View Full Version : Discussion: Gay Rights II
Mr Sparkle
06-29-2008, 10:09 PM
hmmm, yeah, you wouldn't want to gay-up "teatime TV"
LMAO
Mr Sparkle
06-29-2008, 10:09 PM
hmmm, yeah, you wouldn't want to gay-up "teatime TV"
LMAO
Mr Sparkle
06-29-2008, 10:09 PM
hmmm, yeah, you wouldn't want to gay-up "teatime TV"
LMAO
hammy
06-29-2008, 10:11 PM
What commercial isn't?
That's because advertisers believe people are morons. :dry: Luckily, I have tivo so I rarely even see commercials any more. I do like the little Geico gecko though. He's cute. :)
hammy
06-29-2008, 10:11 PM
What commercial isn't?
That's because advertisers believe people are morons. :dry: Luckily, I have tivo so I rarely even see commercials any more. I do like the little Geico gecko though. He's cute. :)
hammy
06-29-2008, 10:11 PM
What commercial isn't?
That's because advertisers believe people are morons. :dry: Luckily, I have tivo so I rarely even see commercials any more. I do like the little Geico gecko though. He's cute. :)
Dodger
06-29-2008, 10:21 PM
Dam that guy kinda looks like Robert Deniro. LoL
Dodger
06-29-2008, 10:21 PM
Dam that guy kinda looks like Robert Deniro. LoL
Dodger
06-29-2008, 10:21 PM
Dam that guy kinda looks like Robert Deniro. LoL
AndThePickles
06-29-2008, 10:24 PM
Aww, cute commercial, and a refreshingly modern one at that. Shame there are so many homophobes in the world, but I'm not surprised people complained :csad:
AndThePickles
06-29-2008, 10:24 PM
Aww, cute commercial, and a refreshingly modern one at that. Shame there are so many homophobes in the world, but I'm not surprised people complained :csad:
AndThePickles
06-29-2008, 10:24 PM
Aww, cute commercial, and a refreshingly modern one at that. Shame there are so many homophobes in the world, but I'm not surprised people complained :csad:
pyromaniac
06-29-2008, 10:36 PM
That's because advertisers believe people are morons. :dry: Luckily, I have tivo so I rarely even see commercials any more. I do like the little Geico gecko though. He's cute. :)
My tivo is built-in. I tolerate ad breaks and even compliment the occasional clever one, but I filter out everything else because I refuse to be dumbed down by crap.
This thread reminds me of a couple of 'gay' ads I'd seen a while ago. A cute 'suit is walking down the stairs, and a girl in a slinky dress drops something, and he picks it up, and they both exchange smiles.
And a guy comes down the stairs and body language suggests he is with the suit. The girl goes oh! She smiles again, knowingly, and everyone leaves smiling. Yeah, it sounds terrible when I describe it, but it is funny because it is unexpected, you know?
Another one was when the female is checking out a guy while driving. Flirtatious smiles and all that. Then the passenger seat reclines to normal and it is a guy. Hmm I may be describing wrong. Also funny though but anyway.
Another ad which was for a paint brand showed two guys painting the wall, and they hold hands at the end for whatever reason I don't remember.
Speaking of offensive ads, there was one which I found really weird, and to be honest, understandably slightly offensive. A guy walks around with prolonged nipples and the nipples have minds of their own, leading him around, dancing or whatever. Just plain stupid.
And there were complaints to a car ad where a couple drives naked, and even though their naughty bits were pixellated, it still got complaints. :dry:
pyromaniac
06-29-2008, 10:36 PM
That's because advertisers believe people are morons. :dry: Luckily, I have tivo so I rarely even see commercials any more. I do like the little Geico gecko though. He's cute. :)
My tivo is built-in. I tolerate ad breaks and even compliment the occasional clever one, but I filter out everything else because I refuse to be dumbed down by crap.
This thread reminds me of a couple of 'gay' ads I'd seen a while ago. A cute 'suit is walking down the stairs, and a girl in a slinky dress drops something, and he picks it up, and they both exchange smiles.
And a guy comes down the stairs and body language suggests he is with the suit. The girl goes oh! She smiles again, knowingly, and everyone leaves smiling. Yeah, it sounds terrible when I describe it, but it is funny because it is unexpected, you know?
Another one was when the female is checking out a guy while driving. Flirtatious smiles and all that. Then the passenger seat reclines to normal and it is a guy. Hmm I may be describing wrong. Also funny though but anyway.
Another ad which was for a paint brand showed two guys painting the wall, and they hold hands at the end for whatever reason I don't remember.
Speaking of offensive ads, there was one which I found really weird, and to be honest, understandably slightly offensive. A guy walks around with prolonged nipples and the nipples have minds of their own, leading him around, dancing or whatever. Just plain stupid.
And there were complaints to a car ad where a couple drives naked, and even though their naughty bits were pixellated, it still got complaints. :dry:
pyromaniac
06-29-2008, 10:36 PM
That's because advertisers believe people are morons. :dry: Luckily, I have tivo so I rarely even see commercials any more. I do like the little Geico gecko though. He's cute. :)
My tivo is built-in. I tolerate ad breaks and even compliment the occasional clever one, but I filter out everything else because I refuse to be dumbed down by crap.
This thread reminds me of a couple of 'gay' ads I'd seen a while ago. A cute 'suit is walking down the stairs, and a girl in a slinky dress drops something, and he picks it up, and they both exchange smiles.
And a guy comes down the stairs and body language suggests he is with the suit. The girl goes oh! She smiles again, knowingly, and everyone leaves smiling. Yeah, it sounds terrible when I describe it, but it is funny because it is unexpected, you know?
Another one was when the female is checking out a guy while driving. Flirtatious smiles and all that. Then the passenger seat reclines to normal and it is a guy. Hmm I may be describing wrong. Also funny though but anyway.
Another ad which was for a paint brand showed two guys painting the wall, and they hold hands at the end for whatever reason I don't remember.
Speaking of offensive ads, there was one which I found really weird, and to be honest, understandably slightly offensive. A guy walks around with prolonged nipples and the nipples have minds of their own, leading him around, dancing or whatever. Just plain stupid.
And there were complaints to a car ad where a couple drives naked, and even though their naughty bits were pixellated, it still got complaints. :dry:
Johnny Drama
06-29-2008, 10:40 PM
Homophobes!!
Johnny Drama
06-29-2008, 10:40 PM
Homophobes!!
Johnny Drama
06-29-2008, 10:40 PM
Homophobes!!
knowsbleed
06-30-2008, 04:21 AM
Oh man that commercial pisses me off... !!! :cmad:
Spicy mustard is so much better.
knowsbleed
06-30-2008, 04:21 AM
Oh man that commercial pisses me off... !!! :cmad:
Spicy mustard is so much better.
knowsbleed
06-30-2008, 04:21 AM
Oh man that commercial pisses me off... !!! :cmad:
Spicy mustard is so much better.
JayCaz
06-30-2008, 06:50 AM
It's funny, out of the 200 dim-witted morons who complained, I wonder how many of them actually 'got' the ad. The fact that the kids are calling the guy "Mum" should have been a big clue. I find the fact that they pulled the ad f**king astonishing.
JayCaz
06-30-2008, 06:50 AM
It's funny, out of the 200 dim-witted morons who complained, I wonder how many of them actually 'got' the ad. The fact that the kids are calling the guy "Mum" should have been a big clue. I find the fact that they pulled the ad f**king astonishing.
JayCaz
06-30-2008, 06:50 AM
It's funny, out of the 200 dim-witted morons who complained, I wonder how many of them actually 'got' the ad. The fact that the kids are calling the guy "Mum" should have been a big clue. I find the fact that they pulled the ad f**king astonishing.
Captain_BluTac
06-30-2008, 08:47 AM
And a guy comes down the stairs and body language suggests he is with the suit. The girl goes oh! She smiles again, knowingly, and everyone leaves smiling. Yeah, it sounds terrible when I describe it, but it is funny because it is unexpected, you know?
I remember that ad, it's pretty old.
Captain_BluTac
06-30-2008, 08:47 AM
And a guy comes down the stairs and body language suggests he is with the suit. The girl goes oh! She smiles again, knowingly, and everyone leaves smiling. Yeah, it sounds terrible when I describe it, but it is funny because it is unexpected, you know?
I remember that ad, it's pretty old.
Captain_BluTac
06-30-2008, 08:47 AM
And a guy comes down the stairs and body language suggests he is with the suit. The girl goes oh! She smiles again, knowingly, and everyone leaves smiling. Yeah, it sounds terrible when I describe it, but it is funny because it is unexpected, you know?
I remember that ad, it's pretty old.
kane9321
06-30-2008, 09:10 AM
gay men and mayo...mmmmmm innuendo x 10..lol
kane9321
06-30-2008, 09:10 AM
gay men and mayo...mmmmmm innuendo x 10..lol
kane9321
06-30-2008, 09:10 AM
gay men and mayo...mmmmmm innuendo x 10..lol
November Rain
06-30-2008, 09:10 AM
there are no grounds to pull this, it's obviously intended for the deli dude to be replacing the wife.
it got no sexuality references in it whatso ever...
November Rain
06-30-2008, 09:10 AM
there are no grounds to pull this, it's obviously intended for the deli dude to be replacing the wife.
it got no sexuality references in it whatso ever...
November Rain
06-30-2008, 09:10 AM
there are no grounds to pull this, it's obviously intended for the deli dude to be replacing the wife.
it got no sexuality references in it whatso ever...
Nirvana
06-30-2008, 12:27 PM
I find this thread offensive. :dry:
Clark Kent?
But seriously, I didn't see anything wrong with the ad. It was more of a "wife house" parody than two gay men. I thought it was a funny ad.
Nirvana
06-30-2008, 12:27 PM
I find this thread offensive. :dry:
Clark Kent?
But seriously, I didn't see anything wrong with the ad. It was more of a "wife house" parody than two gay men. I thought it was a funny ad.
Nirvana
06-30-2008, 12:27 PM
I find this thread offensive. :dry:
Clark Kent?
But seriously, I didn't see anything wrong with the ad. It was more of a "wife house" parody than two gay men. I thought it was a funny ad.
What's wrong with that commercial? It's funny! People are so homophobic it's sickening. And it's not even what the commercial is trying to say.
I agree. People need to stop being so close-minded.
What's wrong with that commercial? It's funny! People are so homophobic it's sickening. And it's not even what the commercial is trying to say.
I agree. People need to stop being so close-minded.
What's wrong with that commercial? It's funny! People are so homophobic it's sickening. And it's not even what the commercial is trying to say.
I agree. People need to stop being so close-minded.
The Senator
08-27-2008, 01:08 AM
This election year, the United States has seen an increased focus on the GLBT community. Candidates in the Democratic Party have openly discussed expanding benefits to GLBT individuals, including marriage rights, anti-discrimination legislation, and ending the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy in the United States military.
Three states currently have propositions on the ballot which, under their constitutions, would make marriage between a man and a woman. These states are Arizona, Florida, and California, the latter having allowed gay marriage in its state earlier this year. Several states are also flirting with the idea of allowing gay marriage or civil unions, including New York, Iowa, Oregon and Washington.
With an increased focus on expanding gay rights, I think it is time we open up a discussion on the topic. This isn't just about marriage, but more than that. About employment laws, housing, adoption, cultural image, etc.
Where do you stand on gay rights? Should certain rights be expanded to the GLBT community? Should certain "rights" be withheld? Where do you want a future presidential administration/ Congress to stand on these issues?
Discuss away.
The Senator
08-27-2008, 01:08 AM
This election year, the United States has seen an increased focus on the GLBT community. Candidates in the Democratic Party have openly discussed expanding benefits to GLBT individuals, including marriage rights, anti-discrimination legislation, and ending the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy in the United States military.
Three states currently have propositions on the ballot which, under their constitutions, would make marriage between a man and a woman. These states are Arizona, Florida, and California, the latter having allowed gay marriage in its state earlier this year. Several states are also flirting with the idea of allowing gay marriage or civil unions, including New York, Iowa, Oregon and Washington.
With an increased focus on expanding gay rights, I think it is time we open up a discussion on the topic. This isn't just about marriage, but more than that. About employment laws, housing, adoption, cultural image, etc.
Where do you stand on gay rights? Should certain rights be expanded to the GLBT community? Should certain "rights" be withheld? Where do you want a future presidential administration/ Congress to stand on these issues?
Discuss away.
The Senator
08-27-2008, 01:08 AM
This election year, the United States has seen an increased focus on the GLBT community. Candidates in the Democratic Party have openly discussed expanding benefits to GLBT individuals, including marriage rights, anti-discrimination legislation, and ending the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy in the United States military.
Three states currently have propositions on the ballot which, under their constitutions, would make marriage between a man and a woman. These states are Arizona, Florida, and California, the latter having allowed gay marriage in its state earlier this year. Several states are also flirting with the idea of allowing gay marriage or civil unions, including New York, Iowa, Oregon and Washington.
With an increased focus on expanding gay rights, I think it is time we open up a discussion on the topic. This isn't just about marriage, but more than that. About employment laws, housing, adoption, cultural image, etc.
Where do you stand on gay rights? Should certain rights be expanded to the GLBT community? Should certain "rights" be withheld? Where do you want a future presidential administration/ Congress to stand on these issues?
Discuss away.
Gilpesh
08-27-2008, 01:13 AM
Gay rights? They have the right to stop being gay. [/bigot that will eventually show up]
But seriously... gay people are people. People have rights. That means they should have the same rights as anyone else. Unless that whole, discriminating against people for how they were born thing is no longer morally wrong.
Gilpesh
08-27-2008, 01:13 AM
Gay rights? They have the right to stop being gay. [/bigot that will eventually show up]
But seriously... gay people are people. People have rights. That means they should have the same rights as anyone else. Unless that whole, discriminating against people for how they were born thing is no longer morally wrong.
Gilpesh
08-27-2008, 01:13 AM
Gay rights? They have the right to stop being gay. [/bigot that will eventually show up]
But seriously... gay people are people. People have rights. That means they should have the same rights as anyone else. Unless that whole, discriminating against people for how they were born thing is no longer morally wrong.
StrainedEyes
08-27-2008, 02:28 AM
The whole separation of church and state thing isn't really done very well. Being gay should have no bearing on how your viewed by the government or by law.
StrainedEyes
08-27-2008, 02:28 AM
The whole separation of church and state thing isn't really done very well. Being gay should have no bearing on how your viewed by the government or by law.
StrainedEyes
08-27-2008, 02:28 AM
The whole separation of church and state thing isn't really done very well. Being gay should have no bearing on how your viewed by the government or by law.
Jman, as a gay man, what is your opinion on the difference between Civil Unions and Marriage?
Jman, as a gay man, what is your opinion on the difference between Civil Unions and Marriage?
Jman, as a gay man, what is your opinion on the difference between Civil Unions and Marriage?
This isn't a discussion. This is the land of the free. Two consenting adults should be able to enter a government sanctioned marriage regardless of gender. Now the government should not force any private religious institution to recognize the marriage but the government should not discriminate.
This isn't a discussion. This is the land of the free. Two consenting adults should be able to enter a government sanctioned marriage regardless of gender. Now the government should not force any private religious institution to recognize the marriage but the government should not discriminate.
This isn't a discussion. This is the land of the free. Two consenting adults should be able to enter a government sanctioned marriage regardless of gender. Now the government should not force any private religious institution to recognize the marriage but the government should not discriminate.
This isn't a discussion. This is the land of the free. Two consenting adults should be able to enter a government sanctioned marriage regardless of gender. Now the government should not force any private religious institution to recognize the marriage but the government should not discriminate.
I completely agree. Again, I side on Liberty, if two gay men want to get married, how does that affect John and Jane Smith in Ohio's Marriage? Answer, it doesn't, one bit.
This isn't a discussion. This is the land of the free. Two consenting adults should be able to enter a government sanctioned marriage regardless of gender. Now the government should not force any private religious institution to recognize the marriage but the government should not discriminate.
I completely agree. Again, I side on Liberty, if two gay men want to get married, how does that affect John and Jane Smith in Ohio's Marriage? Answer, it doesn't, one bit.
This isn't a discussion. This is the land of the free. Two consenting adults should be able to enter a government sanctioned marriage regardless of gender. Now the government should not force any private religious institution to recognize the marriage but the government should not discriminate.
I completely agree. Again, I side on Liberty, if two gay men want to get married, how does that affect John and Jane Smith in Ohio's Marriage? Answer, it doesn't, one bit.
lazur
08-27-2008, 09:35 AM
This isn't a discussion. This is the land of the free. Two consenting adults should be able to enter a government sanctioned marriage regardless of gender. Now the government should not force any private religious institution to recognize the marriage but the government should not discriminate.
Wholeheartedly agree; however, I do believe that we need parenting 'standards' if we're going to begin simply allowing any consenting adult to marry any other consenting adult, which will eventually pave the way for multiple spouse marriages.
I think we can all agree that in a household where both genders are represented in the parent/child relationship, it works for the best. After all, it is how we're built as a species just like every other species on the planet that walks on two or four legs.
On the other hand, there are always exceptions to the rule. I have no beef with a gay couple raising children, but I do think it needs to be a process that takes into account the child's welfare ahead of the happiness/fulfillment of the couple (or group) in question.
Just my two cents...
lazur
08-27-2008, 09:35 AM
This isn't a discussion. This is the land of the free. Two consenting adults should be able to enter a government sanctioned marriage regardless of gender. Now the government should not force any private religious institution to recognize the marriage but the government should not discriminate.
