Gay marriage is an evil cloud!!!!!! [Archive] - Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums

Potter82

04-10-2009, 04:36 PM

Well they should be worried - because as a Canadian, I can indeed tell you that gay marriage is an evil cloud. We've permitted gay marriages up here for the past few years and things have gone to hell! Every where you go, it's like a gay pride parade 24/7, you can't go anywhere without getting acosted by some scantily clad gay man who tries to force you to marry him. Not only that, but if a church refuses to marry gay couples, an angry gay mob will form and attempt to set the church on fire. Not only that, but according to one survey 50% of our school children are now gay!

Seriously though, now that it's legal here you hardly ever hear about it. Gay people will either have non-religious weddings or a wedding in a church that is accepting of them anyway and will quietly go about their lives. I'm sure there are some religious people up here who loathe the fact that gays can marry but I get the impression for the most part that people have pretty much made their peace with the issue.

I find the uproar over it in the US to be pretty funny actually. I don't see what the big deal is, it's an issue that really effects only a very small percentage of the population (other than symbolically any way), live and let live I say. Besides, people who are against it are fighting against the inevitable, there is a huge generational gap when it comes to the issue - young people are overwhelmingly for it - so it's only a matter of time before it's legalized in most states & European countries.

Vong

04-10-2009, 05:11 PM

there is a huge generational gap when it comes to the issue - young people are overwhelmingly for it

I dunno. Have you seen Jesus Camp?
Little Bible-humping craze-monkeys will probably continue the hate towards the homosexuals. Though I have no doubt gay marriage will become legal in most Western countries soon, with the exception of the U.S.

Pentangeli

04-10-2009, 06:02 PM

Little Bible-humping craze-monkeys will probably continue the hate towards the homosexuals.

Muslims, Sikhs, Jews (the religion), and also some Hindus and Buddhists teach against homosexuality too.

countchocula

04-10-2009, 06:05 PM

Yeah, but extreme evangelists are a minority. It's going to happen at some point.

ArtFactoryRadio

04-10-2009, 08:00 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp76ly2_NoI&feature=channel_page

Here is their site. hahahah http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/c.omL2KeN0LzH/b.3836955/k.BEC6/Home.htm

That commercial makes the group of bigots look like THEY are the storm cloud approaching. Which they are.

"I am afraid"

"My freedom will be taken away"

This is a classic political tactic. To sway people to your side who might be on the fence about it, you villainize your opposition. It's what they did with black people in the first half of the twentieth century, it's what they've done to the whole nation of Iraq, it's what they've been doing with people who support legalizing marijuana, and so on. You tell the public that the target group is a threat, and some people will side with you out of fear alone.

The gay community doesn't want special rights, they want equal rights.

ArtFactoryRadio

04-10-2009, 08:02 PM

Did you hear that line at the end?

They've formed a "Rainbow Coalition."

Sounds pretty gay.

ArtFactoryRadio

04-10-2009, 08:14 PM

I think all the dark clouds in the video are from all the burning crosses off-screen.

screamer581

04-10-2009, 09:33 PM

Did you hear that line at the end?

They've formed a "Rainbow Coalition."

Sounds pretty gay.

That was my favorite part. God these people are fucking idiots.

screamer581

04-10-2009, 09:35 PM

Muslims, Sikhs, Jews (the religion), and also some Hindus and Buddhists teach against homosexuality too.

Yeah, and I am sure there is even few atheist/agnostics out there that feel the same way. Those people are insane as well.

Homyrrh

04-11-2009, 12:01 AM

RicochetShaw

04-11-2009, 12:51 AM

I oppose the morality of homosexuality and, consequently, gay marriage.

...

I don't really give a shit if the gays get married.

Hmm?

Tweek

04-11-2009, 01:02 AM

The Postmaster General

04-11-2009, 01:49 AM

Homyrrh accidentally doubled-up his medications tonight.

For real, I think he's trying to say that he disapproves of gayitivitiness but isn't going to be a dick about it like the Rainbow Coalition is.

Badbird

04-11-2009, 02:27 AM

The is a lapse in understanding on all sides. Those who oppose gay marriage are not all Bible thumpers, nor are these people homophobes. For example, I oppose the morality of homosexuality and, consequently, gay marriage on the basis of very strong convictions of faith and religion. I am neither a homophobe or an overt Bible-thumper. In fact, I don't really give a shit if the gays get married. Honestly, this is just our life on this earth. I just ask that we not condemn the bigots in bigotted fashion...

Well, it sounds like you DO give a shit, considering you strung together the words "I oppose the morality of homosexuality and, consequently, gay marriage on the basis of very strong convictions of faith and religion." That kind of sentence doesn't just happen.

Fact of the matter is that our laws are based in secularism and not in that of faith.

People against gay marriage are going to find themselves on the wrong side of history, even if they never, ever figure it out.

I always found it funny whenever someone said "I don't approve of gay marriage" as if anyone needed their approval, or even cared.

But, like Glenn Beck says, believe in something, even if it's wrong.

Guess what you are:

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t64/Coyoteesharptongue/lex-luthor-wrong1.jpg?t=1239431091

Brando @$$ Fat

04-11-2009, 02:49 AM

I dunno. Have you seen Jesus Camp?
Little Bible-humping craze-monkeys will probably continue the hate towards the homosexuals. Though I have no doubt gay marriage will become legal in most Western countries soon, with the exception of the U.S.

The batshit people in that movie don't honestly reflect the rest of this country. The last poll I saw had it at about 55-45%, which isn't ideal but it's still an improvement.

Pentangeli

04-11-2009, 03:16 AM

Fact of the matter is that our laws are based in secularism and not in that of faith.

The compatibility of male/female reproductive systems, and the continuation of the human race, transcend the secular vs non-secular debate. Heterosexual coupling is essential to the continuation of the species, the same cannot be said of homosexuality. Any well-reasoned argument for or against same-gender marriage must be allowed.

Tweek

04-11-2009, 03:27 AM

The compatibility of male/female reproductive systems, and the continuation of the human race, transcend the secular vs non-secular debate. Heterosexual coupling is essential to the continuation of the species, the same cannot be said of homosexuality. Any well-reasoned argument for or against same-gender marriage must be allowed.

Since when do people have to be married to reproduce? Some people think that's the way it should be, but it's not a requirement. And same-sex marriage being allowed wouldn't suddenly turn people homosexual.

Brendan M.

04-11-2009, 04:53 AM

http://sadkermit.com/audio/Sad%20Kermit%20-%20Rainbow%20Disconnection.mp3

Why are there so many songs about rainbows
And what's on the other side?
Rainbows are visions, but only illusions,
And rainbows have nothing to hide.
So we've been told and some choose to believe it
I know they're wrong, wait and see.
Someday we'll find it, the rainbow connection,
The lovers, the dreamers and me.

Who said that every wish would be heard and answered
when wished on the morning star?
Somebody thought of that
and someone believed it,
and look what it's done so far.
What's so amazing that keeps us stargazing?
And what do we think we might see?
Someday we'll find it, the rainbow connection,
the lovers, the dreamers and me.

All of us under its spell,
we know that it's probably magic....

Have you been half asleep
and have you heard voices?
I've heard them calling my name.
Is this the sweet sound that calls the young sailors?
The voice might be one and the same.
I've heard it too many times to ignore it.
It's something that I'm supposed to be.
Someday we'll find it, the rainbow connection,
the lovers, the dreamers and me.

Jon Lyrik

04-11-2009, 04:53 AM

Pentangeli sounds like he is hiding a belief that gays are vampires that will infect our children with the ghey.

Pentangeli

04-11-2009, 11:10 AM

Pentangeli sounds like he is hiding a belief that gays are vampires that will infect our children with the ghey.

Fallacious.

ArtFactoryRadio

04-11-2009, 11:14 AM

Pentangeli

04-11-2009, 11:18 AM

Since when do people have to be married to reproduce? Some people think that's the way it should be, but it's not a requirement. And same-sex marriage being allowed wouldn't suddenly turn people homosexual.

I didn't say -- and I don't believe -- marriage was a requirement for reproduction. And neither did I claim same-sex marriage would turn people gay.

Pentangeli

04-11-2009, 11:28 AM

A white girl I know was dating a black man for a brief period. When her mother found out, she was upset. She, of course, accused her mother of being racist. Her mother replied by saying something to the effect of, "I'm not racist, I just don't believe in interracial dating."

What you said sounds just like that.

Don't hitch a ride with the anti-racist movement. I'm sick of people throwing in all struggling political movements into the same basket.

Judging a person by skin colour is stupid. And that woman was racist, presuming skin colour was the factor for her view. It could have been the man's religion, or some other cultural reason, that formed her feelings. But its certainly different to feelings toward homosexual relationships. Judging race, or skin colour, is superficial. Judging homosexuality is with regards to lifestyle. Apples and oranges.

Vong

04-11-2009, 11:59 AM

Muslims, Sikhs, Jews (the religion), and also some Hindus and Buddhists teach against homosexuality too.

That maybe true, but like I said; all Western countries will soon accept homosexuals. These religions that you stated reside in Western countries, but have little-to-no political influence in domestic affairs compared to the Christian Right in America.

The way I see it though, I could care less if some Bible-thumper, or Qu'ran lovers, or whatever other religious wacks out there are hating towards homosexuals. I do care if they instill their beliefs in politics and push for laws prohibting acts of homosexual behaviour.

Since when do people have to be married to reproduce? Some people think that's the way it should be, but it's not a requirement. And same-sex marriage being allowed wouldn't suddenly turn people homosexual.

I don't think that's what he was getting at. He was explaining the natural male-female reproduction as part of human nature.

In a way, I agree with Pentangeli. If you look at human existence, we are born to fuck and fuck to procreate. The continuation of our species is not unlike any animal outside of human society. To put it bluntly, dicks were meant to be stuck into vaginas...it's just biological naturalism. From a natural and biological view, it is unnatural for same-sex's to get together. As it does not guarantee the natural way of acquiring offspring.

However! From a human-societal view, homosexuality is fine. We (at least most of us) have risen above the mentality of thinking of "what is natural" in human nature. The gift of advanced culture is a great example of our transcendence from our "pre-social contract" era. Homosexuality is just another milestone in our battle against "what is natural". Sure homosexuals can't reproduce the natural way to get kids, but there are other ways to acquire offspring nowadays.

What I'm getting at is that it's totally acceptable for homosexuals to "do what they do"...but only if you look at it from a societal point of view.

ArtFactoryRadio

04-11-2009, 12:27 PM

Its certainly different to feelings toward homosexual relationships. Judging race, or skin colour, is superficial. Judging homosexuality is with regards to lifestyle. Apples and oranges.

How is it really different? You say lifestyle as if they really live differently.

I have a good friend who is gay. We're friends because there are so many things we agree on: music, film, books, politics, recreation, etc. You know what the key difference between us is?--He likes his penis to be inside of a man, I like mine to be inside of a woman. To be honest, I knew him for quite some time before I knew he was gay.

I don't mean to be crude, but this "lifestyle" you're referring to, is simply where they like to park their penis. That's it. There's nothing else to being gay. You don't have to like musical theatre, you don't have to frost your hair, you don't have to be a democrat, you don't have to be a cross-dresser, you don't have to be a corny stereotype on Will & Grace. There is nothing else required other than the way in which you prefer to have your happy ending.

Discriminating against someone for that sounds superficial to me. So how is it really different from being racist?

Badbird

04-11-2009, 01:10 PM

The compatibility of male/female reproductive systems, and the continuation of the human race, transcend the secular vs non-secular debate. Heterosexual coupling is essential to the continuation of the species, the same cannot be said of homosexuality. Any well-reasoned argument for or against same-gender marriage must be allowed.

There are six billion people on Earth. I don't think we have anything to worry about.

DaMovieMan

04-11-2009, 01:24 PM

Eesh. That video was creepy.

Personally, I don't understand how a man can find another man more physically attractive than a woman or even more why he would want to have anal sex with a man rather than vaginal or anal sex with a woman. Does not compute.

But, people like different things I guess so I have no problem with gay marriage or gay rights or anything like that, at the end they are people and deserve the same rights. That's why the video was hilarious.

If it was from a scientifically natural p.o.v. and not from an institutional p.o.v., it wouldn't be so hilarious and it would actually have a point.

Potter82

04-11-2009, 01:29 PM

The batshit people in that movie don't honestly reflect the rest of this country. The last poll I saw had it at about 55-45%, which isn't ideal but it's still an improvement.

I would put the number around 20% - 30% actually. Based on my experience a lot of people who claim to be religious are religious in name only. Those people who are "Jesus Camp" religious (aka who are the functional equivalent of the American Taliban) are definitely in the minority.

The reason why I think it's only a matter of time before gay marriage is accepted in the US involves two major trends - a decline in overall religion & strength of religious feeling in the US and the fact that young people have grown up in a more gay friendly society than have their parents and those that came before them

I'm sure you guys saw that poll that came out a few weeks ago regarding religion in America. Overall rates of religion have steadily declined while the rate of non-believers has steadily grown. Religious arguments against gay marriage are some of the strongest and so it makes sense to assume that the less religious a person is, the more receptive they will be towards gay marriage (though not in every case of course but overall). Then there was that poll that said less and less people consider the US to be a Christian nation.

Not only that but another study revealed that many evangelicals now think that there are other ways to heaven besides their own (even 30% thought that an atheist could get to heaven) - this is signfificant because it signals that people are being less dogmatically rigid and are more receptive to the beliefs of others.

But religion is not the real dividing line when it comes to views about gay marriage, age is. According to CNN a few days ago they said that the most determinative factor of whether or not a person favours gay marriage is not their sex, race, or religion - it's their age.

Young people are much more for it than older people and this makes perfect sense when you think about it.

Young people have been raised in an environment where being gay isn't nearly as taboo as it once was; consider all the gay TV & movie characters we've been exposed to since an early age and how many stories we've been exposed to in which gay characters are the victims of discrimination and hate (& really, how could you not feel sympathy and empathy for characters who are presented as being in this situation?). Not only that but since more gay people are living openly, we may even have gay members of the family or friends that we know of.

Once you've grown familiar with such things, it becomes less threatening - which explains why older people are against it since they don't have this same degree of familiarity - it was something that was hidden in the shadows in their day and was much more taboo & so it makes them more apprehensive.

Will young people's attitudes change over time? I doubt it.

But the decline of both religion and the strength of religious dogma in the US and the age divide makes it inevitable in my eyes. There will always be people against it (including some young people) but not enough to prevent it from happening. It's only downhilll from here for people who are against it.

Homyrrh

04-11-2009, 01:47 PM

Hot damn...that's like 20 posts in 12 hours...

Anyway, to explain any ambiguity about my former comments, I think Bubba seemed to understand my disposition quite well. My own personal convictions, own both moral and religious grounds, are that it is immoral and unnatural to be a homosexual...

...However, the right to a state and secular marriage in a country that is actually not a theocracy shouldn't necessarily be infringed because the views of the religious majority are not analogous ot those of everyone else. There was a thread about this about a year ago, and I think I may have expressed veyr similar, if not identical views.

I do not see where there is any confusion in this. I do not want gay marriage because I feel it is neither moral nor natural, BUT I will not be disloyal to my country and my constitution and not allow every man to manifest his equal creation.

Homyrrh

04-11-2009, 01:48 PM

Ah, yes, any my other point was that it's frustrating to be a default homophobe and bigot because I feel this way.

I have gay friends. And black friends. And one who's both :rolleyes:

Jon Lyrik

04-11-2009, 01:52 PM

Fallacious.

Then why were you talking about the human race's survival in heterosexual couples? It's a total non-sequitur.

ArtFactoryRadio

04-11-2009, 01:54 PM

Ah, yes, any my other point was that it's frustrating to be a default homophobe and bigot because I feel this way.

I have gay friends. And black friends. And one who's both :rolleyes:

What has been their response to your views?--Or have you discussed this with them?

Reigh Kaufman

04-11-2009, 01:59 PM

I do not want gay marriage because I feel it is neither moral nor natural, BUT I will not be disloyal to my country and my constitution and not allow every man to manifest his equal creation.

If the extreme-right get their way, then every man/woman living under that constitution will automatically have their rights taken from them. That's the default position of the constitution - the majority rule the minority.

There is no true equality, just people punching through societal limitations - based on outdated constitutions - as we evolve.

If the US change the constitution, does that mean that you will change your principles?

You either believe in something or you are forced to believe in something because your goverment has told you to, Hommyrh.

If that is the case, then you do not live in a democracy, do you?

I can't think of the proper term for it just now...fasc...something.

I appreciate you taking the time to explain your beliefs.

ArtFactoryRadio

04-11-2009, 02:02 PM

I do not see where there is any confusion in this. I do not want gay marriage because I feel it is neither moral nor natural, BUT I will not be disloyal to my country and my constitution and not allow every man to manifest his equal creation.

To be gay does go against the human instinct to procreate. But what if research proves that (at least some cases of) homosexuality is hereditary? There is research to suggest that, essentially, people are predisposed to being gay. Wouldn't that be natural? How would you feel about it then if studies proved it could be predetermined?

Cop No. 633

04-11-2009, 02:18 PM

If being gay is unnatural, what about driving a car that lets out exhaust fumes which then pollute the Earth? Isn't that about as natural as an airplane? And isn't that more harmful to our existence than two guys going at it in the back of a Volkswagon?

I just don't seem to get the natural argument. Like it's been said before, humans have advanced and done/created many things that aren't natural at all. We make these things primarily out of our convenience and to dominate nature. We've defied nature in many ways now, I don't think sex would suddenly be the straw that broke God's back.

Another strange thing to me is that homosexuality has been around far longer than many of the things we humans have invented and yet we're still not advanced enough to look past it and not care if somebody's getting their noodle soaked. If it's not your asshole that's getting the plunger, why should it bother you? I guess that's where religion comes in and that's the part where I sigh because I'm on the other side of that fence. Thank God for science. :D

RicochetShaw

04-11-2009, 02:38 PM

My own personal convictions, own both moral and religious grounds, are that it is immoral and unnatural to be a homosexual...

This statement is contradictory to what you said earlier (namely, that you "dont give a shit" if gays get married). If you have convictions about something, to the extent that you find them to be immoral, and if it's something important enough that your religion comments on, then in fact you do give a shit. Please concede that you have contradicted yourself.

I do not want gay marriage because I feel it is neither moral nor natural, BUT I will not be disloyal to my country and my constitution and not allow every man to manifest his equal creation.

Reigh touched on this, but how will you be disloyal to the Constitution by disapproving, or "not allowing" gay marriage? There's nothing in any of the articles, or amendments, that speak to it. In fact, there has been significant noise made to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage (though this was mostly under the Bush administration, and is probably now defunct).

necessarily be infringed because the views of the religious majority are not analogous ot those of everyone else

This doesn't have much to do with the topic at hand, but it has to be said.... analogous is a very awkward, probably not even fitting, word choice there. This is symptomatic of just about all of your posts. I'm not sure if it's a result of trying to sound more impressive by using several polysyllabic words per post, or if it's just how you naturally communicate, but I feel as though your overly lofty choice of words often results in less clear, rather than more effective, communication. I think a lot of people's beef with your points may be reduced if you remedied this, as the constant attempts to use impressive-sounding words often muddles the meaning of your posts. Contrary to what some may think, it is always more appreciated to be clear and concise in your posts, rather than to seem haughtily intellectual; and there is no better way to be antithetical to the latter than to unnaturally attempt it (because you'll most likely fail).

*Request to everybody else: Please let Homyrrh respond to these points before providing further criticism of this post. Having varying replies to the same post allows Homyrrh to make a shotgun-style, unsatisfying response to anyone's single question.

Criminal Rock

04-11-2009, 02:50 PM

Anyone who has beef with a person being gay needs to grow the fuck up.

someguy

04-11-2009, 05:09 PM

I've never seen a single argument against gay marriage that actually had some merit to it.

Cop No. 633

04-11-2009, 06:26 PM

I thought this was funny:

http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x53/cosmicpuppet/Gaymarriage.jpg

Preston_79

04-11-2009, 07:12 PM

Can we legalize gay marriage, but make gay sex illegal?;) There must be some middle ground. Both sides need to make compromises.

