two lesbians cannot, by definition, provide a good male role model

Edited by rebelconservative
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say gays can't be good role models, but two lesbians cannot, by definition, provide a good male role model

Is "male role model" a useful concept? What purpose does it serve? In what way does that purpose prohibit females? Once the purpose is elaborated, is the term "male role model" the best possible for referring to the concept created by that purpose?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot ask all children, particularly youngsters, they are not best placed to know what is in their own best interests - if you ask children whether they want to live with the permissive parents who will let them stay up until 1am playing video games every night, or the couple with a strict bed-time, they are unlikely to chose wisely. Responsible, rational adults are the ultimate guard of a child's best interests.

It should be up to the guardian to decide if the parents are unfit to adopt him. It should be the child's decision if the guardian accepts, but the child doesn't. Children aren't pieces of jewelry.

I am not sure they are attempting 'social engineering', in the sense that the term refers to an attempt to influence social behaviour in a manner that conflicts with nature / conventional social mores, unless it is 'social engineering' for the government to prohibit the use of force? After all, it is an attempt to influence behaviour. But even if we accept that it is, I dispute the contention that it is arbitrary. The mother-father relationship is a fact of nature, it is not an arbitrary social convention that hetrosexuals have invented to discrimination against gay people. Further, concern at the lack of a male role model in the home as is often cited, is a legitimate concern for the child, not an arbitrary decision.

No, it's not a "legitimate" concern. "Common" concern and "Legitimate concern" are two different things. There's a common concern that removal of "One Nation Under God" is an assault on religious freedom, but it's not a legitimate concern.

The "mother-father" relationship is not a fact of nature. A real fact of nature, is very often, the male rapes the female and never sees her again, leaving her with kids to take care of. As a matter of fact, the fact that we think of marriage as an institution of love is so far beyond nature that it's not even funny. The best thing about humans, is that we are civilized and don't follow "nature".

It's an arbitrary decision, because it's not proved. It's not proved that children will develop some sort of negative disorder if they are adopted by gays.

However, these children with disrupted family lives are the ones most in need of a stable home with good role models. A child who was, for instance, abused by their father may never be able to develop a positive relationship with men if they do not have a positive male role model during their subsequent development. Friends and uncles are not sufficient and cannot replace the importance of a father-figure in the home. Even the most stable, loving, nurturing lesbian couple cannot give children the father-figure that they need.

And I ask you: what does a "father-figure" do for a child? What does it mean for him? How does it contribute to his growth? And in what way do they "need one"? What is the positive correlation between the genitalia of the parental guardian, and the psychological development of the child?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should be up to the guardian to decide if the parents are unfit to adopt him. It should be the child's decision if the guardian accepts, but the child doesn't. Children aren't pieces of jewelry.

Who said they are jewelry? I am talking about what is in their rational self-interests. Children are not suited to determine that, that is why responsible adults need to set rules for them. Typically, the younger the child, the less capable they are of making a decision of this magnitude rationally. Obviously, if a child had a strong opposition to being adopted by a particular couple for whatever reason, it would clearly not be in their best interests to force that so responsible adults would not make that decision.

The "mother-father" relationship is not a fact of nature. A real fact of nature, is very often, the male rapes the female and never sees her again, leaving her with kids to take care of.

I suspect you are referring to the animal kingdom, where it is not "rape" but the normal act of mating for two animals in heat to come together, mate and that to seperate. I don't accept that as being natural for Man. You are treating Man as though he were some kind of savage, an animal no different to a dog.

As a matter of fact, the fact that we think of marriage as an institution of love is so far beyond natur that it's not even funny. The best thing about humans, is that we are civilized and don't follow "nature".

A semantic dispute perhaps, but we are not apart from 'nature' - civilisation is in our nature.

And I ask you: what does a "father-figure" do for a child? What does it mean for him? How does it contribute to his growth? And in what way do they "need one"? What is the positive correlation between the genitalia of the parental guardian, and the psychological development of the child?

Are you suggesting that the only difference between men and women are their gentalia?

I don't have time to find any concrete study now, but all of the literature I have ever read on this subject shows the crucial importance of male role-models to the future lives of children (though again, I accept that most is in regard to the effects on children raised by single-mothers).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have time to find any concrete study now, but all of the literature I have ever read on this subject shows the crucial importance of male role-models to the future lives of children (though again, I accept that most is in regard to the effects on children raised by single-mothers).