Wholeheartedly agree; however, I do believe that we need parenting 'standards' if we're going to begin simply allowing any consenting adult to marry any other consenting adult, which will eventually pave the way for multiple spouse marriages.
I think we can all agree that in a household where both genders are represented in the parent/child relationship, it works for the best. After all, it is how we're built as a species just like every other species on the planet that walks on two or four legs.
On the other hand, there are always exceptions to the rule. I have no beef with a gay couple raising children, but I do think it needs to be a process that takes into account the child's welfare ahead of the happiness/fulfillment of the couple (or group) in question.
Just my two cents...
lazur
08-27-2008, 09:35 AM
This isn't a discussion. This is the land of the free. Two consenting adults should be able to enter a government sanctioned marriage regardless of gender. Now the government should not force any private religious institution to recognize the marriage but the government should not discriminate.
Wholeheartedly agree; however, I do believe that we need parenting 'standards' if we're going to begin simply allowing any consenting adult to marry any other consenting adult, which will eventually pave the way for multiple spouse marriages.
I think we can all agree that in a household where both genders are represented in the parent/child relationship, it works for the best. After all, it is how we're built as a species just like every other species on the planet that walks on two or four legs.
On the other hand, there are always exceptions to the rule. I have no beef with a gay couple raising children, but I do think it needs to be a process that takes into account the child's welfare ahead of the happiness/fulfillment of the couple (or group) in question.
Just my two cents...
The Senator
08-27-2008, 09:57 AM
Wholeheartedly agree; however, I do believe that we need parenting 'standards' if we're going to begin simply allowing any consenting adult to marry any other consenting adult, which will eventually pave the way for multiple spouse marriages.
I think we can all agree that in a household where both genders are represented in the parent/child relationship, it works for the best. After all, it is how we're built as a species just like every other species on the planet that walks on two or four legs.
On the other hand, there are always exceptions to the rule. I have no beef with a gay couple raising children, but I do think it needs to be a process that takes into account the child's welfare ahead of the happiness/fulfillment of the couple (or group) in question.
Just my two cents...
I was raised by a mother and a father, and I could honestly take it or leave it. My father raised me with much more compassion and understanding than my mother, who turned out to be a rampaging alcoholic who has spent the past five years mooching off of my father and ignoring her children. Meanwhile, there is a gay couple I know living in Dupont, DC, who have two children, one who is eighteen years old, the other is six. The eighteen year old, who is politically and socially aware, feels as though he didn't miss out much on the parenting experience. He is heterosexual and starting college at the University of Maryland this fall.
So the idea that the mother-father model of parenting is a standard we need to keep, I think, is flawed. I do not believe that adoption laws should be amended to make it easier for either gay or straight couples; I believe that adoption laws should be set to allow parents who are most qualified to have first dibs.
Also, I tend to favor the surrogate model of adoption more than anything else, because that usually avoids some of the more ridiculous aspects of the adoption process.
As for group adoption... we don't have laws in this country which allow for group marriage, so we have several decades to wait on that possible scenario...
The Senator
08-27-2008, 09:57 AM
Wholeheartedly agree; however, I do believe that we need parenting 'standards' if we're going to begin simply allowing any consenting adult to marry any other consenting adult, which will eventually pave the way for multiple spouse marriages.
I think we can all agree that in a household where both genders are represented in the parent/child relationship, it works for the best. After all, it is how we're built as a species just like every other species on the planet that walks on two or four legs.
On the other hand, there are always exceptions to the rule. I have no beef with a gay couple raising children, but I do think it needs to be a process that takes into account the child's welfare ahead of the happiness/fulfillment of the couple (or group) in question.
Just my two cents...
I was raised by a mother and a father, and I could honestly take it or leave it. My father raised me with much more compassion and understanding than my mother, who turned out to be a rampaging alcoholic who has spent the past five years mooching off of my father and ignoring her children. Meanwhile, there is a gay couple I know living in Dupont, DC, who have two children, one who is eighteen years old, the other is six. The eighteen year old, who is politically and socially aware, feels as though he didn't miss out much on the parenting experience. He is heterosexual and starting college at the University of Maryland this fall.
So the idea that the mother-father model of parenting is a standard we need to keep, I think, is flawed. I do not believe that adoption laws should be amended to make it easier for either gay or straight couples; I believe that adoption laws should be set to allow parents who are most qualified to have first dibs.
Also, I tend to favor the surrogate model of adoption more than anything else, because that usually avoids some of the more ridiculous aspects of the adoption process.
As for group adoption... we don't have laws in this country which allow for group marriage, so we have several decades to wait on that possible scenario...
The Senator
08-27-2008, 09:57 AM
Wholeheartedly agree; however, I do believe that we need parenting 'standards' if we're going to begin simply allowing any consenting adult to marry any other consenting adult, which will eventually pave the way for multiple spouse marriages.
I think we can all agree that in a household where both genders are represented in the parent/child relationship, it works for the best. After all, it is how we're built as a species just like every other species on the planet that walks on two or four legs.
On the other hand, there are always exceptions to the rule. I have no beef with a gay couple raising children, but I do think it needs to be a process that takes into account the child's welfare ahead of the happiness/fulfillment of the couple (or group) in question.
Just my two cents...
I was raised by a mother and a father, and I could honestly take it or leave it. My father raised me with much more compassion and understanding than my mother, who turned out to be a rampaging alcoholic who has spent the past five years mooching off of my father and ignoring her children. Meanwhile, there is a gay couple I know living in Dupont, DC, who have two children, one who is eighteen years old, the other is six. The eighteen year old, who is politically and socially aware, feels as though he didn't miss out much on the parenting experience. He is heterosexual and starting college at the University of Maryland this fall.
So the idea that the mother-father model of parenting is a standard we need to keep, I think, is flawed. I do not believe that adoption laws should be amended to make it easier for either gay or straight couples; I believe that adoption laws should be set to allow parents who are most qualified to have first dibs.
Also, I tend to favor the surrogate model of adoption more than anything else, because that usually avoids some of the more ridiculous aspects of the adoption process.
As for group adoption... we don't have laws in this country which allow for group marriage, so we have several decades to wait on that possible scenario...
The Senator
08-27-2008, 10:04 AM
Jman, as a gay man, what is your opinion on the difference between Civil Unions and Marriage?
I believe that Civil Unions are a "separate but equal" practice. When a heterosexual couple is married by a justice of the peace, they are granted a certificate of marriage. When two homosexuals are joined by a civil union, they are not presented a certificate of marriage, just a certificate which recognizes the civil union. I think it is moronic for politicians like Barack Obama to stand up and say, "I am against gay marriage, but I support civil unions"... which basically means that he supports gay marriage, but he wants to call it something else because the idea of two men marrying each other isn't the type of change he can tolerate...
The idea that civil unions avoid the religious argument is nonsense, also. Several Christian denominations in the United States have already spoken out in favor of gay marriage, including the United Church of Christ (Obama's church, coincidentally), the Lutheran church, and the Unitarian Universalists. Once ONE church allows gay marriage, I think the religious argument is wholeheartedly moot, and should not be allowed to surface in a debate on the issue.
So I personally support state-recognized marriages, at the very least, as well as marriages recognized by religious institutions.
The Senator
08-27-2008, 10:04 AM
Jman, as a gay man, what is your opinion on the difference between Civil Unions and Marriage?
I believe that Civil Unions are a "separate but equal" practice. When a heterosexual couple is married by a justice of the peace, they are granted a certificate of marriage. When two homosexuals are joined by a civil union, they are not presented a certificate of marriage, just a certificate which recognizes the civil union. I think it is moronic for politicians like Barack Obama to stand up and say, "I am against gay marriage, but I support civil unions"... which basically means that he supports gay marriage, but he wants to call it something else because the idea of two men marrying each other isn't the type of change he can tolerate...
The idea that civil unions avoid the religious argument is nonsense, also. Several Christian denominations in the United States have already spoken out in favor of gay marriage, including the United Church of Christ (Obama's church, coincidentally), the Lutheran church, and the Unitarian Universalists. Once ONE church allows gay marriage, I think the religious argument is wholeheartedly moot, and should not be allowed to surface in a debate on the issue.
So I personally support state-recognized marriages, at the very least, as well as marriages recognized by religious institutions.
The Senator
08-27-2008, 10:04 AM
Jman, as a gay man, what is your opinion on the difference between Civil Unions and Marriage?
I believe that Civil Unions are a "separate but equal" practice. When a heterosexual couple is married by a justice of the peace, they are granted a certificate of marriage. When two homosexuals are joined by a civil union, they are not presented a certificate of marriage, just a certificate which recognizes the civil union. I think it is moronic for politicians like Barack Obama to stand up and say, "I am against gay marriage, but I support civil unions"... which basically means that he supports gay marriage, but he wants to call it something else because the idea of two men marrying each other isn't the type of change he can tolerate...
The idea that civil unions avoid the religious argument is nonsense, also. Several Christian denominations in the United States have already spoken out in favor of gay marriage, including the United Church of Christ (Obama's church, coincidentally), the Lutheran church, and the Unitarian Universalists. Once ONE church allows gay marriage, I think the religious argument is wholeheartedly moot, and should not be allowed to surface in a debate on the issue.
So I personally support state-recognized marriages, at the very least, as well as marriages recognized by religious institutions.
I believe that Civil Unions are a "separate but equal" practice. When a heterosexual couple is married by a justice of the peace, they are granted a certificate of marriage. When two homosexuals are joined by a civil union, they are not presented a certificate of marriage, just a certificate which recognizes the civil union. I think it is moronic for politicians like Barack Obama to stand up and say, "I am against gay marriage, but I support civil unions"... which basically means that he supports gay marriage, but he wants to call it something else because the idea of two men marrying each other isn't the type of change he can tolerate...
The idea that civil unions avoid the religious argument is nonsense, also. Several Christian denominations in the United States have already spoken out in favor of gay marriage, including the United Church of Christ (Obama's church, coincidentally), the Lutheran church, and the Unitarian Universalists. Once ONE church allows gay marriage, I think the religious argument is wholeheartedly moot, and should not be allowed to surface in a debate on the issue.
So I personally support state-recognized marriages, at the very least, as well as marriages recognized by religious institutions.
So you see Civil Unions as a modern day Jim Crow laws? Fair enough. Thanks. I didn't know how to think about it.
I believe that Civil Unions are a "separate but equal" practice. When a heterosexual couple is married by a justice of the peace, they are granted a certificate of marriage. When two homosexuals are joined by a civil union, they are not presented a certificate of marriage, just a certificate which recognizes the civil union. I think it is moronic for politicians like Barack Obama to stand up and say, "I am against gay marriage, but I support civil unions"... which basically means that he supports gay marriage, but he wants to call it something else because the idea of two men marrying each other isn't the type of change he can tolerate...
The idea that civil unions avoid the religious argument is nonsense, also. Several Christian denominations in the United States have already spoken out in favor of gay marriage, including the United Church of Christ (Obama's church, coincidentally), the Lutheran church, and the Unitarian Universalists. Once ONE church allows gay marriage, I think the religious argument is wholeheartedly moot, and should not be allowed to surface in a debate on the issue.
So I personally support state-recognized marriages, at the very least, as well as marriages recognized by religious institutions.
So you see Civil Unions as a modern day Jim Crow laws? Fair enough. Thanks. I didn't know how to think about it.
I believe that Civil Unions are a "separate but equal" practice. When a heterosexual couple is married by a justice of the peace, they are granted a certificate of marriage. When two homosexuals are joined by a civil union, they are not presented a certificate of marriage, just a certificate which recognizes the civil union. I think it is moronic for politicians like Barack Obama to stand up and say, "I am against gay marriage, but I support civil unions"... which basically means that he supports gay marriage, but he wants to call it something else because the idea of two men marrying each other isn't the type of change he can tolerate...
The idea that civil unions avoid the religious argument is nonsense, also. Several Christian denominations in the United States have already spoken out in favor of gay marriage, including the United Church of Christ (Obama's church, coincidentally), the Lutheran church, and the Unitarian Universalists. Once ONE church allows gay marriage, I think the religious argument is wholeheartedly moot, and should not be allowed to surface in a debate on the issue.
So I personally support state-recognized marriages, at the very least, as well as marriages recognized by religious institutions.
So you see Civil Unions as a modern day Jim Crow laws? Fair enough. Thanks. I didn't know how to think about it.
jaguarr
08-27-2008, 10:14 AM
Gay people should have every single right and advantage of law, including marriage, insurance, and opportunity that every straight person in this country has. The same goes for people of any race, religion or creed. People as a whole deserve all those things, equally and fairly. End of story.
jag
jaguarr
08-27-2008, 10:14 AM
Gay people should have every single right and advantage of law, including marriage, insurance, and opportunity that every straight person in this country has. The same goes for people of any race, religion or creed. People as a whole deserve all those things, equally and fairly. End of story.
jag
jaguarr
08-27-2008, 10:14 AM
Gay people should have every single right and advantage of law, including marriage, insurance, and opportunity that every straight person in this country has. The same goes for people of any race, religion or creed. People as a whole deserve all those things, equally and fairly. End of story.
jag
kainedamo
08-27-2008, 10:18 AM
Gays should become slaves and wear rubber all the time. I'd get one called Bruce.
Seriously though, obviously gay people should have every right straight people have. Including marriage.
However, if a church doesn't want to marry gay people, they shouldn't be forced to. It should be up to the individual church. Gay people would still have the option of a civil union.
kainedamo
08-27-2008, 10:18 AM
Gays should become slaves and wear rubber all the time. I'd get one called Bruce.
Seriously though, obviously gay people should have every right straight people have. Including marriage.
However, if a church doesn't want to marry gay people, they shouldn't be forced to. It should be up to the individual church. Gay people would still have the option of a civil union.
kainedamo
08-27-2008, 10:18 AM
Gays should become slaves and wear rubber all the time. I'd get one called Bruce.
Seriously though, obviously gay people should have every right straight people have. Including marriage.
However, if a church doesn't want to marry gay people, they shouldn't be forced to. It should be up to the individual church. Gay people would still have the option of a civil union.
lazur
08-27-2008, 10:19 AM
I was raised by a mother and a father, and I could honestly take it or leave it. My father raised me with much more compassion and understanding than my mother, who turned out to be a rampaging alcoholic who has spent the past five years mooching off of my father and ignoring her children. Meanwhile, there is a gay couple I know living in Dupont, DC, who have two children, one who is eighteen years old, the other is six. The eighteen year old, who is politically and socially aware, feels as though he didn't miss out much on the parenting experience. He is heterosexual and starting college at the University of Maryland this fall.
So the idea that the mother-father model of parenting is a standard we need to keep, I think, is flawed. I do not believe that adoption laws should be amended to make it easier for either gay or straight couples; I believe that adoption laws should be set to allow parents who are most qualified to have first dibs.
Also, I tend to favor the surrogate model of adoption more than anything else, because that usually avoids some of the more ridiculous aspects of the adoption process.
As for group adoption... we don't have laws in this country which allow for group marriage, so we have several decades to wait on that possible scenario...
I disagree. Men and women are very different in virtually all ways. In a good relationship between a man and woman, each understands their roles as parents and as members of a family.
That line isn't as easily understood when both parents are the same gender. For example, in my opinion, a boy requires an involved and caring father in order to understand his own role in the world as a male. A woman, or even two women, cannot effectively raise a male child because women cannot relate to what a male is going through, particularly through teenage years. For example, men are naturally aggressive. Women aren't. Unfortunately, most women instead of allowing a male child to fully embrace his nature in order to understand and control his aggression, would attempt to simply stifle natural male impulses and force compliance to the standard, whatever it is. (We see the dumbing down of masculinity every day in our society as 'politically correctness' attempts to blur the very visible differences between men and women.) This creates a division in understanding that only a man could bridge. Same goes for two men raising a female child. Whatever the gender of the child, that child requires a strong role-model of the same gender in order to truly succeed in life.
Again, my two cents...
lazur
08-27-2008, 10:19 AM
I was raised by a mother and a father, and I could honestly take it or leave it. My father raised me with much more compassion and understanding than my mother, who turned out to be a rampaging alcoholic who has spent the past five years mooching off of my father and ignoring her children. Meanwhile, there is a gay couple I know living in Dupont, DC, who have two children, one who is eighteen years old, the other is six. The eighteen year old, who is politically and socially aware, feels as though he didn't miss out much on the parenting experience. He is heterosexual and starting college at the University of Maryland this fall.
So the idea that the mother-father model of parenting is a standard we need to keep, I think, is flawed. I do not believe that adoption laws should be amended to make it easier for either gay or straight couples; I believe that adoption laws should be set to allow parents who are most qualified to have first dibs.
Also, I tend to favor the surrogate model of adoption more than anything else, because that usually avoids some of the more ridiculous aspects of the adoption process.
As for group adoption... we don't have laws in this country which allow for group marriage, so we have several decades to wait on that possible scenario...
I disagree. Men and women are very different in virtually all ways. In a good relationship between a man and woman, each understands their roles as parents and as members of a family.