Badbird

04-12-2009, 12:13 AM

Can we legalize gay marriage, but make gay sex illegal?;) There must be some middle ground. Both sides need to make compromises.

Actually, gay sex, AKA "sodomy," was illegal until pretty recently.

I'm pretty sure some states still have laws against oral sex of any kind.

DaMovieMan

04-12-2009, 02:22 AM

Maybe you guys know Homyrrh through past threads but judging by this thread alone I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't post again.
You guys sound like you're going to pounce on him as soon as he types the first letter of his argument and defense.

Why not let people have the right to believe that gay marriage and sex is immoral and against religion? If they're not hurting anyone, if they're still for legalizing gay marriage and if they're not bigots, what's the problem?

ArtFactoryRadio

04-12-2009, 07:47 AM

Actually, gay sex, AKA "sodomy," was illegal until pretty recently.

I'm pretty sure some states still have laws against oral sex of any kind.

Oral sex is illegal in Indiana!

ArtFactoryRadio

04-12-2009, 07:53 AM

Would you mind citing the religious passage or passages that have led you to believe this way?

Brando @$$ Fat

04-12-2009, 11:35 AM

I would put the number around 20% - 30% actually. Based on my experience a lot of people who claim to be religious are religious in name only. Those people who are "Jesus Camp" religious (aka who are the functional equivalent of the American Taliban) are definitely in the minority.

The poll I was referring to was a poll about gay marriage, not how many fundamentalists live in this country. I agree that the number is probably very small, around 20 to 30%.

Homyrrh

04-12-2009, 01:40 PM

This statement is contradictory to what you said earlier (namely, that you "dont give a shit" if gays get married). If you have convictions about something, to the extent that you find them to be immoral, and if it's something important enough that your religion comments on, then in fact you do give a shit. Please concede that you have contradicted yourself.

I "give a shit" that there exists such fervent hatred for "homophobes" and "bigots" and the "ignorant Religious Right". I also "give a shit" about the issue of gay marriage. I also "give a shit" about the fundamental and biological concept of homosexuality.

I find it painfully ironic that the champions for establishing gay marriage advocate with an equal or greater hatred and slander than the people they're trying to defeat. One is not a bigot because he does not wish to violate the sanctity of a heterosexual marriage. How this is globally misunderstood is, frankly, profoundly disturbing.

Regarding the concept of homosexuality and its biology, I cannot comprehend how homosexuality can be natural. What is most perplexing to me is that the same individuals who get behind gay marriage are those who are entirely behind a godless evolution, one that entirely refutes the disposition that homosexuality is anything but a choice of lifestyle.

Most importantly, I do not feel homosexuality is a moral or natural thing. If this were an institutionally Judeo-Christian nation (or really any other system of belief or religion), it would be an abomination that this was being considered.

I need not remind anyone that this country was partly founded on principles of religious freedom. I would love to see a nation without established gay marriage, but this will not happen. There are more pressing matter to address; for example, I'd like to see the F-22 program expanded and a hundred other things before I cast a vote based on the issue of gay marriage.

Ultimately, to again reiterate, I do not feel gay marriage is a morally appropriate lifestyle, but it is no business of the state to restrict that. The gays will not alter the capabilities of the Taliban to murder our citizens, nor will they necessarily murder partially-born fetuses.

If gay marriage is legalized, I would be disappointed. But I'd simply shrug my shoulders and tell myself that abortion and Pakistan are actually worth my time...

I thus cannot honestly retract my statements on any basis, of contradiction or otherwise.

Reigh touched on this, but how will you be disloyal to the Constitution by disapproving, or "not allowing" gay marriage? There's nothing in any of the articles, or amendments, that speak to it. In fact, there has been significant noise made to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage (though this was mostly under the Bush administration, and is probably now defunct).

I apologize for a misunderstanding, but I am arguing on basis of religion, which I think is mentioned somewhere in the First Amendment.

This doesn't have much to do with the topic at hand, but it has to be said.... analogous is a very awkward, probably not even fitting, word choice there. This is symptomatic of just about all of your posts. I'm not sure if it's a result of trying to sound more impressive by using several polysyllabic words per post, or if it's just how you naturally communicate, but I feel as though your overly lofty choice of words often results in less clear, rather than more effective, communication. I think a lot of people's beef with your points may be reduced if you remedied this, as the constant attempts to use impressive-sounding words often muddles the meaning of your posts. Contrary to what some may think, it is always more appreciated to be clear and concise in your posts, rather than to seem haughtily intellectual; and there is no better way to be antithetical to the latter than to unnaturally attempt it (because you'll most likely fail). I'm not going to engage this. Frankly, it's a waste of my time, and I don't foresee this dialogue reaching any positive end. I operate under the assumption that any JoBlo user has both (A) a proficiency in the English language, and (B) a dictionary on-hand, online or otherwise. Beyond that, I make no concious effort to enrich my posts with unnecessarily long or "lofty" words. However, after considering this specific usage of "analogous", I realize that perhaps it was indeed not the ideal choice in the context of conveying my point. I'm sure you can find a better choice.

Homyrrh

04-12-2009, 01:45 PM

Would you mind citing the religious passage or passages that have led you to believe this way?
Out of respect to everyone, I'd highly suggest not going down this path. I've offered this advice to other posters, who have always wisely and kindly accepted my offer to avoid arguments based on scripture. This is a politics forum and I do not wish it to be anymore than this. Thanks.

Homyrrh

04-12-2009, 01:49 PM

I've never seen a single argument against gay marriage that actually had some merit to it.
Interestingly, if the God of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam and His command/law is correct (any of three, as they are not one in the same, obviously), there is no argument. Homosexuality, and consequently gay marriage, is purely immoral and intolerable...

Homyrrh

04-12-2009, 01:55 PM

What has been their response to your views?--Or have you discussed this with them?
I got a clue after similar tlaks with my black friends. Apparently, they don't feel we should legalize slavery again...:rolleyes:

Seriously though, I do not bring this up with them. Of my closest gay friends, one is actually a very devout Christian.

In the Air Force, there's a similar term, "leaving the hangar door open", that refers to not mixing words in certain scenarios. I wouldn't wish to jeopardize a friendship.

Further reading, from last year, on the whole issue:

http://www.joblo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120969&highlight=gay+marriage

Jon Lyrik

04-12-2009, 01:58 PM

There are tons of mammals that fuck their own gender. How could it not be natural? How many times does this need to be brought up?

Interestingly, if the God of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam and His command/law is correct (any of three, as they are not one in the same, obviously), there is no argument. Homosexuality, and consequently gay marriage, is purely immoral and intolerable...

Neither interesting nor a solid argument.

ArtFactoryRadio

04-12-2009, 03:07 PM

Out of respect to everyone, I'd highly suggest not going down this path. I've offered this advice to other posters, who have always wisely and kindly accepted my offer to avoid arguments based on scripture. This is a politics forum and I do not wish it to be anymore than this. Thanks.

You're the one who started this. You said you thought that homosexuality was immoral for religious reasons, so I was interested in pursuing the topic that you started.

I am also a Christian, but that doesn't mean I take everything in the Bible literally. If I did, then by the law stated in the same book that most of the homosexuality passages are found in, I should be stoned to death for eating meat on a Friday.

If you want to take the easy way out of a debate that you essentially instigated, then that's your business.

Homyrrh

04-12-2009, 06:16 PM

I am not going to even entertain the notion that I "instigated" some debate in this thread; I can't even take this seriously. I urge you to rethink using dialogue that makes you sound like an 8-year old being forced to share his chocolate.

I mentioned I feel homosexuality is immoral based on "personal and religious convictions". I think it is obvious why I feel this way, but in keeping with my efforts not to become preachy and religious, I will let other readers make their own deductions.

If you do or do not take things you read from the holy text of your faith literally, it is no mind or care of mine. In fact, if you have some distorted sense of theology that the Bible is at all black-and-white, I am sorry. I recommend the NIV Study Bible (http://www.amazon.com/Zondervan-NIV-Study-Bible-Updated/dp/0310938961/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239574126&sr=8-1), perhaps the best, most easily understood and informative, Bible I've yet to read.

Finally, that you feel I'm taking the "easy way" out of this debate is unfortunate at best. I realize you haven't been around the boards for awhile, so, while I'm not a senior poster here by any chance, I have the experience and wisdom to realize just how foolish it is to cite any religious text, especially the Bible, in defense of any point. If you're going to further pursue this point, at least do so after looking at back threads. Quite honestly, with as much political awareness and evident intellectualism as can be on this board, there is really not a single poster worthy of competently discussing any topic on this board on a biblical level (and especially with any objectiveness). Because of this, there has been a very strong consensus to avoid these discussions that I ask you to follow. Please discuss any issues with this with the moderator of this forum.

ArtFactoryRadio

04-12-2009, 08:06 PM

Vong

04-12-2009, 08:33 PM

There are tons of mammals that fuck their own gender. How could it not be natural? How many times does this need to be brought up?

It's not natural for a species that lives to procreate to have two of the same genders fuck each other. The existence of every species of animals in nature relies on procreation. To see a male lion fuck a female lion is natural; as in, they are fulfilling their natural duties to procreate and continue their species. If I were to see a male lion fudge-pack another male-lion, that wouldn't be typical or natural compared to the majority of the other lions. And if I were to see a grey dove among a flock of white doves, I wouldn't say it's wrong for that grey dove to exist; it's just unnatural. Every species have members that deviate from what is common or natural for them to do or look like, in what you might consider the "ugly duckling" phenomena. But this isn't to say that it's wrong. Just because it's unnatural doesn't make it wrong. "Unnatural" does not connote negativity.

And please don't misunderstand me when I say all of this. I am pro-homo.

Homyrrh

04-12-2009, 09:48 PM

I was looking for healthy debate not "angry 8-year-old" debate, that was why I asked for citation of religious passages in the first place, because I figured we could start somewhere that we both have some frame of reference for.

Of course I understand the "religious convictions." I'm around enough Christians on a regular basis to know what you mean. But I think that your beliefs (and theirs) are superficial and not truly grounded in the New Testament, which is why I engaged the topic.
Again, that's unfortunate. I offered you a link to the religious text I often reference. I had also included a link to a previous thread in which multiple references were made to scripture; these passages clearly and concisely express a certain point that can only be interpreted one way. If this is insufficient, well, good luck. You can PM me if you are still hard-pressed.

Preston_79

04-12-2009, 10:21 PM

Jon Lyrik

04-12-2009, 10:27 PM

So is natural just another word for common? Someone didn't send me the memo.

DaMovieMan

04-12-2009, 10:49 PM

The way I interpret natural is "the way it's intended to be". The fact that there is homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom does not make it natural, it just means that some animals do it the way it's not intended as well.

It's pretty clear that penises are intended to be put into vaginas. But it's up to you to believe if it's immoral or wrong for rational people to do something that is not intended. Personally, I don't mind.

Vong

04-12-2009, 11:48 PM

So is natural just another word for common? Someone didn't send me the memo.

When it comes to biological naturalism, yes.

Badbird

04-13-2009, 12:22 AM

Interestingly, if the God of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam and His command/law is correct (any of three, as they are not one in the same, obviously), there is no argument. Homosexuality, and consequently gay marriage, is purely immoral and intolerable...

Yeah, and shrimp is out, too.

But how about this: What if he's wrong?

For every one religion, there is another that cancels it out. Two of the most liberal people I know go to church every Sunday; they are pro-gay marriage as much as anyone, and their Christian God is very different than yours.

Which is why all religious arguments are irrelevant.

DaMovieMan

04-13-2009, 01:42 AM

For every one religion, there is another that cancels it out. Two of the most liberal people I know go to church every Sunday; they are pro-gay marriage as much as anyone, and their Christian God is very different than yours.

Could their Christian God actually be wrong about anything?

That's a contradiction if you truly believe in God.

Pentangeli

04-13-2009, 04:38 AM

It's not natural for a species that lives to procreate to have two of the same genders fuck each other. The existence of every species of animals in nature relies on procreation. To see a male lion fuck a female lion is natural; as in, they are fulfilling their natural duties to procreate and continue their species. If I were to see a male lion fudge-pack another male-lion, that wouldn't be typical or natural compared to the majority of the other lions. And if I were to see a grey dove among a flock of white doves, I wouldn't say it's wrong for that grey dove to exist; it's just unnatural. Every species have members that deviate from what is common or natural for them to do or look like, in what you might consider the "ugly duckling" phenomena. But this isn't to say that it's wrong. Just because it's unnatural doesn't make it wrong. "Unnatural" does not connote negativity.

And please don't misunderstand me when I say all of this. I am pro-homo.

That's exactly what i've been trying say. That some people are born with abnormalities, such as, like another poster mentioned, autism. It doesn't make them evil, but that the condition is a biological anomaly.

Some countries have laws where homosexuals face the death penalty. And obviously some political movements support eugenics. That cannot be allowed, and we must try to prevent other nations from such actions. Those are ideologies which I consider homophobic.

However, on the issues of same-sex adoption and marriage, I believe these practices warrant a debate. Opponents aren't necessarily homophobic, and don't deserve to be subject to juvenile name-calling.

Homyrrh

04-13-2009, 08:27 AM

Yeah, and shrimp is out, too.

But how about this: What if he's wrong?

For every one religion, there is another that cancels it out. Two of the most liberal people I know go to church every Sunday; they are pro-gay marriage as much as anyone, and their Christian God is very different than yours.

Which is why all religious arguments are irrelevant.
Indeed, but my statement was made in a specific context. Someone had said there is not a single argument to be made against institutionalizing gay marriage. I simply mentioned that if it were, well, "scientifically proven" that the Judeo-Christian God or Allah or one of a number of other religious deities were actually correct...there would be no argument. Gay marriage would be an abominable crime a la high treason or child molestation.

And the Christian is not without sin. Not to one-up you, buuuuuuuuuuuuut...the THREE most blue-bleeding hippies I know are all devout churchgoers...one's gay, the other's everything but, and the third goes to NYU and is trying to get into the UN's University of Peace....yeah, U of Peace...

QUENTIN

04-13-2009, 09:53 AM

I "give a shit" that there exists such fervent hatred for "homophobes" and "bigots" and the "ignorant Religious Right". I also "give a shit" about the issue of gay marriage. I also "give a shit" about the fundamental and biological concept of homosexuality.

I find it painfully ironic that the champions for establishing gay marriage advocate with an equal or greater hatred and slander than the people they're trying to defeat. One is not a bigot because he does not wish to violate the sanctity of a heterosexual marriage. How this is globally misunderstood is, frankly, profoundly disturbing.

Regarding the concept of homosexuality and its biology, I cannot comprehend how homosexuality can be natural. What is most perplexing to me is that the same individuals who get behind gay marriage are those who are entirely behind a godless evolution, one that entirely refutes the disposition that homosexuality is anything but a choice of lifestyle.

Most importantly, I do not feel homosexuality is a moral or natural thing. If this were an institutionally Judeo-Christian nation (or really any other system of belief or religion), it would be an abomination that this was being considered.

I need not remind anyone that this country was partly founded on principles of religious freedom. I would love to see a nation without established gay marriage, but this will not happen. There are more pressing matter to address; for example, I'd like to see the F-22 program expanded and a hundred other things before I cast a vote based on the issue of gay marriage.

Ultimately, to again reiterate, I do not feel gay marriage is a morally appropriate lifestyle, but it is no business of the state to restrict that. The gays will not alter the capabilities of the Taliban to murder our citizens, nor will they necessarily murder partially-born fetuses.

If gay marriage is legalized, I would be disappointed. But I'd simply shrug my shoulders and tell myself that abortion and Pakistan are actually worth my time...

I thus cannot honestly retract my statements on any basis, of contradiction or otherwise.

I apologize for a misunderstanding, but I am arguing on basis of religion, which I think is mentioned somewhere in the First Amendment.

I'm not going to engage this. Frankly, it's a waste of my time, and I don't foresee this dialogue reaching any positive end. I operate under the assumption that any JoBlo user has both (A) a proficiency in the English language, and (B) a dictionary on-hand, online or otherwise. Beyond that, I make no concious effort to enrich my posts with unnecessarily long or "lofty" words. However, after considering this specific usage of "analogous", I realize that perhaps it was indeed not the ideal choice in the context of conveying my point. I'm sure you can find a better choice.

In reference to the "hatred", I think it really can't be compared and is on entirely different grounds. Those who are intolerant of homophobes, bigots, the ignorant Religious Right are intolerant generally because that previous group means to actively infringe upon the civil rights of a group. The consequent outcry is the same as that directed at any group who seek the same. We're not trying to infringe upon the right of homophobes to exist. I don't care what views someone holds, people are free to hate homosexuals with every fiber of their being. The problem stems from the fact that much of that group is very politically/socially active and they advocate oppression based on their bigotry, whether it be through PACs, political donations, or simple votes. Homosexuals are oppressed citizens made to face unequal rights in this country because of this group, so I think our anger is more than justified and quite dissimilar from the anger homophobes feel at gays for being gay.

I won't get into the excuse of how homosexual marriage in any way violates the sanctity of heterosexual marriage, which is simply the latest shift in the religious conservative goal post, like Intelligent Design, and is absurd on its face, because you thankfully recognize the Constitutionality of the issue supersedes your personal beliefs.

As for the "natural" issue, as I cited in the thread Hommyrh linked to, nearly every study that meets the standards of science indicates that homosexuality is a predominately biological trait. This doesn't necessarily mean it's "natural" in the "common" sense, but it isn't a choice. Seriously asking yourself when you chose to be attracted to women is a simple and gut-level question that should help demonstrate this. One theory for which there is not compelling scientific evidence but which I've always found intriguing is that homosexuality is a form of population control. It's at least something to consider.

Honestly, I think your frequent refusal to engage in conversations that involve religion is kind of a cop-out. Your political beliefs are deeply informed by your religious beliefs, regardless of how much you're willing to recognize the secular nature of government and when your stated belief is religiously motivated, I think it's more than fair to discuss/debate this. You're not Lynn7, you're capable of adult conversation, so I don't think the thread will suddenly devolve if we talk about the Biblical basis of an opposition to homosexuality. At the same time, we can't force you to talk about something you don't want to and if you never want to get into it, then whatever.

Anyway, for the sake of being intellectually honest and fair and perhaps quelling this a bit: Homyrrh, you say you oppose the morality of homosexuality based on your religious convictions. As such, would you say that you oppose the morality of liars, thieves, adulterers, and the greedy? Would you condemn Ted Stevens and Rush Limbaugh for lying, while allowing the law to handle their Earhtly punishment? Condemn the businessmen and business practices that robbed people of their 401k? Condemn Bill Clinton, John McCain, John Kennedy, and Newt Gingrich with equal vigor for their philandering? Condemn the antithetical-to-Christianity pure capitalist sensibility of every man for himself rather than assuring the health, safety, and benefit of all mankind and focusing on an end to poverty that Jesus so frequently and vehemently advocated? I actually have a profound respect for spiritual and religious conviction, so long as it is not of the highly selective type that skews so much of political discourse.

Jon Lyrik

04-13-2009, 01:25 PM

I don't really see the argument against gay adoption either. Nobody is seriously campaigning against single parenting. It just reeks of latent "gays will get our kids" vampiric fear.

