Feminism and why it's bad.

Sander said:
No, there isn't. The research is pretty much unequivocal and points in only one direction on this topic. It is also nonsense that it's impossible to research or debate these things in academia, or have a differing opinion. There are a whole bunch of conservative universities in the USA, not to mention a buttload of conservative thinktanks, and you can easily get funding to study the effects of parenting on children.

Fact is, the research showing different results isn't there because there's simply no evidence that having two gay parents is bad for children.
Click to expand...

Actually, there's one research I recall by a fellow called Mark Regnerus. Then again, he's Catholic, meaning he's biased against it. That's the only one I remember.
Of course, I have to clarify that there's a certain level of double standard for me. By this I mean, I am a lot more creeped out by male-male couples adopting and raising children, while I am less creeped out by lesbian couples doing likewise. Possibly a result of all the propaganda that men raising or just being with children must be sex predators.
 
Nas92 said:
Of course, I have to clarify that there's a certain level of double standard for me. By this I mean, I am a lot more creeped out by male-male couples adopting and raising children, while I am less creeped out by lesbian couples doing likewise. Possibly a result of all the propaganda that men raising or just being with children must be sex predators.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there's a fair bit of that going around. Basically, all you need to know is that it's more important for children to be in a functional family unit, than have a specific gender make up within it. It follows: You don't need role models, you need parents.
 
Why is gay rights even thing? I don't care who you're sleeping with or what you're doing just don't push it on me and we're good. Live and let live and deal with bigger issues.
 
Nas92 said:
Crni Vuk said:
How are they different than others :S
Click to expand...
They have same sex couples for parents, while most of their peers will have heterosexual couples for parents. That's an obvious difference.

Sander said:
Also, research shows that this is some bullshit and adopted children of gay people do just fine.
Click to expand...
But then there's research that proves the opposite, which of course gets immediately denounced as crimethink. I'm not saying you're not correct, but I'd like to point out that in academic life it is impossible to properly debate such a thing, because it will probably cost one's job to have the "wrong" opinion.
Click to expand...

Yes, but it is not uncommon! If you ignore the sexuality of the parents for a moment. Consider a child that is raised by his/her single mom and his/her aunt. Or if you want a single father and a grandfather, uncle, brother etc. I agree it is not EXACTLY the same, gay people will display their relationship in a different way, but it shows that a child can grow up without the other sex beeing present. I mean one of the parents could suddenly die or decide to leave the family or what ever. Most studies clearly tell that what really counts is a healthy loving relationship with the children. Doesn't matter much if it has two dads or two moms or one dad and one mom. If you want it that way, there are many single parents raizing their children. This is also not a perfect situations if you see the 1-dad-1-mom constelation as the normal way to raize a child. There is no doubt that issues can and will come up. But that counts for all families and is not unique to homosexual couples. It depends how the parents deal with the situation. A family with 2 differen sexes can be as abusve like everyone else and do a lot more harm than a couple of gay people that love their child and care about it. But I am pretty sure that you know that.

I am just saying, stigmatization in school also happens to children that have 1 dad and 1 mom. It's already enough if you can't talk correctly in the language, if your parents are foreigners, or if you have a fancy name, the wrong clothes or what ever. Children are simply like that.
 
tbh I think the distance between parent and role model is quite significant. the mere word 'parent' is nebulous and opens itself to discursive and non-constructive, often etymological arguments

'role-model' refers to concrete representation + cause/effect relationships regarding affectation of ideology on an impressionable sprog, both individually and to the wider society. the semantics are superseded by more practical concerns of morality, practicality, function etc (and isn't that a fucking hilarious sentence?)

a role model needn't be a parent; a child needn't necessarily have a parent nor may they consider their carer to be a parent in order to be well-adjusted, considering that the nuclear family and even smaller branches of that (single parents, whole families living under one roof, gay parents, being raised by cats) is -though related to older survival-based rearing- now less significant in evolutionary terms. The stigma -or rather, point of cruelty- tends to be a boil to prod at, a notable social /difference/ than something inherently socially or biologically detrimental to the individual, as Gregory notes above.

if a kid is raised or supported by someone who is "good" and becomes something that either they and/or society in general deems to be "not completely unhinged" without even seeing said individual as a parent (not something I consider to be an impossibility or even an unusual case) then surely that is more life-affirming than any sort of established social hierarchy. If anything, that might help an individual avoid relying on their location/position in a hierarchy as a means to define themselves.

not to say we should all swear off established family forms, structures etc ofc
 
Last edited:
Beaushizzle said:
Why is gay rights even thing? I don't care who you're sleeping with or what you're doing just don't push it on me and we're good. Live and let live and deal with bigger issues.
Click to expand...