That line isn't as easily understood when both parents are the same gender. For example, in my opinion, a boy requires an involved and caring father in order to understand his own role in the world as a male. A woman, or even two women, cannot effectively raise a male child because women cannot relate to what a male is going through, particularly through teenage years. For example, men are naturally aggressive. Women aren't. Unfortunately, most women instead of allowing a male child to fully embrace his nature in order to understand and control his aggression, would attempt to simply stifle natural male impulses and force compliance to the standard, whatever it is. (We see the dumbing down of masculinity every day in our society as 'politically correctness' attempts to blur the very visible differences between men and women.) This creates a division in understanding that only a man could bridge. Same goes for two men raising a female child. Whatever the gender of the child, that child requires a strong role-model of the same gender in order to truly succeed in life.
Again, my two cents...
lazur
08-27-2008, 10:19 AM
I was raised by a mother and a father, and I could honestly take it or leave it. My father raised me with much more compassion and understanding than my mother, who turned out to be a rampaging alcoholic who has spent the past five years mooching off of my father and ignoring her children. Meanwhile, there is a gay couple I know living in Dupont, DC, who have two children, one who is eighteen years old, the other is six. The eighteen year old, who is politically and socially aware, feels as though he didn't miss out much on the parenting experience. He is heterosexual and starting college at the University of Maryland this fall.
So the idea that the mother-father model of parenting is a standard we need to keep, I think, is flawed. I do not believe that adoption laws should be amended to make it easier for either gay or straight couples; I believe that adoption laws should be set to allow parents who are most qualified to have first dibs.
Also, I tend to favor the surrogate model of adoption more than anything else, because that usually avoids some of the more ridiculous aspects of the adoption process.
As for group adoption... we don't have laws in this country which allow for group marriage, so we have several decades to wait on that possible scenario...
I disagree. Men and women are very different in virtually all ways. In a good relationship between a man and woman, each understands their roles as parents and as members of a family.
That line isn't as easily understood when both parents are the same gender. For example, in my opinion, a boy requires an involved and caring father in order to understand his own role in the world as a male. A woman, or even two women, cannot effectively raise a male child because women cannot relate to what a male is going through, particularly through teenage years. For example, men are naturally aggressive. Women aren't. Unfortunately, most women instead of allowing a male child to fully embrace his nature in order to understand and control his aggression, would attempt to simply stifle natural male impulses and force compliance to the standard, whatever it is. (We see the dumbing down of masculinity every day in our society as 'politically correctness' attempts to blur the very visible differences between men and women.) This creates a division in understanding that only a man could bridge. Same goes for two men raising a female child. Whatever the gender of the child, that child requires a strong role-model of the same gender in order to truly succeed in life.
Again, my two cents...
kainedamo
08-27-2008, 10:26 AM
I disagree. Men and women are very different in virtually all ways. In a good relationship between a man and woman, each understands their roles as parents and as members of a family.
That line isn't as easily understood when both parents are the same gender. For example, in my opinion, a boy requires an involved and caring father in order to understand his own role in the world as a male. A woman, or even two women, cannot effectively raise a male child because women cannot relate to what a male is going through, particularly through teenage years. For example, men are naturally aggressive. Women aren't. Unfortunately, most women instead of allowing a male child to fully embrace his nature in order to understand and control his aggression, would attempt to simply stifle natural male impulses and force compliance to the standard, whatever it is. (We see the dumbing down of masculinity every day in our society as 'politically correctness' attempts to blur the very visible differences between men and women.) This creates a division in understanding that only a man could bridge. Same goes for two men raising a female child. Whatever the gender of the child, that child requires a strong role-model of the same gender in order to truly succeed in life.
Again, my two cents...
There are too many children in dire need of good parents stuck in foster homes and such to be worried about such frivilous things as whether two women would allow a boy to explore his aggressive nature. If they're able to provide a roof over the child's head, food, etc, and be able to teach the child good values and raise them to be a fine human being, that should be enough.
kainedamo
08-27-2008, 10:26 AM
I disagree. Men and women are very different in virtually all ways. In a good relationship between a man and woman, each understands their roles as parents and as members of a family.
That line isn't as easily understood when both parents are the same gender. For example, in my opinion, a boy requires an involved and caring father in order to understand his own role in the world as a male. A woman, or even two women, cannot effectively raise a male child because women cannot relate to what a male is going through, particularly through teenage years. For example, men are naturally aggressive. Women aren't. Unfortunately, most women instead of allowing a male child to fully embrace his nature in order to understand and control his aggression, would attempt to simply stifle natural male impulses and force compliance to the standard, whatever it is. (We see the dumbing down of masculinity every day in our society as 'politically correctness' attempts to blur the very visible differences between men and women.) This creates a division in understanding that only a man could bridge. Same goes for two men raising a female child. Whatever the gender of the child, that child requires a strong role-model of the same gender in order to truly succeed in life.
Again, my two cents...
There are too many children in dire need of good parents stuck in foster homes and such to be worried about such frivilous things as whether two women would allow a boy to explore his aggressive nature. If they're able to provide a roof over the child's head, food, etc, and be able to teach the child good values and raise them to be a fine human being, that should be enough.
kainedamo
08-27-2008, 10:26 AM
I disagree. Men and women are very different in virtually all ways. In a good relationship between a man and woman, each understands their roles as parents and as members of a family.
That line isn't as easily understood when both parents are the same gender. For example, in my opinion, a boy requires an involved and caring father in order to understand his own role in the world as a male. A woman, or even two women, cannot effectively raise a male child because women cannot relate to what a male is going through, particularly through teenage years. For example, men are naturally aggressive. Women aren't. Unfortunately, most women instead of allowing a male child to fully embrace his nature in order to understand and control his aggression, would attempt to simply stifle natural male impulses and force compliance to the standard, whatever it is. (We see the dumbing down of masculinity every day in our society as 'politically correctness' attempts to blur the very visible differences between men and women.) This creates a division in understanding that only a man could bridge. Same goes for two men raising a female child. Whatever the gender of the child, that child requires a strong role-model of the same gender in order to truly succeed in life.
Again, my two cents...
There are too many children in dire need of good parents stuck in foster homes and such to be worried about such frivilous things as whether two women would allow a boy to explore his aggressive nature. If they're able to provide a roof over the child's head, food, etc, and be able to teach the child good values and raise them to be a fine human being, that should be enough.
Gilpesh
08-27-2008, 10:56 AM
I disagree. Men and women are very different in virtually all ways. In a good relationship between a man and woman, each understands their roles as parents and as members of a family.
That line isn't as easily understood when both parents are the same gender. For example, in my opinion, a boy requires an involved and caring father in order to understand his own role in the world as a male. A woman, or even two women, cannot effectively raise a male child because women cannot relate to what a male is going through, particularly through teenage years. For example, men are naturally aggressive. Women aren't. Unfortunately, most women instead of allowing a male child to fully embrace his nature in order to understand and control his aggression, would attempt to simply stifle natural male impulses and force compliance to the standard, whatever it is. (We see the dumbing down of masculinity every day in our society as 'politically correctness' attempts to blur the very visible differences between men and women.) This creates a division in understanding that only a man could bridge. Same goes for two men raising a female child. Whatever the gender of the child, that child requires a strong role-model of the same gender in order to truly succeed in life.
Again, my two cents...
Wow... did you not read his story?
Your argument isn't based on research except the faulty "Oh it's nature's way!" that people use as a reason to discriminate.
The quality of the parent depends on the PERSON not the SEXUAL PREFERENCE.
Gilpesh
08-27-2008, 10:56 AM
I disagree. Men and women are very different in virtually all ways. In a good relationship between a man and woman, each understands their roles as parents and as members of a family.
That line isn't as easily understood when both parents are the same gender. For example, in my opinion, a boy requires an involved and caring father in order to understand his own role in the world as a male. A woman, or even two women, cannot effectively raise a male child because women cannot relate to what a male is going through, particularly through teenage years. For example, men are naturally aggressive. Women aren't. Unfortunately, most women instead of allowing a male child to fully embrace his nature in order to understand and control his aggression, would attempt to simply stifle natural male impulses and force compliance to the standard, whatever it is. (We see the dumbing down of masculinity every day in our society as 'politically correctness' attempts to blur the very visible differences between men and women.) This creates a division in understanding that only a man could bridge. Same goes for two men raising a female child. Whatever the gender of the child, that child requires a strong role-model of the same gender in order to truly succeed in life.
Again, my two cents...
Wow... did you not read his story?
Your argument isn't based on research except the faulty "Oh it's nature's way!" that people use as a reason to discriminate.
The quality of the parent depends on the PERSON not the SEXUAL PREFERENCE.
Gilpesh
08-27-2008, 10:56 AM
I disagree. Men and women are very different in virtually all ways. In a good relationship between a man and woman, each understands their roles as parents and as members of a family.
That line isn't as easily understood when both parents are the same gender. For example, in my opinion, a boy requires an involved and caring father in order to understand his own role in the world as a male. A woman, or even two women, cannot effectively raise a male child because women cannot relate to what a male is going through, particularly through teenage years. For example, men are naturally aggressive. Women aren't. Unfortunately, most women instead of allowing a male child to fully embrace his nature in order to understand and control his aggression, would attempt to simply stifle natural male impulses and force compliance to the standard, whatever it is. (We see the dumbing down of masculinity every day in our society as 'politically correctness' attempts to blur the very visible differences between men and women.) This creates a division in understanding that only a man could bridge. Same goes for two men raising a female child. Whatever the gender of the child, that child requires a strong role-model of the same gender in order to truly succeed in life.
Again, my two cents...
Wow... did you not read his story?
Your argument isn't based on research except the faulty "Oh it's nature's way!" that people use as a reason to discriminate.
The quality of the parent depends on the PERSON not the SEXUAL PREFERENCE.
ForestAflame
08-27-2008, 11:00 AM
Since when do gay people NOT have every right straight people have? I don't get it...gay people can marry members of the opposite sex just like straight people can. Straight people can't marry people of the same sex either.
ForestAflame
08-27-2008, 11:00 AM
Since when do gay people NOT have every right straight people have? I don't get it...gay people can marry members of the opposite sex just like straight people can. Straight people can't marry people of the same sex either.
ForestAflame
08-27-2008, 11:00 AM
Since when do gay people NOT have every right straight people have? I don't get it...gay people can marry members of the opposite sex just like straight people can. Straight people can't marry people of the same sex either.
lazur
08-27-2008, 11:01 AM
There are too many children in dire need of good parents stuck in foster homes and such to be worried about such frivilous things as whether two women would allow a boy to explore his aggressive nature. If they're able to provide a roof over the child's head, food, etc, and be able to teach the child good values and raise them to be a fine human being, that should be enough.
Well, sure, assuming that two women can raise a boy to be a man (not a watered-down version of a man), and that two men can raise a girl to be a woman (not a watered-down version of a woman).
I also do not consider raising a child in the optimal environment (with a man and a woman present as parent figures) to be a frivolous thing. Parenting, or shall I say the lack of taking parenting seriously today, is one of the things that is very wrong with this country...
That said, I agree that a RESPONSIBLE gay couple is still a better option than a foster home, but I also believe that responsible hetero couples should be given priority over responsible gay couples. If we're talking strictly about the welfare and well-being of the child, I see no other option...
lazur
08-27-2008, 11:01 AM
There are too many children in dire need of good parents stuck in foster homes and such to be worried about such frivilous things as whether two women would allow a boy to explore his aggressive nature. If they're able to provide a roof over the child's head, food, etc, and be able to teach the child good values and raise them to be a fine human being, that should be enough.
Well, sure, assuming that two women can raise a boy to be a man (not a watered-down version of a man), and that two men can raise a girl to be a woman (not a watered-down version of a woman).
I also do not consider raising a child in the optimal environment (with a man and a woman present as parent figures) to be a frivolous thing. Parenting, or shall I say the lack of taking parenting seriously today, is one of the things that is very wrong with this country...
That said, I agree that a RESPONSIBLE gay couple is still a better option than a foster home, but I also believe that responsible hetero couples should be given priority over responsible gay couples. If we're talking strictly about the welfare and well-being of the child, I see no other option...
lazur
08-27-2008, 11:01 AM
There are too many children in dire need of good parents stuck in foster homes and such to be worried about such frivilous things as whether two women would allow a boy to explore his aggressive nature. If they're able to provide a roof over the child's head, food, etc, and be able to teach the child good values and raise them to be a fine human being, that should be enough.
Well, sure, assuming that two women can raise a boy to be a man (not a watered-down version of a man), and that two men can raise a girl to be a woman (not a watered-down version of a woman).
I also do not consider raising a child in the optimal environment (with a man and a woman present as parent figures) to be a frivolous thing. Parenting, or shall I say the lack of taking parenting seriously today, is one of the things that is very wrong with this country...
That said, I agree that a RESPONSIBLE gay couple is still a better option than a foster home, but I also believe that responsible hetero couples should be given priority over responsible gay couples. If we're talking strictly about the welfare and well-being of the child, I see no other option...
Since when do gay people NOT have every right straight people have? I don't get it...gay people can marry members of the opposite sex just like straight people can. Straight people can't marry people of the same sex either.
How does two men getting married have any affect on your relationships with a woman?
Since when do gay people NOT have every right straight people have? I don't get it...gay people can marry members of the opposite sex just like straight people can. Straight people can't marry people of the same sex either.
How does two men getting married have any affect on your relationships with a woman?
Since when do gay people NOT have every right straight people have? I don't get it...gay people can marry members of the opposite sex just like straight people can. Straight people can't marry people of the same sex either.
How does two men getting married have any affect on your relationships with a woman?
Gilpesh
08-27-2008, 11:11 AM
Well, sure, assuming that two women can raise a boy to be a man (not a watered-down version of a man), and that two men can raise a girl to be a woman (not a watered-down version of a woman).
I also do not consider raising a child in the optimal environment (with a man and a woman present as parent figures) to be a frivolous thing. Parenting, or shall I say the lack of taking parenting seriously today, is one of the things that is very wrong with this country...
That said, I agree that a RESPONSIBLE gay couple is still a better option than a foster home, but I also believe that responsible hetero couples should be given priority over responsible gay couples. If we're talking strictly about the welfare and well-being of the child, I see no other option...
You know. Responsible white couples should get children before responsible black couples. I mean the 'evidence' is there to prove that white people make better parents. :whatever:
Gilpesh
08-27-2008, 11:11 AM
Well, sure, assuming that two women can raise a boy to be a man (not a watered-down version of a man), and that two men can raise a girl to be a woman (not a watered-down version of a woman).
I also do not consider raising a child in the optimal environment (with a man and a woman present as parent figures) to be a frivolous thing. Parenting, or shall I say the lack of taking parenting seriously today, is one of the things that is very wrong with this country...
That said, I agree that a RESPONSIBLE gay couple is still a better option than a foster home, but I also believe that responsible hetero couples should be given priority over responsible gay couples. If we're talking strictly about the welfare and well-being of the child, I see no other option...
You know. Responsible white couples should get children before responsible black couples. I mean the 'evidence' is there to prove that white people make better parents. :whatever:
Gilpesh
08-27-2008, 11:11 AM
Well, sure, assuming that two women can raise a boy to be a man (not a watered-down version of a man), and that two men can raise a girl to be a woman (not a watered-down version of a woman).
I also do not consider raising a child in the optimal environment (with a man and a woman present as parent figures) to be a frivolous thing. Parenting, or shall I say the lack of taking parenting seriously today, is one of the things that is very wrong with this country...
That said, I agree that a RESPONSIBLE gay couple is still a better option than a foster home, but I also believe that responsible hetero couples should be given priority over responsible gay couples. If we're talking strictly about the welfare and well-being of the child, I see no other option...
You know. Responsible white couples should get children before responsible black couples. I mean the 'evidence' is there to prove that white people make better parents. :whatever:
You know. Responsible white couples should get children before responsible black couples. I mean the 'evidence' is there to prove that white people make better parents. :whatever:
Race Baiting. :nono:
You know. Responsible white couples should get children before responsible black couples. I mean the 'evidence' is there to prove that white people make better parents. :whatever:
Race Baiting. :nono:
You know. Responsible white couples should get children before responsible black couples. I mean the 'evidence' is there to prove that white people make better parents. :whatever:
Race Baiting. :nono:
ForestAflame
08-27-2008, 11:13 AM
How does two men getting married have any affect on your relationships with a woman?
How does that question apply to what I just said? :huh:
ForestAflame
08-27-2008, 11:13 AM
How does two men getting married have any affect on your relationships with a woman?
How does that question apply to what I just said? :huh:
ForestAflame
08-27-2008, 11:13 AM
How does two men getting married have any affect on your relationships with a woman?
How does that question apply to what I just said? :huh:
Gilpesh
08-27-2008, 11:16 AM
Race Baiting. :nono:
And I'm just using his logic. :oldrazz:
Plus, it's just the same sort of discrimination... of course people get mad if you point that out... cause gays are 'icky'.
Gilpesh
08-27-2008, 11:16 AM
Race Baiting. :nono:
And I'm just using his logic. :oldrazz:
Plus, it's just the same sort of discrimination... of course people get mad if you point that out... cause gays are 'icky'.
Gilpesh
08-27-2008, 11:16 AM
Race Baiting. :nono:
And I'm just using his logic. :oldrazz:
Plus, it's just the same sort of discrimination... of course people get mad if you point that out... cause gays are 'icky'.
How does that question apply to what I just said? :huh:
You said that a Gay man can marry a woman, just as much as a Straight man can. That's not equal rights, a Straight man can marry someone he loves, but a Gay man can't.
Again, how do 2 other people's relationship have anything to do with your relationships?