Well, let us address your objection by asking you to define exactly what things does a male role-model teach children. I think that if we can isolate those particular things, we can determine whether or not it is impossible for anyone else to impart those things upon the child in question.

Edited by kainscalia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have time to find any concrete study now, but all of the literature I have ever read on this subject shows the crucial importance of male role-models to the future lives of children (though again, I accept that most is in regard to the effects on children raised by single-mothers).

There is no "perfect parent" for a kid; all parents provide things and lack things for each kid. JMeganSnow once wrote on the forum (regarding child abuse) that kids are extremely resilient and can withstand, get through, and become thriving adults despite even the most horrible childhoods, and it's true. The vast majority of most childhoods can't be described as "the most horrible," certainly not those without constant male role models! You also ignore the countless male role models outside of a family that a child will recognize and draw from; what, do these moms lock their kid in the house until he is an adult? Children do worse than two moms growing up, especially since all parents can't fully provide for every little psychological need a kid might have.

More than that, you ignore the kid himself. All kids respond differently to the exact same parenting conditions. I have four siblings, and each of us are a unique person despite having had the same parents growing up, and each needed different things. If out parents didn't provide it (though they were good parents), we found it other ways. All kids do this!

Like kainscalia noted, you should do away with the generalizations until you can isolate what you're generalizing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore, the importance of having a strong male role model is not in dispute, their experience of their father has a huge impact on how children develop and influences their relationships in later life.

Actually, it is disputed by several in this thread. Specifically, the dispute is about whether or not the studies track things that are specific to males.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RebelConservative, the problem with your argument regarding needing heterosexual parents to provide proper gender roles is that it seems to be based on your desire to believe it so, no any real evidence.

Most gay people are born of and raised by straight parents. In fact, I know only two gay people who have a parent who is also gay.

Of the gay couples I know who have raised adopted children I'm afraid I don't know of any turning gay because their adoptive parents are gay.

You are also supposing that gay people automatically stray from what their "proper gender roles" would be.

I know many gay men that lift weights, go to football games, fix things around the house, etc.. not a single "feminine" aspect about them.

Just as many gay women who wear dresses, heels & lipstick whenever out & like pretty flowers & baking cupcakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect you are referring to the animal kingdom, where it is not "rape" but the normal act of mating for two animals in heat to come together, mate and that to seperate. I don't accept that as being natural for Man. You are treating Man as though he were some kind of savage, an animal no different to a dog.

A semantic dispute perhaps, but we are not apart from 'nature' - civilisation is in our nature.

I had no idea you were referring to -our- nature. So you're saying it's in our nature, specifically, to develop a relationship with the opposite sex?

Are you suggesting that the only difference between men and women are their gentalia?

Anatomically? No.

Relation-ship wise? No, but the difference is mostly nurture than anything. And even so, you're not being specific about what characteristics a male can provide that is nurturing to a kid that a female can't. Most objections to any deviation of the traditional family unit is one in which the father goes to work and provides the income, while the mommy stays at home and cooks dinner for everyone. If people stayed true to this idea, we wouldn't have any female C.E.O's, Senators, lawyers, or any non-teacher/stay at home jobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most objections to any deviation of the traditional family unit is one in which the father goes to work and provides the income, while the mommy stays at home and cooks dinner for everyone. If people stayed true to this idea, we wouldn't have any female C.E.O's, Senators, lawyers, or any non-teacher/stay at home jobs.

Nor would we have any Ayn Rand, who chose to remain childless and be the breadwinner of her household. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have been numerous studies that have shown that gay couples adopting children has no negative effects on the child's upbringing, these studies evaluated both gay and lesbian couples. I do not have the studies right on hand but I can retrieve them if someone wishes to examine them.

As a result of this knowledge I would have to, respectfully, agree with this comment:

RebelConservative, the problem with your argument regarding needing heterosexual parents to provide proper gender roles is that it seems to be based on your desire to believe it so, no any real evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, I never suggested that gay parents would have gay kids.