Not everybody feels the same way. The majority of people who are against homosexuality are either Christian or Muslim, but there are different breeds of bigoted assholes the world 'round.

I think we shouldn't illegalize homosexuality. If they want to get married that's just fine. Just because I don't like it doesn't mean I want to prevent it from happening. Why shouldn't they get to be happy just like us? I don't think "because they touch peens" qualifies as a legitimate reason.

I think we should make divorce illegal though (except for on certain grounds, like having a violent and abusive husband or wife), or at least make it a law to where if you get divorced you can never re-marry. It's just because marriage doesn't mean anything to people anymore. They shit all over something that is supposed to be a sacred union between two people. Some people have had more than six different husbands/wives. Now that is just fucking ridiculous. It's like, why even get married? Why not just be in a romantic relationship and draw the line there?

Marriage used to be something sacred in my eyes, whether you are/were religious or not, marriage is a sacred ceremony binding two people together for LIFE. Not until they get tired of eachother and move on to the next jackass that they'll end up divorcing in another three or four years. I'm glad my fiance felt the same way before she passed.

Dragonborn said:
ITS NOT BAD UNLESS THERE ARE FEMINAZIS THEN THEY ARE BAD
Click to expand...

Dude, kill yourself.
 
Last edited:
Frankly, I feel that marriage should only exist as a religious institution. The only thing its presence in legislation does is allow one partner to steal property from the other if he/she feels entitled to it.

Curiously, during this time when the internet was unavailable to me, I kept wondering whether or not ChildServices would get banned by the time I was back. It seems that my fears were well-placed. He will be missed. What did he do to deserve such a fate?
 
LordAshur said:
Frankly, I feel that marriage should only exist as a religious institution. The only thing its presence in legislation does is allow one partner to steal property from the other if he/she feels entitled to it.
Click to expand...

That's not really true at all, there are plenty of legal benefits to marriage that have nothing to do with divorce.

For example: Marriage tax benefits and joint filings, being able to share your health insurance with your spouse, social security spousal support, the ability to inherit your spouse's property on their death without going through probate if it's not spelled out in a will, that employers are generally legally required to let people take time off if their spouse is ill, and the fact that your status as "next of kin" entitles you to visit your spouse in the hospital without jumping through hoops and to make medical decisions for them in case they are incapable.

Now whether or not all of that is the way things ought to be, it's the way things are, so unless we're going to eliminate those things (which would be controversial to say the least) we might as well extend them to all married couples.
 
Should they all be eliminated, the only real immediate effect it would have would be a change in semantics, that's true.

Tagaziel said:
Yeah, there's a fair bit of that going around. Basically, all you need to know is that it's more important for children to be in a functional family unit, than have a specific gender make up within it. It follows: You don't need role models, you need parents.
Click to expand...

But how does a good parent (and by "good" I mean one that actually spends time with the child instead of messing around and being "emancipated") make the child not see him/her as a role model? And how is that good? It only makes the child more susceptible to other, potentially harmful influences. I understand that not all parents are benevolent influences, but there's a much better chance that they will genuinely care about the child than some outside influence.

As for the gender makeup, there's only one thing that causes concern. An overwhelming majority of parents mold their children to be as similar to them as possible. You see how this can be troublesome for the child - which would most likely be heterosexual?
 
LordAshur said:
As for the gender makeup, there's only one thing that causes concern. An overwhelming majority of parents mold their children to be as similar to them as possible. You see how this can be troublesome for the child - which would most likely be heterosexual?
Click to expand...

Well then, what if the child is a homosexual with heterosexual parents? This is the same situation in reverse, and it has been happening since the dawn of humanity. Does it bother you that homosexual kids are raised by heterosexual parents?
 
Tagaziel said:
Nas92 said:
Of course, I have to clarify that there's a certain level of double standard for me. By this I mean, I am a lot more creeped out by male-male couples adopting and raising children, while I am less creeped out by lesbian couples doing likewise. Possibly a result of all the propaganda that men raising or just being with children must be sex predators.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there's a fair bit of that going around. Basically, all you need to know is that it's more important for children to be in a functional family unit, than have a specific gender make up within it. It follows: You don't need role models, you need parents.
Click to expand...

True, I don't think having two fathers or mothers is bad for a child or detrimental to their mental health in any way.

But if they are old enough to understand what homosexuality is, it might at times get a little..... weird. Not to mention that children are cruel. If other kids at school found out you had two dads, they would belittle and bully you relentlessly for it.

Moosick said:
lmao there's a lot of history to marriage which has quite clearly missed your notice
Click to expand...

And so has the majority of America, apparently. Going off statistics, your average person that will ever get married, will most likely be doing it more than once. And it especially doesn't help that the people/stars Americans idolize and are supposed to look up to, treat marriage like it's a high-school crush relationship.