How does that question apply to what I just said? :huh:
You said that a Gay man can marry a woman, just as much as a Straight man can. That's not equal rights, a Straight man can marry someone he loves, but a Gay man can't.
Again, how do 2 other people's relationship have anything to do with your relationships?
How does that question apply to what I just said? :huh:
You said that a Gay man can marry a woman, just as much as a Straight man can. That's not equal rights, a Straight man can marry someone he loves, but a Gay man can't.
Again, how do 2 other people's relationship have anything to do with your relationships?
ForestAflame
08-27-2008, 11:19 AM
You said that a Gay man can marry a woman, just as much as a Straight man can. That's not equal rights, a Straight man can marry someone he loves, but a Gay man can't.
Again, how do 2 other people's relationship have anything to do with your relationships?
A lot of people enter into loveless marriages. On that note, are you saying it's incapable for a gay man to love a woman?
ForestAflame
08-27-2008, 11:19 AM
You said that a Gay man can marry a woman, just as much as a Straight man can. That's not equal rights, a Straight man can marry someone he loves, but a Gay man can't.
Again, how do 2 other people's relationship have anything to do with your relationships?
A lot of people enter into loveless marriages. On that note, are you saying it's incapable for a gay man to love a woman?
ForestAflame
08-27-2008, 11:19 AM
You said that a Gay man can marry a woman, just as much as a Straight man can. That's not equal rights, a Straight man can marry someone he loves, but a Gay man can't.
Again, how do 2 other people's relationship have anything to do with your relationships?
A lot of people enter into loveless marriages. On that note, are you saying it's incapable for a gay man to love a woman?
Franklin Richards
08-27-2008, 11:19 AM
I'm waiting for the right to marry 3 women if I want. Who's business is it if we wanna get married?
If I want to be miserable it's my frakin' business.
:thing: :doom: :thing:
Franklin Richards
08-27-2008, 11:19 AM
I'm waiting for the right to marry 3 women if I want. Who's business is it if we wanna get married?
If I want to be miserable it's my frakin' business.
:thing: :doom: :thing:
Franklin Richards
08-27-2008, 11:19 AM
I'm waiting for the right to marry 3 women if I want. Who's business is it if we wanna get married?
If I want to be miserable it's my frakin' business.
:thing: :doom: :thing:
A lot of people enter into loveless marriages. On that note, are you saying it's incapable for a gay man to love a woman?
It's not the same.
A lot of people enter into loveless marriages. On that note, are you saying it's incapable for a gay man to love a woman?
It's not the same.
A lot of people enter into loveless marriages. On that note, are you saying it's incapable for a gay man to love a woman?
It's not the same.
jaguarr
08-27-2008, 11:23 AM
Since when do gay people NOT have every right straight people have? I don't get it...gay people can marry members of the opposite sex just like straight people can. Straight people can't marry people of the same sex either.
If they wanted to, wouldn't that kind of...I don't know...make them....gay? :huh: And, at any rate, no, gay people can't marry each other in most states. They can get civil unions in many states and not at all in some. And some states don't require insurance companies to recognize same sex civil unions in the same way they do for mixed sex marriages. Same goes for taxes. Gay people don't have every right that straight people do.
jag
jaguarr
08-27-2008, 11:23 AM
Since when do gay people NOT have every right straight people have? I don't get it...gay people can marry members of the opposite sex just like straight people can. Straight people can't marry people of the same sex either.
If they wanted to, wouldn't that kind of...I don't know...make them....gay? :huh: And, at any rate, no, gay people can't marry each other in most states. They can get civil unions in many states and not at all in some. And some states don't require insurance companies to recognize same sex civil unions in the same way they do for mixed sex marriages. Same goes for taxes. Gay people don't have every right that straight people do.
jag
jaguarr
08-27-2008, 11:23 AM
Since when do gay people NOT have every right straight people have? I don't get it...gay people can marry members of the opposite sex just like straight people can. Straight people can't marry people of the same sex either.
If they wanted to, wouldn't that kind of...I don't know...make them....gay? :huh: And, at any rate, no, gay people can't marry each other in most states. They can get civil unions in many states and not at all in some. And some states don't require insurance companies to recognize same sex civil unions in the same way they do for mixed sex marriages. Same goes for taxes. Gay people don't have every right that straight people do.
jag
jaguarr
08-27-2008, 11:24 AM
I'm waiting for the right to marry 3 women if I want. Who's business is it if we wanna get married?
If I want to be miserable it's my frakin' business.
:thing: :doom: :thing:
Move to Utah where, at least in certain counties, the authorities won't even bat an eye at you for that.
jag
jaguarr
08-27-2008, 11:24 AM
I'm waiting for the right to marry 3 women if I want. Who's business is it if we wanna get married?
If I want to be miserable it's my frakin' business.
:thing: :doom: :thing:
Move to Utah where, at least in certain counties, the authorities won't even bat an eye at you for that.
jag
jaguarr
08-27-2008, 11:24 AM
I'm waiting for the right to marry 3 women if I want. Who's business is it if we wanna get married?
If I want to be miserable it's my frakin' business.
:thing: :doom: :thing:
Move to Utah where, at least in certain counties, the authorities won't even bat an eye at you for that.
jag
Franklin Richards
08-27-2008, 11:25 AM
I'm a straight man and if a good male friend of mine and myself wanted to enter into a marriage just to get the tax breaks, we should be able to.
Or here's an idea... Don't give tax breaks to married people.
Give them to everyone!
Cue the FairTax comments.
:thing: :doom: :thing:
Franklin Richards
08-27-2008, 11:25 AM
I'm a straight man and if a good male friend of mine and myself wanted to enter into a marriage just to get the tax breaks, we should be able to.
Or here's an idea... Don't give tax breaks to married people.
Give them to everyone!
Cue the FairTax comments.
:thing: :doom: :thing:
Franklin Richards
08-27-2008, 11:25 AM
I'm a straight man and if a good male friend of mine and myself wanted to enter into a marriage just to get the tax breaks, we should be able to.
Or here's an idea... Don't give tax breaks to married people.
Give them to everyone!
Cue the FairTax comments.
:thing: :doom: :thing:
If they wanted to, wouldn't that kind of...I don't know...make them....gay? :huh: And, at any rate, no, gay people can't marry each other in most states. They can get civil unions in many states and not at all in some. And some states don't require insurance companies to recognize same sex civil unions in the same way they do for mixed sex marriages. Same goes for taxes. Gay people don't have every right that straight people do.
jag
The FairTax would be fairer than our Current income tax for Gay Couples Jaggy. :oldrazz:
If they wanted to, wouldn't that kind of...I don't know...make them....gay? :huh: And, at any rate, no, gay people can't marry each other in most states. They can get civil unions in many states and not at all in some. And some states don't require insurance companies to recognize same sex civil unions in the same way they do for mixed sex marriages. Same goes for taxes. Gay people don't have every right that straight people do.
jag
The FairTax would be fairer than our Current income tax for Gay Couples Jaggy. :oldrazz:
If they wanted to, wouldn't that kind of...I don't know...make them....gay? :huh: And, at any rate, no, gay people can't marry each other in most states. They can get civil unions in many states and not at all in some. And some states don't require insurance companies to recognize same sex civil unions in the same way they do for mixed sex marriages. Same goes for taxes. Gay people don't have every right that straight people do.
jag
The FairTax would be fairer than our Current income tax for Gay Couples Jaggy. :oldrazz:
I'm a straight man and if a good male friend of mine and myself wanted to enter into a marriage just to get the tax breaks, we should be able to.
Or here's an idea... Don't give tax breaks to married people.
Give them to everyone!
Cue the FairTax comments.
:thing: :doom: :thing:
am i that predictable? :huh:
I'm a straight man and if a good male friend of mine and myself wanted to enter into a marriage just to get the tax breaks, we should be able to.
Or here's an idea... Don't give tax breaks to married people.
Give them to everyone!
Cue the FairTax comments.
:thing: :doom: :thing:
am i that predictable? :huh:
I'm a straight man and if a good male friend of mine and myself wanted to enter into a marriage just to get the tax breaks, we should be able to.
Or here's an idea... Don't give tax breaks to married people.
Give them to everyone!
Cue the FairTax comments.
:thing: :doom: :thing:
am i that predictable? :huh:
ForestAflame
08-27-2008, 11:28 AM
If they wanted to, wouldn't that kind of...I don't know...make them....gay? :huh: And, at any rate, no, gay people can't marry each other in most states. They can get civil unions in many states and not at all in some. And some states don't require insurance companies to recognize same sex civil unions in the same way they do for mixed sex marriages. Same goes for taxes. Gay people don't have every right that straight people do.
jag
Yeah, but that's not NOT equal rights. It's the same standard for everybody...marriage is for people of the opposite sex. Some straight marriages are purely based on intercourse between two consenting adults, but that shouldn't be the only factor in marriage, right?
It's more like special rights. Gay people want to do something unheard of...marry people of the same sex. Straight people can't do it either.
(And for that matter, marrying someone of the same sex doesn't make you gay. Haven't you heard of that "Chuck and Larry" movie? :o)
ForestAflame
08-27-2008, 11:28 AM
If they wanted to, wouldn't that kind of...I don't know...make them....gay? :huh: And, at any rate, no, gay people can't marry each other in most states. They can get civil unions in many states and not at all in some. And some states don't require insurance companies to recognize same sex civil unions in the same way they do for mixed sex marriages. Same goes for taxes. Gay people don't have every right that straight people do.
jag
Yeah, but that's not NOT equal rights. It's the same standard for everybody...marriage is for people of the opposite sex. Some straight marriages are purely based on intercourse between two consenting adults, but that shouldn't be the only factor in marriage, right?
It's more like special rights. Gay people want to do something unheard of...marry people of the same sex. Straight people can't do it either.
(And for that matter, marrying someone of the same sex doesn't make you gay. Haven't you heard of that "Chuck and Larry" movie? :o)
ForestAflame
08-27-2008, 11:28 AM
If they wanted to, wouldn't that kind of...I don't know...make them....gay? :huh: And, at any rate, no, gay people can't marry each other in most states. They can get civil unions in many states and not at all in some. And some states don't require insurance companies to recognize same sex civil unions in the same way they do for mixed sex marriages. Same goes for taxes. Gay people don't have every right that straight people do.
jag
Yeah, but that's not NOT equal rights. It's the same standard for everybody...marriage is for people of the opposite sex. Some straight marriages are purely based on intercourse between two consenting adults, but that shouldn't be the only factor in marriage, right?
It's more like special rights. Gay people want to do something unheard of...marry people of the same sex. Straight people can't do it either.
(And for that matter, marrying someone of the same sex doesn't make you gay. Haven't you heard of that "Chuck and Larry" movie? :o)
jaguarr
08-27-2008, 11:30 AM
Yeah, but that's not NOT equal rights. It's the same standard for everybody...marriage is for people of the opposite sex. Some straight marriages are purely based on intercourse between two consenting adults, but that shouldn't be the only factor in marriage, right?
It's more like special rights. Gay people want to do something unheard of...marry people of the same sex. Straight people can't do it either.
(And for that matter, marrying someone of the same sex doesn't make you gay. Haven't you heard of that "Chuck and Larry" movie? :o)
It's like you don't even WANT me to take you seriously at all.
jag
jaguarr
08-27-2008, 11:30 AM
Yeah, but that's not NOT equal rights. It's the same standard for everybody...marriage is for people of the opposite sex. Some straight marriages are purely based on intercourse between two consenting adults, but that shouldn't be the only factor in marriage, right?
It's more like special rights. Gay people want to do something unheard of...marry people of the same sex. Straight people can't do it either.
(And for that matter, marrying someone of the same sex doesn't make you gay. Haven't you heard of that "Chuck and Larry" movie? :o)
It's like you don't even WANT me to take you seriously at all.
jag
jaguarr
08-27-2008, 11:30 AM
Yeah, but that's not NOT equal rights. It's the same standard for everybody...marriage is for people of the opposite sex. Some straight marriages are purely based on intercourse between two consenting adults, but that shouldn't be the only factor in marriage, right?
It's more like special rights. Gay people want to do something unheard of...marry people of the same sex. Straight people can't do it either.
(And for that matter, marrying someone of the same sex doesn't make you gay. Haven't you heard of that "Chuck and Larry" movie? :o)
It's like you don't even WANT me to take you seriously at all.
jag
Franklin Richards
08-27-2008, 11:30 AM
You act like Christians invented marriage. Greeks and Romans entered into same sex marriages long before Christ walked the earth.
Marriage isn't defined by the joining of a man and woman.
:thing: :doom: :thing:
Franklin Richards
08-27-2008, 11:30 AM
You act like Christians invented marriage. Greeks and Romans entered into same sex marriages long before Christ walked the earth.
Marriage isn't defined by the joining of a man and woman.
:thing: :doom: :thing:
Franklin Richards
08-27-2008, 11:30 AM
You act like Christians invented marriage. Greeks and Romans entered into same sex marriages long before Christ walked the earth.
Marriage isn't defined by the joining of a man and woman.
:thing: :doom: :thing:
Yeah, but that's not NOT equal rights. It's the same standard for everybody...marriage is for people of the opposite sex. Some straight marriages are purely based on intercourse between two consenting adults, but that shouldn't be the only factor in marriage, right?
It's more like special rights. Gay people want to do something unheard of...marry people of the same sex. Straight people can't do it either.
(And for that matter, marrying someone of the same sex doesn't make you gay. Haven't you heard of that "Chuck and Larry" movie? :o)
Again, for the Third time, how does two Men getting married have any affect on your relationship with a woman?
Yeah, but that's not NOT equal rights. It's the same standard for everybody...marriage is for people of the opposite sex. Some straight marriages are purely based on intercourse between two consenting adults, but that shouldn't be the only factor in marriage, right?
It's more like special rights. Gay people want to do something unheard of...marry people of the same sex. Straight people can't do it either.
(And for that matter, marrying someone of the same sex doesn't make you gay. Haven't you heard of that "Chuck and Larry" movie? :o)
Again, for the Third time, how does two Men getting married have any affect on your relationship with a woman?
Yeah, but that's not NOT equal rights. It's the same standard for everybody...marriage is for people of the opposite sex. Some straight marriages are purely based on intercourse between two consenting adults, but that shouldn't be the only factor in marriage, right?
It's more like special rights. Gay people want to do something unheard of...marry people of the same sex. Straight people can't do it either.
(And for that matter, marrying someone of the same sex doesn't make you gay. Haven't you heard of that "Chuck and Larry" movie? :o)
Again, for the Third time, how does two Men getting married have any affect on your relationship with a woman?
Gilpesh
08-27-2008, 11:32 AM
Yeah, but that's not NOT equal rights. It's the same standard for everybody...marriage is for people of the opposite sex. Some straight marriages are purely based on intercourse between two consenting adults, but that shouldn't be the only factor in marriage, right?
It's more like special rights. Gay people want to do something unheard of...marry people of the same sex. Straight people can't do it either.
(And for that matter, marrying someone of the same sex doesn't make you gay. Haven't you heard of that "Chuck and Larry" movie? :o)
Wow, the first troll in the thread. Woo. :whatever:
Gilpesh
08-27-2008, 11:32 AM
Yeah, but that's not NOT equal rights. It's the same standard for everybody...marriage is for people of the opposite sex. Some straight marriages are purely based on intercourse between two consenting adults, but that shouldn't be the only factor in marriage, right?
It's more like special rights. Gay people want to do something unheard of...marry people of the same sex. Straight people can't do it either.
(And for that matter, marrying someone of the same sex doesn't make you gay. Haven't you heard of that "Chuck and Larry" movie? :o)
Wow, the first troll in the thread. Woo. :whatever:
Gilpesh
08-27-2008, 11:32 AM
Yeah, but that's not NOT equal rights. It's the same standard for everybody...marriage is for people of the opposite sex. Some straight marriages are purely based on intercourse between two consenting adults, but that shouldn't be the only factor in marriage, right?
It's more like special rights. Gay people want to do something unheard of...marry people of the same sex. Straight people can't do it either.
(And for that matter, marrying someone of the same sex doesn't make you gay. Haven't you heard of that "Chuck and Larry" movie? :o)
Wow, the first troll in the thread. Woo. :whatever:
ForestAflame
08-27-2008, 11:36 AM
Again, for the Third time, how does two Men getting married have any affect on your relationship with a woman?
Why don't you tell me? I had no idea my relationship with a woman was the subject here. :huh:
ForestAflame
08-27-2008, 11:36 AM
Again, for the Third time, how does two Men getting married have any affect on your relationship with a woman?
Why don't you tell me? I had no idea my relationship with a woman was the subject here. :huh:
ForestAflame
08-27-2008, 11:36 AM
Again, for the Third time, how does two Men getting married have any affect on your relationship with a woman?
Why don't you tell me? I had no idea my relationship with a woman was the subject here. :huh:
lazur
08-27-2008, 11:37 AM
You know. Responsible white couples should get children before responsible black couples. I mean the 'evidence' is there to prove that white people make better parents. :whatever:
Apples and oranges. A responsible black couple comprised of a male and female is just as capable of raising healthy, happy, socially viable children as a responsible white couple.
What you're attempting to do is claim that two responsible gay males (or females) are just as capable as a responsible hetero couple of successfully raising children.
And that's where you'd be wrong.