Homyrrh

04-13-2009, 01:48 PM

In reference to the "hatred", I think it really can't be compared and is on entirely different grounds. Those who are intolerant of homophobes, bigots, the ignorant Religious Right are intolerant generally because that previous group means to actively infringe upon the civil rights of a group. The consequent outcry is the same as that directed at any group who seek the same. We're not trying to infringe upon the right of homophobes to exist. I don't care what views someone holds, people are free to hate homosexuals with every fiber of their being. The problem stems from the fact that much of that group is very politically/socially active and they advocate oppression based on their bigotry, whether it be through PACs, political donations, or simple votes. Homosexuals are oppressed citizens made to face unequal rights in this country because of this group, so I think our anger is more than justified and quite dissimilar from the anger homophobes feel at gays for being gay.
I think the fundamental point is that not supporting gay marriage and being a homophobe are one-in-the same (I guesss they're not mutually inclusive). One need not hate the homosexual community or be afraid of them to necessarily not be for the institutionalization of their marriage.
I won't get into the excuse of how homosexual marriage in any way violates the sanctity of heterosexual marriage, which is simply the latest shift in the religious conservative goal post, like Intelligent Design, and is absurd on its face, because you thankfully recognize the Constitutionality of the issue supersedes your personal beliefs.
I don't fully understand this sentence, but I will clarify my comment. In the context of a secular marriage, which is simply a legal designation, my sentiment remains...don't really mind. It is in the context of faith that most, including myself to some degree, feel that allowing any but a heterosexual couple to marry undermines Higher decree. And indeed, I try to maintain a distinction between the two.
As for the "natural" issue, as I cited in the thread Hommyrh linked to, nearly every study that meets the standards of science indicates that homosexuality is a predominately biological trait. This doesn't necessarily mean it's "natural" in the "common" sense, but it isn't a choice. Seriously asking yourself when you chose to be attracted to women is a simple and gut-level question that should help demonstrate this. One theory for which there is not compelling scientific evidence but which I've always found intriguing is that homosexuality is a form of population control. It's at least something to consider.
I feel this is a difficult argument; no "heterosexual" male can really say he hasmade a choice. Because X is gay and Y is straight, the two can only discuss their respective sexual orientations in relative context...not even a "bisexual" is necessarily gay and straight simultaneously. If you were to ask me, as an objective example, I'd say I am indeed biologically straight, like every human.
Honestly, I think your frequent refusal to engage in conversations that involve religion is kind of a cop-out. Your political beliefs are deeply informed by your religious beliefs, regardless of how much you're willing to recognize the secular nature of government and when your stated belief is religiously motivated, I think it's more than fair to discuss/debate this. You're not Lynn7, you're capable of adult conversation, so I don't think the thread will suddenly devolve if we talk about the Biblical basis of an opposition to homosexuality. At the same time, we can't force you to talk about something you don't want to and if you never want to get into it, then whatever.
Quentin, really, the last time I brought this up was right after you tried to create some contrived post about passages from the Bible that really was the crowning achievement of taking something out of context. Then you admitted you ripped them off some randomly-Googled webpage and simply threw them in without reading them. I called you out on it and said we probably should avoid using the Bible for this very reason. I was really just trying to maintain a level of reasonable intellect. We agreed and you even said it was a reasonable and considerate request.

My ultimate reason for hesitating to directly discuss the Bible is that I have yet to encounter a single poster who has a genuine grasp of the book. While I say this with no disrespect, EVERY poster thus far has either some awful black-and-white interpretation, or, like Madsen used to do, tell me it's too old to matter. I would gladly use the Bible as a matter of discussion if it were assured to me that the concept of such a deep, poetic, and holy work as the Holy Bible would not be dismissed as soon as I wrote the words.

I also do not wish to carry some reputation as this board's resident Pat Buchanan or Jerry Falwell.

Anyway, for the sake of being intellectually honest and fair and perhaps quelling this a bit: Homyrrh, you say you oppose the morality of homosexuality based on your religious convictions. As such, would you say that you oppose the morality of liars, thieves, adulterers, and the greedy? Would you condemn Ted Stevens and Rush Limbaugh for lying, while allowing the law to handle their Earhtly punishment? Condemn the businessmen and business practices that robbed people of their 401k? Condemn Bill Clinton, John McCain, John Kennedy, and Newt Gingrich with equal vigor for their philandering? Condemn the antithetical-to-Christianity pure capitalist sensibility of every man for himself rather than assuring the health, safety, and benefit of all mankind and focusing on an end to poverty that Jesus so frequently and vehemently advocated? I actually have a profound respect for spiritual and religious conviction, so long as it is not of the highly selective type that skews so much of political discourse.

Simply, yes. On a personal level, well away from politics, I hate sin like my stepmother. Any insult to holiness, by a Christian or otherwise, is detestable. I look down on lying to one's parents or cheating on taxes as much as I do seeing all of my friends engage in premarital intercourse and cheating on exams and finals.

And on what may be an enlightening note, and perhaps contrary to what many like to think, Jesus was probably a liberal...long hair and beard...loved the children...shared his fish and loaves...hung out with hookers...;)

QUENTIN

04-13-2009, 02:50 PM

I think the fundamental point is that not supporting gay marriage and being a homophobe are one-in-the same (I guesss they're not mutually inclusive). One need not hate the homosexual community or be afraid of them to necessarily not be for the institutionalization of their marriage.

Right, one must only be opposed to equal rights and have a discriminatory, irrational feeling about homosexuals. I acknowledge and agree that they don't have to hate or fear them.

I don't fully understand this sentence, but I will clarify my comment. In the context of a secular marriage, which is simply a legal designation, my sentiment remains...don't really mind. It is in the context of faith that most, including myself to some degree, feel that allowing any but a heterosexual couple to marry undermines Higher decree. And indeed, I try to maintain a distinction between the two.

To clarify: Teaching Creationism was what was pushed for so long by this community. That proved no longer palatable to great portions of Americans and was deemed a legal impossibility. So they switched goal posts, came up with this Teach Intelligent Design argument and now push that. Similarly, and by largely the same group, "God hates fags" was what was pushed for so long. Eventually, this too proved no longer palatable to great portions of Americans and a legal non-argument, so they switched goal posts and came up with "Gay marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage" business. It's absurd on its face and dishonest, merely meant to hide true intentions because the notion that first there is a sanctity in marriage as an institution can't be held seriously in this day and age and second that homosexual marriage has any effect on a heterosexual's individual marriage has no basis in reality. Not wanting them to marry in your Church however is more than fair, and as noted, you recognize their legal right to marry, so we'll move on...

I feel this is a difficult argument; no "heterosexual" male can really say he hasmade a choice. Because X is gay and Y is straight, the two can only discuss their respective sexual orientations in relative context...not even a "bisexual" is necessarily gay and straight simultaneously. If you were to ask me, as an objective example, I'd say I am indeed biologically straight, like every human.

So you think homosexuals are attracted to members of the opposite sex naturally, but decide to have sex with members of the same sex? Why is that, do you think? Does that really make any sort of sense to you? This is to not even mention the large hill (I won't call it a mountain quite yet) of evidence that suggests otherwise.

Quentin, really, the last time I brought this up was right after you tried to create some contrived post about passages from the Bible that really was the crowning achievement of taking something out of context. Then you admitted you ripped them off some randomly-Googled webpage and simply threw them in without reading them. I called you out on it and said we probably should avoid using the Bible for this very reason. I was really just trying to maintain a level of reasonable intellect. We agreed and you even said it was a reasonable and considerate request.

It sounds like this: http://joblo.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2936846&postcount=43 , http://joblo.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2936846&postcount=44 , http://joblo.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2936846&postcount=45 is what you're attempting to mischaracterize (or to give benefit of the doubt, misremember).

I quoted absurd Bible passages from a website that deals in them to add a little light-heartedness to a serious thread. You said you didn't think quoting Bible passages was in the best interest of the thread ("called me out"?) and very respectfully requested that we not go down that path. Out of respect for your tone and the politeness of your request I said sure, we can avoid that route and also explained that my quotes, though they are Biblical passages, were meant to inject humor and were in no way an attempt to make an argument or "put... the Christian faith on trial." Then as now, I'm willing to respect your desire not to get into matters of religion, but here and in several other instances consider it an unfair and unjustified debating technique. You state your political views here openly, many are based in large part on your religion, but when that aspect of it comes up you say you don't want to discuss it. I think that rather seriously and arbitrarily constrains what we can debate.

My ultimate reason for hesitating to directly discuss the Bible is that I have yet to encounter a single poster who has a genuine grasp of the book. While I say this with no disrespect, EVERY poster thus far has either some awful black-and-white interpretation, or, like Madsen used to do, tell me it's too old to matter. I would gladly use the Bible as a matter of discussion if it were assured to me that the concept of such a deep, poetic, and holy work as the Holy Bible would not be dismissed as soon as I wrote the words.

This seems pretty selective and arbitrary in and of itself. In your opinion, the posters here don't have a grasp of the Bible. Well, I've read it twice. There are posters here who are Christian and others who were raised that way. In my opinion, you don't have a grasp of history or the military-industrial complex, but I wouldn't say we couldn't debate those things and close myself off to the possibility of engaging you in those topics. You've consistently dismissed the notion that it is immoral and unacceptable to kill people, a deep and central concept to who I am, as soon as I've written the words. Yet still, I don't refuse to debate the merits of the subject. One of the great things about discussion is that if it's productive, you can inform people on a subject you don't think they have a firm grasp on.

I also do not wish to carry some reputation as this board's resident Pat Buchanan or Jerry Falwell.

So don't be a preachy jerk about it and speak of your faith without emphasizing hatred of particular, selected groups of sinners. That should be easy.

Simply, yes. On a personal level, well away from politics, I hate sin like my stepmother. Any insult to holiness, by a Christian or otherwise, is detestable. I look down on lying to one's parents or cheating on taxes as much as I do seeing all of my friends engage in premarital intercourse and cheating on exams and finals.

And on what may be an enlightening note, and perhaps contrary to what many like to think, Jesus was probably a liberal...long hair and beard...loved the children...shared his fish and loaves...hung out with hookers...;)

Cool, good, glad you're consistent.

Obviously we can't make you discuss anything you don't want to and you're not obligated to, I just find this differentiation between political discussion and religious discussion, with one off limits, unfair and detrimental to debate when one is so clearly informed and tied to the other.

Homyrrh

04-13-2009, 03:19 PM

Right, one must only be opposed to equal rights and have a discriminatory, irrational feeling about homosexuals. I acknowledge and agree that they don't have to hate or fear them.

To clarify: Teaching Creationism was what was pushed for so long by this community. That proved no longer palatable to great portions of Americans and was deemed a legal impossibility. So they switched goal posts, came up with this Teach Intelligent Design argument and now push that. Similarly, and by largely the same group, "God hates fags" was what was pushed for so long. Eventually, this too proved no longer palatable to great portions of Americans and a legal non-argument, so they switched goal posts and came up with "Gay marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage" business. It's absurd on its face and dishonest, merely meant to hide true intentions because the notion that first there is a sanctity in marriage as an institution can't be held seriously in this day and age and second that homosexual marriage has any effect on a heterosexual's individual marriage has no basis in reality. Not wanting them to marry in your Church however is more than fair, and as noted, you recognize their legal right to marry, so we'll move on...

So you think homosexuals are attracted to members of the opposite sex naturally, but decide to have sex with members of the same sex? Why is that, do you think? Does that really make any sort of sense to you? This is to not even mention the large hill (I won't call it a mountain quite yet) of evidence that suggests otherwise.

It sounds like this: http://joblo.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2936846&postcount=43 , http://joblo.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2936846&postcount=44 , http://joblo.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2936846&postcount=45 is what you're attempting to mischaracterize (or to give benefit of the doubt, misremember).

I quoted absurd Bible passages from a website that deals in them to add a little light-heartedness to a serious thread. You said you didn't think quoting Bible passages was in the best interest of the thread ("called me out"?) and very respectfully requested that we not go down that path. Out of respect for your tone and the politeness of your request I said sure, we can avoid that route and also explained that my quotes, though they are Biblical passages, were meant to inject humor and were in no way an attempt to make an argument or "put... the Christian faith on trial." Then as now, I'm willing to respect your desire not to get into matters of religion, but here and in several other instances consider it an unfair and unjustified debating technique. You state your political views here openly, many are based in large part on your religion, but when that aspect of it comes up you say you don't want to discuss it. I think that rather seriously and arbitrarily constrains what we can debate.

This seems pretty selective and arbitrary in and of itself. In your opinion, the posters here don't have a grasp of the Bible. Well, I've read it twice. There are posters here who are Christian and others who were raised that way. In my opinion, you don't have a grasp of history or the military-industrial complex, but I wouldn't say we couldn't debate those things and close myself off to the possibility of engaging you in those topics. You've consistently dismissed the notion that it is immoral and unacceptable to kill people, a deep and central concept to who I am, as soon as I've written the words. Yet still, I don't refuse to debate the merits of the subject. One of the great things about discussion is that if it's productive, you can inform people on a subject you don't think they have a firm grasp on.

So don't be a preachy jerk about it and speak of your faith without emphasizing hatred of particular, selected groups of sinners. That should be easy.

Cool, good, glad you're consistent.

Obviously we can't make you discuss anything you don't want to and you're not obligated to, I just find this differentiation between political discussion and religious discussion, with one off limits, unfair and detrimental to debate when one is so clearly informed and tied to the other.
Your posts are remembered clearly; your original post apparently also wasn't included, nor was the thread. It was an example of the

In light of your most recent comments, I do understand what is somewhat of a double standard of mine. When relevant to the conversation, I will make an effort for greater religious transparency and consistency of expression between my views of politics and of faith.

I think you misunderstood my point on the possibility of homosexuality being innate. My point, in its simplest form, was just that trying to prove that being gay is not a choice by asking me if I was born straight is not the right way to argue that. I would just say I was born straight like the rest of us (or any denizen of the argument).

Also, here is something VERY interesting (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIw6ngIqaD0), specifically for you. This is the "struggle" homosexuality in some Christians put in one perspective by one of the most respected contemporary Christian apologists. (Note--I'm pretty sure this is the link, but I'm in class and can't listen).

free

04-13-2009, 03:38 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-id4GKsaQk

Pentangeli

04-14-2009, 04:21 AM

I don't really see the argument against gay adoption either. Nobody is seriously campaigning against single parenting.

Another poster wrongly compared the struggle of interracial coupling to that of homosexual marriage. Here we have another example of a misaligned argument. Two men/two women do not equate to one man/one woman, they present a different environment.

-------

Although monogomous relationships should be applauded, marriage isn't essential to that commitment. The denial of marriage would not reduce the number of homosexuals, or homosexual activity; but the denial of marriage would prevent the normalizing of an abnormal sexual lifestyle, and also prevents the next step of adopting children.

Criminal Rock

04-14-2009, 02:27 PM

By Howard Schweber, October 23, 2008

Last week the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the state must extend the legal status of marriage to same-sex couples. Their argument involved a determination that homosexuals constitute a quasi-suspect class, but I'm not really interested in that at the moment. Instead, it's the dissenting arguments that interest me. Debates about same-sex marriage seem to inspire really, really bad arguments, and I thought I would take a moment to review a couple of them.
One of the many enlightened arguments against gay marriage

One of these really bad arguments is captured in the phrase "Defense of marriage." The idea, of course, is that allowing same sex couples to marry threatens the marriages of mixed-sex couples. As a member of a mixed-sex marriage myself, I have to confess that I have never been able to ascertain the nature of the threat. The only explanation I can come with, actually, is one that I call the "wow, I could have had a V-8!"principle.

Then there is the argument from "nature." This one is bad on so many levels. Homosexuality is difficult to describe as "unnatural" given that animals practice it with some regularity. But another, more serious, argument is this: animals are governed by nature. Humans are governed by reason, and law. In the Hebrew Bible, God gives the Israelites a single injunction: "Justice, justice, you shall pursue," not "Nature, nature, you shall pursue" (a rather more Aristotelian position, and one forever diminished by Hume's demolition of the is/ought distinction. "There is a special place in Hell,"said Bertrand Russell, "for those philosophers who have refuted Hume." It was in a different context, but the point stands.)

But the really, really bad arguments are the ones that try to define marriage as being about having children and then reason from there. To see just how bad these arguments are, one has to go through them step by step, in each of two distinct iterations.

Version 1 goes like this: Marriage exists in order to "privilege and regulate procreative conduct. The long-standing, fundamental purpose of our marriage laws is to privilege and regulate procreative conduct . . . [therefore] persons who wish to enter into a same sex marriage are not similarly situated to persons who wish to enter into a traditional marriage. The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry." Those are the words of Justice Peter T. Zarella, dissenting in the Connecticut case.

Note that he does not say "procreation," he says "procreative conduct." What's odd about this formulation, of course, is that is not about childrearing, nor even about procreation. After all, same-sex couples procreate, they just employ different mechanics than many mixed-sex couples. In other words, this argument is not about either children or procreation, it's about sex. Which puts proponents in the extraordinary position of arguing that allowing couples to marry encourages them to engage in sex, and withholding the privileges of marriage will discourage sexual activity. Never mind anti-sodomy laws; to "privilege and regulate procreative conduct" would require laws against contraception and fornication (Otherwise, one has the difficult task of explaining why this particular form of non-procreative conduct is the subject of regulation when all the others are not). As someone once said of Rick Santorum, this argument reflects the finest minds of the 14th century.

But that's still not the worst argument! It is the second version of the argument about children that has the distinction of being the absolute Worst Argument in the World (with apologies to Keith Olbermann.) This is the argument that goes: "It is better for children to have two parents of different sexes; Marriage is about creating an environment for raising children, so that's why same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry."

The reasoning in this argument is so bad I don't know where to begin. Take the arguments about the data. Proponents of this position cite data that they claim shows that the ideal child-rearing environment includes a mixed-sex couple (not a trio or a committee) of parents. The data is disputed: other data show that children raised bysame-sex parents show no higher rates of social pathology than other children, and the studies that are cited tend to be mysteriously lacking in methologies. But just for the sake of argument, let's assume that it is, indeed, the case that all things being equal the ideal environment for childrearing is a mixed-sex couple. The problem, of course, is that all things are never equal. We can take it as given that children are not better off with a man and a woman in the house than with two men or two women if in the case of the mixed-sex couple one of those adults is a child molester, a child beater, a raging alcoholic or a drug addict, if in the case of the same-sex couples none of those things are true. We can say the same thing about unwanted children, children born into families that cannot afford to care for them, or children born to neglectful parents. The case of unwanted children is particularly telling: one thing you know about the children of same-sex couples, they were the result of planned pregnancies. Not -- how did Shakespeare put it? -- "Within a dull, stale, tired bed . . . got 'twixt sleep and wake." (It's the same thing with overseas adoptions. If you travel to China, spend three weeks, then take the long flight back with a baby screaming in your ear the whole way, when you get home you know with absolute certainty that you wanted that baby.

But we do not say that people who are child molesters, child abusers, drug addicts, or neglectful parents may not procreate. We don't even say that such persons may not marry, on the theory that this will dissuade them from procreating. So why is it the case that we have uniquely selected this one criterion of less-than-absolutely-ideal parenting and made it, alone, the basis for restricting access to marriage?

Wait -- the argument turns out to be even worse than that. The whole point of this logic is that if a certain class of people will be sub-optimal parents, we are justified in denying them the legal privileges of marriage, right? Which makes sense only if we assume that not being allowed to be married will make them less likely to raise children (just as the argument for "privileging and regulating" sex assumed that not being married cuts down on sexual activity.) The thing is, we are not talking about a pool of existing children who might be assigned to one set of parents or another by the great bureaucrat in the sky. If the idea is that same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry so that they will be discouraged from having and raising children, the implication is that the children those couples would have if they are allowed to marry are better off never having been born at all.

Yup, I have thought about it carefully and I have decided: This really is the worst argument I have ever heard.

And I agree...

Badbird

04-14-2009, 06:10 PM

Another poster wrongly compared the struggle of interracial coupling to that of homosexual marriage. Here we have another example of a misaligned argument. Two men/two women do not equate to one man/one woman, they present a different environment.

-------

Although monogomous relationships should be applauded, marriage isn't essential to that commitment. The denial of marriage would not reduce the number of homosexuals, or homosexual activity; but the denial of marriage would prevent the normalizing of an abnormal sexual lifestyle, and also prevents the next step of adopting children.

Yes, because we all know that all "normal" parents in man/woman households are all the exact same environment who all raise kids the exact same way.

Oh, wait, never mind. Every single household is a vastly different "environment" than the next. So basically you're just saying you know what the best environment to raise a kid in is. I guess poor people shouldn't have kids, cause that's a bad environment.

And anyone who says gays have an "abnormal sexual lifestyle" hasn't read much about the supposedly normal sexual lifestyles of straight people.

For instance, is it "normal" for a man to put his dick in a woman's ass? No, not really, because you need lubrication to make it work, something that the body does not provide naturally in that spot. But more straight couples engage in anal sex (AKA, gay sex) than gay couples (on a numerical level).

