Gay Marriage

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Actually, that's not what I said at all. Here's what I said in a nutshell... focus on one battle at a time.

Sorry, that's what I extracted from:
Homosexuality is not yet a socially acceptable 'practice', so I don't see how it could possibly be a good thing for a child, in general, to be placed in that environment at this time.

Added in my above post:
I'm not much of a history major so I can't back it up too much, but I want to know what the 'social conditions' were surrounding women rights and black rights movements.

Well, that's what you get for taking only a portion of the post out of the context of the whole now isn't it?

Ok ok.. this is what I got from..


Here MadCow. Socially speaking, I don't think it is in a child's best interest to be placed in a gay household. Homosexuality is not yet a socially acceptable 'practice', so I don't see how it could possibly be a good thing for a child, in general, to be placed in that environment at this time. We still can't decide as a nation whether or not to allow homosexuals to be married. Now, a lot of this is also intertwined with the biological issues I brought up earlier, but that is just a part of the whole.

As I said earlier, I'm not against gay marriage/civil unions. However, I think one step at a time would be the best course for all homosexuals. It is my opinion that trying to get too much too fast is only going to work against them.


So what is the first battle to be fought? If gay marriages isn't a first battle, then what is the first priority. If you're arguing 'social acceptance', then my argument is that social acceptance comes AFTER all the battles have been won.

 

[Willian]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Actually, that's not what I said at all. Here's what I said in a nutshell... focus on one battle at a time.

Sorry, that's what I extracted from:
Homosexuality is not yet a socially acceptable 'practice', so I don't see how it could possibly be a good thing for a child, in general, to be placed in that environment at this time.

Added in my above post:
I'm not much of a history major so I can't back it up too much, but I want to know what the 'social conditions' were surrounding women rights and black rights movements.

Well, that's what you get for taking only a portion of the post out of the context of the whole now isn't it?

Ok ok.. this is what I got from..


Here MadCow. Socially speaking, I don't think it is in a child's best interest to be placed in a gay household. Homosexuality is not yet a socially acceptable 'practice', so I don't see how it could possibly be a good thing for a child, in general, to be placed in that environment at this time. We still can't decide as a nation whether or not to allow homosexuals to be married. Now, a lot of this is also intertwined with the biological issues I brought up earlier, but that is just a part of the whole.

As I said earlier, I'm not against gay marriage/civil unions. However, I think one step at a time would be the best course for all homosexuals. It is my opinion that trying to get too much too fast is only going to work against them.


So what is the first battle to be fought? If gay marriages isn't a first battle, then what is the first priority. If you're arguing 'social acceptance', then my argument is that social acceptance comes AFTER all the battles have been won.

Homosexuality is a mental disorder and should be treated as such.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: Willian

Homosexuality is a mental disorder and should be treated as such.

There's always THAT side to the argument... but I'm no doctor and can't argue for or against it.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Actually, that's not what I said at all. Here's what I said in a nutshell... focus on one battle at a time.

Sorry, that's what I extracted from:
Homosexuality is not yet a socially acceptable 'practice', so I don't see how it could possibly be a good thing for a child, in general, to be placed in that environment at this time.

Added in my above post:
I'm not much of a history major so I can't back it up too much, but I want to know what the 'social conditions' were surrounding women rights and black rights movements.

Well, that's what you get for taking only a portion of the post out of the context of the whole now isn't it?

Ok ok.. this is what I got from..


Here MadCow. Socially speaking, I don't think it is in a child's best interest to be placed in a gay household. Homosexuality is not yet a socially acceptable 'practice', so I don't see how it could possibly be a good thing for a child, in general, to be placed in that environment at this time. We still can't decide as a nation whether or not to allow homosexuals to be married. Now, a lot of this is also intertwined with the biological issues I brought up earlier, but that is just a part of the whole.

As I said earlier, I'm not against gay marriage/civil unions. However, I think one step at a time would be the best course for all homosexuals. It is my opinion that trying to get too much too fast is only going to work against them.


So what is the first battle to be fought? If gay marriages isn't a first battle, then what is the first priority. If you're arguing 'social acceptance', then my argument is that social acceptance comes AFTER all the battles have been won.

Heh, we're saying the same thing in two different ways if that is your argument.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Actually, that's not what I said at all. Here's what I said in a nutshell... focus on one battle at a time.

Sorry, that's what I extracted from:
Homosexuality is not yet a socially acceptable 'practice', so I don't see how it could possibly be a good thing for a child, in general, to be placed in that environment at this time.