Still, the simplicity of your argument gives me the impression that you're more interested in being 'politically correct' than you are being sensible. Race plays NO role in how well a child is raised. Race and gender are not two things that can be applied equally on any scale, and that's what you're trying to do.
lazur
08-27-2008, 11:37 AM
You know. Responsible white couples should get children before responsible black couples. I mean the 'evidence' is there to prove that white people make better parents. :whatever:
Apples and oranges. A responsible black couple comprised of a male and female is just as capable of raising healthy, happy, socially viable children as a responsible white couple.
What you're attempting to do is claim that two responsible gay males (or females) are just as capable as a responsible hetero couple of successfully raising children.
And that's where you'd be wrong.
Still, the simplicity of your argument gives me the impression that you're more interested in being 'politically correct' than you are being sensible. Race plays NO role in how well a child is raised. Race and gender are not two things that can be applied equally on any scale, and that's what you're trying to do.
lazur
08-27-2008, 11:37 AM
You know. Responsible white couples should get children before responsible black couples. I mean the 'evidence' is there to prove that white people make better parents. :whatever:
Apples and oranges. A responsible black couple comprised of a male and female is just as capable of raising healthy, happy, socially viable children as a responsible white couple.
What you're attempting to do is claim that two responsible gay males (or females) are just as capable as a responsible hetero couple of successfully raising children.
And that's where you'd be wrong.
Still, the simplicity of your argument gives me the impression that you're more interested in being 'politically correct' than you are being sensible. Race plays NO role in how well a child is raised. Race and gender are not two things that can be applied equally on any scale, and that's what you're trying to do.
Why don't you tell me? I had no idea my relationship with a woman was the subject here. :huh:
That's right, two men in love getting married has absolutly no effect on any of your relationships. At All. So get off it. Your relationship with a woman has no affect on two men in a relationship.
You shouldn't promote a mentality of using the Force Powers of Government to execute your will upon other people. If they wan't to get married, and it does not harm a single other person, it shouldn't be illegal.
Why don't you tell me? I had no idea my relationship with a woman was the subject here. :huh:
That's right, two men in love getting married has absolutly no effect on any of your relationships. At All. So get off it. Your relationship with a woman has no affect on two men in a relationship.
You shouldn't promote a mentality of using the Force Powers of Government to execute your will upon other people. If they wan't to get married, and it does not harm a single other person, it shouldn't be illegal.
Why don't you tell me? I had no idea my relationship with a woman was the subject here. :huh:
That's right, two men in love getting married has absolutly no effect on any of your relationships. At All. So get off it. Your relationship with a woman has no affect on two men in a relationship.
You shouldn't promote a mentality of using the Force Powers of Government to execute your will upon other people. If they wan't to get married, and it does not harm a single other person, it shouldn't be illegal.
Gilpesh
08-27-2008, 11:48 AM
Apples and oranges. A responsible black couple comprised of a male and female is just as capable of raising healthy, happy, socially viable children as a responsible white couple.
What you're attempting to do is claim that two responsible gay males (or females) can provide just as vital of a home to a child as a responsible hetero couple.
And that's where you'd be wrong.
Still, the simplicity of your argument gives me the impression that you're more interested in being 'politically correct' than you are being sensible. Race plays NO role in how well a child is raised. Race and gender are not two things that can be applied equally on any scale, and that's what you're trying to do.
And you are discriminating against a group of people for absolutely no reason and hiding it behind 'evidence' that it is the right thing to do. Also, what do you have against a gay couple raising kids? Then also to claim I am just being PC and write me off?
So... the hidden motivation in your argument (well, you did the same to me so I might as well do the same to you) is that all gay couples would raise their kid gay and convert them and forever ruin future generations of children. :whatever:
Gilpesh
08-27-2008, 11:48 AM
Apples and oranges. A responsible black couple comprised of a male and female is just as capable of raising healthy, happy, socially viable children as a responsible white couple.
What you're attempting to do is claim that two responsible gay males (or females) can provide just as vital of a home to a child as a responsible hetero couple.
And that's where you'd be wrong.
Still, the simplicity of your argument gives me the impression that you're more interested in being 'politically correct' than you are being sensible. Race plays NO role in how well a child is raised. Race and gender are not two things that can be applied equally on any scale, and that's what you're trying to do.
And you are discriminating against a group of people for absolutely no reason and hiding it behind 'evidence' that it is the right thing to do. Also, what do you have against a gay couple raising kids? Then also to claim I am just being PC and write me off?
So... the hidden motivation in your argument (well, you did the same to me so I might as well do the same to you) is that all gay couples would raise their kid gay and convert them and forever ruin future generations of children. :whatever:
Gilpesh
08-27-2008, 11:48 AM
Apples and oranges. A responsible black couple comprised of a male and female is just as capable of raising healthy, happy, socially viable children as a responsible white couple.
What you're attempting to do is claim that two responsible gay males (or females) can provide just as vital of a home to a child as a responsible hetero couple.
And that's where you'd be wrong.
Still, the simplicity of your argument gives me the impression that you're more interested in being 'politically correct' than you are being sensible. Race plays NO role in how well a child is raised. Race and gender are not two things that can be applied equally on any scale, and that's what you're trying to do.
And you are discriminating against a group of people for absolutely no reason and hiding it behind 'evidence' that it is the right thing to do. Also, what do you have against a gay couple raising kids? Then also to claim I am just being PC and write me off?
So... the hidden motivation in your argument (well, you did the same to me so I might as well do the same to you) is that all gay couples would raise their kid gay and convert them and forever ruin future generations of children. :whatever:
BlackLantern
08-27-2008, 12:00 PM
If 2 consenting adults (18 or over...none of that emancipated garbage) love each other, they should be allowed to get married
BlackLantern
08-27-2008, 12:00 PM
If 2 consenting adults (18 or over...none of that emancipated garbage) love each other, they should be allowed to get married
BlackLantern
08-27-2008, 12:00 PM
If 2 consenting adults (18 or over...none of that emancipated garbage) love each other, they should be allowed to get married
kainedamo
08-27-2008, 12:00 PM
Apples and oranges. A responsible black couple comprised of a male and female is just as capable of raising healthy, happy, socially viable children as a responsible white couple.
What you're attempting to do is claim that two responsible gay males (or females) are just as capable as a responsible hetero couple of successfully raising children.
And that's where you'd be wrong.
Still, the simplicity of your argument gives me the impression that you're more interested in being 'politically correct' than you are being sensible. Race plays NO role in how well a child is raised. Race and gender are not two things that can be applied equally on any scale, and that's what you're trying to do.
From the logic of your arguments, Lazur, that a female can't understand all of the needs of a growing boy and a male can't understand all the needs of a growing girl...
Wouldn't it be fair to use that logic and say a black couple can't understand all of the needs of a growing white child or a white couple all the needs of a growing black child?
kainedamo
08-27-2008, 12:00 PM
Apples and oranges. A responsible black couple comprised of a male and female is just as capable of raising healthy, happy, socially viable children as a responsible white couple.
What you're attempting to do is claim that two responsible gay males (or females) are just as capable as a responsible hetero couple of successfully raising children.
And that's where you'd be wrong.
Still, the simplicity of your argument gives me the impression that you're more interested in being 'politically correct' than you are being sensible. Race plays NO role in how well a child is raised. Race and gender are not two things that can be applied equally on any scale, and that's what you're trying to do.
From the logic of your arguments, Lazur, that a female can't understand all of the needs of a growing boy and a male can't understand all the needs of a growing girl...
Wouldn't it be fair to use that logic and say a black couple can't understand all of the needs of a growing white child or a white couple all the needs of a growing black child?
kainedamo
08-27-2008, 12:00 PM
Apples and oranges. A responsible black couple comprised of a male and female is just as capable of raising healthy, happy, socially viable children as a responsible white couple.
What you're attempting to do is claim that two responsible gay males (or females) are just as capable as a responsible hetero couple of successfully raising children.
And that's where you'd be wrong.
Still, the simplicity of your argument gives me the impression that you're more interested in being 'politically correct' than you are being sensible. Race plays NO role in how well a child is raised. Race and gender are not two things that can be applied equally on any scale, and that's what you're trying to do.
From the logic of your arguments, Lazur, that a female can't understand all of the needs of a growing boy and a male can't understand all the needs of a growing girl...
Wouldn't it be fair to use that logic and say a black couple can't understand all of the needs of a growing white child or a white couple all the needs of a growing black child?
jaguarr
08-27-2008, 12:09 PM
From the logic of your arguments, Lazur, that a female can't understand all of the needs of a growing boy and a male can't understand all the needs of a growing girl...
It would be completely bizarro if he does have that viewpoint because he is a single father raising a teenage daughter (and doing a very good job of it from the sounds of it).
jag
jaguarr
08-27-2008, 12:09 PM
From the logic of your arguments, Lazur, that a female can't understand all of the needs of a growing boy and a male can't understand all the needs of a growing girl...
It would be completely bizarro if he does have that viewpoint because he is a single father raising a teenage daughter (and doing a very good job of it from the sounds of it).
jag
jaguarr
08-27-2008, 12:09 PM
From the logic of your arguments, Lazur, that a female can't understand all of the needs of a growing boy and a male can't understand all the needs of a growing girl...
It would be completely bizarro if he does have that viewpoint because he is a single father raising a teenage daughter (and doing a very good job of it from the sounds of it).
jag
Gilpesh
08-27-2008, 12:11 PM
He has to give the kid up for adoption. Clearly he does not understand how to raise her...
Give her to a gay couple. It's better than a single parent. :whatever:
Gilpesh
08-27-2008, 12:11 PM
He has to give the kid up for adoption. Clearly he does not understand how to raise her...
Give her to a gay couple. It's better than a single parent. :whatever:
Gilpesh
08-27-2008, 12:11 PM
He has to give the kid up for adoption. Clearly he does not understand how to raise her...
Give her to a gay couple. It's better than a single parent. :whatever:
ForestAflame
08-27-2008, 12:27 PM
From the logic of your arguments, Lazur, that a female can't understand all of the needs of a growing boy and a male can't understand all the needs of a growing girl...
Wouldn't it be fair to use that logic and say a black couple can't understand all of the needs of a growing white child or a white couple all the needs of a growing black child?
No.
There are no differences between black people and white people.
There are big differences between men and women.
ForestAflame
08-27-2008, 12:27 PM
From the logic of your arguments, Lazur, that a female can't understand all of the needs of a growing boy and a male can't understand all the needs of a growing girl...
Wouldn't it be fair to use that logic and say a black couple can't understand all of the needs of a growing white child or a white couple all the needs of a growing black child?
No.
There are no differences between black people and white people.
There are big differences between men and women.
ForestAflame
08-27-2008, 12:27 PM
From the logic of your arguments, Lazur, that a female can't understand all of the needs of a growing boy and a male can't understand all the needs of a growing girl...
Wouldn't it be fair to use that logic and say a black couple can't understand all of the needs of a growing white child or a white couple all the needs of a growing black child?
No.
There are no differences between black people and white people.
There are big differences between men and women.
kainedamo
08-27-2008, 12:54 PM
No.
There are no differences between black people and white people.
There are big differences between men and women.
Yes there are.
Skin, history, culture.
kainedamo
08-27-2008, 12:54 PM
No.
There are no differences between black people and white people.
There are big differences between men and women.
Yes there are.
Skin, history, culture.
kainedamo
08-27-2008, 12:54 PM
No.
There are no differences between black people and white people.
There are big differences between men and women.
Yes there are.
Skin, history, culture.
The Senator
08-27-2008, 01:22 PM
I disagree. Men and women are very different in virtually all ways. In a good relationship between a man and woman, each understands their roles as parents and as members of a family.
That line isn't as easily understood when both parents are the same gender. For example, in my opinion, a boy requires an involved and caring father in order to understand his own role in the world as a male. A woman, or even two women, cannot effectively raise a male child because women cannot relate to what a male is going through, particularly through teenage years. For example, men are naturally aggressive. Women aren't. Unfortunately, most women instead of allowing a male child to fully embrace his nature in order to understand and control his aggression, would attempt to simply stifle natural male impulses and force compliance to the standard, whatever it is. (We see the dumbing down of masculinity every day in our society as 'politically correctness' attempts to blur the very visible differences between men and women.) This creates a division in understanding that only a man could bridge. Same goes for two men raising a female child. Whatever the gender of the child, that child requires a strong role-model of the same gender in order to truly succeed in life.
Again, my two cents...
Of course, what is it exactly that you define as "masculine" behavior?
Because I personally despised the stereotypical masculine behaviors most men in my life tried to bestow upon me, whether it was working with power tools, learning how to throw a football around, or oggling women from afar. Thankfully my father was much different, as a former soldier who grew up in a conservative, army-based household, he allowed me to explore my own interests. Never did he force me to do anything I didn't want to, and he always slapped down attempts from his relatives to make me more "manly" in my youth. Yeah, occasionally he would make me help out with yard work, or heavy lifting, or things of that nature-- but if I didn't want to succumb to "male habits," I didn't have to. I became interested in culture, the fine arts, and politics through surrogates I knew-- female role models, for the most part, who were not my mother or members of my immediate family. I was never an athletic all star, though I was a member of the track team in high school (my father actually advised against this, because he had a miserable experience on his own track team years ago). I received a lot of my cultural education from people outside of my immediate family.
And that's what happens in a lot of gay circles. You act as if members of the LBGT community do not reach out to other friends or sources in order to help raise their children. That gay couple I referred to, one of the men often had his sister help raise his son and daughter. Not because he couldn't do the job on his own, but because he thought they need a feminine role model. The son, the oldest, was a soccer player, he played for a private school here in DC. He was also involved in the drama club, and is hoping to become an international relations major at UMD. Just because you think these kids need two parents of the opposite gender, does not mean that they cannot have normal, fulfilling childhoods. It does not mean that they will grow to regret not having that influence in their lives.
Their son, by the way, does not believe that gender determines how well a child can be raised in this society. And I value his opinion, because he was the byproduct of a non-traditional family, in the eyes of middle America. There are success stories, all across this country, of children who were raised by gay couples, who have grown up to be successful and lead "normal" lives. Just as there are stories across this country of children who grew up in broken homes, with heterosexual parents and step families, who turned out to be miserable failures in life. Gender and sexuality does not determine how a child will turn out. FAMILIES do, and the roles of members in non-traditional families are ever-changing and just as fulfilling as the male/ female parenting model.
The Senator
08-27-2008, 01:22 PM
I disagree. Men and women are very different in virtually all ways. In a good relationship between a man and woman, each understands their roles as parents and as members of a family.
That line isn't as easily understood when both parents are the same gender. For example, in my opinion, a boy requires an involved and caring father in order to understand his own role in the world as a male. A woman, or even two women, cannot effectively raise a male child because women cannot relate to what a male is going through, particularly through teenage years. For example, men are naturally aggressive. Women aren't. Unfortunately, most women instead of allowing a male child to fully embrace his nature in order to understand and control his aggression, would attempt to simply stifle natural male impulses and force compliance to the standard, whatever it is. (We see the dumbing down of masculinity every day in our society as 'politically correctness' attempts to blur the very visible differences between men and women.) This creates a division in understanding that only a man could bridge. Same goes for two men raising a female child. Whatever the gender of the child, that child requires a strong role-model of the same gender in order to truly succeed in life.
Again, my two cents...
Of course, what is it exactly that you define as "masculine" behavior?
Because I personally despised the stereotypical masculine behaviors most men in my life tried to bestow upon me, whether it was working with power tools, learning how to throw a football around, or oggling women from afar. Thankfully my father was much different, as a former soldier who grew up in a conservative, army-based household, he allowed me to explore my own interests. Never did he force me to do anything I didn't want to, and he always slapped down attempts from his relatives to make me more "manly" in my youth. Yeah, occasionally he would make me help out with yard work, or heavy lifting, or things of that nature-- but if I didn't want to succumb to "male habits," I didn't have to. I became interested in culture, the fine arts, and politics through surrogates I knew-- female role models, for the most part, who were not my mother or members of my immediate family. I was never an athletic all star, though I was a member of the track team in high school (my father actually advised against this, because he had a miserable experience on his own track team years ago). I received a lot of my cultural education from people outside of my immediate family.
And that's what happens in a lot of gay circles. You act as if members of the LBGT community do not reach out to other friends or sources in order to help raise their children. That gay couple I referred to, one of the men often had his sister help raise his son and daughter. Not because he couldn't do the job on his own, but because he thought they need a feminine role model. The son, the oldest, was a soccer player, he played for a private school here in DC. He was also involved in the drama club, and is hoping to become an international relations major at UMD. Just because you think these kids need two parents of the opposite gender, does not mean that they cannot have normal, fulfilling childhoods. It does not mean that they will grow to regret not having that influence in their lives.
Their son, by the way, does not believe that gender determines how well a child can be raised in this society. And I value his opinion, because he was the byproduct of a non-traditional family, in the eyes of middle America. There are success stories, all across this country, of children who were raised by gay couples, who have grown up to be successful and lead "normal" lives. Just as there are stories across this country of children who grew up in broken homes, with heterosexual parents and step families, who turned out to be miserable failures in life. Gender and sexuality does not determine how a child will turn out. FAMILIES do, and the roles of members in non-traditional families are ever-changing and just as fulfilling as the male/ female parenting model.
The Senator
08-27-2008, 01:22 PM
I disagree. Men and women are very different in virtually all ways. In a good relationship between a man and woman, each understands their roles as parents and as members of a family.