Other sexual practices that could be considered "abnormal" or "unnatural" but that are also accepted in our society include:

Condoms
Birth Control Pills
Vasectomies
Tube tying
Oral sex
In-vitro fertilization
Surrogate mothers (talk about unnatural)

What's abnormal today will be normal tomorrow. But in reality, there is no such thing as "normal" - therefore it is no argument.

Homyrrh

04-14-2009, 08:27 PM

Yes, because we all know that all "normal" parents in man/woman households are all the exact same environment who all raise kids the exact same way.

Oh, wait, never mind. Every single household is a vastly different "environment" than the next. So basically you're just saying you know what the best environment to raise a kid in is. I guess poor people shouldn't have kids, cause that's a bad environment.

And anyone who says gays have an "abnormal sexual lifestyle" hasn't read much about the supposedly normal sexual lifestyles of straight people.

For instance, is it "normal" for a man to put his dick in a woman's ass? No, not really, because you need lubrication to make it work, something that the body does not provide naturally in that spot. But more straight couples engage in anal sex (AKA, gay sex) than gay couples (on a numerical level).

Other sexual practices that could be considered "abnormal" or "unnatural" but that are also accepted in our society include:

Condoms
Birth Control Pills
Vasectomies
Tube tying
Oral sex
In-vitro fertilization
Surrogate mothers (talk about unnatural)

What's abnormal today will be normal tomorrow. But in reality, there is no such thing as "normal" - therefore it is no argument.
We also murder and eat each other.

Reigh Kaufman

04-14-2009, 09:12 PM

We also murder and eat each other.

Are you saying that you equate homosexuality with the deviant behaviour of murderers and cannibals?

Homyrrh

04-14-2009, 10:02 PM

Are you saying that you equate homosexuality with the deviant behaviour of murderers and cannibals?
Nope.

Reigh Kaufman

04-14-2009, 10:02 PM

Nope.

Okay.

So what was your point?

Homyrrh

04-14-2009, 10:09 PM

Okay.

So what was your point?
It was purely contextual. There had been several significant and very reasonable posts already in this thread that mention the "natural" argument. I was just weakly and straighforwardly bringing light to what had pretty much been agreed that normal.natural is pretty ridiculous to argue, especially given how loosely defined the term(s) is as a frame of reference. I know that's kind of a botched sentence, but I think the point is there.

Vong

04-14-2009, 10:19 PM

For instance, is it "normal" for a man to put his dick in a woman's ass? No, not really, because you need lubrication to make it work, something that the body does not provide naturally in that spot. But more straight couples engage in anal sex (AKA, gay sex) than gay couples (on a numerical level).

Yeah, and having anal sex between a man and a woman is (on so many levels) just wrong. If I were a woman or a gay man, I wouldn't want something jammed up my poop-shoot for pleasure. If it's a heterosexual couple, why go for the ass when there is a perfectly awesome hole to bone a few centimetres away?

*I'm digressing a bit here, but I wanted to share my opinion on anal sex*

Other sexual practices that could be considered "abnormal" or "unnatural" but that are also accepted in our society include:

Condoms
Birth Control Pills
Vasectomies
Tube tying
Oral sex
In-vitro fertilization
Surrogate mothers (talk about unnatural)

What's abnormal today will be normal tomorrow. But in reality, there is no such thing as "normal" - therefore it is no argument.

I don't know if you can adequately compare homosexuality as "unnatural" to, say, using a condom as being "unnatural". For one, homosexuality is not a choice, unlike using a condom.

By the way, when I say something is "natural" or "unnatural", I mean that in the strictest sense. As in if we were to strip away all society and enter a pre-social contract era. What is left is our "state of nature" and our "primitive" being. Condoms, birth control pills, etc. are "unnatural" tools and procedures that we have accepted in society, I won't argue against any of them. But they are still "unnatural"; as in, we would not find them in nature.

When you say there is no such thing as "normal" you are talking form a societal point of view, and I would never argue against that. But what is "normal" or "natural" in nature is different from what you would define as "normal" or "natural" in society. Because there are numerous factors in society that helps us accept things that wouldn't be "normal" or "natural" in nature (ie. individual rights, freedoms, etc.) When you enter a society, what is "normal" or "natural" in nature does not apply anymore. Things become "normal" or "natural" in society when the majority accepts it (ie. condoms, birth control pills, etc.) Eventually, homosexuality (which is naturally [or of nature] "unnatural") will become accepted as "normal" or "natural" in societies everywhere. And like many people here have pointed out, it's just a matter of time.

Jon Lyrik

04-14-2009, 11:17 PM

Badbird

04-15-2009, 12:16 AM

Yeah, and having anal sex between a man and a woman is (on so many levels) just wrong. If I were a woman or a gay man, I wouldn't want something jammed up my poop-shoot for pleasure. If it's a heterosexual couple, why go for the ass when there is a perfectly awesome hole to bone a few centimetres away?

*I'm digressing a bit here, but I wanted to share my opinion on anal sex*

Hey, don't knock it till you tried it... and if you do try it, knock it - know what I'm saying.

Homyrrh

04-15-2009, 12:47 AM

Hey, don't knock it till you tried it... and if you do try it, knock it - know what I'm saying.
Um...okay...uh, yeah...so you should REALLY probably clarify what exactly you mean by those lost few words.

Pentangeli

04-15-2009, 04:53 AM

Yes, because we all know that all "normal" parents in man/woman households are all the exact same environment who all raise kids the exact same way.
The heterosexual couple's eligible to adopt will likely have very similar lifestyles. Of course different tastes in music, film, etc. But what we're talking about here is a male and female environment, opposed to two men/two women.

What's abnormal today will be normal tomorrow. But in reality, there is no such thing as "normal" - therefore it is no argument.
I doubt there'll ever be a time where two women or two men can reproduce. Always an abnormality.

Pentangeli

04-15-2009, 05:15 AM

many kids raised by the state would love to be taken into any decent home.

Aside from the subjectivity of what's "decent", subsequently what the child wants, and presuming a child wanted to live with a same-sex couple -- who had been through all the interrogations that all potential adoptive couples go through -- are children able to make such an important decision? In divorce proceedings, why are parents and the courts -- and not the children -- deciding who gets custody?

As it stands in Britain, if the adoption agencies and social services decide a child has to live with a gay couple, that's that, the child can't do anything about it. The issue becomes another platform for gay-rights, when it should be about children's rights. A child has a right to live in a normal environment. Two men cannot reproduce, "as hard as they try", they will never be able to. As much as two men would love to look after little boys, naturally they cannot be parents within their relationship, therefore they provide an unnatural environment for a child to be raised.

Pentangeli

04-15-2009, 09:58 AM

Here's an article with an interesting point:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/gay-adoption-true-stories-852722.html

One little girl, in particular, springs to mind who had been severely sexually abused. It was agreed by all the professionals involved that she would benefit from a two-parent family, but it was also felt that she would gain from slow, cautious reintroduction to men in her life. A lesbian couple rose to the challenge and the result was the emergence of a child with hope for the future, against all odds.

By professionals, they obviously mean pseudo-scientists (psychologists). But that aside, it definitely has me thinking that the situation is more beneficial to that girl than being introduced to a male authority figure so soon. A single mother could have been a better option. It's a very interesting scenario nonetheless.

Badbird

04-15-2009, 01:34 PM

I doubt there'll ever be a time where two women or two men can reproduce. Always an abnormality.

Plenty of straight people cannot reproduce - which is probably why they are adopting in the first place.

Jamesadin

04-15-2009, 01:54 PM

I know this was posted somewhere on the boards previous to this, but I think it is quite relevent:

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parents.html

beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002). Lesbian and heterosexual women have not been found to differ markedly in their approaches to child rearing (Patterson, 2000; Tasker, 1999). Members of gay and lesbian couples with children have been found to divide the work involved in childcare evenly, and to be satisfied with their relationships with their partners (Patterson, 2000, 2004a). The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers' and gay fathers' parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual parents. There is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents on the basis of their sexual orientation (Armesto, 2002; Patterson, 2000; Tasker & Golombok, 1997). On the contrary, results of research suggest that lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children.

Pentangeli

04-15-2009, 03:05 PM

Plenty of straight people cannot reproduce - which is probably why they are adopting in the first place.

Theoretically they can. Doctors might say to some couples that the chances are slim, but he...or she...would be a fool to say the hetero couple could never conceive.

Pentangeli

04-15-2009, 03:09 PM

I know this was posted somewhere on the boards previous to this, but I think it is quite relevent:

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parents.html

Psychology is a pseudoscience, riddled with confirmation bias -- even their lord saviour, Freud, was at it.

Criminal Rock

04-16-2009, 05:36 PM

Not all psychiatry is fake considering pharmacy and evidence based interventions, and of course the emergence of neuro-psychoanalysis... the lot of modern psychiatry is pretty scientific, so I wouldn't recommend any sweeping generalizations of the sort^^.

Don't get me wrong though, I mean, I do understand where you're coming from as there are some practices of psychology which are pseudoscientific, like the rorscharch test and regression therapy - Though, psychiatrists' I know personally tell me most don't pander to this garbage unless they're in it for the quick buck (My GF is a psychology major and both her mother and father are professional psychiatrists).

Also, for some reason you suggest the APA sees Freud as their 'saviour' when in fact the APA considers his theories "desiccated and dead" (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/weekinreview/25cohen.html).

If the link doesn't work, copy/paste below

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/weekinreview/25cohen.html

But still, you say psychiatry is a pseudoscience, it's actually just harder to apply science to psychiatry than any other medical discipline, but that doesn't make it a pseudoscience at all. Most mental illnesses cannot be studied like, say, cancer or pneumonia or other diseases as there aren't any good animal models for them. However, mental illnesses like depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, etc., aren't "fake" and are very much treatable through the proper psychiatric methods. I mean, psychiatrists can't do a blood test for depression like doctors can for diabetes, but they can certainly identify patients who are impaired by a recognizable pattern of symptoms and can test various treatments to see what helps relieve those symptoms.

It seems you are bashing psychiatry for it's past faults and are not recognizing it's success in helping hundreds of thousands, if not millions of patients overcome various mental disabilities. And regarding the APA's study of children raised by gay parents, if I recall correctly, you were the one who first inquired about the adopted children's psychological well-being as a form of argument against gay adoptions (claiming that the child's well-being was somehow at risk under gay parenthood). Although the APA's study completely contradicts your arguments, looking to their opinion on the matter is simply an appeal to the correct authority, so if you really want to know if these children are OK psychologically you'd probably want to read their opinion. I mean, how else are you going to know if the child's mental well-being is at risk?

That's a question I'd like you to answer...

Badbird

04-17-2009, 02:32 PM

Psychology is a pseudoscience, riddled with confirmation bias -- even their lord saviour, Freud, was at it.

Freud has nothing to do with the modern practice, just like Darwin has nothing to do with modern science.

This sounds like you're just lashing out because expert opinions disagree with your belief system.

RicochetShaw

04-17-2009, 02:51 PM

Psychology is a pseudoscience, riddled with confirmation bias

Irony.

countchocula

04-17-2009, 03:08 PM

I can't believe that any sane person would have a problem with gays adopting. Love is universal. Any loving couple is fit to raise a child. "Normalcy" doesn't exist; it's a matter of perception. There is no valid argument against gays parenting children. This is ludicrous.

Badbird

04-18-2009, 02:15 AM

I can't believe that any sane person would have a problem with gays adopting.

Well, there's your answer.

DaMovieMan

04-18-2009, 11:04 AM

I can't believe that any sane person would have a problem with gays adopting.

So anyone who believes that a child benefits from growing up in a male/female environment is insane?

That is ludicrous.

Jon Lyrik

04-18-2009, 03:08 PM

So psychiatry is nefarious, but gays giving children a home is bad too for...some fucking reason.

Pentangeli

04-18-2009, 04:10 PM

This sounds like you're just lashing out because expert opinions disagree with your belief system.

Expert opinions? pseudo-scientists, that's all they are. There's no concrete conclusions, like with physics. It's widely accepted that confirmation bias is an issue with psychology, and religion has nothing to do with acknowledging this.

Pentangeli

04-18-2009, 04:18 PM

Love is universal. Any loving couple is fit to raise a child. "Normalcy" doesn't exist; it's a matter of perception.

Normality of anatomical functions isn't merely a perception. There's only one way for Humans to naturally reproduce.

I hear ya with the "love is universal", but it's a very liberal idealist thing to say. And doesn't make any progress in supporting your case.

Pentangeli

04-18-2009, 04:44 PM

Irony.

How is it ironic?

And just incase you were implying that my argument contains confirmation bias, I'll refresh your memory that I have never used religion of any other unscientific source to support my view, and that my entire argument is based upon the invariable requirements for natural reproduction.

Homosexuals cannot reproduce naturally. Therefore they provide an unnatural [social] environment for a child to be raised. Two gay men might wish to adopt little boys, but the adoption issue is not a gay rights platform. The children are the only priority, and I see no valid reason to put a child in an unnatural environment.

countchocula

04-18-2009, 04:47 PM

I don't think an orphan would care if both of his/her would-be parents had cocks. You're also forgetting that the child would still have feminine role models. What about grandmothers and aunts?

This is just a horrible reason to keep a child in the foster system.

countchocula

04-18-2009, 04:52 PM

I'll add that there is NOTHING that suggests being raised in "gay" living conditions is detrimental to the child. The only detrimental component would be bad parenting, which is not exclusive to homosexuals or heterosexuals. Every prospective foster parent is screened. If they seem like responsible, well-adjusted people, their sexual orientation should be of no consequence.

Pentangeli

04-18-2009, 04:59 PM

regarding the APA's study of children raised by gay parents, if I recall correctly, you were the one who first inquired about the adopted children's psychological well-being as a form of argument against gay adoptions (claiming that the child's well-being was somehow at risk under gay parenthood). Although the APA's study completely contradicts your arguments, looking to their opinion on the matter is simply an appeal to the correct authority, so if you really want to know if these children are OK psychologically you'd probably want to read their opinion. I mean, how else are you going to know if the child's mental well-being is at risk?

That's a question I'd like you to answer...

You're memory serves you well, Tai. It was I who initiated the inquiries, and still believe the psychological well being of the children is essential to this debate. However, it's essential in supporting the case for gay couples to adopt. If there was a way of knowing the lives of the children -- in an unnatural social environment -- would not be badly affected, then there's no reason to oppose the matter. Given the lack of concrete conclusions from psychological studies, there really is no way of knowing. Therefore, doubt remains, and opposition to same-sex couples adopting exists.

Pentangeli

04-18-2009, 05:08 PM

Every prospective foster parent is screened.

Yeah, of course. I'm not debating that the two gay men would cut little Timmy into tiny pieces and have a cannabilistic feast, with a side order of Michael. Hopefully agencies would do their job right, and only accept good people with the finances to raise a child. But there's more to it than just being a nice person. I mean, we're fucking with nature here. Two men, or two women, raising kids, just isn't natural. We're putting man-made ideologies into this. I think it needs a debate, and justification is needed to go against nature.

countchocula

04-18-2009, 05:19 PM

But the kid doesn't know it's "unnatural." And it's only "unnatural" if you think it's "unnatural." Most people don't see two people loving, protecting, and nurturing a child as "unnatural." Sexual orientation has no impact on one's capacity and ability to love.

What else is unnatural? How about kids raised by grandparents? How about kids raised by any foster parents? Is that natural? How about an American kid raised in France? How about an Ethiopian kid raised in America? Is that natural?

BadCoverVersion

04-18-2009, 05:51 PM

Two men cannot reproduce, "as hard as they try", they will never be able to. As much as two men would love to look after little boys, naturally they cannot be parents within their relationship, therefore they provide an unnatural environment for a child to be raised.

Homosexuals cannot reproduce naturally. Therefore they provide an unnatural [social] environment for a child to be raised. Two gay men might wish to adopt little boys, but the adoption issue is not a gay rights platform. The children are the only priority, and I see no valid reason to put a child in an unnatural environment.

Jesus wept. Where on earth did you get this nonsense idea that gay men only want to adopt "little boys"?

It's a basic HUMAN desire to want to nurture and mould a CHILD (no gender specified)...sexual orientation doesn't even factor into it.

Pentangeli

04-18-2009, 06:03 PM

Jesus wept. Where on earth did you get this nonsense idea that gay men only want to adopt "little boys"?

It's a basic HUMAN desire to want to nurture and mould a CHILD (no gender specified)...sexual orientation doesn't even factor into it.

I'm putting my own personality into that. If I was to become a parent I would rather have a boy than a girl. As a father I really wouldn't know what to do with a girl. With a son, I could relive my childhood, buy action figures and video games etc.

countchocula

04-18-2009, 06:08 PM

I'd actually like to have a girl some day. Little boys annoy the shit out of me.

Pentangeli

04-18-2009, 06:14 PM

I'd actually like to have a girl some day. Little boys annoy the shit out of me.
:D

Bu what about girls with the shrieking, the slamming doors, the wet towels. And the damn puddle (paddling pool) they leave on the bathroom floor after "just a shower". I have two sisters, and they defined annoying.

Badbird

04-19-2009, 01:28 AM

Homosexuals cannot reproduce naturally. Therefore they provide an unnatural [social] environment for a child to be raised.

Considering how many well adjusted and perfectly capable kids come out of singe parent households (no asexual reproduction with humas, therefore an unnatural environment), your argument falls apart faster than a leper in a wind tunnel.

Pentangeli

04-19-2009, 04:24 AM

Considering how many well adjusted and perfectly capable kids come out of singe parent households (no asexual reproduction with humas, therefore an unnatural environment), your argument falls apart faster than a leper in a wind tunnel.

:D but that single parent is likely going to be the biological parent. It's very rare for an adoption agency to accept a single parent. The leper is back up and runnin'.

free

04-19-2009, 05:02 PM

Pentangeli, you are 100% correct. There should be no homosexuals taking care of kids, because they couldn't have had those kids themselves. It's unnatural. I mean, you don't expect a dog to care for feline babies do you?
http://www.bestweekever.tv/bwe/images/2008/07/rt_animal_friends_080701_ssh.jpg
http://www.blog.new-cat.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/dog-tigercubsnursing.jpg

Oh... well certainly you would never see a cat taken care of canine babies, that wold be...
http://images.townnews.com/nctimes.com/content/articles/2007/04/27/news/californian/4_04_0720_55_48.jpg
...crazy.

Well, how about pigs and a tiger!! There's now way...
http://www.saynotocrack.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/tiger-and-piglets1.jpg
...damn it!!

Cat and a skunk, there is one for you. No wait... STOP...
http://images.rescuegroups.org/dynapage/s74dpi77.jpg
NO!! NO!! NO!!

(okay free, get yourself together, don't think about dogs... dogs and pigs...
http://www.dogbloged.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/dognursespig.JPG

:eek:

Okay, maybe you're just wrong, Pentangeli.

DaMovieMan

04-19-2009, 08:09 PM

I'm sorry but those pictures are just disturbing (and a little cute in the cat taking care of dogs one) and you actually went further away from the point you were trying to make I think.

A tiger feeding a pig is proof that homosexuals provide a natural habitat for children? Really?

Badbird

04-20-2009, 12:30 AM

A tiger feeding a pig is proof that homosexuals provide a natural habitat for children? Really?

Duh. It's a gay tiger.

free

04-20-2009, 01:27 AM

Pentangeli

04-20-2009, 03:43 AM

Okay, maybe you're just wrong, Pentangeli.

And here's me thinking the issue was same-sex couples adopting, when all along it was about Wolves adopting our human babies. Let me re-read Jungle Book, and i'll get back to you.

Criminal Rock

04-20-2009, 03:54 AM

And here's me thinking the issue was same-sex couples adopting, when all along it was about Wolves adopting our human babies. Let me re-read Jungle Book, and i'll get back to you.

Christ man, do you honestly believe that's what free was talking about?

Pentangeli

04-20-2009, 03:57 AM

The only point that I was making was that humans as well as animals can do just fine outside what is considered natural for them.

The babies in those photos are getting their needs taken care of, just like the babies who will be given to homosexual couples who would give them plenty of love and nurturing, which their "normal" and "natural" biological parents couldn't for one reason or another.