Added in my above post:
I'm not much of a history major so I can't back it up too much, but I want to know what the 'social conditions' were surrounding women rights and black rights movements.

Well, that's what you get for taking only a portion of the post out of the context of the whole now isn't it?

Ok ok.. this is what I got from..


Here MadCow. Socially speaking, I don't think it is in a child's best interest to be placed in a gay household. Homosexuality is not yet a socially acceptable 'practice', so I don't see how it could possibly be a good thing for a child, in general, to be placed in that environment at this time. We still can't decide as a nation whether or not to allow homosexuals to be married. Now, a lot of this is also intertwined with the biological issues I brought up earlier, but that is just a part of the whole.

As I said earlier, I'm not against gay marriage/civil unions. However, I think one step at a time would be the best course for all homosexuals. It is my opinion that trying to get too much too fast is only going to work against them.


So what is the first battle to be fought? If gay marriages isn't a first battle, then what is the first priority. If you're arguing 'social acceptance', then my argument is that social acceptance comes AFTER all the battles have been won.

Heh, we're saying the same thing in two different ways if that is your argument.

Oh... ok. Umm... yeah.... so I guess I'm done.
:beer::beer:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Willian
Homosexuality is a mental disorder and should be treated as such.

And you see, it is exactly thinking like this why I have always encouraged the gay communities to NOT accept the "born that way" argument.
It endangers the freedoms of us all, or what other socially unacceptable behaviors will be considered mental disorders that require treatment?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Willian
[
Homosexuality is a mental disorder and should be treated as such.

God damn it, Summer School must be out for the day!

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Willian

Homosexuality is a mental disorder and should be treated as such.

Correction: Marriage is a mental disorder and should be treated as such.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

The lack of male figures due to deadbeat fathers and divorce is one of the contributing factors to homosexuality in my and a lot of other people's opinion. As men, we can be attracted to other men and seek bonds of friendship without it being sexual (that's how we choose friends, role models, etc)...because we grew up with an affectionate male to male relationship with our fathers. Men who grow up not establishing that pattern might mistake that plutonic attraction as indication of a homosexual orientation.

that explanation totally explains the case of lesbian lynn cheney then eh? hahahaha! so sad..u believe such things.

I mentioned that as one contributing factor. But thanks for providing such a powerful counter argument as hahahaha. :beer:

 

[0roo0roo]

hah right. i just remember when i was on the school yard in elementary school and girls started not being so icky, i thought to myself, i'm attracted to her like i am to my friends!! NOT!!!!!
and this was before i knew wtf a homo was.

"when friendships go too far", thats a rather pathetic theory really.

dick cheney is a deadbeat?

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Actually, that's not what I said at all. Here's what I said in a nutshell... focus on one battle at a time.

Sorry, that's what I extracted from:
Homosexuality is not yet a socially acceptable 'practice', so I don't see how it could possibly be a good thing for a child, in general, to be placed in that environment at this time.

You know, I have to say I agree with that statement. I'm torn on the homosexuality issue. My best friend is gay (and my wife doesn't like how it looks when we hang out, but that's another issue), so I obviously don't hate homosexuals. He and I just never discuss it. I do think it's a deviant behavior (look up the definition of deviant, it's not necessarily an insult) that maybe children should not be forced to be a part of. I personally think homosexuality is weird, and don't understand it, the same way I think other sexually deviant behavior is weird (S&M, fetishes, wife swapping, etc.) As Americans, I think we have the right to do whatever we want, as long as it doesn't harm someone else. But I'm not sure I'm comfortable with forcing innocent orphans into a homosexual environment.

And to answer the inevitable "why does it always relate to sex" question. The sex is what makes it homosexual. My best friend and I like eachother, have a great time together, like spending time with one another, have a great relationship, but it's not a homosexual relationship if we don't have physical contact.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
hah right. i just remember when i was on the school yard in elementary school and girls started not being so icky, i thought to myself, i'm attracted to her like i am to my friends!! NOT!!!!!
and this was before i knew wtf a homo was.

"when friendships go too far", thats a rather pathetic theory really.

dick cheney is a deadbeat?

Great, please give me your theory, chuckles.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Right, but there is always the possibility that a straight couple can have children. There is never a possibility for a gay couple to have children together. (I used gay man but that obviously applies to a lesbian woman as well)

By this logic, you would deny the right of marriage to female uterine cancer victims and all woman comfortably past childbearing age. Nice.

Actually, that's not really the same logic. In general terms, a man and a woman are the only way that a child can enter this world. Correct? So, in general terms, any man and woman who are married have the chance to have a child. In absolute terms, no man/man or woman/woman marriage would ever result in a child if the couple stayed true to one another and did not seek artificial means of child birth.