That line isn't as easily understood when both parents are the same gender. For example, in my opinion, a boy requires an involved and caring father in order to understand his own role in the world as a male. A woman, or even two women, cannot effectively raise a male child because women cannot relate to what a male is going through, particularly through teenage years. For example, men are naturally aggressive. Women aren't. Unfortunately, most women instead of allowing a male child to fully embrace his nature in order to understand and control his aggression, would attempt to simply stifle natural male impulses and force compliance to the standard, whatever it is. (We see the dumbing down of masculinity every day in our society as 'politically correctness' attempts to blur the very visible differences between men and women.) This creates a division in understanding that only a man could bridge. Same goes for two men raising a female child. Whatever the gender of the child, that child requires a strong role-model of the same gender in order to truly succeed in life.
Again, my two cents...
Of course, what is it exactly that you define as "masculine" behavior?
Because I personally despised the stereotypical masculine behaviors most men in my life tried to bestow upon me, whether it was working with power tools, learning how to throw a football around, or oggling women from afar. Thankfully my father was much different, as a former soldier who grew up in a conservative, army-based household, he allowed me to explore my own interests. Never did he force me to do anything I didn't want to, and he always slapped down attempts from his relatives to make me more "manly" in my youth. Yeah, occasionally he would make me help out with yard work, or heavy lifting, or things of that nature-- but if I didn't want to succumb to "male habits," I didn't have to. I became interested in culture, the fine arts, and politics through surrogates I knew-- female role models, for the most part, who were not my mother or members of my immediate family. I was never an athletic all star, though I was a member of the track team in high school (my father actually advised against this, because he had a miserable experience on his own track team years ago). I received a lot of my cultural education from people outside of my immediate family.
And that's what happens in a lot of gay circles. You act as if members of the LBGT community do not reach out to other friends or sources in order to help raise their children. That gay couple I referred to, one of the men often had his sister help raise his son and daughter. Not because he couldn't do the job on his own, but because he thought they need a feminine role model. The son, the oldest, was a soccer player, he played for a private school here in DC. He was also involved in the drama club, and is hoping to become an international relations major at UMD. Just because you think these kids need two parents of the opposite gender, does not mean that they cannot have normal, fulfilling childhoods. It does not mean that they will grow to regret not having that influence in their lives.
Their son, by the way, does not believe that gender determines how well a child can be raised in this society. And I value his opinion, because he was the byproduct of a non-traditional family, in the eyes of middle America. There are success stories, all across this country, of children who were raised by gay couples, who have grown up to be successful and lead "normal" lives. Just as there are stories across this country of children who grew up in broken homes, with heterosexual parents and step families, who turned out to be miserable failures in life. Gender and sexuality does not determine how a child will turn out. FAMILIES do, and the roles of members in non-traditional families are ever-changing and just as fulfilling as the male/ female parenting model.
SuperT
08-27-2008, 01:26 PM
No.
There are no differences between black people and white people.
There are big differences between men and women.
Coming from an African-American male here, you are abso-freak'in-lutely WRONG! :whatever:
SuperT
08-27-2008, 01:26 PM
No.
There are no differences between black people and white people.
There are big differences between men and women.
Coming from an African-American male here, you are abso-freak'in-lutely WRONG! :whatever:
SuperT
08-27-2008, 01:26 PM
No.
There are no differences between black people and white people.
There are big differences between men and women.
Coming from an African-American male here, you are abso-freak'in-lutely WRONG! :whatever:
The Senator
08-27-2008, 01:28 PM
Since when do gay people NOT have every right straight people have? I don't get it...gay people can marry members of the opposite sex just like straight people can. Straight people can't marry people of the same sex either.
The issue here is NOT having the same rights as heterosexuals do. It having the right to live their lives happily, and that happiness includes being able to marry the person you love. Heterosexual couples have the ability to marry each other, why can't gay people? Why can't I marry my boyfriend, if the two of us are in a stable, loving relationship and are deeply committed to each other through the bond of love? Why can't we sanctify our relationship through marriage?
The Senator
08-27-2008, 01:28 PM
Since when do gay people NOT have every right straight people have? I don't get it...gay people can marry members of the opposite sex just like straight people can. Straight people can't marry people of the same sex either.
The issue here is NOT having the same rights as heterosexuals do. It having the right to live their lives happily, and that happiness includes being able to marry the person you love. Heterosexual couples have the ability to marry each other, why can't gay people? Why can't I marry my boyfriend, if the two of us are in a stable, loving relationship and are deeply committed to each other through the bond of love? Why can't we sanctify our relationship through marriage?
The Senator
08-27-2008, 01:28 PM
Since when do gay people NOT have every right straight people have? I don't get it...gay people can marry members of the opposite sex just like straight people can. Straight people can't marry people of the same sex either.
The issue here is NOT having the same rights as heterosexuals do. It having the right to live their lives happily, and that happiness includes being able to marry the person you love. Heterosexual couples have the ability to marry each other, why can't gay people? Why can't I marry my boyfriend, if the two of us are in a stable, loving relationship and are deeply committed to each other through the bond of love? Why can't we sanctify our relationship through marriage?
The Senator
08-27-2008, 01:32 PM
A lot of people enter into loveless marriages. On that note, are you saying it's incapable for a gay man to love a woman?
That isn't remotely close to the issue being discussed.
Gay men can love women. I have seen a close, gay friend of mine fall in love with a member of the opposite sex. Her personality, interests, and lifestyle meshed with his perfectly, and his rationale for loving her is based on who she is, not her gender or sexuality. Every so often, a gay man can fall in love with a heterosexual woman. That is why I personally believe that love knows no sexual orientation or gender identity.
The issue here, however, is expanding the rights of marriage to members of the LGBT community. Those who are in love with members of the same sex, many of whom have already fallen in love with their partners and want to have the ability to sanctify that relationship through marriage.
The Senator
08-27-2008, 01:32 PM
A lot of people enter into loveless marriages. On that note, are you saying it's incapable for a gay man to love a woman?
That isn't remotely close to the issue being discussed.
Gay men can love women. I have seen a close, gay friend of mine fall in love with a member of the opposite sex. Her personality, interests, and lifestyle meshed with his perfectly, and his rationale for loving her is based on who she is, not her gender or sexuality. Every so often, a gay man can fall in love with a heterosexual woman. That is why I personally believe that love knows no sexual orientation or gender identity.
The issue here, however, is expanding the rights of marriage to members of the LGBT community. Those who are in love with members of the same sex, many of whom have already fallen in love with their partners and want to have the ability to sanctify that relationship through marriage.
The Senator
08-27-2008, 01:32 PM
A lot of people enter into loveless marriages. On that note, are you saying it's incapable for a gay man to love a woman?
That isn't remotely close to the issue being discussed.
Gay men can love women. I have seen a close, gay friend of mine fall in love with a member of the opposite sex. Her personality, interests, and lifestyle meshed with his perfectly, and his rationale for loving her is based on who she is, not her gender or sexuality. Every so often, a gay man can fall in love with a heterosexual woman. That is why I personally believe that love knows no sexual orientation or gender identity.
The issue here, however, is expanding the rights of marriage to members of the LGBT community. Those who are in love with members of the same sex, many of whom have already fallen in love with their partners and want to have the ability to sanctify that relationship through marriage.
The Senator
08-27-2008, 01:38 PM
Apples and oranges. A responsible black couple comprised of a male and female is just as capable of raising healthy, happy, socially viable children as a responsible white couple.
What you're attempting to do is claim that two responsible gay males (or females) are just as capable as a responsible hetero couple of successfully raising children.
And that's where you'd be wrong.
Still, the simplicity of your argument gives me the impression that you're more interested in being 'politically correct' than you are being sensible. Race plays NO role in how well a child is raised. Race and gender are not two things that can be applied equally on any scale, and that's what you're trying to do.
Here you are generalizing. It is if a child is automatically better off because he or she was raised by two heterosexual parents. Never mind the fact that close to half of the heterosexual married couples in this country are divorced or separated. Never mind the fact that many of these homes throughout the country are broken, that two heterosexual couples are just as likely to be abusive or demeaning to their children, as a gay couple is unlikely to exert influences from both gender on their children.
As I said, my mother was nothing special. Everything which I have become today, which I have today, is because of my father. And I would gladly have given up my mother for a second father any day, not because of her gender, but because of what type of mother she was.
What matters here is NOT gender, but what kind of parents these people are. There are positives in every type of family across this country, as there are negatives. In the case of adoption, I believe that parents should be selected based on their income and a psychological evaluation, not whether one parent has a penis and the other a vagina. Because gender does not determine whether a child will be raised well; a parent's behavior does.
The Senator
08-27-2008, 01:38 PM
Apples and oranges. A responsible black couple comprised of a male and female is just as capable of raising healthy, happy, socially viable children as a responsible white couple.
What you're attempting to do is claim that two responsible gay males (or females) are just as capable as a responsible hetero couple of successfully raising children.
And that's where you'd be wrong.
Still, the simplicity of your argument gives me the impression that you're more interested in being 'politically correct' than you are being sensible. Race plays NO role in how well a child is raised. Race and gender are not two things that can be applied equally on any scale, and that's what you're trying to do.
Here you are generalizing. It is if a child is automatically better off because he or she was raised by two heterosexual parents. Never mind the fact that close to half of the heterosexual married couples in this country are divorced or separated. Never mind the fact that many of these homes throughout the country are broken, that two heterosexual couples are just as likely to be abusive or demeaning to their children, as a gay couple is unlikely to exert influences from both gender on their children.
As I said, my mother was nothing special. Everything which I have become today, which I have today, is because of my father. And I would gladly have given up my mother for a second father any day, not because of her gender, but because of what type of mother she was.
What matters here is NOT gender, but what kind of parents these people are. There are positives in every type of family across this country, as there are negatives. In the case of adoption, I believe that parents should be selected based on their income and a psychological evaluation, not whether one parent has a penis and the other a vagina. Because gender does not determine whether a child will be raised well; a parent's behavior does.
The Senator
08-27-2008, 01:38 PM
Apples and oranges. A responsible black couple comprised of a male and female is just as capable of raising healthy, happy, socially viable children as a responsible white couple.
What you're attempting to do is claim that two responsible gay males (or females) are just as capable as a responsible hetero couple of successfully raising children.
And that's where you'd be wrong.
Still, the simplicity of your argument gives me the impression that you're more interested in being 'politically correct' than you are being sensible. Race plays NO role in how well a child is raised. Race and gender are not two things that can be applied equally on any scale, and that's what you're trying to do.
Here you are generalizing. It is if a child is automatically better off because he or she was raised by two heterosexual parents. Never mind the fact that close to half of the heterosexual married couples in this country are divorced or separated. Never mind the fact that many of these homes throughout the country are broken, that two heterosexual couples are just as likely to be abusive or demeaning to their children, as a gay couple is unlikely to exert influences from both gender on their children.
As I said, my mother was nothing special. Everything which I have become today, which I have today, is because of my father. And I would gladly have given up my mother for a second father any day, not because of her gender, but because of what type of mother she was.
What matters here is NOT gender, but what kind of parents these people are. There are positives in every type of family across this country, as there are negatives. In the case of adoption, I believe that parents should be selected based on their income and a psychological evaluation, not whether one parent has a penis and the other a vagina. Because gender does not determine whether a child will be raised well; a parent's behavior does.
The Senator
08-27-2008, 01:46 PM
Yeah, but that's not NOT equal rights. It's the same standard for everybody...marriage is for people of the opposite sex. Some straight marriages are purely based on intercourse between two consenting adults, but that shouldn't be the only factor in marriage, right?
It's more like special rights. Gay people want to do something unheard of...marry people of the same sex. Straight people can't do it either.
(And for that matter, marrying someone of the same sex doesn't make you gay. Haven't you heard of that "Chuck and Larry" movie? :o)
Gay marriage isn't something that is unheard of, it is currently allowed in two states in this country and in several European countries (I used to have a map which highlighted the countries with equal marriage rights, but I have misplaced it).
What you can't seem to get past is the narrow little box you've trapped yourself inside. These rights we want are not "special" by any means. There is NOTHING in our government which tells us who we can marry, via the Constitution of the United States or really any other document. And as a result, the issue we are most tied into is expanding liberty to include ALL people, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. Churches have spoken out in favor of granting gay marriage, state governments have already implemented full marriage rights to gays, other states are offering civil unions, and countries all around the world are adapting their standards to include ALL people, not just the majority. Considering we pride ourselves on Democracy, and the phrase "all men are created equal," members of the GLBT community believe that the United States to hone up to its promise and grant liberty to everybody regardless of gender or sexual orientation.
We aren't asking for anything unheard of, so whatever argument you have in that regard is total bull ****. And I kindly ask you to get off of your "well a gay man can fall in love with a woman" high horse and look at the BIGGER picture. The FOREST, not the TREES. EQUAL rights, not SPECIAL rights.
AND FINALLY... Same sex marriage is not based on intercourse, whatever made you think that proves to me that you need to get your ass off of this superhero message board and RESEARCH this topic. My relationships have NEVER been based on intercourse, many other gay people I know do not base their relationships on intercourse. It is based on LOVE, and mutual compassion for one another. Not sex. If you truly think that, you need to open up your eyes, and I would kindly ask that you stop posting here until you get your FACTS straight. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/Wilhelm-Scream/HYPE/superrolleyesua2.gif
The Senator
08-27-2008, 01:46 PM
Yeah, but that's not NOT equal rights. It's the same standard for everybody...marriage is for people of the opposite sex. Some straight marriages are purely based on intercourse between two consenting adults, but that shouldn't be the only factor in marriage, right?
It's more like special rights. Gay people want to do something unheard of...marry people of the same sex. Straight people can't do it either.
(And for that matter, marrying someone of the same sex doesn't make you gay. Haven't you heard of that "Chuck and Larry" movie? :o)
Gay marriage isn't something that is unheard of, it is currently allowed in two states in this country and in several European countries (I used to have a map which highlighted the countries with equal marriage rights, but I have misplaced it).
What you can't seem to get past is the narrow little box you've trapped yourself inside. These rights we want are not "special" by any means. There is NOTHING in our government which tells us who we can marry, via the Constitution of the United States or really any other document. And as a result, the issue we are most tied into is expanding liberty to include ALL people, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. Churches have spoken out in favor of granting gay marriage, state governments have already implemented full marriage rights to gays, other states are offering civil unions, and countries all around the world are adapting their standards to include ALL people, not just the majority. Considering we pride ourselves on Democracy, and the phrase "all men are created equal," members of the GLBT community believe that the United States to hone up to its promise and grant liberty to everybody regardless of gender or sexual orientation.
We aren't asking for anything unheard of, so whatever argument you have in that regard is total bull ****. And I kindly ask you to get off of your "well a gay man can fall in love with a woman" high horse and look at the BIGGER picture. The FOREST, not the TREES. EQUAL rights, not SPECIAL rights.
AND FINALLY... Same sex marriage is not based on intercourse, whatever made you think that proves to me that you need to get your ass off of this superhero message board and RESEARCH this topic. My relationships have NEVER been based on intercourse, many other gay people I know do not base their relationships on intercourse. It is based on LOVE, and mutual compassion for one another. Not sex. If you truly think that, you need to open up your eyes, and I would kindly ask that you stop posting here until you get your FACTS straight. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/Wilhelm-Scream/HYPE/superrolleyesua2.gif
The Senator
08-27-2008, 01:46 PM
Yeah, but that's not NOT equal rights. It's the same standard for everybody...marriage is for people of the opposite sex. Some straight marriages are purely based on intercourse between two consenting adults, but that shouldn't be the only factor in marriage, right?
It's more like special rights. Gay people want to do something unheard of...marry people of the same sex. Straight people can't do it either.
(And for that matter, marrying someone of the same sex doesn't make you gay. Haven't you heard of that "Chuck and Larry" movie? :o)
Gay marriage isn't something that is unheard of, it is currently allowed in two states in this country and in several European countries (I used to have a map which highlighted the countries with equal marriage rights, but I have misplaced it).
What you can't seem to get past is the narrow little box you've trapped yourself inside. These rights we want are not "special" by any means. There is NOTHING in our government which tells us who we can marry, via the Constitution of the United States or really any other document. And as a result, the issue we are most tied into is expanding liberty to include ALL people, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. Churches have spoken out in favor of granting gay marriage, state governments have already implemented full marriage rights to gays, other states are offering civil unions, and countries all around the world are adapting their standards to include ALL people, not just the majority. Considering we pride ourselves on Democracy, and the phrase "all men are created equal," members of the GLBT community believe that the United States to hone up to its promise and grant liberty to everybody regardless of gender or sexual orientation.
We aren't asking for anything unheard of, so whatever argument you have in that regard is total bull ****. And I kindly ask you to get off of your "well a gay man can fall in love with a woman" high horse and look at the BIGGER picture. The FOREST, not the TREES. EQUAL rights, not SPECIAL rights.
AND FINALLY... Same sex marriage is not based on intercourse, whatever made you think that proves to me that you need to get your ass off of this superhero message board and RESEARCH this topic. My relationships have NEVER been based on intercourse, many other gay people I know do not base their relationships on intercourse. It is based on LOVE, and mutual compassion for one another. Not sex. If you truly think that, you need to open up your eyes, and I would kindly ask that you stop posting here until you get your FACTS straight. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/Wilhelm-Scream/HYPE/superrolleyesua2.gif
lazur
08-27-2008, 02:07 PM
There are way too many people to respond to, so I'll break it down like this:
(And mind you - this is my opinion and I'm not about to change it. If you disagree, fine, but be respectful and keep the personal jabs out of it.)