Those animals are getting milk. Milk is milk, and not too different between species. In that regard, there's not a lot unnatural about those scenarios. Plus it's scenarios set up by man. I doubt it would happen outside man-made environment.

Similarly, mixed-race adoption is not something I oppose. Milk is milk. Man is man. Woman is woman. A difference of colour or culture isn't a big deal. Others might disagree, and feel culture is very important and those with a similar culture to the orphan should get priority.

Your other point about homosexual couples' "love" and "nurture", is not the issue here. I'm not accusing them of potentially physically harming the children. But there's more to it than that. The affects on one's psychology is not easily measured. A happy person isn't necessarily a well-balanced person. Plenty of psychos seem to be having the time of their life.

free

04-20-2009, 04:54 AM

Plus it's scenarios set up by man. I doubt it would happen outside man-made environment.

Adoption is a scenario set up by man. If we want to argue about what would "naturally" happen, a human child left alone by their parents would die. Would be okay for the gays to have them in that case? ;)

A difference of... culture isn't a big deal.

Isn't that just what a homosexual couple is, though? Just humans with a different culture (their culture being homosexuality)?

Some of the sickest, most violent sociopaths were raised with the "natural" environment of opposite sex parents. Does this unwaveringly mean that these parents failed, or his/her environment growing up affected him/her? Or, does it mean that when you get right down to it, some people are just sick, regardless of their environment.

Some of the nicest, most productive members of society were raised by homosexual couples. Does this unwaveringly mean that these parents succeeded, or his/her environment growing up affected him/her? Or, does it mean that when you get right down to it, some people are just good, decent people (though in all honesty, I think upbringing has a greater chance to negatively affect a child more than it will positively affect him/her).

The only way to prove or disprove you would be for a pyschological study to be done... wait, here's one. (http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/sep/25/local/chi-gay-adoption-25-sep25)

And another (from adoptioninstitute.org, no less). (http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/policy/2006_Expanding_Resources_for_Children.php)

In case you don't want to click, here's a little snip from the second one:

Principal findings:

Against a backdrop of increasing public acceptance, social science research concludes that children reared by gay and lesbian parents fare comparably to those of children raised by heterosexuals on a range of measures of social and psychological adjustment.

Studies are increasing in number and rigor, but the body of research on gay/lesbian parents is relatively small and has methodological limitations. Still, virtually every valid study reaches the same conclusion: The children of gays and lesbians adjust positively and their families function well. The limited research on gay/lesbian adoption points in the same direction.

Though few states have laws or policies explicitly barring homosexuals from adopting, some individual agencies and workers outside those states discriminate against gay and lesbian applicants based on their own biases or on mistaken beliefs that such prohibitions exist.

Laws and policies that preclude adoption by gay or lesbian parents disadvantage the tens of thousands of children mired in the foster care system who need permanent, loving homes.

Again, though, you have stated that is a method (pyschological study) that is unacceptable to you, right?

So essentially, the only evidence we (the pro side) have to convince you in favor of homosexual adoption isn't adequate. Kind of convenient for you, isn't it? ;)

Pentangeli

04-20-2009, 05:24 AM

So essentially, the only evidence we (the pro side) have to convince you in favor of homosexual adoption isn't adequate. Kind of convenient for you, isn't it? ;)

My stance on the matter isn't set in stone, unlike some people (liberals) who don't even acknowledge the scenario could be bad for a child, as all they care about is wrongly using the situation as a gay-rights platform. If you could prove that the development of a little kid wouldn't be affected any differently than those raised by heterosexual couples, then I wouldn't have a problem with the issue. As long as three factors were guaranteed: (i) same-sex couples were only given equal rights, and not extra rights (getting ahead of the queue, which happens in Britain), and that any member of the agency found giving extra rights was fired. (ii) Equal scrutiny during the screening process. (iii) The child agreed with it. But that's only if you can prove the child's development wouldn't be affected differently. At the present, Psychology is unable to provide concrete, scientific conclusions. All they offer are wishy washy statements, "i think...", "we feel....". Not good enough.

free

04-20-2009, 05:35 AM

(i) same-sex couples were only given equal rights, and not extra rights

No problem with me, and I agree that is how it should be.

(ii) Equal scrutiny during the screening process.

Also agree, but I have a hard time believing this isn't already in practice.

(iii) The child agreed with it.

This, I have issue with. When will his/her choices be limited? What if he/she doesn't want a black couple, or an older couple, or a couple who have a pet, or a couple named Tim and Mary, ect.

Children, especially younger ones, don't know what is their best interest and have very little life experience, so in some cases what is best for the child must supercede his/her wants and desires.

At the present, Psychology is unable to provide concrete, scientific conclusions. All they offer are wishy washy statements, "i think...", "we feel....". Not good enough.

One of the reason that they aren't as concrete in their wording is because they understand that every situation is different, and just because one thing happens in the majority, doesn't mean you can expect that to happen every time. Unlike scientific experimentation, the variables change constantly. While in a scientific experiment, there is always a control, there can't always be a set control in the study of pyschology, because every one of us is unique.

What would be a good way to study the affect of homosexual upbringing in your opinion?

Pentangeli

04-20-2009, 05:44 AM

This, I have issue with. When will his/her choices be limited? What if he/she doesn't want a black couple, or an older couple, or a couple who have a pet, or a couple named Tim and Mary, ect.

Children, especially younger ones, don't know what is their best interest and have very little life experience, so in some cases what is best for the child must supercede his/her wants and desires.
To some extent you're right. I'm not saying the child can choose just anybody, but they deserve a say out of those eligible to adopt. Otherwise you have a gay rights movement infringing on the rights of a child.

One of the reason that they aren't as concrete in their wording is because they understand that every situation is different, and just because one thing happens in the majority, doesn't mean you can expect that to happen every time. Unlike scientific experimentation, the variables change constantly. While in a scientific experiment, there is always a control, there can't always be a set control in the study of pyschology, because every one of us is unique.

What would be a good way to study the affect of homosexual upbringing in your opinion?

Then the tests aren't scientific. And are open to confirmation bias.

I know of no alternative.

Due to the lack of concrete conclusions, many people rightly have doubts.

free

04-20-2009, 05:54 AM

Every legitimate study I've seen has come to the conclusion that those children adopted by same-sex couples are comparable to children adopted by opposite-sex couples. That leads me to believe that if their is any difference between the two, it is negligible and more than likely influenced by the PERSONALITY, not the SEXUALITY of the adoptive parents.

I do agree with you when you say that the most important thing is the needs of the child. I just disagree that the child would be negatively affected in the care of a homosexual couple, based soley on the fact that they are homosexual.

countchocula

04-20-2009, 01:18 PM

Preston_79

04-20-2009, 01:30 PM

Miss California speaking her mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OY-1cybT6p8

Apparently her answer to the question really upset the event organizers. I think she answered the question honestly and for that she deserves some credit. What's funny though is that if her answer upset everyone so much why ask the question whn there was a 50% chance it could go the other way? It's obvious that a different response was expected so it must not be about people answereing honsetly but pandering, and promoting an agenda. Maybe next year the organizers can prepare the responses for the already dim contestants. Wouldn't want any more free speech happening. What a disaster right?

Pentangeli

04-20-2009, 01:48 PM

Miss California speaking her mind
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OY-1cybT6p8

She's adorable.

Homyrrh

04-20-2009, 01:52 PM

She's got balls. At the least, hand it to her that she didn't give into pressure.

Pentangeli

04-20-2009, 02:07 PM

Pent, you say this can't really be measured, so why do you lean so heavily in one direction? If there is no concrete research, then why do you assume that homosexual parents would "corrupt" a child? You kinda-sorta implied that you don't have an opinion on the issue, but it seems like you do.

As for the milk, I believe it's a metaphor. If a tiger can raise a well-adjusted pig, then a human can raise a well-adjusted human (unless you feel that homosexuals are a different species altogether). It stands to reason, doesn't it?

I'm opposed to the issue because of the lack of facts. If there wasn't much at stake, I'll be up for seeing what happens. But children aren't guinea pigs. I'm not going to support something that might mess up a childs life.

The other poster, Free? I think it was Free, used the analogy, one which doesn't seem relevant to the matter at hand, other than addressing unnatural behaviour. I'm not sure my views on women breastfeeding other species, it's something I would like to examine more. :D But there's more to raising life than breastfeeding.

DaMovieMan

04-20-2009, 02:21 PM

Preston_79

04-20-2009, 05:51 PM

Perfect example of what's wrong with this whole issue. Good for her, she was honest and respectful. The judge's face said it all about what she should have said. Ridiculous.

She could have answered the question saying she thought gay marriage is awesome and made the other half feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but she was honest instead. If her honesty is disprespectful then don't ask the question.

Of course now she's a certafide homophobe. That almost goes without saying.

free

04-20-2009, 07:53 PM

She started off by saying that she thinks it's great that in this country that we can have both (meaning that both homosexual and hetersexual couples can be married) which is wrong because only in 4 states is it legal, but at least she believes in that freedom. She then stated her PERSONAL opinion that marriage should be hetero-only.

I personally don't see what she did wrong here. She is obviously entitled her opinion, and prefaced it by saying that homosexual couples should have the right to be married (or at least that's what I took from it). In other words, I think that it's wrong, but I don't have the right to take away that freedom from them.

I happen to disagree with her opinion, but I can repect her because she respects the individual's right to choose.

Preston_79

04-20-2009, 09:42 PM

Homyrrh

04-20-2009, 10:55 PM

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/04/20/miss_california_usa/

yeah, it's FOX, but first hit on Google

Vong

04-21-2009, 11:49 AM

A dumb brunette from California thinks gay marriage is wrong? Stop the presses!

:rolleyes:

Preston_79

04-21-2009, 12:05 PM

A dumb brunette from California thinks gay marriage is wrong? Stop the presses!

:rolleyes:

She's educated and more of a dirty blonde if you ask me.:D

http://http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_3zCpa6WV2z4/SWLiKBnTgGI/AAAAAAAADE0/Q6SX1Ag9Quk/s400/california.jpg
So, many of the people ragging on her voted for a president who said the same thing regarding gay marriage. That's intetesting.

Jon Lyrik

04-22-2009, 06:27 PM

Nobody seriously thinks Obama is privately against gay marriage, but he had to save political face. I also doubt he's religious at all, but a guy like that would never get elected in this country because we are so fucked up on that.

Vong

04-22-2009, 11:10 PM

She's educated

If she was, she wouldn't be against gay-marriage...

Oh no he didn't!! :rolleyes:

DaMovieMan

04-22-2009, 11:57 PM

electriclite

04-23-2009, 12:19 AM

Lol she's not against gay marriage. She was just raised and believes that marriage should be between man and woman. Nothing wrong with that. She's still happy she lives in a country where people have a choice and can marry a person of the same sex, but she wouldn't choose that.
But she's not gay. So its irrelevant that "she wouldn't choose that."

That whole statement of her's is like a mobius strip of nonsense. She sounds like any other beauty contestant: not connected to anything she's saying.

She might as well have said I LOVE Arby's! I don't eat greasy food, but I love Arby's!

Pentangeli

04-23-2009, 05:32 AM

She said she's glad to live in a country where people can choose and have an opinion, i.e she's glad she doesn't live in a dictatorship. But her view on the matter is that she's opposed to it, and that marriage should be between man and woman. Obama and also Elton John don't believe gay couples should marry, though the latter believes in civil unions.

DaMovieMan

04-23-2009, 08:16 AM

Vong

04-23-2009, 11:34 AM

Why is it nonsense? She was just being honest. The question was clearly a why or why not but it seems like whatever she said would of been labeled 'nonsense' unless it was the one answer everyone wanted to hear. I'm sorry, but that smells like bullshit.

It's called opinion of opinions and, as the media drones that we are, we love to comment on what other people like to say.

I think it makes sense to call something "nonsense" when someone's opinion is a hindrance to social change. If someone were to go on that pageant and say that black people shouldn't be allowed to be president, should we respect her opinions as such, or ostracize her like any other racist that can't change with the times?

Preston_79

04-23-2009, 12:05 PM

It's called opinion of opinions and, as the media drones that we are, we love to comment on what other people like to say.

I think it makes sense to call something "nonsense" when someone's opinion is a hindrance to social change. If someone were to go on that pageant and say that black people shouldn't be allowed to be president, should we respect her opinions as such, or ostracize her like any other racist that can't change with the times?

She's glad we have a choice, but she prefers traditional between man and woman how is that hindering social chang? And let's not assume all social change is for the better.

Let's go through this one more time. Did she get up there and say gay people should not be married? NO...she didn't. Did she say she would like to take away people's right to choose? No. Take away one's right to vote? Again, no. That's about as open minded as a Christian comes. If put on a ballot would she vote for gay marriage, obviously not. Wow, what contraversy. She's in agreeance with the majority of Californians and Americans who also excersise their right to vote. Shocking. Let's cut he down to size for agreeing with the majority.

Vong

04-23-2009, 01:12 PM

She's in agreeance with the majority of Californians and Americans who also excersise their right to vote. Shocking. Let's cut he down to size for agreeing with the majority.

So she's clean if she at least agrees with the majority? This makes her untouchable to criticism? Ok...I guess we should all just step aside from supporting gay marriage because the majority of people in America are against it. I guess the "tyranny of the majority" always wins.

BTW, the fact that gay marriage is voted on is beyond retarded. The issue is far more important to be left to decision of the public who will probably vote with their "moral conscience" over any reasonable deliberation. Gay marriage should be decided in a Supreme Court, where non-partisan judges should debate the constitutional validity of the issue.

Preston_79

04-23-2009, 03:28 PM

So she's clean if she at least agrees with the majority? This makes her untouchable to criticism? Ok...I guess we should all just step aside from supporting gay marriage because the majority of people in America are against it. I guess the "tyranny of the majority" always wins.

BTW, the fact that gay marriage is voted on is beyond retarded. The issue is far more important to be left to decision of the public who will probably vote with their "moral conscience" over any reasonable deliberation. Gay marriage should be decided in a Supreme Court, where non-partisan judges should debate the constitutional validity of the issue.

Your misunderstanding me. I wouldn't suggest you give up a cause you believe in and go with the majority becuase minds change and majorities shift. Someday maybe those who support gay marriage will be the majority. Bet you won't think it's tyranny then when you're on the winning side.

I also disagree that voting on the matter is retarded. Not giving people a right to have a voice and letting the high courts decide for us, now that seems retarded regardless of how we interpret the consitution.

countchocula

04-23-2009, 04:05 PM

At some point, America will realize that some of the values that this country was founded on are irrational.

Why would the founding fathers allow the constitution to be changed unless they realized that society would change? Everyone talks about the constitution like it's holier than thou, but - much like The Bible - it was written by humans. Flawed humans.

Badbird

04-23-2009, 04:42 PM

I also disagree that voting on the matter is retarded. Not giving people a right to have a voice and letting the high courts decide for us, now that seems retarded regardless of how we interpret the consitution.

Human rights should not be left up to mob rule.

Preston_79

04-23-2009, 05:04 PM

I agree the Consitution could and maybe should be ammended. I'm open to that idea.

Human rights shouldn't be left up to mob rule. I agree. A majority and a mob are two different things.

gayzilla

04-23-2009, 06:15 PM

Wow, sorry I missed this one, looks like I have a lot of catching up to do, but I think the original poster was being facetious? am i correct? Well I'll be back with my opinion later.

gayzilla

04-23-2009, 06:18 PM

She's glad we have a choice,

Let's go through this one more time. Did she get up there and say gay people should not be married? NO...she didn't. Did she say she would like to take away people's right to choose? No. Take away one's right to vote? Again, no. That's about as open minded as a Christian comes. If put on a ballot would she vote for gay marriage, obviously not. Wow, what contraversy. She's in agreeance with the majority of Californians and Americans who also excersise their right to vote. Shocking. Let's cut he down to size for agreeing with the majority.

OK, I gather we are talking about Miss Cali here, and though she agrees with a SLIM majority of Californians, she is supposed to represent ALL of Cali, not 52%. She is obviously ignorant of the struggle gay people face when raising their children because of the enequities of family law. Therefore she was not the most qaulified to win the pageant.

free

04-24-2009, 01:03 AM

OK, I gather we are talking about Miss Cali here, and though she agrees with a SLIM majority of Californians, she is supposed to represent ALL of Cali, not 52%. She is obviously ignorant of the struggle gay people face when raising their children because of the enequities of family law. Therefore she was not the most qaulified to win the pageant.

If her opinions have to reflect every single individual in California, then she may as well never speak in public again because I'm sure no matter what she says, she will offend someone.

I am very much pro-gay marriage and adoption (who wouldn't want to adopt those deliciously gay men... :p), but I can understand that some people aren't due to their religious and/ or personal views. I can respect said person if they aren't trying to take away those freedoms from others.

Case in point, I think that abortion is wrong. Not murder, but still wrong (for numerous reasons that are of no relevance here). I wouldn't, however, be willing to take that right away from a woman, because what she does to her own body (and what is inside HER OWN body) is none of my business, and no business of the government to regulate.

A majority and a mob are two different things.

A majority of people once thought that it was okay to treat a human being like property and force them to work. We even fought a civil war over it (say as much as you like that it was about states' rights and I will tell you that it was mainly over states' rights to own slaves).

Fortunately, in the end, we learned that when it comes to the personal freedoms of the individual, the will of the people are irrelevant.

Homyrrh

04-24-2009, 01:54 AM

No she's not. Fact is she gave a reasonable, if not so much prodigious, reason for how she feels. She didn't tell the judge he shouldn't have the right to vote or that he should be hanged, just what her family'svalues were and how she felt they corresponded to the best route for the nation.

Regardless of the issue, for both the judge and the organizer, this is intolerable.

Pentangeli

04-24-2009, 04:54 AM

Human rights should not be left up to mob rule.

How are you defining human rights? Do you believe a consenting incestuous relationship should be allowed? do you believe a consenting sexual relationship between a middle aged person and a 14 year old should be allowed? How about a human's right to die, is euthanasia and suicide a right we have? Is marriage a matter of human rights? How can we scientifically prove one way or another? Surely it is the mob's right to decide, isn't that democracy? Alternatively, do you then advocate the state enforcing their ideology or views upon the people, even when their ideology is contrary to popular opinion?

Pentangeli

04-24-2009, 04:59 AM

I am very much pro-gay marriage and adoption (who wouldn't want to adopt those deliciously gay men... :p)

That you would comment on same-sex adoption as though it were part of some sinister sexual fantasy you have, is alarming -- even with a smiley at the end.

Pentangeli

04-24-2009, 05:06 AM

She is obviously ignorant of the struggle gay people face when raising their children because of the enequities of family law. Therefore she was not the most qaulified to win the pageant.

I guess Perez Hilton has a JoBlo account.

Reigh Kaufman

04-24-2009, 05:28 AM

I guess Perez Hilton has a JoBlo account.

Unnecessary.

Makes you sound childish and therefore anything else you may have had to say is completely redundant.

free

04-24-2009, 05:41 AM

That you would comment on same-sex adoption as though it were part of some sinister sexual fantasy you have, is alarming -- even with a smiley at the end.

Although I'm sure most everyone on this forum will understand my joke, I'll explain it to you.

I said I was a proponent of gay marriage, and (gay) adoption. The term "gay adoption" is universally understood to mean the adoption of a child by a same sex couple.

In my joke, I was using the term "gay adoption" as a literal term, meaning "the adoption of adult homosexuals (in my example, men)", and the joke being that while most people would expect the first definition, I used the second definition, adding a humorous "punch line". This, in theory, would alert the reader of my intention of making a joke. The term "delicious" was first introduced to me by Sacha Baron Cohen playing the gay fashion design character "Bruno" from his show "Da Ali G show" as way to humorously describe a gay male, not to imply as to the culinary experience of said homosexual. (footnotes and references available upon request)

As for your assumption that this was some sort of "sexual fantasy", I'm sorry to tell you that though I have great respect for the penis and all it has accomplished through out the anals (uh oh, another joke) of history, my personal preference is the vagina, having been married to my wife for 5 years, at least 2 of them happily. ;)*

*= Asterisk used to indicate that because of the presence of a smiley, the above statement should for here-in be considered a joke, as I can say that we have our good and bad moments, like all couples, though at the present time no certified marriage councilor has been consulted.

free

04-24-2009, 06:12 AM

How are you defining human rights?