Actually, it very specifically IS. To use your tortured phraseology, "in absolute terms", no man/woman relationship in which either one is sterile, be it from age, illness or genetics, "would ever result in a child if the couple stayed true to one another and did not seek artificial means of child birth."

Bad news, Fin, but your argument died the minute I started to dissect it.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Right, but there is always the possibility that a straight couple can have children. There is never a possibility for a gay couple to have children together. (I used gay man but that obviously applies to a lesbian woman as well)

By this logic, you would deny the right of marriage to female uterine cancer victims and all woman comfortably past childbearing age. Nice.

Actually, that's not really the same logic. In general terms, a man and a woman are the only way that a child can enter this world. Correct? So, in general terms, any man and woman who are married have the chance to have a child. In absolute terms, no man/man or woman/woman marriage would ever result in a child if the couple stayed true to one another and did not seek artificial means of child birth.

Actually, it very specifically IS. To use your tortured phraseology, "in absolute terms", no man/woman relationship in which either one is sterile, be it from age, illness or genetics, "would ever result in a child if the couple stayed true to one another and did not seek artificial means of child birth."

Bad news, Fin, but your argument died the minute I started to dissect it.

But the fact is that there is always a chance, no matter how slim, for a man and a woman to reproduce. I actually know a girl who was supposedly sterile, this according to a few different doctors. She ended up getting pregnant and having a baby. Color her and anyone else who knew her fvcking surprised, eh? People walk who've been told they can never walk again, people have lived who were pronounced dead, but I'm pretty damn sure that no man will ever get pregnant, and I'm pretty damn sure that no woman will ever be pregnant thanks to her female partner.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

But the fact is that there is always a chance, no matter how slim, for a man and a woman to reproduce. I actually know a girl who was supposedly sterile, this according to a few different doctors. She ended up getting pregnant and having a baby. Color her and anyone else who knew her fvcking surprised, eh? People walk who've been told they can never walk again, people have lived who were pronounced dead, but I'm pretty damn sure that no man will ever get pregnant, and I'm pretty damn sure that no woman will ever be pregnant thanks to her female partner.

A little side question, do you believe single men/women should be allowed to adopt?

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Right, but there is always the possibility that a straight couple can have children. There is never a possibility for a gay couple to have children together. (I used gay man but that obviously applies to a lesbian woman as well)

By this logic, you would deny the right of marriage to female uterine cancer victims and all woman comfortably past childbearing age. Nice.

Actually, that's not really the same logic. In general terms, a man and a woman are the only way that a child can enter this world. Correct? So, in general terms, any man and woman who are married have the chance to have a child. In absolute terms, no man/man or woman/woman marriage would ever result in a child if the couple stayed true to one another and did not seek artificial means of child birth.

Actually, it very specifically IS. To use your tortured phraseology, "in absolute terms", no man/woman relationship in which either one is sterile, be it from age, illness or genetics, "would ever result in a child if the couple stayed true to one another and did not seek artificial means of child birth."

Bad news, Fin, but your argument died the minute I started to dissect it.

But the fact is that there is always a chance, no matter how slim, for a man and a woman to reproduce.

NO THERE ISN'T!!! Are you retarded? My mother had uterine cancer, and had her uterus and all the attendant tubes removed. There was NO CHANCE that she would ever conceive again!!

 

[GeneralGrievous]

Exactly. That's a piss-poor argument GG. If you can deny a gay couple's adoption rights by how their peers would view them, then what about racial views, political views, etc.... there's no well defined boundaries.

A: Kids don't have political views.
B: You can choose whether you are a stoner, or a jock, or whatever you want to be. Can you choose your parents?

It really wouldn't be any different than being a black child 50 years ago. Until the country is willing to accept gay people (last time I checked the majority of people opposed gay marriage), it's not a good idea to try and push the issue. Or do you want to have a school for gay children for the next 20 years while gays fight for civil rights?

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Right, but there is always the possibility that a straight couple can have children. There is never a possibility for a gay couple to have children together. (I used gay man but that obviously applies to a lesbian woman as well)

By this logic, you would deny the right of marriage to female uterine cancer victims and all woman comfortably past childbearing age. Nice.

Actually, that's not really the same logic. In general terms, a man and a woman are the only way that a child can enter this world. Correct? So, in general terms, any man and woman who are married have the chance to have a child. In absolute terms, no man/man or woman/woman marriage would ever result in a child if the couple stayed true to one another and did not seek artificial means of child birth.