Marriage is supposed to be until the grave, at least according to traditional Western and Abrahamic religion traditions.

LordAshur said:
Frankly, I feel that marriage should only exist as a religious institution. The only thing its presence in legislation does is allow one partner to steal property from the other if he/she feels entitled to it.
Click to expand...

Whereas I think it should be equally balanced in it's dealings with civil service and spirituality. For example, you don't have to come from a certain religion, or any religion at all for that matter, in order to get married.

I've always seen marriage as two people proposing a bond between themselves, because of their love for eachother. Because they love eachother so much, they are willing to propose a bond which, no matter what obstacles might be in the way or what troubles may be ahead, they will always be companions.

Truthfully, there's nothing/doesn't have to be anything religious about it. It's simply two people declaring to eachother that they wish to enjoin in life-long companionship. Whether that companionship is based off monogamy or not doesn't matter so long as both parties agree to the terms of their companionship.

Partially, these ideals were given to me by fiance Kate. If any of you remember, I had a brief separation from her because I was struggling with addiction (and she didn't want to see me "kill myself" - her words), but I ended up getting back together with her (only for her to pass away a little over a year later) and reuniting our marriage proposal. She had strong marriage beliefs. While she was raised by a Christian mother, and embodies many Christian ideals and values, she isn't nor does she call herself, a Christian. She does believe however, that marriage should be a very, very sacred bond between two people, religious ceremony or no. When you get down to your basics, marriage is simply that, declaring a bond and life of companionship to another. She strongly influenced my own ideals about marriage.

On top of that, the world today (Western society mainly) shits all over the institution of marriage. For the most part, most religions agree in at least one thing; that marriage is sacred, and usually lasts until the grave. But despite the religious history and influences in marriage, whether your religious, atheist, or agnostic, marriage should still be considered a sacred thing. If not sacred before the eyes of your God/religion, then it should be sacred before the eyes of the society and people that are declaring their love and companionship for eachother. Something doesn't necessarily have to be religious to be sacred per se, though we may use a different term for it.

Anyways, I'm rambling. Bottom line: if you get divorced without good reason (abusive/manipulative/cheating husband or wife), you shouldn't be allowed to engage in multiple marriages one after the other.

Marriage should not be a fucking temporary relationship. Marriage should be the ultimate level of companionship, bonding, trust, and romantic love between two people. If you're not 100% sure that you'd rather have your current partner as your companion over everyone else which may or may not come in the future, then don't get fucking married.
 
Last edited:
BigBawss said:
But if they are old enough to understand what homosexuality is, it might at times get a little..... weird. Not to mention that children are cruel. If other kids at school found out you had two dads, they would belittle and bully you relentlessly for it.
Click to expand...
Folks really need to get over heterosexuality as the default and homosexuality as the deviant and weird/problematic variation.

Also kids bullying other kids for having gay parents is the result of homophobia and exactly the kind of stuff you're trying to eliminate, not passively enable by accepting it as a reason to discriminate against gay people by frowning on their choice to have children.

BigBawss said:
Marriage is supposed to be until the grave, at least according to traditional Western and Abrahamic religion traditions.
Click to expand...
This has never actually been how marriage works.

Also expecting anyone to ever be 100% certain that they want to be with someone for the rest of their lives seems completely unrealistic. It is also completely toxic given the amount of people who get stuck in relationships with abusive partners. A large reason why divorce rates have risen is that people want to get away from abusive partners.
 
What's the difference between passively enabling and not doing anything?

Marriage is just like all the other systems we have, made before we knew what we knew now, and not fit for modern standards. The more important thing is not to stop anyone from getting one if they feel like it. Human rights are the single most important thing in the world after general well-being, and if any system doesn't maximize them then fuck that system. Just fuck it.
 
Well, no. But lines in the vows such as "till death do us part" aren't exactly there for added filler. While every culture's marriage ceremony is different in one way or another, a good portion of them usually include a vow that's more or less somewhere along those lines.
Click to expand...

Depends. Compared to human history as whole this idea or concept about a relationship is still relatively new I would say. Considering the human evolution of the the no clue last 100 000 years? I would say this idea of a monogamic constelation till the death do us part is a pretty modern invention. In relative terms of course. And it seems the less people care about religion the less is this kind of idea actually important. Staying together with an asshole for the rest of your life just because the invisible man in the sky said so? That seems not to be much of a dream for many people. Do we get more picky in who we chose as our partner? I guess we do. But I don't really see much of a problem with that.

Maybe it is just me. But I see the gender roles and morals imposed by religion starting to fall apart. Slowly, but steadily. And all in all I think that is a good evolution. Might hurt some feelings, but that's how it goes I guess. Progress is always a painfull experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top