Human rights refer to the "basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled." Examples of rights and freedoms which have come to be commonly thought of as human rights include civil and political rights, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law; and social, cultural and economic rights, including the right to participate in culture, the right to food, the right to work, and the right to education.

Or, if you prefer:

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. ”

—Article 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

Do you believe a consenting incestuous relationship should be allowed?

Assuming that no kind of pressure or abuse was applied before each person became consenting adults, and if said adults agree not to produce offspring, then yes.

do you believe a consenting sexual relationship between a middle aged person and a 14 year old should be allowed?

In American, where we have determined that a person does not possess enough experience to determine what is in their best interest until they reach the age of majority (18 to 21 depending on the state), no.

In this case, my moral convictions are in line with the American way of thinking.

How about a human's right to die, is euthanasia and suicide a right we have?

Most definitely we have the right to decide if we want to die, given that the person in question is not a minor.

Is marriage a matter of human rights?

Once marriage slipped over from being strictly a religious ceremony to one that is given meaning in secular life and recognized by our government, then that right shouldn't be denied any consenting adult that wishes to get married to any other consenting adult.

How can we scientifically prove one way or another? Surely it is the mob's right to decide, isn't that democracy?

I like the old axiom "your freedom ends where my nose begins", meaning that anyone should have the right to do anything they want up until it affects or has the reasonable ability to affect another individual (or minor child).

Alternatively, do you then advocate the state enforcing their ideology or views upon the people, even when their ideology is contrary to popular opinion?

If popular opinion is something that restricts the freedoms of the individual in activities that affect only him and other consenting adults, then it is the government's duty to protect those freedoms, whether or not 99.99% of the population feels otherwise.

Pentangeli

04-24-2009, 09:13 AM

Unnecessary.

I'm glad Reigh Kaufman feels free to share his view. By doing so, I now know what Reigh Kaufman finds unnecessary. How can we harness this newfound power, this insight into what Reigh Kaufman finds unnecessary. Perhaps the great Reigh Kaufman has an idea.

Pentangeli

04-24-2009, 09:35 AM

In American, where we have determined that a person does not possess enough experience to determine what is in their best interest until they reach the age of majority (18 to 21 depending on the state), no.

In this case, my moral convictions are in line with the American way of thinking.
This is very interesting. You condone consensual incest, and yet you oppose the consensual relationship of a 14 year old and an adult. I'm not attacking your position on the matters, I do agree -- though with incest I think cousins would be fine, but I don't agree with sexual relationships within a nuclear family -- so I half agree with you. But what's interesting is your change in ideology. Can it be proven that a person under 18 isn't capable of knowing what's in their best interest?

Most definitely we have the right to decide if we want to die, given that the person in question is not a minor.
If the person was not in a vegetative state but just depressed, would you still agree the person has a right to suicide/euthanasia?

I like the old axiom "your freedom ends where my nose begins", meaning that anyone should have the right to do anything they want up until it affects or has the reasonable ability to affect another individual (or minor child).
What was your view on same-sex adoption?

Reigh Kaufman

04-24-2009, 10:08 AM

I wish I was Reigh Kaufman. Reigh Kaufman feels free to share his views. By doing so, I now know that I want to be Reigh Kaufman. I am unnecessary. How can I harness this newfound desire? This insight? Reigh Kaufman really makes me feel unnecessary. Perhaps the great Wizard of Oz has an idea.

There. Fixed.

Hey, who wants to see me do an impression of Pentangeli?

Okay, here goes:

"I'm Pentangeli".

It's not perfect, but I am working on getting more snarky and vaguely homophobic in my technique.

Grow up.

And while we're about it, can't you just hone your debating skills and say what you mean for a change?

This is a typical exchange:

You: Well, what if it lived in your neighbourhood?
Schmoe: I'd be fine with that.
You: Well, what if it lived next door?
Schmoe; S'all good?
You: What if it came to your cookout?
Schmoe: I'd welcome it with open arms.
You: Well...what if it wanted to date your daughter?
Schmoe: It's a free country.
You: Well, what if it raped your wife, shot your son, pistol-whipped your dog and handed you a videotape of the whole demented and depraved scene?
Schmoe:....?
You: I rest my case.
*folds arms*

That's not debating, guy. That is logical construct and it is the mark of someone determined to make themselves heard, even if they've ceased to say anything worth listening to.

Pentangeli

04-24-2009, 11:00 AM

Lighten up, pal. I was just joshing with you.

someguy

04-24-2009, 11:52 AM

I didn't notice you started posting here Reigh. Welcome.

Preston_79

04-24-2009, 12:48 PM

countchocula

04-24-2009, 01:56 PM

Can it be proven that a person under 18 isn't capable of knowing what's in their best interest?

Yes. A teenager's brain is still developing. In fact, the part of the brain that predicts the consequences of our actions is the last part to develop. That's why most teenagers are know-it-all's.

Badbird

04-24-2009, 03:00 PM

Pentangeli

04-24-2009, 06:49 PM

Yes. A teenager's brain is still developing. In fact, the part of the brain that predicts the consequences of our actions is the last part to develop. That's why most teenagers are know-it-all's.

Yeah, that seems to be true. And definitely a valid reason for ageism in that regard.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,273532,00.html

"The adolescent brain is still growing. Indeed, the region responsible for things such as impulse control and moral judgment is the last to mature, sometime in the early 20s, said Dr. Jordan Grafman of the NIH's National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke."

Jim H

05-13-2009, 04:14 AM

How is it ironic?

And just incase you were implying that my argument contains confirmation bias, I'll refresh your memory that I have never used religion of any other unscientific source to support my view, and that my entire argument is based upon the invariable requirements for natural reproduction.

Homosexuals cannot reproduce naturally. Therefore they provide an unnatural [social] environment for a child to be raised. Two gay men might wish to adopt little boys, but the adoption issue is not a gay rights platform. The children are the only priority, and I see no valid reason to put a child in an unnatural environment.

So, the sex act producing the child is what makes the household natural? In other words, if you have a house hold of 6 bisexuals who all have sex with each other, and children are produced, that is equally as natural as a household with one man and one woman, correct? By extension, this household would automatically be preferable to a gay couple adopting children of course.

I'm not actually meaning to knock the six person free love home ideal. I just don't quite get the whole "natural" thing...

Pentangeli

05-13-2009, 05:26 AM

So, the sex act producing the child is what makes the household natural? In other words, if you have a house hold of 6 bisexuals who all have sex with each other, and children are produced, that is equally as natural as a household with one man and one woman, correct? By extension, this household would automatically be preferable to a gay couple adopting children of course.

I'm not actually meaning to knock the six person free love home ideal. I just don't quite get the whole "natural" thing...

Natural reproduction requires a male and a female. Hence I don't think it's right to deny a soon-to-be-adopted-child of either a father, or mother, simply because some wish to enforce their ideology on another person.

As for that bi-sexual scenario, I personally disagree with that being a suitable environment to raise a well-balanced child, and I doubt they would be eligible for adoption.

I've been thinking about this issue recently and my major grievance is a non-natural environment (or some people's ideology) being enforced on a child, and the child not getting a say in the matter. But then again, in cases where a child has been viciously abused (like the one linked in one of my previous posts) by a specific gender, they might benefit from a household absent of that specific gender. So my feeling now is that perhaps same-gender parenting shouldn't be diregarded completely, but if it were to happen it must have the consent of the child -- without social services etc manipulating that child into a decision which suits their ideology. I think it would be a good thing if all children (up for adoption) were given a choice of three suitable (as approved by the agency) adoptive couples -- who have passed the screening process -- to choose from.

Criminal Rock

05-13-2009, 03:37 PM

I think the biggest problem/flaw with your argument, Pent, is when you advance the idea that the act of reproduction and the act of parenting are somehow mutually exclusive to each other and anything contradictory is, as a matter of course, 'unnatural'... or is labeled by you as such.

The act of raising a child is a social ability and has very little or nothing to do with age, gender, race, or sexual orientation, and a lot to do with maturity, responsibility (Physical and intellectual development, emotional security etc.), which are all social abilities.

You use the term 'unnatural' towards gays, or, at the very least, towards their ability to raise children, as if they somehow automatically lack the social competence to provide, for example, emotional security and intellectual development without any logical reason or evidence to back it up.

To be frank, your arguments don't make much sense, Pent, which probably explains why it is so hard to find any sort of credible evidence to support your claims (Believe me, I've looked).

Jon Lyrik

05-13-2009, 05:25 PM

The brain is still developing until about 25. Really, 18 or 21 or whatever is a totally arbitrary age. I don't care, though, because this summer I want to raid a few sex shops for my birthday.

Pentangeli

05-13-2009, 05:34 PM

which probably explains why it is so hard to find any sort of credible evidence to support your claims (Believe me, I've looked).

You leave me with the impression that you can provide credible evidence to support your claims. As yet you've not provided any credible evidence.

And before you incessantly bang on about psychology again, the only scientific theory within psychology is the use of chemistry and biology in forming antidepressants. Psychology is more a philosophy than anything. And certainly psychoanalytical research is open to manipulation, or confirmation bias, rendering it inconsequential.

It is the absence of credible evidence supporting your argument, which leads me to my conclusion.

Adoption has never been, and never will be, a gay rights issue. The children are the sole concern.

Preston_79

05-14-2009, 01:59 PM

On the topic of gay marriage, I'm glad to see the bimbo from California got to keep her precious crown. The Don made a wise decision. Now if only he would fire that sorry excuse for a man Perez Hilton.

Preston_79

05-14-2009, 02:20 PM

Slurred by the adoption Nazis: Critics of gay parenting are branded 'retarded homophobes'
By Steve Doughty
Daliy Mail UK
14th May 2009

People who have concerns about the adoption of children by gay couples are 'retarded homophobes', the state-funded national adoption agency said yesterday.
Those who protest over controversial gay adoption laws are merely 'whinging', according to the British Association for Adoption and Fostering.
Its insulting description angered senior MPs and former Cabinet Ministers, Roman Catholic and Church of England leaders.
It also offended disability campaigners, who have been trying to discourage the use of the word 'retarded' for years. Whitehall has banned the word for civil servants.

Many of those who are worried about gay adoption say that approving same-sex relationships goes against their Christian faith.
Mike Judge, of the Christian Institute thinktank, said last night: 'Christians are tired of being marginalised. 'We don't expect everyone to agree with us but organisations such as the BAAF should try to avoid this kind of language.'
Tory MP Julian Brazier, co-chairman of the all-party Commons group on adoption and fostering, said: 'I work with BAAF all the time and I know how much they bring to adoption.
'I must say I am very sad that they should use this language about people who have an honest disagreement with them.'
Author Patricia Morgan, who has published a study of gay adoption, said: 'It is disgraceful that they do not wish to discuss the pros and cons of gay adoption. They just go in for abuse. They do not appear interested in evidence about the outcomes for children. And it is a disgusting phrase to use.'
The British Association for Adoption and Fostering sets rules and organises training for social workers across the country.
Every local council with a children's services department is a paying member of the organisation, and the bulk of its £6million-a-year budget comes from the taxpayer.
It runs the national adoption register for the Department of Children, Schools and Families.
The 'retarded homophobe' attack was published in a BAAF guide to adoption for homosexual couples.
It was repeated in its newspaper Be My Parent, which advertises children who need homes.
Would-be gay adopters were told: 'Most importantly, don't worry about society.
'Children need good parents much more than retarded homophobes need an excuse to whinge, so don't let your worries about society's reaction hinder your desire and ability to give a child a loving caring home.'

BAAF's Pink Guide to Adoption for Lesbians and Gay Men was written by Nicola Hill, a former Guardian journalist and charity worker.
She is featured as a writer on the website of the literary agency Creative Authors Ltd which states she is also the author of A Very Pink Wedding: A Gay Guide To Planning Your Perfect Day. She also co-founded the website gay-friendly-wedding-venues.com.
The London School of Economics graduate lives in London with her partner Laura McCaffrey. Together they run a freelance editorial service.
The guide was launched at a BAAF conference this week aimed at 'overcoming resistance - celebrating the role of lesbian and gay carers'.
The meeting discussed 'what lesbian and gay carers can offer to the adoption and fostering process and how agencies can facilitate their contribution'.

Those attending were also told that 'we will confront the challenges that such initiatives may provoke to established attitudes and assumptions'.
The BAAF's protective attitude to gay couples appears to differ from the way it deals with other people.

Watch your language: The 'retarded homophobe' attack was published in BAAF's Pink Guide to Adoption for Lesbians and Gay Men
The organisation strongly supports the legal requirement that the perceived interests of children are paramount and the wishes of would-be parents are of minor importance.
It insists that children go to homes only of adoptive parents of the same race.
It questions would-be adoptive couples about their views on race and says ' vigorous efforts are made to find a family that reflects the child's individual identity'.
Couples who wish to adopt are often rejected because social workers consider them too old or overweight, or because they smoke.
Some have even been judged to be 'too middle class'.
Until Tony Blair's 2002 Adoption Act, children could be adopted only by married couples or single people.
The new law made it possible for unmarried and gay couples to adopt.
Mr Blair argued that the reform would increase the proportion of the 60,000 children in state care who win new families through adoption.
But the numbers have actually fallen. Since 2004, adoptions from care have dropped from 3,800 a year to 3,200.

The great majority of those are white children. Black children are missing out because there is a shortage of black couples wishing to adopt, yet social workers oppose sending them to non-black families.
There were just 30 adoptions by gay couples and 50 by lesbian couples last year.
There have been setbacks to the cause of gay parenting.

In 2006, gay foster parents Craig Faunch and Ian Wathey were jailed for paedophile offences against boys at their home in Pontefract, West Yorkshire.

The couple had been the first gay foster parents in Yorkshire.
An inquiry found social workers had regarded them as 'trophy carers' and failed to respond to signs of abuse because they feared being accused of discrimination.
Gay adoption provoked a major political row in 2007 when Labour's Sexual Orientation Regulations made it unlawful for adoption agencies to refuse to help gay prospective parents.
Opponents of the move included Cabinet Minister Ruth Kelly, the senior Roman Catholic leaders in England and former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey.

The mother of children who are being adopted by a gay couple, seen here pictured with her parents, who were told they would never see their grandchildren again
Earlier this year there was a fierce controversy when a Scottish couple said they were warned they would never see their two grandchildren again unless they dropped their opposition to them being adopted by a gay couple.
For two years, they fought for their rights to care for the little boy and girl whose 26-year-old mother, the couple's daughter, is a recovering heroin addict.
They finally agreed to an adoption but were shocked to be told the children were going to a gay household.

When the grandfather protested, he said he was told: 'You can either accept it, and there's a chance you'll see them twice a year, or you can take that stance and never see them again.'
The word 'retarded' has been considered unacceptable for some years.
Advice on 'disability etiquette' distributed to civil servants says it must be avoided in all circumstances. A spokesman for the British Institute for Learning Disabilities said: 'We have not used the term for at least ten years. It is not acceptable to us.'
Comedian Russell Brand was strongly criticised in the U.S. last year for calling George Bush a 'retarded cowboy'.

Seems like there's lots of news about gay adoption coming from the UK.

Pentangeli

05-14-2009, 05:49 PM

Seems like there's lots of news about gay adoption coming from the UK.

"Retarded homophobes"

Ultimately it is the Government who must take responsibility for those remarks.

The adoption issue should never be about gay rights. It should only be focused on children's rights.

Opposition to gays adopting is not homophobia, it is not hatred for their consensual relationship, but concern for a third party's rights -- their right to have a natural environment, a mother and a father.

When the people aren't allowed an opinion without being scorned by Government agencies, I draw the line, and feel left with two choices: leave the ship, or sink it.

countchocula

05-14-2009, 06:16 PM

The children are the sole concern.

Then why are you so concerned about the parents? If the children are happy and well-adjusted, the sexual orientation of the parents should be of no consequence. If there is no data to support OUR claims, then there is no data to support YOUR claims. You aren't even claiming anything. You're just assuming and positing questions that can't be answered by one person on a message board.

Until someone can PROVE that gay adoption deprives children of...whatever you think they're being deprived of, there is no justification for keeping gay couples from adopting IF they meet the agency's requirements.

Jon Lyrik

05-14-2009, 07:59 PM

There is none, dude. It's reactionary obfuscation.

Potter82

05-14-2009, 08:08 PM

Recently, I heard they held a preliminary vote approving same sex marriage in New York (or were planning to) and now there is a bill in the works in New Hampshire. I'm just amazed at how fast this happening. How many states have either passed same sex marriage law or were subject to a court decision allowing such marriages to take place in the past year alone? Like 5? I've lost count.

What's notable about the case of New Hampshire is that the way it was done sort of provides the governor and other's some political cover.

"But the practical political ramification is that politicians can take political cover in modifying -- not opposing -- legislation whose main impact is to establish same-sex marriage.

And that's the route New Hampshire Governor John Lynch seems to be taking, saying he'll sign that state's billl if it's amended to include protections for religiously linked groups against discrimination lawsuits. His proposed changes would protect, say, a Church-connected group from having to rent its hall to a same-sex couple; but not a wedding photographer refusing to work a gay wedding."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0509/NH_Gov_will_sign_amended_marriage_bill.html#commen ts

As a supporter of gay marriage, I have no problem with such amendments. No one is advocating that churchs will be forced to marry homosexuals against their will (that I know of, if such advocates exist then they are just wrong on that one) but if these measures manage to ease some of the fears/concerns of gay marriage opponents, than so be it.

I think it's only a matter of time before it will be legal in most states. I believe this since the more states that pass such laws and the more familiar people become with gay marriage, the less of an issue it will be. I base this prediction on Canada's experience with gay marriage.

I remember hearing a lot of noise around the time gay marriage became a reality in Canada a few years ago. Now, I can't remember the last time I've heard anything about it. People just don't care about this issue anymore since they have come to realize that it will not lead to social anarchy and moral decay. It's much ado about nothing.

Pentangeli

05-15-2009, 06:46 AM

Then why are you so concerned about the parents? If the children are happy and well-adjusted, the sexual orientation of the parents should be of no consequence. If there is no data to support OUR claims, then there is no data to support YOUR claims. You aren't even claiming anything. You're just assuming and positing questions that can't be answered by one person on a message board.

This isn't your life, it's not about the lives of the gay people, it's about those children. Who are you to say to someone else, you can't have a mother and a father. Why should a child, who gets no voice on the matter, be forced to have two fathers just because people like you believe they should.

The fact there's no credible argument to support your wishes to change a natural scenario, leads me to my belief that children shouldn't be in that environment.

free

05-15-2009, 09:58 AM

This isn't your life, it's not about the lives of the gay people, it's about those children. Who are you to say to someone else, you can't have a mother and a father. Why should a child, who gets no voice on the matter, be forced to have two fathers just because people like you believe they should.

The fact there's no credible argument to support your wishes to change a natural scenario, leads me to my belief that children shouldn't be in that environment.

It seems to me that you have this idea that adoption agencies are randomly knocking on a door, asking if any gay people live there, and if they do, throwing a child in and running away.

Prospective parents are checked out thoroughly before entering the pool to become adoptive parents. No, most of the time a child has no say where he/she goes because he/she doesn't have enough life experience to know what is best for them. I'm sure if you told an 8 year old that if he lived with you, he could eat candy all day, not have to go to school, and go to bed whenever he wants, he would want to live with you. Does that mean that it is in his best interests to live with you? The bottom line is there are gay people who shouldn't adopt just as there are hetersexual people that shouldn't adopt, for reasons having nothing to do with sexual preference.

You said yourself that there is no evidence (well there is, but you don't accept it) either way, so until you can prove that gay parents negatively affect a child in a way that is directly related to their sexuality, then you can't take away their rights just because you don't like it.

stefanb

05-15-2009, 12:14 PM

The fact there's no credible argument to support your wishes to change a natural scenario, leads me to my belief that children shouldn't be in that environment.

Use of the phrase "natural scenario" is somewhat objectionable here. I think we can rule out any argument that would suggest homosexuality is anything other than a natural occurance. If a mother -- regardless of how she became a mother -- enters into a lesbian relationship, we have nothing to suggest this isn't a natural scenerio. It's not really a question of "lifestyle choice" so much as it's a question of who you are as a person.