Actually, it very specifically IS. To use your tortured phraseology, "in absolute terms", no man/woman relationship in which either one is sterile, be it from age, illness or genetics, "would ever result in a child if the couple stayed true to one another and did not seek artificial means of child birth."

Bad news, Fin, but your argument died the minute I started to dissect it.

But the fact is that there is always a chance, no matter how slim, for a man and a woman to reproduce.

NO THERE ISN'T!!! Are you retarded? My mother had uterine cancer, and had her uterus and all the attendant tubes removed. There was NO CHANCE that she would ever conceive again!!

Were you adopted?

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous

Exactly. That's a piss-poor argument GG. If you can deny a gay couple's adoption rights by how their peers would view them, then what about racial views, political views, etc.... there's no well defined boundaries.

A: Kids don't have political views.
B: You can choose whether you are a stoner, or a jock, or whatever you want to be. Can you choose your parents?

It really wouldn't be any different than being a black child 50 years ago. Until the country is willing to accept gay people (last time I checked the majority of people opposed gay marriage), it's not a good idea to try and push the issue. Or do you want to have a school for gay children for the next 20 years while gays fight for civil rights?

A: But kids more often than not, have racial views.
B: So if not already, make it a policy that the orphan can say "no, I won't allow myself to be adopted by them." I'm sure if the kid is REALLY REALLY REALLY aganist it, the adoptees probably wouldn't want him either.

What percentage are you looking for to qualify as 'acceptance'. Maybe you can tell me how popular it was when women started to push for voter rights, or even black people. As I said in a quote earlier, there's never a "good" time for civil rights movements. And I have no idea what you're talking about schools etc.... where did you bring up gay children. Completely boggles the mind.

Unless I understood your point wrong, you stated that the best reason for not allowing gay couples to adopt kids was because their peers would make fun of them for having gay parents. I say that's not a valid argument because the peers can make fun of them for a multitude of reasons.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Perknose

NO THERE ISN'T!!! Are you retarded? My mother had uterine cancer, and had her uterus and all the attendant tubes removed. There was NO CHANCE that she would ever conceive again!!

Were you adopted?

Meaning she conceived at least once before, hence Perknose.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Perknose

NO THERE ISN'T!!! Are you retarded? My mother had uterine cancer, and had her uterus and all the attendant tubes removed. There was NO CHANCE that she would ever conceive again!!

Were you adopted?

Meaning she conceived at least once before, hence Perknose.

Meaning it was possible for her to have a child, no?

 

[Hossenfeffer]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Perknose

NO THERE ISN'T!!! Are you retarded? My mother had uterine cancer, and had her uterus and all the attendant tubes removed. There was NO CHANCE that she would ever conceive again!!

Were you adopted?

Meaning she conceived at least once before, hence Perknose.

Meaning it was possible for her to have a child, no?

To further twist your argument, say a woman has uterine cancer as the example above. She then marries. What then? Once you're 100% sterile you can't marry? That just doesn't make logical sense.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Perknose

NO THERE ISN'T!!! Are you retarded? My mother had uterine cancer, and had her uterus and all the attendant tubes removed. There was NO CHANCE that she would ever conceive again!!

Were you adopted?

Meaning she conceived at least once before, hence Perknose.

Meaning it was possible for her to have a child, no?

Why is there this need to play this probability game. Since when did that become the determinng factor for whether or not a couple can have a child. All you're doing is trying to make a new name for 'gay couples'. So instead of saying "gay couples cannot adopt kids" you're saying "couples which cannot become pregnant without outside support cannot adopt kids". It's the same thing with different names. Kinda like "Black people cannot vote" vs "People who do not own property cannot vote unless they're white." But back then black people could not own property. Different phrasing, same meaning.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Actually I'm not trying to do anything. I'm doing exactly what the OP wanted, presenting arguments that the 'Rightys' will use against homosexuality. That argument is NOT meant as a standalone argument as you should have already noted by reading the one mentioning social acceptance and how it is intertwined with people's belief on the physiological aspects of the issue.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Hossenfeffer

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Perknose

NO THERE ISN'T!!! Are you retarded? My mother had uterine cancer, and had her uterus and all the attendant tubes removed. There was NO CHANCE that she would ever conceive again!!

Were you adopted?

Meaning she conceived at least once before, hence Perknose.

Meaning it was possible for her to have a child, no?

To further twist your argument, say a woman has uterine cancer as the example above. She then marries. What then? Once you're 100% sterile you can't marry? That just doesn't make logical sense.

Wow, you're one who didn't bother to read the three pages of this thread.