- First, men and women are built differently mentally, physically and emotionally. We should be striving to provide the absolute BEST living conditions for our children. We should not be looking at our own lives (and how effed up they may have been in certain ways) as a means of justifying or excusing effed up lives for our children. I never bought into the argument that "I had an unreasonably difficult childhood and I turned out okay, so who cares if other children have the same problems?" Men and women naturally create children together. This was intended by nature for humans just as it was intended by nature in the wild. For example, a man cannot breast feed a newborn baby and yet breast feeding has been proven medically and scientifically to be more beneficial to a baby than feeding the baby formula. Yet you would advocate that two men should be able to adopt a baby even if it means that it will automatically be at a disadvantage since neither can provide the 'optimal' nutrition of breast feeding. /boggle
- Second, this isn't about 'gay rights' - this is about the rights of our children to be raised in a gender appropriate environment so that a child has access to a female mother and a male father for optimal maturity. Why anyone would want to deny a child the right to be raised by a mother and a father simply because of 'gay rights' is beyond me. This is not about what a gay couple WANTS - this is about what a child NEEDS. Does that mean that gay couples shouldn't adopt children? No. It does, however, mean that stable, hetero couples should receive the priority over gay couples. Again, as I said above, you can disagree all you want, but my opinion is my opinion and it will not change in order to appease a selfish desire to raise children in less than an optimal environment just because you want your cake and eat it too.
- Third, this is not about race. A black man can raise a white boy just as well as a white man can. There is a vast difference between recognizing and incorporating into parenting the necessity for helping a child understand and overcome societal challenges as opposed to helping a child understand and overcome biological challenges you yourself don't understand. One is not more or less equipped to handle the job. However, the same cannot be said between a man and a woman. A responsible woman does not possess, through no fault of her own, the physical, mental or emotional characteristics to raise a boy as effectively as a responsible man could. Same goes for fathers to daughters.
- Finally, yes a lot of hetero couples wind up in divorce, but that does not remove either parent from the lives of their children in most cases. After most divorces, Dad and Mom are still involved in their children's lives. It's not as if divorce = death, so your arguments to that end are extremely short-sighted and opportunistic. For example, my daughter's mother is still very much involved in my daughter's life. This is far different than if my daughter didn't have a female mother at all, but instead had two fathers who could never relate to menstrual cramps, boy troubles (from the perspective of a girl) and the basic human requirements of a female that a male could never understand or even empathize with. If you're unable to understand the difference in those scenarios, then you're far too 'politically correct' to have an honest discussion about what is best for our children.
lazur
08-27-2008, 02:07 PM
There are way too many people to respond to, so I'll break it down like this:
(And mind you - this is my opinion and I'm not about to change it. If you disagree, fine, but be respectful and keep the personal jabs out of it.)
- First, men and women are built differently mentally, physically and emotionally. We should be striving to provide the absolute BEST living conditions for our children. We should not be looking at our own lives (and how effed up they may have been in certain ways) as a means of justifying or excusing effed up lives for our children. I never bought into the argument that "I had an unreasonably difficult childhood and I turned out okay, so who cares if other children have the same problems?" Men and women naturally create children together. This was intended by nature for humans just as it was intended by nature in the wild. For example, a man cannot breast feed a newborn baby and yet breast feeding has been proven medically and scientifically to be more beneficial to a baby than feeding the baby formula. Yet you would advocate that two men should be able to adopt a baby even if it means that it will automatically be at a disadvantage since neither can provide the 'optimal' nutrition of breast feeding. /boggle
- Second, this isn't about 'gay rights' - this is about the rights of our children to be raised in a gender appropriate environment so that a child has access to a female mother and a male father for optimal maturity. Why anyone would want to deny a child the right to be raised by a mother and a father simply because of 'gay rights' is beyond me. This is not about what a gay couple WANTS - this is about what a child NEEDS. Does that mean that gay couples shouldn't adopt children? No. It does, however, mean that stable, hetero couples should receive the priority over gay couples. Again, as I said above, you can disagree all you want, but my opinion is my opinion and it will not change in order to appease a selfish desire to raise children in less than an optimal environment just because you want your cake and eat it too.
- Third, this is not about race. A black man can raise a white boy just as well as a white man can. There is a vast difference between recognizing and incorporating into parenting the necessity for helping a child understand and overcome societal challenges as opposed to helping a child understand and overcome biological challenges you yourself don't understand. One is not more or less equipped to handle the job. However, the same cannot be said between a man and a woman. A responsible woman does not possess, through no fault of her own, the physical, mental or emotional characteristics to raise a boy as effectively as a responsible man could. Same goes for fathers to daughters.
- Finally, yes a lot of hetero couples wind up in divorce, but that does not remove either parent from the lives of their children in most cases. After most divorces, Dad and Mom are still involved in their children's lives. It's not as if divorce = death, so your arguments to that end are extremely short-sighted and opportunistic. For example, my daughter's mother is still very much involved in my daughter's life. This is far different than if my daughter didn't have a female mother at all, but instead had two fathers who could never relate to menstrual cramps, boy troubles (from the perspective of a girl) and the basic human requirements of a female that a male could never understand or even empathize with. If you're unable to understand the difference in those scenarios, then you're far too 'politically correct' to have an honest discussion about what is best for our children.
lazur
08-27-2008, 02:07 PM
There are way too many people to respond to, so I'll break it down like this:
(And mind you - this is my opinion and I'm not about to change it. If you disagree, fine, but be respectful and keep the personal jabs out of it.)
- First, men and women are built differently mentally, physically and emotionally. We should be striving to provide the absolute BEST living conditions for our children. We should not be looking at our own lives (and how effed up they may have been in certain ways) as a means of justifying or excusing effed up lives for our children. I never bought into the argument that "I had an unreasonably difficult childhood and I turned out okay, so who cares if other children have the same problems?" Men and women naturally create children together. This was intended by nature for humans just as it was intended by nature in the wild. For example, a man cannot breast feed a newborn baby and yet breast feeding has been proven medically and scientifically to be more beneficial to a baby than feeding the baby formula. Yet you would advocate that two men should be able to adopt a baby even if it means that it will automatically be at a disadvantage since neither can provide the 'optimal' nutrition of breast feeding. /boggle
- Second, this isn't about 'gay rights' - this is about the rights of our children to be raised in a gender appropriate environment so that a child has access to a female mother and a male father for optimal maturity. Why anyone would want to deny a child the right to be raised by a mother and a father simply because of 'gay rights' is beyond me. This is not about what a gay couple WANTS - this is about what a child NEEDS. Does that mean that gay couples shouldn't adopt children? No. It does, however, mean that stable, hetero couples should receive the priority over gay couples. Again, as I said above, you can disagree all you want, but my opinion is my opinion and it will not change in order to appease a selfish desire to raise children in less than an optimal environment just because you want your cake and eat it too.
- Third, this is not about race. A black man can raise a white boy just as well as a white man can. There is a vast difference between recognizing and incorporating into parenting the necessity for helping a child understand and overcome societal challenges as opposed to helping a child understand and overcome biological challenges you yourself don't understand. One is not more or less equipped to handle the job. However, the same cannot be said between a man and a woman. A responsible woman does not possess, through no fault of her own, the physical, mental or emotional characteristics to raise a boy as effectively as a responsible man could. Same goes for fathers to daughters.
- Finally, yes a lot of hetero couples wind up in divorce, but that does not remove either parent from the lives of their children in most cases. After most divorces, Dad and Mom are still involved in their children's lives. It's not as if divorce = death, so your arguments to that end are extremely short-sighted and opportunistic. For example, my daughter's mother is still very much involved in my daughter's life. This is far different than if my daughter didn't have a female mother at all, but instead had two fathers who could never relate to menstrual cramps, boy troubles (from the perspective of a girl) and the basic human requirements of a female that a male could never understand or even empathize with. If you're unable to understand the difference in those scenarios, then you're far too 'politically correct' to have an honest discussion about what is best for our children.
It is my strong belief that gay rights should be all encompassing. Gays should have every opportunity that a straight person has. Marriage should be allowed. Adoption should be allowed. And 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' should be repealed.
We are all people of this earth and should be treated fairly and equally. Period.
(This is a great thread Jman, thank you for creating it!)
It is my strong belief that gay rights should be all encompassing. Gays should have every opportunity that a straight person has. Marriage should be allowed. Adoption should be allowed. And 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' should be repealed.
We are all people of this earth and should be treated fairly and equally. Period.
(This is a great thread Jman, thank you for creating it!)
It is my strong belief that gay rights should be all encompassing. Gays should have every opportunity that a straight person has. Marriage should be allowed. Adoption should be allowed. And 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' should be repealed.
We are all people of this earth and should be treated fairly and equally. Period.
(This is a great thread Jman, thank you for creating it!)
lazur
08-27-2008, 02:17 PM
It is my strong belief that gay rights should be all encompassing. Gays should have every opportunity that a straight person has. Marriage should be allowed. Adoption should be allowed. And 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' should be repealed.
We are all people of this earth and should be treated fairly and equally. Period.
(This is a great thread Jman, thank you for creating it!)
Being in a gay marriage does not mitigate the RIGHTS of children to be raised in a mother/father environment.
lazur
08-27-2008, 02:17 PM
It is my strong belief that gay rights should be all encompassing. Gays should have every opportunity that a straight person has. Marriage should be allowed. Adoption should be allowed. And 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' should be repealed.
We are all people of this earth and should be treated fairly and equally. Period.
(This is a great thread Jman, thank you for creating it!)
Being in a gay marriage does not mitigate the RIGHTS of children to be raised in a mother/father environment.
lazur
08-27-2008, 02:17 PM
It is my strong belief that gay rights should be all encompassing. Gays should have every opportunity that a straight person has. Marriage should be allowed. Adoption should be allowed. And 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' should be repealed.
We are all people of this earth and should be treated fairly and equally. Period.
(This is a great thread Jman, thank you for creating it!)
Being in a gay marriage does not mitigate the RIGHTS of children to be raised in a mother/father environment.
The Senator
08-27-2008, 02:17 PM
Again, as I said above, you can disagree all you want, but my opinion is my opinion and it will not change in order to appease a selfish desire to raise children in less than an optimal environment just because you want your cake and eat it too.
My desire to raise children is not selfish at all. I want a family, but I am biologically incapable of falling in love with a member of the opposite sex, and I am not going to force myself to endure a loveless relationship for the remainder of my life. I have been in two loveless heterosexual relationships before and all it did was complicate matters further by forcing myself to live a lie and having my girlfriends fall in love with someone who didn't love them back. My desire to raise a family, if I ever do so, is about giving an opportunity to children who were abandoned by their parents a chance at life. And if I ever raise children, I will ensure, like most gay men do, that there is a strong female role model in his or her life whom (s)he will see on a semi-regular basis. Because there are success stories of children who have been raised by gay parents, who have turned out perfectly 'normal' in the eyes of our-oh-so intelligent society, I believe that members of the GLBT community should be able to raise children as long as they are mentally and financially qualified to do so. In fact, I believe that should be the standard for all parents who hope to adopt-- mental and financial responsibility should trump gender.
Also, I move to permanently ban the phrase "have your cake and eat it too," it is just a moronic, cliched phrase which adds nothing to the conversation and reflects poorly on those who use it.
The Senator
08-27-2008, 02:17 PM
Again, as I said above, you can disagree all you want, but my opinion is my opinion and it will not change in order to appease a selfish desire to raise children in less than an optimal environment just because you want your cake and eat it too.
My desire to raise children is not selfish at all. I want a family, but I am biologically incapable of falling in love with a member of the opposite sex, and I am not going to force myself to endure a loveless relationship for the remainder of my life. I have been in two loveless heterosexual relationships before and all it did was complicate matters further by forcing myself to live a lie and having my girlfriends fall in love with someone who didn't love them back. My desire to raise a family, if I ever do so, is about giving an opportunity to children who were abandoned by their parents a chance at life. And if I ever raise children, I will ensure, like most gay men do, that there is a strong female role model in his or her life whom (s)he will see on a semi-regular basis. Because there are success stories of children who have been raised by gay parents, who have turned out perfectly 'normal' in the eyes of our-oh-so intelligent society, I believe that members of the GLBT community should be able to raise children as long as they are mentally and financially qualified to do so. In fact, I believe that should be the standard for all parents who hope to adopt-- mental and financial responsibility should trump gender.
Also, I move to permanently ban the phrase "have your cake and eat it too," it is just a moronic, cliched phrase which adds nothing to the conversation and reflects poorly on those who use it.
The Senator
08-27-2008, 02:17 PM
Again, as I said above, you can disagree all you want, but my opinion is my opinion and it will not change in order to appease a selfish desire to raise children in less than an optimal environment just because you want your cake and eat it too.
My desire to raise children is not selfish at all. I want a family, but I am biologically incapable of falling in love with a member of the opposite sex, and I am not going to force myself to endure a loveless relationship for the remainder of my life. I have been in two loveless heterosexual relationships before and all it did was complicate matters further by forcing myself to live a lie and having my girlfriends fall in love with someone who didn't love them back. My desire to raise a family, if I ever do so, is about giving an opportunity to children who were abandoned by their parents a chance at life. And if I ever raise children, I will ensure, like most gay men do, that there is a strong female role model in his or her life whom (s)he will see on a semi-regular basis. Because there are success stories of children who have been raised by gay parents, who have turned out perfectly 'normal' in the eyes of our-oh-so intelligent society, I believe that members of the GLBT community should be able to raise children as long as they are mentally and financially qualified to do so. In fact, I believe that should be the standard for all parents who hope to adopt-- mental and financial responsibility should trump gender.
Also, I move to permanently ban the phrase "have your cake and eat it too," it is just a moronic, cliched phrase which adds nothing to the conversation and reflects poorly on those who use it.
The Senator
08-27-2008, 02:19 PM
Being in a gay marriage does not mitigate the RIGHTS of children to be raised in a mother/father environment.
I think those rights are forfeited when a mother drops her child in a dumpster after the father drives her into a back alley to do so... the child then has a right to be raised in any kind of stable environment...
The Senator
08-27-2008, 02:19 PM
Being in a gay marriage does not mitigate the RIGHTS of children to be raised in a mother/father environment.
I think those rights are forfeited when a mother drops her child in a dumpster after the father drives her into a back alley to do so... the child then has a right to be raised in any kind of stable environment...
The Senator
08-27-2008, 02:19 PM
Being in a gay marriage does not mitigate the RIGHTS of children to be raised in a mother/father environment.
I think those rights are forfeited when a mother drops her child in a dumpster after the father drives her into a back alley to do so... the child then has a right to be raised in any kind of stable environment...
Being in a gay marriage does not mitigate the RIGHTS of children to be raised in a mother/father environment.
I thought you already lost this argument to Jman? :huh:
Being in a gay marriage does not mitigate the RIGHTS of children to be raised in a mother/father environment.
I thought you already lost this argument to Jman? :huh:
Being in a gay marriage does not mitigate the RIGHTS of children to be raised in a mother/father environment.
I thought you already lost this argument to Jman? :huh:
lazur
08-27-2008, 02:27 PM
I think those rights are forfeited when a mother drops her child in a dumpster after the father drives her into a back alley to do so... the child then has a right to be raised in any kind of stable environment...
So what you're saying is that, as a gay man, it's possible for someone else to do something that robs you of your rights? Why should the baby lose its rights to a hetero family - particularly a baby that was CONCEIVED through a hetero relationship?
Just curious, since I didn't realize until now that 'rights' were only 'rights' as long as someone is kind enough not to screw up badly enough that your 'rights' suddenly disappear through no fault or action of your own ...
lazur
08-27-2008, 02:27 PM
I think those rights are forfeited when a mother drops her child in a dumpster after the father drives her into a back alley to do so... the child then has a right to be raised in any kind of stable environment...
So what you're saying is that, as a gay man, it's possible for someone else to do something that robs you of your rights? Why should the baby lose its rights to a hetero family - particularly a baby that was CONCEIVED through a hetero relationship?
Just curious, since I didn't realize until now that 'rights' were only 'rights' as long as someone is kind enough not to screw up badly enough that your 'rights' suddenly disappear through no fault or action of your own ...
lazur
08-27-2008, 02:27 PM
I think those rights are forfeited when a mother drops her child in a dumpster after the father drives her into a back alley to do so... the child then has a right to be raised in any kind of stable environment...
So what you're saying is that, as a gay man, it's possible for someone else to do something that robs you of your rights? Why should the baby lose its rights to a hetero family - particularly a baby that was CONCEIVED through a hetero relationship?
Just curious, since I didn't realize until now that 'rights' were only 'rights' as long as someone is kind enough not to screw up badly enough that your 'rights' suddenly disappear through no fault or action of your own ...
lazur
08-27-2008, 02:27 PM
I thought you already lost this argument to Jman? :huh:
I'm not sure how possible it is to 'lose' an argument based exclusively on opinion...
Besides, I wasn't talking to you. Take a number and get in line if you want to beat up on the guy who offers a very valid, yet differing opinion.
lazur
08-27-2008, 02:27 PM
I thought you already lost this argument to Jman? :huh:
I'm not sure how possible it is to 'lose' an argument based exclusively on opinion...
Besides, I wasn't talking to you. Take a number and get in line if you want to beat up on the guy who offers a very valid, yet differing opinion.
lazur
08-27-2008, 02:27 PM
I thought you already lost this argument to Jman? :huh:
I'm not sure how possible it is to 'lose' an argument based exclusively on opinion...