To put it another way, the people who believe that homosexuals should be afforded lesser rights are making more of a "lifestyle choice" than anyone who ever acknowledged their own homosexuality is making.

So which one is natural scenario, and which one is a lifestyle choice?

countchocula

05-15-2009, 01:39 PM

Badbird

05-15-2009, 02:25 PM

Pentangeli

05-16-2009, 04:45 AM

You said yourself that there is no evidence (well there is, but you don't accept it) either way, so until you can prove that gay parents negatively affect a child in a way that is directly related to their sexuality, then you can't take away their rights just because you don't like it.

Show me the science behind what you believe and i'll accept it. Without the science, you're left merely with ideas.

It is the absence of evidence to support your ideas, which leads me to believe that children should not be put into that environment.

You wish to deny a child a mother or father. You wish to put your ideology -- a scenario that can't be replicated naturally -- onto a child, and that child has no say in the matter. The burden of proof lies with you.

Jamesadin

05-16-2009, 12:38 PM

Show me the science behind what you believe and i'll accept it. Without the science, you're left merely with ideas.

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parents.html

I believe this was posted before... was this the thread that turned into a "mmm no I don't believe psychologists either it is not a REAL science" debate, or was that a different one?

Evidence which was compiled for the APA to come to their conclusion (also found on the bottom of that web page under "references"):

American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060-1073.

Armesto, J. C. (2002). Developmental and contextual factors that influence gay fathers' parental competence: A review of the literature. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 3, 67 - 78.

Falk, P.J. (1994). Lesbian mothers: Psychosocial assumptions in family law. American Psychologist, 44, 941-947.

Fox, R.E. (1991). Proceedings of the American Psychological Association, Incorporated, for the year 1990: Minutes of the annual meeting of the Council of Representatives August 9 and 12, 1990, Boston, MA, and February 8-9, 1991, Washington, DC. American Psychologist, 45, 845.

Lofton v. Secretary of Department of Children & Family Services, 358 F.3d 804 (11th Cir. 2004).

Mays, V. M., & Cochran, S. D. (2001). Mental health correlates of perceived discrimination among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 1869-1876.

Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674-697.

Patterson, C.J. (2000). Family relationships of lesbians and gay men. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 1052- 1069.

Patterson, C.J. (2004a). Lesbian and gay parents and their children: Summary of research findings. In Lesbian and gay parenting: A resource for psychologists. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Patterson, C. J. (2004b). Gay fathers. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (4th Ed.). New York: John Wiley.

Patterson, C. J., Fulcher, M., & Wainright, J. (2002). Children of lesbian and gay parents: Research, law, and policy. In B. L. Bottoms, M. B. Kovera, and B. D. McAuliff (Eds.), Children, Social Science and the Law (pp, 176 - 199). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Perrin, E. C., and the Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health (2002). Technical Report: Coparent or second-parent adoption by same-sex parents. Pediatrics, 109, 341 - 344.

Stacey, J. & Biblarz, T.J. (2001). (How) Does sexual orientation of parents matter? American Sociological Review, 65, 159-183.

Tasker, F. (1999). Children in lesbian-led families - A review. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 4, 153 - 166.

Tasker, F., & Golombok, S. (1997). Growing up in a lesbian family. New York: Guilford Press.

countchocula

05-16-2009, 01:03 PM

Show me the science behind what you believe and i'll accept it. Without the science, you're left merely with ideas.

It is the absence of evidence to support your ideas, which leads me to believe that children should not be put into that environment.

You wish to deny a child a mother or father. You wish to put your ideology -- a scenario that can't be replicated naturally -- onto a child, and that child has no say in the matter. The burden of proof lies with you.

Please reply to my post.

Vong

05-16-2009, 06:43 PM

Badbird

05-17-2009, 12:47 AM

This all links back to the debate of 'nature vs. nurture'. I'm betting though that if a young child was taught at a very early age that they should be attracted to the same-sex, they could become gay. Children are easily influenced to believe alot of things (ie. religion, ideologies, world views, etc). Whether or not they can be influenced strongly to be attracted to the same-sex really should be studied.

I don't think that's the case, because obviously all those gays who were raised by straight fathers telling them they should like girls didn't workout.

Pentangeli

05-17-2009, 04:23 AM

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parents.html

I believe this was posted before... was this the thread that turned into a "mmm no I don't believe psychologists either it is not a REAL science" debate, or was that a different one?

Evidence which was compiled for the APA to come to their conclusion (also found on the bottom of that web page under "references"):

I'm asking for science, not philosophy masquerading as a science. There is no science to psychoanalysis, it's merely a pseudoscience. Show me the science, and i'll believe it.

Pentangeli

05-17-2009, 04:35 AM

Who are you to tell a child they can't have a loving home? Do you really think that little Bobby is going to choose the foster system over a loving home? The child doesn't have a mother anyway. Besides, there is bound to be a female role model in the child's "new" life. Do you think that gay men have "no girls allowed" signs on their front door or something?

This post?

"They can't have a loving home", to me this implies my decision is conflicting with the wishes of the child. In my previous post, #169, I mentioned that I wouldn't completely disregard same-gender parenting if the child is given a choice. If "Bobby" was presented with a few prospective parents, one couple were gay, and Bobby chose the gay couple, I would be inclined to accept it, as it wouldn't be the case of enforcing an ideology -- in this case, an unnatural scenario -- onto another person. However, we can't assume all foster care is evil, and we can't assume all children wish to live with gay couples.

"There is bound to be a female role model", but this is presumptious. We can't assuem there will be a responsible female role model that regular visits this home.

Pentangeli

05-17-2009, 05:15 AM

I think most people who oppose homosexuals from adopting think back to their own childhood (under a nuclear mother and father family) and base their upbringing to what it should be like for everyone else. I think we all do this at one point as adults: look back to your early years and remember how it was when your mother and father raised you. I know I do it.

Whether or not it's possible for a homosexual to influence their children so much to become gay is an interesting study that should be looked at. Because I think the majority of studies have focused on the homosexual parents raising their adopted children "normally" (ie. under no pressure to become gay themselves), and I think it's been proven that homosexual parents do not influence their children being gay just for being gay themselves.

This all links back to the debate of 'nature vs. nurture'. I'm betting though that if a young child was taught at a very early age that they should be attracted to the same-sex, they could become gay. Children are easily influenced to believe alot of things (ie. religion, ideologies, world views, etc). Whether or not they can be influenced strongly to be attracted to the same-sex really should be studied.

Whether someone can be influenced in said way, I'm unsure. Certainly it's something to look into. Many of those gay couples have come from straight parenting, so I presume straight people can be raised from a same-gender household. Is there a common factor with gay people, for instance, strict parenting. These are matters worth investigating. Though were one would find the answers, I don't know.

My reasoning for opposing same-gender parenting, is not determined by the previous matter, neither is it determined by my own childhood. My main grievance is that a child being raised by two gay people is a scenario which can't be replicated naturally. I don't believe a child should be forced into that situation against their will. If the child is given a choice, that would certainly change my view somewhat.

countchocula

05-17-2009, 03:14 PM

Pent, all you're doing is assuming and presuming. What would these "unnatural scenarios" do to a child exactly? You're assuming that it would impact them negatively, but there is no reason to assume such a thing. Homosexuality is a part of nature anyway.

How do you propose these matters should be studied? You keep asking for real science, but you haven't offered any alternatives. Psychology is science. It deals with chemicals in the brain. Human behavior is a reflection of brain activity (or inactivity). Do you even know anyone who was raised by a gay couple? Do you have any credentials in this field at all? Because it sounds like you're spouting off your uneducated opinion, and as we all know, opinions are meaningless. Yours, mine, everyone's...so what are you basing your opinions on? Have you done independent research? Are you close with a gay couple? Do you have any experience in social services? Did you major in sociology? Seriously, where are you getting these opinions?

The "nature" argument is one that bible-thumpers tend to use quite often. Is that it? Is it a religious belief?

screamer581

05-17-2009, 07:11 PM

So...uhh. That video about the gay storm was pretty ridiculous eh?

Pentangeli

05-17-2009, 07:50 PM

The "nature" argument is one that bible-thumpers tend to use quite often. Is that it? Is it a religious belief?

Nope. I'm not religious, some wouldn't even consider me a Christian. I like some of the Bible's messages, I don't agree with all of it, I take what I agree with and that's all. I rarely go to church, and when I do it's for events (weddings etc). The God I believe in doesn't really correlate to the Abrahamic God, as I believe the Big Bang theory to be true. And I also don't believe in divine intervention, which undermines the messianic aspect of Christianity. What I take from Christianity is purely philosophic.

The reason, as stated countless times already, is that adoption shouldn't be a gay rights issue, it should only concern the child's rights. Naturally people have a mother and a father, adoption should reflect this scenario. I see no credible reasoning to justify a gay rights victory at the expense of denying a child a father or mother.

You advocate a situation which would deny a child a father or mother, so the burden of providing justification lies with you.

We're going round in circles. I'm done with this thread until someone can offer something new.

Preston_79

05-17-2009, 08:20 PM

I've thought that someday I might want to raise a kid, but what if I'm not married? Am I even eligible to adapt if I'm single, and if I am would I go before any couples wanting to adopt by getting on a list? Should it matter at all if a kid is only raised by one parent if he could have had two? Plus I'm a guy, am I as suited as a woman to raise a small child?

Out of all those questions the only one I feel I know for sure is that if given the choice a child should be raised by two parents and not one, but we all know in nature that's not always the case. The two parent scenario to me would be in the best interest of a child. A man and a woman providing the yin and yang. I think it would be selfish of me to adopt a child as a single parent ahead of a married couple. That's just me.

It's what's best for a kid.

countchocula

05-17-2009, 08:40 PM

Yeah, you're right. Single mothers should just hand over their kids to the foster system. They can't raise a child by themselves. It's unnatural.

Jon Lyrik

05-17-2009, 09:53 PM

You know, if people didn't have kids, this could be solved.

Badbird

05-18-2009, 01:01 AM

Yeah, you're right. Single mothers should just hand over their kids to the foster system. They can't raise a child by themselves. It's unnatural.

I think I raised this point once already, and it was promptly ignored.

Pentangeli

05-18-2009, 04:56 AM

I think I raised this point once already, and it was promptly ignored.

Yes Badbird, you've raised the question before. And no Badbird, it wasn't promptly ignored.

Your post:
http://www.joblo.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3020936&postcount=110

My response (promptly -- given its the next post -- answered):
http://www.joblo.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3020984&postcount=111

Like I said, going round in circles.

bigred760

05-18-2009, 10:34 AM

Natural reproduction requires a male and a female. Hence I don't think it's right to deny a soon-to-be-adopted-child of either a father, or mother, simply because some wish to enforce their ideology on another person.

What if the couple can't reproduced? What if the man is sterile? What if the woman cannot reproduce? Does that mean this couple shouldn't be married because they can't reproduce?

Opposition to gays adopting is not homophobia, it is not hatred for their consensual relationship, but concern for a third party's rights -- their right to have a natural environment, a mother and a father.

What's natural about it? There are single mothers and fathers out there. There are children who are growing up without a mother or a father. There are children out there who are being raised by grandparents and other guardians who are not mothers and fathers. A child needs to be loved by people who allow them to grow, learn, and love. The genders of those who are raising the children does not matter.

:D but that single parent is likely going to be the biological parent. It's very rare for an adoption agency to accept a single parent.

Rare . . . but not unheard of, and noti mpossible.

Preston_79

05-18-2009, 12:47 PM

Yeah, you're right. Single mothers should just hand over their kids to the foster system. They can't raise a child by themselves. It's unnatural.

Is that what I was insinuating?

Here's what I said

I've thought that someday I might want to raise a kid, but what if I'm not married? Am I even eligible to adapt if I'm single, and if I am would I go before any couples wanting to adopt by getting on a list? Should it matter at all if a kid is only raised by one parent if he could have had two? Plus I'm a guy, am I as suited as a woman to raise a small child?

Out of all those questions the only one I feel I know for sure is that if given the choice a child should be raised by two parents and not one, but we all know in nature that's not always the case. The two parent scenario to me would be in the best interest of a child. A man and a woman providing the yin and yang. I think it would be selfish of me to adopt a child as a single parent ahead of a married couple. That's just me.

It's what's best for a kid.

I'm obviously talking about children that are looking to be adopted, not kids that already have parents. Don't be so eager to disagree with statements you didn't understand the first time.

Anyway, glad I could straighten you out.

bigred760

05-18-2009, 12:57 PM

Yes, in a perfect world a kid up for adoption will be adopted by two loving parents that will offer the perfect environment for the lad. But I'm pretty sure that we do not live in a perfect world. I think that if a couple . . . straight, gay, not sure what they are . . . want to adopt a child and are nice, loving, caring people, and are able to care for the kid (financially and all that) . . . then they should be able to.

countchocula

05-18-2009, 01:32 PM

Well, I'm content in knowing that Pent's logic is full of holes. There is no valid reason why a gay couple can't adopt. Not everyone thinks that it's an "unnatural" environment. That's just a belief, so it can't be used in this debate. It's not based on any kind of fact. Nature, much like normalcy, is a malleable term. It's all perception. I would venture to wager that these "unnatural" environments would not negatively impact a child. The ONLY thing that can negatively impact a child is bad parenting.

Jamesadin

05-18-2009, 02:27 PM

I'm asking for science, not philosophy masquerading as a science. There is no science to psychoanalysis, it's merely a pseudoscience. Show me the science, and i'll believe it.

Where did psychoanalytics come into the mix? Psychoanalytic theories are generally not taught and studied anymore in academic institutions. Psychoanalysis and psychology (including the schools of behaviorism, humanism, etc) should not be lumped together.

Sorry, this is a bit off topic but I just wanted to clear that up.

Parapsychology is a pseudoscience, psychology is a science which is based on theories, which leads to studies and actual evidence... like the article which I previously posted.

At least, that's what I think.

Badbird

05-18-2009, 06:18 PM

Yes Badbird, you've raised the question before. And no Badbird, it wasn't promptly ignored.

Like I said, going round in circles.

You made a joke about it, what a response. The point was that you are ignoring reality by ignoring the fact that millions of single parents raise children all the time and that a single parent household is "unnatural."

But whatever.

Can we PLEASE get this thread back on topic before it gets out of hand and/or closed.

New Hampshire becomes sixth state to legalize gay marriage (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/14/new-hampshire-gov-to-sign_n_203720.html)

Conservatives equate gay marriage to incest, beastiality, etc. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/13/gay-marriage-tied-to-beas_n_203073.html)

David Schuster vs NOM (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/01/david-shuster-vs-nom_n_194856.html)

Michael Steele says gay marriage will hurt small business (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-weinberger/michael-steele-comes-out_b_204377.html)

Reigh Kaufman

05-18-2009, 06:41 PM

free

05-18-2009, 11:15 PM

Is there a common factor with gay people, for instance, strict parenting.

Genetics, mostly. :D

Pentangeli

05-24-2009, 07:34 PM

Gay people should be allowed to adopt.

Fact.

There's no counter-argument in the world will ever make me regress to the point where I think that gay couples are incapable of bringing up a child equally as well as a "normal" couple.

You believe gay couples should adopt, even though at the moment children don't get a say in the matter. Even if a child doesn't want to live with a gay couple, the adoption agencies can still put that child with the gay couple.

So what I said on the Cannes thread was right.

Rated R

05-24-2009, 07:40 PM

Pentangeli

05-24-2009, 07:45 PM

Thank you for chiming in, but I'm sure the great Reigh Kaufman can speak for himself. And no i'm not twisting his words, I'm putting his view in context of the current legislation.

bigred760

05-24-2009, 07:47 PM

You believe gay couples should adopt, even though at the moment children don't get a say in the matter. Even if a child doesn't want to live with a gay couple, the adoption agencies can still put that child with the gay couple.

So what you're saying is . . . as long as the child is okay with being adopted by a gay couple then it's okay in the grander scheme of things. It seems you're assuming that every child will not want to be raised by a gay couple. Once the child has accepted the fact that he/she will not have a mom and a dad, but instead two dads or two moms, then it's okay for that gay couple to adopt said child and everything will be right in the universe.

Reigh Kaufman

05-24-2009, 07:52 PM

You believe gay couples should adopt, even though at the moment children don't get a say in the matter. Even if a child doesn't want to live with a gay couple, the adoption agencies can still put that child with the gay couple.

So what I said on the Cannes thread was right.

Nope, nope, nope.

I'm a teacher - you know this - and my mum is a manager for the Social Work Department - which I have mentioned. My fiancee's mum and dad are foster parents - 17 and counting. As an addendum, I am moving into Pastoral care at my current high school.

If you read what I said, I stated that "gay people SHOULD be allowed to adopt. FACT!"

What you said is that I said gay people should be allowed to adopt even if it is against the wishes of the child.

I never said that.

Firstly, because it's not legal...

And secondly because I know for a FACT that children and prospective adopters go through a lengthy and arduous process that takes anywhere between 6-18 months to complete, and involves the child at EVERY single stage. This includes first meetings, multiple interviews, child psychologists, educational pyschologists, respite, school visits, home visits, extended family visits, interviews with family and friends of prospective adopters, legal documentation signed by third parties, approval by the Social Work department AND adoption agency, and the final stage: living with the 'parents' for an evaluated period of time.

Having witnessed the adoption process first-hand, I know that gay people have very little chance of being allowed to adopt. What I said was "they should be allowed to adopt". What I did not say was "they should be allowed to adopt without meeting the same criteria as every other adopted child in Britain".

You claimed that I said "children should be forced" (a bit strong, don't you think?) to live with gay couples.

I said that they are equally viable as "normal" couples.

So what you said was...exaggerated a tad.

Pentangeli

05-24-2009, 07:53 PM

So what you're saying is . . . as long as the child is okay with being adopted by a gay couple then it's okay in the grander scheme things.

Yeah, I've said that in a previous post. If a child was given a few options, one of the options was a gay couple, and the kid picked the gay couple, I would be inclined to accept it. But the way things are at the moment, there is no choice the child have, so I believe it's wrong to force an unnatural environment on another person.

bigred760

05-24-2009, 07:56 PM

I'm a teacher - you know this - and my mum is a manager for the Social Work Department - which I have mentioned. My fiancee's mum and dad are foster parents - 17 and counting. As an addendum, I am moving into Pastoral care at my current high school.

That's awesome.

Pentangeli

05-24-2009, 08:10 PM

If you read what I said, I stated that "gay people SHOULD be allowed to adopt. FACT!"

What you said is that I said gay people should be allowed to adopt even if it is against the wishes of the child.

I never said that.

Firstly, because it's not legal...

The current legislation doesn't safeguard against the potential for adoption agencies and social workers putting children into situations the child doesn't want to be in. Not all adoption and social workers put the child's happiness first. Wolves in sheeps clothing, and all that.

Incidently Samantha Morton directed a tv special on this issue, which I look forward to seeing. Something of a biographical piece from her.

Reigh Kaufman

05-24-2009, 08:31 PM

The current legislation doesn't safeguard against the potential for adoption agencies and social workers putting children into situations the child doesn't want to be in. Not all adoption and social workers put the child's happiness first. Wolves in sheeps clothing, and all that.

How is this different from any "normal" adoption? Are you implying that gay people surreptitiously adopt children, behave accordingly when it counts, and then, once the papers are legitamised, begin to turn - or worse, pervert - the child in question?

What do you think gay people are? Paedophiles? Deviants? Bad parents? Unsuitable?

I'm a bit lost as to whether you think that a nuclear family is the only family or whether you think an alternative family is evil.

It's fine to say, 'I'm a Christian and a nuclear family is, in my belief system, the only acceptable family structure'. It is quite another to imply that gay couples are adopting - "wolves in sheep's clothing" - to corrupt a child's innocence.

What do you think these gay couples will do to an adopted child that a normal couple is incapable of?

'Cos the numerical data suggests a lot of abuse takes place in "normal" family adoption.