Secondly, whilst same-sex parents can still provide some level of male (or female) role models for children, a few hours here and there is not the same as having a father-figure in the home. Further, many kids would not even get that - many kids with single-mothers spend very little time with any male role model http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/jan/19/children-earlyyearseducation

I don't have time to find all the data, but here is one study suggesting the importance of a male role-model on a child's development http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080212095450.htm

Also, I am not suggesting women should not be doctors, lawyers etc. I am suggesting that the evidence shows men and women nurture children in different ways - male role models tend to be more disciplining for example.

Edited by rebelconservative
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason that Ayn Rand and Objectivism did not agree morally with homosexuality was because it is literally deviant human behavior, ie it moves away from and acts contrary to the organisms biological function viz a vie pro-creation. Ayn Rand understood the importance of the law of identity. Yes, Objectivism holds that man may live his own life even if he does not live by a rational set of values or contradicts the law of identity. It seems rather odd that many posters defend bits and pieces of Rand, but when it comes to the topic of homosexuality she is practically berated as being mistaken or some such nonsense. If Rand would have came out in defence of homosexuality than she would have also been sympathetic to libertarian/anarchy philosophy too and that is not rational, since they embrace an anything goes attitude of liberty without morality or reason to defend their ideas. I prefer to stand with Rand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason that Ayn Rand and Objectivism did not agree morally with homosexuality was because it is literally deviant human behavior, ie it moves away from and acts contrary to the organisms biological function viz a vie pro-creation.
What does man's "biological function viz a viz procreation" mean?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems rather odd that many posters defend bits and pieces of Rand

If you wish to be part of a cult of personality this is not the place to be. It is in fact quite possible for Rand to make a few errors on non-essential topics and that has been the case in a few cases. Although a genius, she was only human.

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason that Ayn Rand and Objectivism did not agree morally with homosexuality was because it is literally deviant human behavior, ie it moves away from and acts contrary to the organisms biological function viz a vie pro-creation. Ayn Rand understood the importance of the law of identity. Yes, Objectivism holds that man may live his own life even if he does not live by a rational set of values or contradicts the law of identity. It seems rather odd that many posters defend bits and pieces of Rand, but when it comes to the topic of homosexuality she is practically berated as being mistaken or some such nonsense. If Rand would have came out in defence of homosexuality than she would have also been sympathetic to libertarian/anarchy philosophy too and that is not rational, since they embrace an anything goes attitude of liberty without morality or reason to defend their ideas. I prefer to stand with Rand.

Ayn Rand was clear about procreation being optional and volitional. She chose not to have children; does that mean Ayn acted against the Law of Identity?

Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?
(Source )

She was also clear that her feelings on homosexuality were personal, not philosophical, and gay people were entitled to the same individual rights as everyone else. Per Wikipedia:

Although her personal views of homosexuality were unambiguously negative, Rand consistently advocated the right to political freedom and equality for homosexuals while opposing laws against discrimination affecting the private sector.
(Source)

Objectivism is not "Ayn-worship". She explicated the philosophy, and wrote and lectured about it extensively. That is why she is the reference for philosophical issues. Her personal feelings and preferences are her own. You agree with her personal feeling, which is fine. You're perfectly within your rights to disapprove. Other Objectivists may not defend that because it is a personal feeling rather than a philosophical position. Any philosophical or legal position which abridges the rights of a gay individual - or two gay individuals as a couple - or any rationally-functioning individual - is contra Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objectivism holds that man may live his own life even if he does not live by a rational set of values or contradicts the law of identity. It seems rather odd that many posters defend bits and pieces of Rand, but when it comes to the topic of homosexuality she is practically berated as being mistaken or some such nonsense.....I prefer to stand with Rand.

Forgive me if I am mistaken but I believe you have come out on many posts as being against a woman's right to an abortion- a right which Rand was vehement in her support of. Have you changed your mind since?

Or are you choosing "bits and pieces of Rand"?

Besides, the "Randier-than-thou" thing gets old after a while. This is not a cult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I am not suggesting women should not be doctors, lawyers etc. I am suggesting that the evidence shows men and women nurture children in different ways - male role models tend to be more disciplining for example.

The fact that you said "tend to be more" is all the more reason why not only gay's should be legally allowed to adopt children, but why it is morally wise to ignore the coupling itself as a factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...