Besides, I wasn't talking to you. Take a number and get in line if you want to beat up on the guy who offers a very valid, yet differing opinion.
JLBats
08-27-2008, 02:31 PM
I never got the argument that children raised by two parents of the same sex were at any disadvantage compared to children raised in a more regular environment. That's always seemed like a really clean and simplistic way to look at things, and seems to look at parental units as symbols more than looking at the reality of it.
Because the reality of it is messy.
People who make that argument seem to take this ODD approach that if you're RAISED by two men/two women, you're suddenly being raised in a vacuum, a world suddenly devoid of FEMININITY or MASCULINITY.
And I'm sorry. I've never raised a kid, but I've pretty recently BEEN a kid, and I can say that that just isn't how it is. I know damn well my model of what it means to be a man growing up was not just my father. Teachers, public figures, goddamn Atticus Finch, had far more of a positive masculine influence on me than that man in my house. And while I love my mother and know she's influenced me in many ways, it's not like I didn't have a billion other available representations of femininity every which way.
So what I'm saying is, I guess I could get behind that worry if the gays taking your children were going to bring them to some secret Themyscirian island where the opposite sex was some legendary non-entity. As is, the kid's just being raised by two PEOPLE, in a culture abundant with representation of BOTH sexes.
I also find it kinda depressing that we still have to discuss this like men and women will both bring a necessary set of required influences to the table to make a kid a perfect man or woman. Shouldn't we just be striving to raise good, happy PEOPLE, and instill morals and values rather than this strange, chaotic, undefinable gender tweaking? I doubt a kid raised by two truly loving gay people is going to feel his childhood rights were trod upon, and no gay person is pursuing that end selfishly, with his own rights in mind:down:
JLBats
08-27-2008, 02:31 PM
I never got the argument that children raised by two parents of the same sex were at any disadvantage compared to children raised in a more regular environment. That's always seemed like a really clean and simplistic way to look at things, and seems to look at parental units as symbols more than looking at the reality of it.
Because the reality of it is messy.
People who make that argument seem to take this ODD approach that if you're RAISED by two men/two women, you're suddenly being raised in a vacuum, a world suddenly devoid of FEMININITY or MASCULINITY.
And I'm sorry. I've never raised a kid, but I've pretty recently BEEN a kid, and I can say that that just isn't how it is. I know damn well my model of what it means to be a man growing up was not just my father. Teachers, public figures, goddamn Atticus Finch, had far more of a positive masculine influence on me than that man in my house. And while I love my mother and know she's influenced me in many ways, it's not like I didn't have a billion other available representations of femininity every which way.
So what I'm saying is, I guess I could get behind that worry if the gays taking your children were going to bring them to some secret Themyscirian island where the opposite sex was some legendary non-entity. As is, the kid's just being raised by two PEOPLE, in a culture abundant with representation of BOTH sexes.
I also find it kinda depressing that we still have to discuss this like men and women will both bring a necessary set of required influences to the table to make a kid a perfect man or woman. Shouldn't we just be striving to raise good, happy PEOPLE, and instill morals and values rather than this strange, chaotic, undefinable gender tweaking? I doubt a kid raised by two truly loving gay people is going to feel his childhood rights were trod upon, and no gay person is pursuing that end selfishly, with his own rights in mind:down:
JLBats
08-27-2008, 02:31 PM
I never got the argument that children raised by two parents of the same sex were at any disadvantage compared to children raised in a more regular environment. That's always seemed like a really clean and simplistic way to look at things, and seems to look at parental units as symbols more than looking at the reality of it.
Because the reality of it is messy.
People who make that argument seem to take this ODD approach that if you're RAISED by two men/two women, you're suddenly being raised in a vacuum, a world suddenly devoid of FEMININITY or MASCULINITY.
And I'm sorry. I've never raised a kid, but I've pretty recently BEEN a kid, and I can say that that just isn't how it is. I know damn well my model of what it means to be a man growing up was not just my father. Teachers, public figures, goddamn Atticus Finch, had far more of a positive masculine influence on me than that man in my house. And while I love my mother and know she's influenced me in many ways, it's not like I didn't have a billion other available representations of femininity every which way.
So what I'm saying is, I guess I could get behind that worry if the gays taking your children were going to bring them to some secret Themyscirian island where the opposite sex was some legendary non-entity. As is, the kid's just being raised by two PEOPLE, in a culture abundant with representation of BOTH sexes.
I also find it kinda depressing that we still have to discuss this like men and women will both bring a necessary set of required influences to the table to make a kid a perfect man or woman. Shouldn't we just be striving to raise good, happy PEOPLE, and instill morals and values rather than this strange, chaotic, undefinable gender tweaking? I doubt a kid raised by two truly loving gay people is going to feel his childhood rights were trod upon, and no gay person is pursuing that end selfishly, with his own rights in mind:down:
So what you're saying is that, as a gay man, it's possible for someone else to do something that robs you of your rights? Why should the baby lose its rights to a hetero family - particularly a baby that was CONCEIVED through a hetero relationship?
Just curious, since I didn't realize until now that 'rights' were only 'rights' as long as someone is kind enough not to screw up badly enough that your 'rights' suddenly disappear through no fault or action of your own ...
If you are trying to use that as an argument, I see no point in debating you.
So what you're saying is that, as a gay man, it's possible for someone else to do something that robs you of your rights? Why should the baby lose its rights to a hetero family - particularly a baby that was CONCEIVED through a hetero relationship?
Just curious, since I didn't realize until now that 'rights' were only 'rights' as long as someone is kind enough not to screw up badly enough that your 'rights' suddenly disappear through no fault or action of your own ...
If you are trying to use that as an argument, I see no point in debating you.
So what you're saying is that, as a gay man, it's possible for someone else to do something that robs you of your rights? Why should the baby lose its rights to a hetero family - particularly a baby that was CONCEIVED through a hetero relationship?
Just curious, since I didn't realize until now that 'rights' were only 'rights' as long as someone is kind enough not to screw up badly enough that your 'rights' suddenly disappear through no fault or action of your own ...
If you are trying to use that as an argument, I see no point in debating you.
The Senator
08-27-2008, 02:32 PM
So what you're saying is that, as a gay man, it's possible for someone else to do something that robs you of your rights? Why should the baby lose its rights to a hetero family - particularly a baby that was CONCEIVED through a hetero relationship?
Just curious, since I didn't realize until now that 'rights' were only 'rights' as long as someone is kind enough not to screw up badly enough that your 'rights' suddenly disappear...
In all honesty, I feel that the "right" to grow up in a two-gender household is something which has been created and drilled into our heads by our Christofascist society, in addition to the "marriage equals a man and a woman" line we've heard over and over again. A child, once it is born, has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as defined by the Declaration of Independence. I don't believe that those three natural rights say anything about having heterosexual parents.
Two heterosexual parents who discard of their child forfeit their rights to be parents, and that child therefore deserves to grow up in a stable environment as long as it does not derive him of those three natural laws. If that child can get them from a heterosexual couple, great. If that child can get them from a homosexual or trans couple, great as well. What matters to me isn't gender or sexual orientation, what matters is the assurance that these children who are up for adoption will grow up with the same rights and liberties as everyone else. Gender and sexuality aside.
The Senator
08-27-2008, 02:32 PM
So what you're saying is that, as a gay man, it's possible for someone else to do something that robs you of your rights? Why should the baby lose its rights to a hetero family - particularly a baby that was CONCEIVED through a hetero relationship?
Just curious, since I didn't realize until now that 'rights' were only 'rights' as long as someone is kind enough not to screw up badly enough that your 'rights' suddenly disappear...
In all honesty, I feel that the "right" to grow up in a two-gender household is something which has been created and drilled into our heads by our Christofascist society, in addition to the "marriage equals a man and a woman" line we've heard over and over again. A child, once it is born, has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as defined by the Declaration of Independence. I don't believe that those three natural rights say anything about having heterosexual parents.
Two heterosexual parents who discard of their child forfeit their rights to be parents, and that child therefore deserves to grow up in a stable environment as long as it does not derive him of those three natural laws. If that child can get them from a heterosexual couple, great. If that child can get them from a homosexual or trans couple, great as well. What matters to me isn't gender or sexual orientation, what matters is the assurance that these children who are up for adoption will grow up with the same rights and liberties as everyone else. Gender and sexuality aside.
The Senator
08-27-2008, 02:32 PM
So what you're saying is that, as a gay man, it's possible for someone else to do something that robs you of your rights? Why should the baby lose its rights to a hetero family - particularly a baby that was CONCEIVED through a hetero relationship?
Just curious, since I didn't realize until now that 'rights' were only 'rights' as long as someone is kind enough not to screw up badly enough that your 'rights' suddenly disappear...
In all honesty, I feel that the "right" to grow up in a two-gender household is something which has been created and drilled into our heads by our Christofascist society, in addition to the "marriage equals a man and a woman" line we've heard over and over again. A child, once it is born, has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as defined by the Declaration of Independence. I don't believe that those three natural rights say anything about having heterosexual parents.
Two heterosexual parents who discard of their child forfeit their rights to be parents, and that child therefore deserves to grow up in a stable environment as long as it does not derive him of those three natural laws. If that child can get them from a heterosexual couple, great. If that child can get them from a homosexual or trans couple, great as well. What matters to me isn't gender or sexual orientation, what matters is the assurance that these children who are up for adoption will grow up with the same rights and liberties as everyone else. Gender and sexuality aside.
I'm not sure how possible it is to 'lose' an argument based exclusively on opinion...
Besides, I wasn't talking to you. Take a number and get in line if you want to beat up on the guy who offers a very valid, yet differing opinion.
This is a public message board. I will respond to whoever I want, when I want. I have respect for all view points. I would have respect for yours too if it were somehow grounded in reality.
I'm not sure how possible it is to 'lose' an argument based exclusively on opinion...
Besides, I wasn't talking to you. Take a number and get in line if you want to beat up on the guy who offers a very valid, yet differing opinion.
This is a public message board. I will respond to whoever I want, when I want. I have respect for all view points. I would have respect for yours too if it were somehow grounded in reality.
I'm not sure how possible it is to 'lose' an argument based exclusively on opinion...
Besides, I wasn't talking to you. Take a number and get in line if you want to beat up on the guy who offers a very valid, yet differing opinion.
This is a public message board. I will respond to whoever I want, when I want. I have respect for all view points. I would have respect for yours too if it were somehow grounded in reality.
jaguarr
08-27-2008, 02:34 PM
<Devil's Advocate>If a child absolutely requires the advantages of having both sexes in a marriage raise it as parents, then single parents shouldn't be allowed to keep their kids either. They're not affording that child the optimal environment to grow and learn from both sexes in the form of a mother AND a father. I would think this would be ESPECIALLY true of single parent situations where the child is not of the same sex as the parent if we're also going to look at the argument of the child needing to learn gender-appropriate behavior.</Devil's Advocate>
jag
jaguarr
08-27-2008, 02:34 PM
<Devil's Advocate>If a child absolutely requires the advantages of having both sexes in a marriage raise it as parents, then single parents shouldn't be allowed to keep their kids either. They're not affording that child the optimal environment to grow and learn from both sexes in the form of a mother AND a father. I would think this would be ESPECIALLY true of single parent situations where the child is not of the same sex as the parent if we're also going to look at the argument of the child needing to learn gender-appropriate behavior.</Devil's Advocate>
jag
jaguarr
08-27-2008, 02:34 PM
<Devil's Advocate>If a child absolutely requires the advantages of having both sexes in a marriage raise it as parents, then single parents shouldn't be allowed to keep their kids either. They're not affording that child the optimal environment to grow and learn from both sexes in the form of a mother AND a father. I would think this would be ESPECIALLY true of single parent situations where the child is not of the same sex as the parent if we're also going to look at the argument of the child needing to learn gender-appropriate behavior.</Devil's Advocate>
jag
The Senator
08-27-2008, 02:34 PM
I'm not sure how possible it is to 'lose' an argument based exclusively on opinion...
Besides, I wasn't talking to you. Take a number and get in line if you want to beat up on the guy who offers a very valid, yet differing opinion.
I get number "1" for when you decide to talk about gays in the military.
The Senator
08-27-2008, 02:34 PM
I'm not sure how possible it is to 'lose' an argument based exclusively on opinion...
Besides, I wasn't talking to you. Take a number and get in line if you want to beat up on the guy who offers a very valid, yet differing opinion.
I get number "1" for when you decide to talk about gays in the military.
The Senator
08-27-2008, 02:34 PM
I'm not sure how possible it is to 'lose' an argument based exclusively on opinion...
Besides, I wasn't talking to you. Take a number and get in line if you want to beat up on the guy who offers a very valid, yet differing opinion.
I get number "1" for when you decide to talk about gays in the military.
Gilpesh
08-27-2008, 02:38 PM
Lazur... your opinion is that we should discriminate against gay couples... for no other reason than "Cuz".
I think that opinion falls outside of the having to respect it category. Unless you have about fifty studies that prove you are right... and not just what you 'think'.
Gilpesh
08-27-2008, 02:38 PM
Lazur... your opinion is that we should discriminate against gay couples... for no other reason than "Cuz".
I think that opinion falls outside of the having to respect it category. Unless you have about fifty studies that prove you are right... and not just what you 'think'.
Gilpesh
08-27-2008, 02:38 PM
Lazur... your opinion is that we should discriminate against gay couples... for no other reason than "Cuz".
I think that opinion falls outside of the having to respect it category. Unless you have about fifty studies that prove you are right... and not just what you 'think'.
JLBats
08-27-2008, 02:40 PM
Kids, vacuum, Themyscira, help me out here.
JLBats
08-27-2008, 02:40 PM
Kids, vacuum, Themyscira, help me out here.
JLBats
08-27-2008, 02:40 PM
Kids, vacuum, Themyscira, help me out here.
lazur
08-27-2008, 02:42 PM
This is a public message board. I will respond to whoever I want, when I want. I have respect for all view points. I would have respect for yours too if it were somehow grounded in reality.
Ah, I see, so your attempt to get me to remove myself from the discussion over the assertion that someone else already 'won the argument' isn't valid since I can also respond to whomever I want, when I want, just like you.
It seems that the 'right' to do something, such as post on a public message board, only exists if all parties agree...
lazur
08-27-2008, 02:42 PM
This is a public message board. I will respond to whoever I want, when I want. I have respect for all view points. I would have respect for yours too if it were somehow grounded in reality.
Ah, I see, so your attempt to get me to remove myself from the discussion over the assertion that someone else already 'won the argument' isn't valid since I can also respond to whomever I want, when I want, just like you.
It seems that the 'right' to do something, such as post on a public message board, only exists if all parties agree...
lazur
08-27-2008, 02:42 PM
This is a public message board. I will respond to whoever I want, when I want. I have respect for all view points. I would have respect for yours too if it were somehow grounded in reality.
Ah, I see, so your attempt to get me to remove myself from the discussion over the assertion that someone else already 'won the argument' isn't valid since I can also respond to whomever I want, when I want, just like you.
It seems that the 'right' to do something, such as post on a public message board, only exists if all parties agree...
lazur
08-27-2008, 02:45 PM
Lazur... your opinion is that we should discriminate against gay couples... for no other reason than "Cuz".
I think that opinion falls outside of the having to respect it category. Unless you have about fifty studies that prove you are right... and not just what you 'think'.
Wrong. My position is that we should not discriminate against children who have the right to be raised in a hetero family for the sake of ensuring someone else's 'desire' to raise children just "Cuz."
Do I think it's great that gay people care about children just as much as hetero children? Yes. But that does not mean that I agree that gay couples should be allowed to adopt children when hetero couples are available.
lazur
08-27-2008, 02:45 PM
Lazur... your opinion is that we should discriminate against gay couples... for no other reason than "Cuz".
I think that opinion falls outside of the having to respect it category. Unless you have about fifty studies that prove you are right... and not just what you 'think'.
Wrong. My position is that we should not discriminate against children who have the right to be raised in a hetero family for the sake of ensuring someone else's 'desire' to raise children just "Cuz."
Do I think it's great that gay people care about children just as much as hetero children? Yes. But that does not mean that I agree that gay couples should be allowed to adopt children when hetero couples are available.
lazur
08-27-2008, 02:45 PM
Lazur... your opinion is that we should discriminate against gay couples... for no other reason than "Cuz".
I think that opinion falls outside of the having to respect it category. Unless you have about fifty studies that prove you are right... and not just what you 'think'.
Wrong. My position is that we should not discriminate against children who have the right to be raised in a hetero family for the sake of ensuring someone else's 'desire' to raise children just "Cuz."
Do I think it's great that gay people care about children just as much as hetero children? Yes. But that does not mean that I agree that gay couples should be allowed to adopt children when hetero couples are available.
Ah, I see, so your attempt to get me to remove myself from the discussion over the assertion that someone else already 'won the argument' isn't valid since I can also respond to whomever I want, when I want, just like you.
It seems that the 'right' to do something, such as post on a public message board, only exists if all parties agree...
As far as I'm concerned, advocating discrimination based on the opinion of 'just because' in a forum where people usually have facts behind their reasoning...is trolling. You look around anywhere in the political forum and you will find logical intelligent debate. Debate between Democrats and Republicans. Liberals and Conservatives. Debate that goes beyond the line of thinking of 'because I said so.'
Everyone is entitled to have an opinion, but upping the level of intelligence will get you a little more respect.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.