Pentangeli

05-24-2009, 09:05 PM

It is quite another to imply that gay couples are adopting - "wolves in sheep's clothing" - to corrupt a child's innocence.
"Wolves..." wasn't in reference to gay people. In your post, you revered the adoption process. I reacted to that with commenting on how children are often let down by the system, and that some adoption and social workers are wolves in sheeps clothing.

'Cos the numerical data suggests a lot of abuse takes place in "normal" family adoption.

Sure. This was never an issue of gay people being paedophiles. I established that many posts back.

The nuclear family is not a religious issue, it's a biological one. And I believe a child must have a choice if they are to be placed in an environment which can't be replicated naturally.

Reigh Kaufman

05-24-2009, 09:10 PM

Then the issue must be what you think is "natural".

I don't believe that gay adoption is "unnatural".

Here... we part ways.

Pentangeli

05-24-2009, 09:20 PM

Then the issue must be what you think is "natural".

No. The issue, as with all issues, is what the great Reigh Kaufman finds acceptable.

Reigh Kaufman

05-24-2009, 09:28 PM

No. The issue, as with all issues, is what the great Reigh Kaufman finds acceptable.

You care an awful lot about what I think.

It's cute.

You're cute.

Have a :p for concerning yourself so much on my opinions of gay, black, other...rights.

May your god (small 'g') be with you.

Always.

Oh, almost forgot: editing yours/my posts that I have already quoted verbatim is like fucking the wind.

Pointless.

Pentangeli

05-24-2009, 09:38 PM

Here... we part ways.

Bye.

You care an awful lot about what I think.

It's cute.

You're cute.

Have a for concerning yourself so much on my opinions of gay, black, other...rights.

May your god (small 'g') be with you.

Always.

Oh, almost forgot: editing yours/my posts that I have already quoted verbatim is like fucking the wind.

Pointless.

Oh look, the great Reigh Kaufman has returned.

Reigh Kaufman

05-24-2009, 09:51 PM

Great! Reigh Kaufman has returned!

Fixed it for ya.

Look, one of us is oppressing a huge section of society and the other is not.

I throw my hand in with evil gays!!!!!!

You don't.

I'll take my chances.

"I'm here, I'm not queer, but I don't give a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut if you are...can't make a suitable song so I am off to bed. Good night!".

Ta-ta.

Pentangeli

05-25-2009, 06:10 AM

Fixed it for ya.

Look, one of us is oppressing a huge section of society and the other is not.

I throw my hand in with evil gays!!!!!!

You don't.

I'll take my chances.

"I'm here, I'm not queer, but I don't give a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut if you are...can't make a suitable song so I am off to bed. Good night!".

Ta-ta.
:D Lol, it's amazing what 2am can do to people, myself included.

"You don't", like I said, I would be inclined to go with it if the kids had a say. That's all i'm asking for.

Criminal Rock

05-25-2009, 03:08 PM

Adopted children never get to choose their foster parents... what makes you think the government (both here in the US and the UK) will all of the sudden change the rules just because gay couples are given equal rights to adopt?

It's not going to happen, considering the fact one of the main reasons why these kids are in the system to begin with (apart from being given up for adoption) is because they can't make the right choices for themselves and are in desperate need of a stable environment instead of having them die or fend for themselves on the streets. This is one of, if not the essential reason why the foster care system exists, pent, so what in gods name leads you to believe that a child, a toddler, or even a teenager, has the ability to decide what is in their best interest when it's already clear they can't take care of themselves?

Also note the average age of an adopted child is about 7 years old (http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f_fospar.cfm) here in America.

Basically, the point i'm trying to get to you is that kids don't have much of a say for very obvious reasons... you know, because they're kids and they don't know shit.

Pentangeli

05-25-2009, 03:58 PM

bigred760

05-25-2009, 04:12 PM

So . . . it's okay if the kid can decide what parents they want to adopt him/her, but not okay if the child cannot decide and the adoptive parents are not a mother AND a father? That has to be one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard. The sex of the parents shouldn't, and doesn't, matter. The only thing that should, and does, matter is that they provide a loving, caring, and supportive environment for the kid. Anything after that, is just details.

stefanb

05-25-2009, 05:16 PM

Which is why, under this current system, I disagree with it.

I'm not suggesting a child should have an input in deciding which couples are suitable for adoption, i.e be a part of the screening process. But after being presented with three prospective adoptive couples, who are deemed suitable by the adoption agency, a child is more than able of knowing who they preferred.

Until they get a say, I'll never agree with it. There's no valid reason to justify forcing a child into a situation which can't be replicated naturally.

Sorry, I haven't honestly read the thread to this point, so if I'm repeating something that's already been discussed, please forgive my ignorance.

Pentangeli, you're setting an impossible standard, then saying, "since the impossible standard can't be met, I can never agree." To some degree or another, the answer must come from birth parents, social workers, society, etc, etc... not from pointing to impossible-to-meet standards backed up by nothing in particular.

Hypothetical: Since children NEVER get a say in who their parents are, how about putting the decision partially on the mother putting the child up for adoption? Say there's a checkbox on the form where the birth mother can check "any couple" or "any heterosexual couple"?

Now, if a birth mother is fine with her child(ren) being adopted out to a gay couple, and a loving gay couple wants to adopt and care for the children, and the social workers involved feel the gay couple is as financially and emotionally stable as any heterosexual applicants, where does anyone else on the planet derive their right to prevent it?

Also, you keep returning to the "which can't be replicated naturally" argument. This argument is a miserable failure. ANYTHING can be replicated naturally. Example: A bisexual man marries a woman, she gets pregnant, has twins, but dies giving birth. The man gains sole custody of his children. He enters into a homosexual relationship, marries. His partner helps to raise the children, the same as might be done in any heterosexual relationship. There, I replicated it naturally.

Regards,
Stefan.

countchocula

05-25-2009, 05:17 PM

Today on Candid Adoption, 7-year-old Lily is choosing between three prospective foster parents. Couple A is a black couple in their 60's. They're stout Christians. Couple B is a gay couple. Two men in their 20's. They work at Shriner's Hospital and they volunteer at soup kitchens. Couple C is a fit, beautiful pair of supermodels. Brianna, a sparkling blonde, is wearing a glittery pink top. Both her and Trent are cokeheads. Let's see who Lily picks!

Lily: (points to Brianna) She's pretty!
Brianna: Aww, she's so cute.

Well, it looks like Lily has made her choice. Join us next week when we toss a naked, defenseless child into a home ran by lesbians. Against his will!

stefanb

05-25-2009, 05:47 PM

I don't think anyone was suggesting it be made into a reality TV show.

Pentangeli

05-25-2009, 06:04 PM

Pentangeli

05-25-2009, 06:18 PM

Pentangeli, you're setting an impossible standard, then saying, "since the impossible standard can't be met, I can never agree." To some degree or another, the answer must come from birth parents, social workers, society, etc, etc... not from pointing to impossible-to-meet standards backed up by nothing in particular.

The part in quotations, is that something you believe I said? if so, provide a link, as I don't recall ever writing that.

Alternatively, are you simply making up statements then accrediting them to me in order to found your point?

Another thing, I'm not entirely sure what your point is (in the part I've quoted).

Hypothetical: Since children NEVER get a say in who their parents are, how about putting the decision partially on the mother putting the child up for adoption? Say there's a checkbox on the form where the birth mother can check "any couple" or "any heterosexual couple"?

No. Because it's not about her, she would no longer have involvement. This isn't her future, it's the childs.

It really isn't complicated, people.

* people who want to adopt children go through a screening process.
* a few couples -- who are deemed suitable by the agency, for a specific child -- go through a familiarisation process with the child.
* the child decides where they're happiest

Not complicated.

ANYTHING can be replicated naturally.

Incorrect.

Pentangeli

05-25-2009, 06:31 PM

So . . . it's okay if the kid can decide what parents they want to adopt him/her, but not okay if the child cannot decide and the adoptive parents are not a mother AND a father?

That doesn't make sense. Rephrase the question.

That has to be one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard. The sex of the parents shouldn't, and doesn't, matter. The only thing that should, and does, matter is that they provide a loving, caring, and supportive environment for the kid. Anything after that, is just details.

That's fine, it doesn't matter to you. But there are other people in this world who don't share your view.

You want to force your ideology onto others. You want everyone to accept your values. You want this, and you want that. Well i'm sorry pal, it isn't about what you want, or what I want, and the issue isn't a gay rights issue. A child should have a say in their own future. Some children might want a mother and a father.

stefanb

05-25-2009, 06:44 PM

The part in quotations, is that something you believe I said? if so, provide a link, as I don't recall ever writing that.

Alternatively, are you simply making up statements then accrediting them to me in order to found your point?

Another thing, I'm not entirely sure what your point is (in the part I've quoted).

No, if I was quoting you, it would have appeared in a quote block...

like this

The impossible standard in question: giving the infant a say.
Why is it impossible?: because infants are too young to choose, speak, or really think for themselves.

You said:
(this is me about to quote you, so you understand the difference...)

Until they get a say, I'll never agree with it.

(See how it appears in a quote block when I'm quoting you?)

They can't have a say. I explained why above. (RECAP: because infants are too young to choose, speak, or really think for themselves) Thus, you are effectively saying, "{Until an impossible standard is met}, I'll never agree with it."

In this case, I'm substituting "{Until an impossible standard is met}" in place of "Until they get a say" because, as per the point I made quite clearly, and quite obviously, them having a say is an impossible standard.

If you honestly think I was "making up statements then accrediting them to {you}" there, don't blame me for your inability to read.

Regards,
Stefan.

Pentangeli

05-25-2009, 06:53 PM

If you honestly think I was making a straw man argument there, don't blame me for your inability to know what one is..

You reacted to a statement that you made up. There's no law against that. But why on Earth reply to me?

Reigh Kaufman

05-25-2009, 07:06 PM

Nice to see the phrase "straw man" make another appearance.

Next up: ad hominem.

In Pentangeli's defence - I know, right? - some of the posts are not making any distinctions between infants, who clearly cannot make their own decisions, and prepubescent children - who are smarter than we give them credit for.

The developmental stages are radically different but not many of us are acknowledging that infants fates are determined by committee, which I think is what Pentangeli has an issue with.

Jim H

05-26-2009, 04:33 AM

The nuclear family is not a religious issue, it's a biological one. And I believe a child must have a choice if they are to be placed in an environment which can't be replicated naturally.

You have the burden of proof here. How is the nuclear family natural? It's clearly the ideal in Western society, but that doesn't make it any more or less natural than, say, polygamy/polyandry or communes where birth parents all share child rearing responsibilities.

Pentangeli

05-26-2009, 05:34 AM

You have the burden of proof here. How is the nuclear family natural?

No burden. The nuclear family is natural, as it can happen...well...naturally. Surely you know the birds and the bees by now, Jim.

That isn't to say that other scenarios can't also happen naturally, like you said with communes. But in those scenarios there is still the mother and a father.

Two men can't reproduce. Placing a child in their care, would be to put that child in an environment which could never happen naturally, i.e it's an unnatural environment.

stefanb

05-26-2009, 09:54 AM

You reacted to a statement that you made up. There's no law against that. But why on Earth reply to me?

As I said...

The part in quotations, is that something you believe I said? if so, provide a link, as I don't recall ever writing that.

Alternatively, are you simply making up statements then accrediting them to me in order to found your point?

Another thing, I'm not entirely sure what your point is (in the part I've quoted).

No, if I was quoting you, it would have appeared in a quote block...

like this

The impossible standard in question: giving the infant a say.
Why is it impossible?: because infants are too young to choose, speak, or really think for themselves.

You said:
(this is me about to quote you, so you understand the difference...)

Until they get a say, I'll never agree with it.

(See how it appears in a quote block when I'm quoting you?)

They can't have a say. I explained why above. (RECAP: because infants are too young to choose, speak, or really think for themselves) Thus, you are effectively saying, "{Until an impossible standard is met}, I'll never agree with it."

In this case, I'm substituting "{Until an impossible standard is met}" in place of "Until they get a say" because, as per the point I made quite clearly, and quite obviously, them having a say is an impossible standard.

If you honestly think I was "making up statements then accrediting them to {you}" there, don't blame me for your inability to read.

Regards,
Stefan.

Pentangeli

05-26-2009, 11:48 AM

Listen, Stefan, in using quotations -- which are these things here: " ... " -- you are indicating that you are repeating a statement. In this case, you misquoted me.

Moving on, you've now clarified your point, what you perceived to be an impossibility of children having a choice, and have specified the age range -- infancy.

If they're too young to have a say, then i'm opposed to a policy which would force an unnatural environment upon them, which is to say an environment which can't be replicated naturally.

Clearly, in regard to children having a choice, i'm referring to older children who can express their view on the matter.

stefanb

05-26-2009, 12:28 PM

Listen, Stefan, in using quotations -- which are these things here: " ... " -- you are indicating that you are repeating a statement. In this case, you misquoted me.

I think you know the point I was making without running off on some entirely ridiculous tangent about how I was misquoting you. You knew exactly what point I was making, and you knew I wasn't trying to attribute anything to you except your own stated opinion. You knew, or should have known, I was merely calling your stated belief an impossible standard. You can drop the nonsense game anytime you feel it's gotten officially too ridiculous to continue.

Moving on, you've now clarified your point, what you perceived to be an impossibility of children having a choice, and have specified the age range -- infancy.

I didn't clarify anything. I only reposted it, word-for-word. I don't know how a repost clarified it for you, but it's nice to see you admit it was clear the first time I posted it.

If they're too young to have a say, then i'm opposed to a policy which would force an unnatural environment upon them, which is to say an environment which can't be replicated naturally.

Again, I return to the question I asked about the hypothetical man, with custody of his own natural children, entering into a homosexual relationship.

How is this not a "natural" scenerio, with two men raising children? I think use of the word "unnatural" requires something in the way of a definition.

-S

Pentangeli

05-26-2009, 01:22 PM

I think you know the point I was making without running off on some entirely ridiculous tangent about how I was misquoting you. You knew exactly what point I was making, and you knew I wasn't trying to attribute anything to you except your own stated opinion. You knew, or should have known, I was merely calling your stated belief an impossible standard. You can drop the nonsense game anytime you feel it's gotten officially too ridiculous to continue.
I read your post as written. You misquoted me.

I didn't clarify anything. I only reposted it, word-for-word. I don't know how a repost clarified it for you, but it's nice to see you admit it was clear the first time I posted it.
Your initial post didn't mention "infant". That was the key word which clarified the point you were trying to convey.

Again, I return to the question I asked about the hypothetical man, with custody of his own natural children, entering into a homosexual relationship.

How is this not a "natural" scenerio, with two men raising children? I think use of the word "unnatural" requires something in the way of a definition.
...Oh dear. Of course gay men are men, and have male genitalia, and are perfectly able to reproduce...with a woman. But those two men did not bring that child into the world.

More to the point, that isn't an adoption issue, it's about guardianship. Similarly there are single parents out there, legal guardians of their children, but most of whom would be ineligible to adopt.

Just to recap on a few points: This isn't about gay men/women being any less of a man/woman, or being more prone to abusing children, or not being nice people. This is about a child deciding whether or not they would like to spend their childhood in a scenario which can't be replicated naturally.

stefanb

05-26-2009, 02:20 PM

I read your post as written. You misquoted me.

I wasn't quoting you at all. I was VERY CLEARLY telling you that you're setting an impossible standard then saying, "since the impossible standard can't be met, I can't agree." AND I EXPLAINED VERY CLEARLY what you said which equated to the impossible standard I was referring to. Why don't you just admit that you were eager to mimic my annoyance in a previous thread at endless straw man arguments, and use it to completely ridiculously pretend that I was doing the same to you, when I wasn't. Suggesting that the use of quotation marks automtically attributes the speech to you, as a direct quote, is absurd. This has been explained clearly enough three times that if you still want to say I was misquoting you, you're simply lying.

Your initial post didn't mention "infant". That was the key word which clarified the point you were trying to convey.

That's fair... I'm looking at posting/edit times... I was clearly editing it at the same time you were replying to the pre-edited version (5:54pm v.s. 5:53pm), so I can see how that part was my fault completely. I honestly wasn't trying to edit it AFTER you'd replied, but you clearly were already replying to it before I finished editing it (i.e. to say 'infant' rather than 'child'). I didn't come back to see your reply until a few hours later, so I assumed you'd replied to the edited version. I apologize for that mistake... I, in fact, did not repost it word-for-word, as per the version you read and replied to. I reposted the edited version, and you certainly can't be blamed for replying to the pre-edit. My mistake. Sorry.

...Oh dear. Of course gay men are men, and have male genitalia, and are perfectly able to reproduce...with a woman. But those two men did not bring that child into the world.

More to the point, that isn't an adoption issue, it's about guardianship. Similarly there are single parents out there, legal guardians of their children, but most of whom would be ineligible to adopt.

In my example I gave a completely naturally occuring scenerio that would lead to two men having guardianship of a child. If two men can have guardianship, and this isn't unnatural, and the crux of your argument is that two men with a child can't occur naturally, I'm merely arguing it's an unfair use of the word "naturally".

In short, I'm still waiting for the study that says, "children of gay parents are ____% more likely to <insert something negative here>." Until then, it just smells like discrimination to me.

-S

countchocula

05-27-2009, 05:19 PM

Potter82

05-27-2009, 06:08 PM

Um, do children EVER get a say when it comes to foster parents? They didn't choose to be in the foster care system, so why would society give them options after the fact? And why are you assuming that most children would choose not to live with a gay couple? Where are you getting your information?

It still sounds like a bunch of BELIEFS, which don't mean anything.

good point, since when do kids ANYWHERE in ANY situation, get a say in who their parents are? In the context of natural parents, foster parents, or adoptive parents?

Why should children's personal feelings on the matter be a relevant concern in this regard but not in others? As long as there isn't any abuse or neglect involved, who gives a shit?

Pentangeli

05-28-2009, 12:12 PM

Why should children's personal feelings on the matter be a relevant concern in this regard but not in others?

You and others here are approaching this with the sole motive of a gay rights victory. This is why you fail. Adoption should only be concerned with the child's rights. A child is entitled to a say when the potential scenario offers something which can't be replicated naturally.

Hear that? we all sound like a broken record player. Nobody here, myself included, has provided anything new for quite some time.

countchocula

05-28-2009, 12:46 PM

which can't be replicated naturally.

Again, this is an OPINION, which shouldn't factor into the debate. You think it's unnatural, but your definition is very narrow. You're hung up on a trivial detail that wouldn't negatively impact a child's developmental process. You're giving the term "unnatural" a negative connotation, but there is nothing to suggest that unnatural events can't be good events. "Unnatural" is neither bad nor good. It's just different.

How would you prove that an unnatural living environment would be detrimental to a child? Is there any way to prove it? If not, is this a good reason to keep kids in the foster care system?

Homyrrh

05-28-2009, 12:53 PM

This is like auditing 'Intro to Critical Thinking'. Minus much thinking. I feel out-of-place to some degree in jumping in like this, but why not just throw out all of the assaults on argumentation and debate and actually do so about the argument? I just posted yet another thread about gay marriage in California.

Potter82

05-28-2009, 01:26 PM

You and others here are approaching this with the sole motive of a gay rights victory. This is why you fail. Adoption should only be concerned with the child's rights. A child is entitled to a say when the potential scenario offers something which can't be replicated naturally.

Hear that? we all sound like a broken record player. Nobody here, myself included, has provided anything new for quite some time.

I don't approach this from the viewpoint of a gay rights victory and I agree that the child should be the focus - in particular, their best interests (though not their rights per se, by virtue of their status as children, their rights are less than that of an adult)

It's just that I see nothing, absolutely nothing inherently harmful or contrary to the best interests of an adopted child by placing them in a household having two gay adults.

If it is demonstrated that a particular gay couple are capable of providing a stable, warm, loving environment for a child then how could it not be in the best interests of that child to place them with such a couple? I honestly don't see how the homosexual status of the parents would be enough on it's own to run contrary to the best interests of the child.

You seem to assume that the homosexuality of gay parents is at worst, harmful to children, or at the very least, contrary to the child's best interests. Whereas I see their gay status as being a neutral factor. I think that is where the true source of our disagreement lies, not on who should be the focus of the debate; the children or the gay couple. I suppose in this respect we'll just have to agree to disagree.